.

Blog Post

Utah Legislature - 2026 General Session Wrap Up

March 16, 2026 – Dorsey Law & Policy Notebook

by Cloe Nixon

Download as a PDF

Share this page

At midnight on March 6 the Utah Legislature adjourned sine die after passing 542 total bills – approximately 53% of the 1,015 bills introduced this session. A full list of bills that passed the Legislature and were sent to the Governor may be found here. The Governor has 20 days following adjournment to take action on the bills that passed.

While the Governor has vetoed a number of proposals in past years, in a recent interview Governor Cox dubbed the 2026 Session as the “best session” he’s been involved in as Governor. This is high praise in itself, and when paired with positive feedback from across the political aisle, including Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall stating this was “one of the most productive legislative sessions that we’ve had,” it reflects the largely positive responses to the legislature’s efforts over the 45-day session and the enacted policies that will continue to shape the entirety of Utah’s landscape.

As is often the case, what did not pass this session was equally important as what did pass. This session, the legislature appears to have struck the right balance between enacting policies with industry support, working with business and industry associations to reach workable compromises on key issues, and pausing proposals that require additional time for negotiation.

Below we have provided an overview of the final outcomes for the bills of interest highlighted in our weekly updates and provided additional resources for issue and industry specific legislative recaps.

A final thanks to members of the business community for dedicating time and resources to engage in the legislative process. Sharing your technical expertise helps legislative proposals find their mark, limits unintended consequences, and ultimately shapes stronger policy outcomes.

Outcomes on Priority Bills from Legislative Watchlist

In our weekly updates throughout the session, we have included a number of “bills we are watching,” and referenced proposals of particular significance. Below we have compiled a table overviewing the final outcomes for each of these proposals.

