The very first sentence is quite misleading:<p>> Last year, the Trump administration abandoned a regulation designed to protect U.S. savers from conflicted investment advice.<p>That suggests that the Trump administration repealed the rule. What actually happened is that a federal appeals court vacated the rule because it overstepped the DOL’s statutory authority: <a href="https://images.thinkadvisor.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/415/299631/5th-Circuit_chamber-fiduciary-mandate.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://images.thinkadvisor.com/contrib/content/uploads/docu...</a>. (Among other things, the DOL departed from its own long-standing interpretation of a key statutory term.)<p>When the article says the Trump administration “abandoned” the rule, it means that the administration declined to seek rehearing—basically, asking the appeals court to change its mind—or Supreme Court review. Of course, both of those options are long shots. A federal court of appeals decision in a case is almost always the last word. Further review is discretionary, and rare. That is especially true in a case like this one. The prerequisite for rehearing or Supreme Court review is typically a case of “exceptional importance” or where there are conflicting decisions among the courts of appeals for the different circuits. An esoteric financial regulation doesn’t fit either criteria.