Policy Area Bill Number & Title Sponsor Final Version Description Outcome
Business HB 175: Public Funds and Political Activities Amendments Rep. Trevor Lee Original This bill would have prohibited an entity from receiving a government contract or state grant if they: participate in a political campaign, devote more than an insubstantial part of the entity's activities to attempting to influence legislation, or if their primary objective can only be attained by legislative action or inaction. It would prohibit a current or prospective government contractor or grant recipient from making a contribution to a political entity or to another person for a political purpose. Did Not Pass
Business SB 179: Wage Amendments Sen. Nate Blouin Original If enacted, this bill would require that an employer include information relating to wages and other compensation in a job listing; increases the minimum wage in the state to $20 per hour; prohibits that the Labor Commission from establishing a minimum wage that is lower than $20 per hour; requires that the commission adjust the minimum wage for inflation at least once per year. Did Not Pass
Business / AI Pricing Regulation SB 293: Consumer Pricing Data Amendments Sen. Heidi Balderree 1st Sub. This bill would have restricted suppliers from using a consumer's personal data (biometrics/purchase history) to set prices for goods or services; established a three year retention of data used by the automatic pricing system; provided enforcement mechanisms for the Division of Consumer Protection; among other provisions. The 1st Sub. was not adopted and the bill failed to pass out of the Senate. Did Not Pass
Business / AI Pricing Regulation SB 177: Product Pricing Amendments Sen. Stephanie Pitcher 1st Sub. This bill would have required suppliers to display disclaimers when using algorithmic pricing to set the price of goods or services (with exceptions) and provided the Division of Consumer Protection enforcement power. Did Not Pass
Business / Consumer Protection HB 29: Unfair and Deceptive Pricing Amendments Rep. Tyler Clancy Original This bill would have prohibited hidden fees by requiring the clear and conspicuous disclosure of the total price in an offer or advertisement of a product; Did Not Pass
Business / Labor & Employment HB 203: Noncompete Amendments Rep. Tyler Clancy 1st Sub. This bill was a key focus of the business community this session. If enacted, the bill  would prohibit employers from enforcing a non-compete agreement if the employee is: nonexempt, a full-time student engaging in an internship or other short-term employment, eighteen years or younger, their total earnings are less than $155,000 per year, or if the agreement would restrict an employee's ability to work more than 25 miles from a specific geographic location. The 1st Sub. of the bill reflected some of the changes requested by the business community, including removing the garden leave clause but ultimately the bill pulled from the House 3rd Reading Calendar by the Sponsor to allow more time for discussions and negotiations with the business community over the interim Did Not Pass
Civil Law / Tort Reform SB 211: Tort Amendments Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore 1st Sub. This was a priority concern for the business community. If enacted, this bill would have: 1. Limited what juries can hear about insurance and paid medical bills. 2. Prevented settlement decisions based on discounted medical costs. 3. Increased potential liability exposure and insurance costs, which could ultimately increase insurance costs for Utah businesses. Did Not Pass
Civil Law / Tort Reform SB 280: Damages Amendments Sen. Ronald Winterton Original This bill would have established a statutory framework for the determination of recoverable medical damages in civil actions in alignment with core holdings from the Utah Supreme Court’s ruling in Gardner v. Norman (October 2025) and was viewed by the business community as a reasonable alternative to various tort reform proposals. Did Not Pass
Critical Minerals SB 254: Extracted Natural Resources Amendments Sen. Ann Millner 4th Sub. This bill was one of the most significant policies of the 2026 session and establishes the statutory framework to catalyze the state's goal of becoming a major global producer of critical minerals. Facilitates faster permitting by the Department of Environmental Quality and the Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining; establishes the Critical Minerals Council, including establishing the council's operations, powers, and duties; addresses areas of coordination by certain council members, establishes a process to designate critical mineral zones, including providing for property tax differential revenue; provides for the creating of a clearinghouse of data to be known as the "Critical Minerals Atlas"; addresses the creation of the Minerals for Industrial, National, and Economic Security Center; creates the Critical Minerals Development Account; and modifies the tax credit for mining exploration, among other provisions. Passed
Gov. Operations SB 298: Programmable Money Amendments Sen. Keven Stratton Enrolled This bill: defines terms; excludes programmable money from the standard definition of money; prohibits a person from requiring the use of programmable money for a transaction unless the person also offers a free, non-digital alternative, among other provisions. Passed
Housing HB 68: Housing Amendments Rep. Cal Roberts 6th Sub Consolidates existing state housing programs into one entity under the Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity and creates the Division of Housing and Community Development within the GOEO. Passed
Immigration HB 571: Immigrant Amendments Rep. Trevor Lee Original This bill would have prohibited money transmitters from sending funds for unauthorized aliens. Did Not Pass
Labor & Employment HB 294: Employer Verification Amendments Rep. Tiara Auxier Amended This bill would have lowered the employer verification threshold from 150 to 100 employees, requiring private employers who employ 100+ employees to register with a status verification system to verify the federal legal working status of any new employee after July 1, 2027. The bill originally set the threshold at 50 employees and was amended multiple times to increase the proposed threshold to 100, then 125 employees before failing. Did Not Pass
Labor & Employment HB 245: Construction Wage Standard Act Rep. Tyler Clancy 1st Sub. This addressed wage standards for construction projects; directed the Labor Commission to determine the wages for the occupations a construction project required for each county; established: a wage minimum that a contractor may pay a qualifying employee; a recordkeeping requirement; and the penalties for noncompliance; and made technical and conforming changes. Did Not Pass
Land Ownership HB 291: Security and Land Restriction Amendments Rep. Candice Pierucci Amended This bill would lower the percentage of ownership a restricted foreign entity may maintain in a separate entity before the separate entity is considered a restricted foreign entity from 51% to 25% ownership interest. Passed
Taxes HB 161: Property Tax Modifications Rep. Jill Koford Original If the accompanying referendum HJR 7 was passed by voters, this bill would have increased the residential property tax exemption from 45% to 60% and likely shifting a greater portion of the tax burden from residential to commercial properties. Did Not Pass
Taxes SB 60: Income Tax Rate Amendments Sen. Dan McCay Original This bill amends the income tax rate provisions and reduces the corporate and individual income tax rates from 4.5% to 4.45% for the 2026 tax year. Passed
Taxes HB 441: Property Transaction Amendments Rep. Jill Koford Original This bill would have required the seller or the closing agent make available information about the property, including sales price, to a county Did Not Pass
assessor when ownership of property is transferred.
Taxes HB587: Income Tax Amendments (R&D Expensing Decoupling) Rep. Steve Eliason Sub. 2 If enacted, this bill would lower Utah's corporate and individual income tax rate from 4.5% to 4.45% and create a Utah add back for domestic research and development expenses if they are fully deducted federally, allowing these expenses to be amortized over 60 months. The 2nd Sub. for this bill removed the R&D decoupling provisions. Did Not Pass
Taxes SB 116: Income Tax Rate Modifications Sen. Lincoln Fillmore 1st Sub. This bill would have allowed for a reduction of the income tax when the state revenue exceeded the forecasted revenue. Did Not Pass
Taxes SB 287: Targeted Advertising Tax Sen. Mike McKell Enrolled This bill creates a new statewide tax on targeted digital advertising delivered in Utah by large advertising platforms and establishes a dedicated revenue stream to fund specified youth and community programs. Beginning January 1, 2027, an annual tax will be levied on "targeted advertising entities. Passed
Taxes/Child Care HB 190: Childcare Business Tax Credit Rep. Jason Thompson 2nd Sub. This bill increases the amount of nonrefundable corporate and individual income tax credits to 30% of the qualified child care expenditures if they qualify as an eligible small business; repeals the requirement for an employer to have claimed the tax credit for construction expenditures in order to claim the tax credit for child care expenditures. Passed
Technology / AI HB 286: Artificial Intelligence Transparency Amendments Rep. Doug Fiefia 1st Sub. This bill would have enacted the AI Transparency Act relating to transparency and whistleblower protections for frontier artificial intelligence models and required "large frontier developers" to publish safety plans for chatbots with 1M+ subscribers, publish summaries of risk assessments for certain AI models; file reports with Utah's Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy, among other provisions, and would have established civil penalties for violations. The bill sponsor pulled the bill from consideration due to a formal request from the White House to Legislative Leadership to not move forward with the proposal. Did Not Pass
Technology / AI HB 438: Artificial Intelligence Amendments Rep. Doug Fiefia 5th Sub. If enacted, this bill would have enacted the Companion Chatbot Safety Act to regulate operators of companion chatbots and protect consumers. This bill: defines terms; requires operators of companion chatbots to comply with the Utah Consumer Privacy Act; establishes disclosure and data protection requirements for operators; establishes additional safety requirements for operators serving minor users; authorizes rulemaking for age assurance and safe harbor standards; requires annual reporting by operators to the Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy; grants enforcement authority to the Division of Consumer Protection; provides for administrative fines and civil penalties; establishes safe harbor provisions for operators; and provides a severability clause. Did Not Pass

Industry and Issue Specific Legislative Recaps

For additional reference, we have compiled a list of issue specific legislative recaps and analysis of major policy developments during the 2026 Utah General Legislative Session. These resources were prepared by industry associations, universities, media outlets, advocacy organizations, and government agencies.

We are grateful to the authors and organizations listed below for their insights into legislative outcomes across key policy areas including tax policy, natural resources, energy, housing, education, and local government affairs.

Business, Taxes, and State Budget

Utah Chamber of Commerce.
2026 Legislative Update: Week 7. Utah Chamber of Commerce.
https://www.utchamber.com/blog/2026-legislative-session-week-7-update/

Deseret News.
“Why Don’t Utah Lawmakers Cut Property Taxes?” Deseret News.
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2026/03/05/why-utah-lawmakers-dont-cut-property-taxes/

Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget.
Sine-Nara to the 2026 Utah General Session. State of Utah Budget Office.
https://budget.utah.gov/sine-nara-to-the-2026-utah-general-session/
This post summarizes the state budget adopted by the legislature, including tax policy changes and major appropriations. The FY 2027 state budget totals approximately $31.6 billion, including $12.4 billion from state funds.

KSL News.
“Here Are the Biggest Spending and Tax Cuts Approved by the Utah Legislature This Year.” KSL.com.
https://www.ksl.com/article/51457411/here-are-the-biggest-spending-and-tax-cuts-approved-by-the-utah-legislature-this-year

Natural Resources, Water, Air Quality, and Land Use

Utah State University – Institute of Land, Water, and Air.
This Week in Utah’s Land, Water, and Air — March 6, 2026. Utah State University.
https://www.usu.edu/ilwa/

Deseret News.
“A Look at Utah’s Biggest Environment and Land Bills in 2026.” Deseret News.
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2026/03/07/utah-environment-land-bills-2026/

Transportation, Infrastructure, Planning, and Regional Development

Wasatch Front Regional Council.
2026 Legislative Wrap-Up. Wasatch Front Regional Council.
https://wfrc.org/legislative-wrap-up/

This summary highlights legislation affecting transportation funding, regional planning initiatives, housing supply, and infrastructure investment across the Wasatch Front region.

Energy Policy and Critical Minerals

Fox 13 News Utah.
“2026 Utah Legislature Focuses on Energy and Technology.” Fox 13 News.
https://www.fox13now.com/news/politics/2026-utah-legislature-energy-technology

Deseret News.
“Legislation Envisions Utah Being a Key Critical Minerals Player.” Deseret News.
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2026/02/18/utah-critical-minerals-legislation/

Utah Clean Energy.
2026 Legislative Tracker. Utah Clean Energy.
https://utahcleanenergy.org/2026-legislative-tracker/

Housing Policy

Wasatch Advocates for Livable Communities.
“Key Housing and Land Use Measures Signal Growing Legislative Focus During the 2026 Utah Session.” Wasatch Advocates for Livable Communities.
https://www.wasatchadvocates.org/key-housing-and-land-use-measures-signal-growing-legislative-focus-during-the-2026-utah-session/

Salt Lake Tribune.
“Here’s What Utah Lawmakers Did — and Didn’t — Pass This Year to Address the Housing Crisis.” Salt Lake Tribune.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2026/03/07/utah-housing-lawmakers-pass-bills-to-increase-supply/

Education and Higher Education

Utah Education Association.
“Tax Cuts Limit Education Investment in 2026 Session.” Utah Education Association.
https://www.myuea.org/news-publications/education-news/tax-cuts-limit-education-investment-2026-session

Utah System of Higher Education.
2026 Legislative Update — Week 7. Utah System of Higher Education.
https://ushe.edu/2026-legislative-update-week-7/

The update summarizes legislative appropriations affecting higher education, including more than $86 million in new ongoing funding for the Utah System of Higher Education, along with research funding and technical college investments.

Sutherland Institute.
“What Did Utah Lawmakers Accomplish on Education This Session?” Sutherland Institute.
https://sutherlandinstitute.org/utah-education-legislation-2026-session/

Bills Affecting Utah Courts

Utah State Bar.
“Utah State Bar Position on Package of Bills Affecting Utah Courts (Updated).” Utah State Bar.
https://www.utahbar.org/utah-state-bar-position-on-package-of-bills-affecting-utah-courts/

This update summarizes proposed legislation affecting judicial administration, court procedures, and the structure of Utah’s judicial system.

Local Government and Municipal Affairs

Salt Lake City Council.
2026 State Legislative Session Synopsis. Salt Lake City Council Legislative Affairs Office.
https://www.slc.gov/council/2026-state-legislative-session/

Additional legislative recaps from state and local entities and industry groups are expected following the conclusion of the session and may provide further analysis of legislation affecting municipal governance, economic development, and industrial policy.

Firm Highlights

News

Dorsey’s London Corporate Practice and Partners Earn Chambers UK 2027 Rankings

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise

News

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise

Regulatory Affairs Partner Randy Dann Joins Dorsey

News

Regulatory Affairs Partner Randy Dann Joins Dorsey

Insights

EPA Limits Title V Re-Litigation of NSR Permits

Overview On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published a final rule that significantly limits the ability of third parties to use the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) Title V permitting process to revisit New Source Review (“NSR”) permitting decisions years after those decisions were made. The rule establishes that NSR permitting determinations generally must be challenged during the original permitting proceeding, thereby providing regulated sources with greater permitting certainty and finality for major capital projects. Published in the Federal Register titled Clarifying the Scope of “Applicable Requirements” Under State Operating Permit Programs and the Federal Operating Permit Program (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0401), the rule amends 40 C.F.R. Parts 70 and 71 to codify EPA’s interpretation regarding when requirements established under other CAA programs may be reviewed, modified, or implemented through the Title V operating permit program. The rule becomes effective 30 days after publication. The rule addresses two principal issues: (1) the relationship between NSR preconstruction permitting and Title V operating permits, and (2) the treatment of the General Duty Clause under CAA section 112(r)(1). Most significantly, the rule provides greater certainty for sources navigating the NSR permitting process. EPA’s amendments are intended to ensure that NSR permitting decisions made through an approved public process are generally not revisited later through Title V permit proceedings. The rule responds to a circuit split between the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Tenth Circuits. In Environmental Integrity Project v. EPA, 969 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA’s interpretation, concluding that it was consistent with the text, structure, and purpose of Title V. In contrast, the Tenth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Sierra Club v. EPA, 964 F.3d 882 (10th Cir. 2020), finding that the then-existing regulatory definition of “applicable requirement” did not support EPA’s position. By amending the regulatory language on which the Tenth Circuit relied and codifying the interpretation approved by the Fifth Circuit, EPA has established a nationwide framework governing the interaction between NSR and Title V. NSR and Title V: EPA Establishes a Uniform Nationwide Framework At the core of the rule is EPA’s effort to define the respective roles of NSR and Title V. The rule codifies the approach EPA has applied since 2017: once a source obtains an NSR permit under an EPA-approved permitting program, and that permit was issued following public notice with an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes the NSR-related “applicable requirements” of the State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) or Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”) for Title V purposes. Under this framework, Title V is not a vehicle for re-examining underlying NSR permitting decisions. EPA does not intend to use the Title V process to revisit applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology determinations, permit conditions, or other issues resolved through the NSR permitting process. This principle applies regardless of the stage of the Title V proceeding; whether the NSR permit was issued pursuant to a SIP or FIP; the type of NSR issue involved; or whether the NSR permit is incorporated into Title V sequentially or concurrently. Limited Exceptions EPA recognizes several circumstances in which NSR issues may still be reviewed through the Title V program: No NSR permit was issued at all; The permit was issued without public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review; or The issue involves substantive overlap between Title V and NSR requirements, such as the adequacy of monitoring provisions. As a result, the rule does not insulate unpermitted projects or foreclose review of matters that independently arise under Title V. Key Regulatory Amendments The rule revises the definition of “applicable requirement” in 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.2 and 71.2. Paragraph (1): Where an NSR permit is issued with public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes and defines the applicable SIP or FIP requirements for Title V purposes. Paragraph (2): All NSR permit terms, including terms contained in minor NSR permits, constitute applicable requirements that must be incorporated into Title V permits. Paragraph (4): CAA section 112(r)(1) (the General Duty Clause) is expressly excluded from the definition of “applicable requirement,” while section 112(r)(7) Risk Management Program requirements remain included. EPA also amended 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.8 and 70.12 to clarify that alleged defects in requirements established outside the Title V process generally do not provide a basis for EPA objection to a Title V permit or for a Title V citizen petition. General Duty Clause Exclusion The rule also codifies EPA’s longstanding position that the General Duty Clause in CAA section 112(r)(1) is not an “applicable requirement” for Title V purposes. EPA points to several considerations supporting that conclusion, including the distinction between the General Duty Clause and Title V permit terms, the provision’s origins in the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause, and the different enforcement structures applicable to the General Duty Clause and Title V permit requirements. Importantly, excluding section 112(r)(1) from the definition of “applicable requirement” does not eliminate EPA’s authority to enforce the General Duty Clause independently of the Title V program. The final rule instead clarifies that the General Duty Clause need not—and should not—be incorporated into Title V permits as an applicable requirement. Practical Implications for Regulated Sources Greater Finality for NSR Permits  For projects requiring PSD, nonattainment NSR, or minor NSR permits, the permitting process becomes the primary forum for resolving disputes regarding applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology requirements, offsets, and permit conditions. Once an NSR permit is issued through a qualifying public process, regulated sources should face substantially reduced risk that those same issues will be challenged years later through Title V permit proceedings. Reduced Risk of Collateral Permit Challenges Stakeholders have sometimes sought to use Title V permit issuance, renewal, revision, or citizen-petition proceedings to challenge underlying NSR determinations. The final rule makes clear that Title V is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging whether an applicable requirement was correctly established in the first instance. This should reduce the risk of permit delays and uncertainty associated with collateral challenges to previously issued NSR permits. The rule does not, however, eliminate all Title V challenges relating to an NSR permit. Challenges concerning the Title V permit itself—including whether it appropriately incorporates applicable requirements or contains adequate compliance provisions—remain possible. Increased Importance of the Initial NSR Proceeding Because Title V generally will not provide a second opportunity to challenge the substantive validity of an NSR determination, the administrative record developed during the NSR process becomes increasingly important. Permit applicants should ensure that applicability analyses, emissions calculations, control technology evaluations, modeling demonstrations, and supporting technical documentation are thoroughly developed during the original permitting proceeding. For significant projects, applicants may therefore have an additional incentive to identify and resolve potential permitting issues before the NSR permit is issued rather than assuming that unresolved issues can be addressed during a subsequent Title V proceeding. Potential Incentive for Broader Public Participation EPA also notes that permitting authorities may choose to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment for a broader range of NSR permits because permits issued through a qualifying public process receive the benefit of the finality framework established by the rule. Some permitting authorities may conclude that greater public participation at the NSR stage is preferable to uncertainty during subsequent Title V proceedings. Conclusion The final rule is principally a permitting-certainty measure. For sources that obtain NSR permits through a public process, EPA has substantially limited the ability of third parties to revisit underlying NSR determinations through the Title V program. As a result, regulated entities should benefit from greater finality regarding key permitting decisions, reduced risk of collateral permit challenges, and increased certainty when planning and implementing capital projects.

Insights

SEC Proposes Expansion of Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Rule

On September 30, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) proposed amendments to Rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), which provides an exemption from the general prohibition under Section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act on registered investment advisers receiving performance-based compensation (the “Proposal”) so long as performance-based compensation is limited to “qualified clients”.1 Most notably for private fund sponsors, the Proposal would expand the definition of “qualified client” to include any investors that satisfy the “accredited investor” definition under Regulation D. The Proposal may also have implications for private fund managers that rely on exemptions from investment adviser registration under state law because certain state-level investment adviser registration exemptions incorporate or otherwise reference the federal qualified client definition. Expansion of the Qualified Client Definition Under the current Rule 205-3, an investor generally may qualify as a qualified client if, among other alternatives, the investor has at least $1.4 million under management with the adviser or has a net worth exceeding $2.7 million. These thresholds are higher than the financial thresholds applicable to many accredited investors under Regulation D. As a result, an investor may currently qualify as an accredited investor for purposes of investing in a private offering without qualifying as a qualified client for purposes of paying performance-based compensation. The Proposal would expand the qualified client definition to include any natural person or legal entity investor that satisfies the accredited investor definition under Regulation D. The Proposal would also remove the assets under management and net worth thresholds under the current Rule 205-3 qualified client test. For private funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, this change could reduce the need to apply a separate qualified client standard to investors that already qualify as accredited investors. Dorsey Observations and Next Steps If adopted as proposed, the expanded qualified client definition could be particularly significant for private fund managers. Most private fund offerings are already limited to accredited investors under Regulation D. However, the Proposal could expand the pool of prospective investors available to emerging private fund managers while reducing the regulatory burden associated with complying with Rule 205-3. The Proposal could also benefit advisers operating below the SEC registration threshold that rely on a state private fund adviser exemption. A number of states have adopted exemptions modeled on the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) private fund adviser exemption, which may condition relief for advisers to certain funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) on each beneficial owner satisfying the federal qualified client definition. However, state requirements vary, and any effect of the Proposal would depend on the text of the applicable state exemption and how it incorporates Rule 205-3. Many emerging private fund managers may have a larger network of accredited investor relationships than qualified client relationships during the early stages of their investment advisory business. Currently, under Rule 205-3, private fund managers may receive performance-based compensation from investors who do not satisfy the qualified client definition if those investors were admitted to their private funds prior to registration with the SEC. Following registration with the SEC, however, managers may continue to permit investors that are not qualified clients to invest in future private funds but may not receive performance-based compensation from those investors with respect to such investments. In addition, because the net worth and assets under management thresholds for qualified client status are adjusted for inflation every five years, the pool of qualified client investors may diminish over time as previously eligible investors no longer satisfy the applicable thresholds. The Proposal could provide the dual benefit of greater flexibility for private fund managers to establish and maintain relationships with accredited investors as their businesses scale and they become registered with the SEC, and greater flexibility for certain accredited investors to participate in investment strategies that historically have been restricted to much larger institutional investors. Unless and until the Proposal is adopted, investment advisers should continue to comply with the existing qualified client requirements. If the Proposal is adopted, private fund sponsors should consider whether corresponding changes are appropriate for their subscription documents, investor questionnaires, and other offering materials. Advisers that are state-registered or rely on a state-level exemption should also consult the laws and regulations of each relevant jurisdiction before changing investor eligibility standards or performance-based compensation practices, because adoption of the federal amendments may not automatically modify state requirements. Comments on the Proposal will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. 1 Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Modernization, Investment Advisers Act Release No. IA-7022 (Sept. 30, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2026/09/s7-2026-28#33-11443proposed.

The image shows classic stone columns and steps, which often represent government buildings, courthouses, or legal institutions.

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 14, 2026

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 8, 2026

On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case: Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26-426: This case concerns the Trump Administration’s “third-country removal” procedures, where immigrants are deported to countries not listed in the removal orders. In granting certiorari, the Court granted the Government’s application to stay a lower court decision halting the practice, which will allow third-country removals to continue pending resolution of the case. The issues presented are: (1) Whether the district court had jurisdiction over respondents’ claims; (2) whether the district court had authority to enter class-wide declaratory relief and APA vacatur under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1); (3) whether the Government’s guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), the due process clause, or FARRA/CAT and its implementing regulations; and (4) such other questions that the Government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case. On October 1, 2026, the Court granted certiorari in three additional cases: Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104: Immigration officials detained Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha—a Brazilian citizen who had lived in the United States for approximately twenty years after entering without inspection—and denied him a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The Second Circuit held that his detention was instead governed by § 1226(a), which permits release on bond, because § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory-detention requirement applies only to noncitizens apprehended while entering the country or shortly thereafter. The question presented is: Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like Barbosa da Cunha, are present in the United States without having been admitted. Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic, No. 25-113: A Catholic religious organization sought to build a shrine to the Virgin Mary on land the organization owned adjacent to its church in Park Hills, Kentucky. Local zoning restrictions prohibited the proposed construction. The question presented is: Whether a land-use regulation that prohibits a religious institution from building a religious structure on its own property constitutes a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under the Substantial Burden Provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a). Marschner v. Marschner, No. 25-1349: Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (“USFSPA”), a veteran’s longevity-based retirement pay can be divided in a divorce, but retirement pay based on disability and retirement pay that was waived to receive disability pay are indivisible. The question presented is: Does the USFSPA require state courts to refuse enforcement of indemnification provisions in a divorce settlement agreement?

Attorney John Cooney Returns to Dorsey in the Finance & Restructuring Group in Minneapolis

News

Attorney John Cooney Returns to Dorsey in the Finance & Restructuring Group in Minneapolis

News

Dorsey Recognized in Inaugural 2026 IAM/WTR Copyright 1000

Dorsey & Whitney LLP is pleased to announce its recognition in the inaugural edition of the Copyright 1000: The World’s Leading Copyright Professionals, published by IAM and World Trademark Review (WTR). Nine Dorsey attorneys were individually recognized, and the Firm’s Denver, Minneapolis, New York, Salt Lake City, and Seattle offices were recognized in the firm rankings. The following Dorsey attorneys were recognized in the inaugural guide: Lindsey Sadler Gregory Tamkin Charlene Krogh Evan Everist Jeffrey Cadwell Fara Sunderji Bruce Ewing Catherine Parrish Lake J. Michael Keyes The Copyright 1000 is the first dedicated ranking focused solely on the world’s leading copyright practitioners. The guide identifies leading copyright firms and practitioners across key jurisdictions worldwide. Dorsey’s intellectual property attorneys advise clients on a wide range of copyright matters, including protection, enforcement, licensing, litigation, transactions, and issues involving emerging technologies and digital content. The inaugural Copyright 1000 rankings are published by IAM and WTR.

Insights

Energy Law: Month in Review - September 2026

Welcome to Dorsey’s Energy Law: Month in Review. We provide this update to our clients to identify significant developments in the previous month. Please reach out to any of the authors, listed above, to discuss these issues. Regulatory Developments Massachusetts Ratchets Up State and Local Regulation of AI Data Centers In early September, Governor Maura Healey of Massachusetts signed an executive order requiring that artificial intelligence data centers secure the approval of local communities as a precondition to proceeding with a given project. According to the terms of the order, data center developers will need to secure a “community benefits agreement” as a precondition to receiving permits from numerous state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection, the Energy Facilities Siting Board, and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office. Beyond requiring community benefits agreements, the order also mandates that developers mitigate utility costs to consumers, prohibits the use of nondisclosure agreements, and requires various state agencies to develop measures to limit data center impacts on the environment. North Carolina Regulators Decline Approval of Duke Energy Gas Turbine On September 18, 2026, North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) denied Duke Energy’s application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity required to construct a gas-fueled combustion turbine at its Smith Energy Complex in North Carolina. The NCUC objected strongly to the $584 million price tag and noted that Duke appeared to be constructing the facility “based on anticipated data center customer additions.” The NCUC rejected that anticipated growth as “insufficiently reliable for the Commission to act at this point.” In rejecting Duke’s application, the NCUC also noted that Duke had signed the White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge, in which it represented that it would not shift data center costs to consumers. The NCUC observed that the record did not demonstrate how Duke “intends to adhere to its commitments under the Ratepayer Protection Pledge with regard to the Proposed Facility.” Notably, commission staff had actually supported the construction of the turbine, citing concerns about Duke’s reserve margins. The NCUC noted that it “understands the Public Staff’s expressed concerns,” but those concerns were outweighed by the NCUC’s reservations, including questions of demand. Department of Energy Approves Funds for Grid Improvement The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced that it would fund 31 grid-improvement projects in 26 states. The funding initiative is part of the DOE’s “SPARK” initiative. The funding will include $1.9 billion in federal funding from DOE and $3.35 billion in recipient cost-sharing funding. The funds will go to projects designed to improve grid reliability and lower electricity costs. Recipients plan to reconductor over 1,500 miles of transmission lines and will deploy grid-enhancing technologies across approximately 21,000 miles. DOE stated that this initiative will make available over 23 additional gigawatts of electricity. Texas Moderates Rules Governing Data Center Interconnection The Texas Public Utility Commission adopted new regulations governing large-load interconnections. The rules impose a flat study fee of $100,000 for all proposed interconnections, which departs from the initial proposal to impose study fees using a tiered system based on project size. Additionally, the final rule eliminates the PUC’s previous proposal to impose a non-refundable interconnection fee of $50,000 per MW of contracted peak demand. The final rule also moderates the initially proposed regulations governing Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) notifications for large-load customers’ non-utilized capacity. The proposed rules would have required notifying ERCOT within 30 days of missing a scheduled energization milestone by six months. The final rules, however, do not require informing ERCOT unless a scheduled energization milestone is missed by 24 months. FERC Denies TransAlta 202(c) Cost-Recovery Plan The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently rejected TransAlta’s plan to recover $19.9 million in expenses stemming from a DOE order in which DOE prohibited TransAlta from retiring its coal-powered Centralia power plant. TransAlta had previously intended to retire the facility at the end of 2025. TransAlta’s cost recovery plan proposed spending an additional $23 million on repairs to continue operating the unit. FERC’s main objection had to do with geographic scope. TransAlta’s recovery plan called for recovering costs from California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), but the DOE’s order requiring operation of the plant was designed to ensure reliability in the Northwest assessment area (Montana, Oregon, Washington, and parts of northern California and northern Idaho). Accordingly, FERC was unwilling to allow cost recovery from CAISO and SPP when the order that precipitated the additional costs only related to the Northwest assessment area. FERC informed TransAlta that it would only approve cost recovery from load-serving entities in the Northwest assessment area. FERC’s decision comes amid a rush of DOE emergency orders requiring the continued operation of coal-fired generating units. Litigation Appeals Court Upholds Washington Hydropower Plant With Caveats In a September 21, 2026, opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals largely upheld a Clean Water Act water quality certification by the Washington Department of Ecology for the Goldendale Energy Storage Project, a proposed pumped-water storage hydropower system adjacent to, but off-stream from, the Columbia River. A nonprofit (Columbia Riverkeeper) and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation appealed the certification, contending that it failed to impose necessary conditions and monitoring requirements to protect the water quality of the Columbia River. Most saliently, the plaintiffs argued that the project had the potential to leak 100 acre-feet of water per year into tributaries of the Columbia River. The Court of Appeals broadly rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to the state’s conclusion that “the project was designed not to leak.” That said, the Court of Appeals did reverse on one narrow issue. Specifically, the court determined that the state’s conclusion that “leakage from the project’s tunnels would be monitored and reported” was not supported by the evidence because the certification “does not explicitly require monitoring and reporting to determine whether there is any leakage.” Accordingly, the court remanded the matter to the state to impose monitoring and reporting requirements but otherwise affirmed the certification. Legislative Developments California Legislates Restrictions on Data Center Energy Use and Grid Costs On September 21, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed seven bills broadly regulating data centers in the state. SB 1168 directed the California Public Utilities Commission to assess the energy used by data centers. It also requires the PUC to pass costs of transmission and distribution upgrades and load increases on to data centers, rather than customers. SB 886 and SB 887 compel data centers to pay for infrastructure upgrade and generation costs, and wildfire mitigation costs, in addition to imposing environmental review. The statutes additionally increase local oversight of data centers. AB 1577 imposes a monthly reporting requirement that requires data centers to supply energy consumption and efficiency data to the California Energy Commission. AB 2383 contains incentives for data centers to use onsite clean energy generation. Finally, AB 2469 and AB 2619 require data center developments to assess water supply and develop a water scarcity plan. The statutes also mandate statewide water reporting as a precondition to obtaining and renewing business licenses.