Fifth Circuit Reinstates Pre-2025 HSR Rules, Handing Blow to FTC Antitrust Agenda
Key Takeaways
- Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has denied the FTC's request to stay a lower court ruling, effectively vacating the 2025 HSR filing requirements.
- This decision reinstates the less burdensome pre-February 2025 framework, providing immediate relief to dealmakers while the agency's broader appeal proceeds.
Mentioned
Key Intelligence
Key Facts
- 1The Fifth Circuit denied the FTC's motion for a stay on March 19, 2026, immediately vacating the 2025 HSR rules.
- 2Filings have reverted to the pre-February 10, 2025 framework, which requires significantly less disclosure.
- 3The FTC has confirmed it will accept filings under the old form effective immediately.
- 4The 2025 revised HSR form remains available for use on a strictly voluntary basis.
- 5The district court originally found the new rules were 'improperly promulgated' and imposed 'undue burdens'.
Who's Affected
Analysis
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has delivered a significant blow to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) efforts to modernize and expand antitrust oversight. By denying the agency’s motion for a stay pending appeal, the court has effectively halted the implementation of the revised Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) filing requirements that first went into effect on February 10, 2025. This ruling forces an immediate reversion to the pre-2025 filing framework, a development that provides substantial relief to corporations and private equity firms currently navigating the M&A landscape. The decision underscores a growing judicial skepticism toward agency expansion and the administrative burdens placed on the private sector.
The core of the dispute centers on the 2025 HSR revisions, which were designed to provide the FTC and the Department of Justice (DOJ) with significantly more data at the outset of a merger review. These requirements included granular disclosures regarding labor markets, supply chain dependencies, and internal strategic documents that were previously only requested during the more intensive Second Request phase. A lower district court recently found that these rules were improperly promulgated and imposed undue burdens on filers, leading to their vacatur. The Fifth Circuit’s refusal to pause that vacatur means that, for the duration of the appellate process, the 'old' rules are once again the law of the land.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has delivered a significant blow to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) efforts to modernize and expand antitrust oversight.
For legal departments and RegTech providers, this creates a complex operational environment. Many firms spent the last year overhauling their internal workflows and compliance software to accommodate the 2025 requirements. Now, they must pivot back to the previous standards while maintaining the flexibility to revert again should the FTC eventually prevail on the merits of its appeal. The FTC has indicated it will continue to accept the 2025-style filings on a voluntary basis, a move that presents a strategic dilemma for filers. While submitting more data voluntarily might theoretically speed up a review by preempting agency questions, most practitioners are likely to advise clients to stick to the less rigorous, legally mandated pre-2025 forms to minimize exposure and costs.
What to Watch
However, the relief may be more procedural than substantive for high-scrutiny deals. The FTC has signaled that it may still seek the information originally required by the vacated 2025 rules through other channels, such as voluntary access letters or formal Second Requests. This suggests that while the initial filing burden has decreased, the overall investigative rigor of the agency remains unchanged. Companies should expect that any transaction in a sensitive sector—such as technology or healthcare—will still face intense questioning regarding the very metrics the 2025 rules sought to codify.
Looking ahead, the Fifth Circuit’s eventual ruling on the merits will be a bellwether for the future of administrative law in the United States. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright, which ended Chevron deference, federal agencies face a much higher bar when defending new regulatory frameworks. If the Fifth Circuit ultimately affirms the lower court’s decision, it will signal a permanent shift in how the HSR process is managed, likely requiring the FTC to go back to the drawing board and pursue a more limited set of revisions through a more rigorous notice-and-comment process. For now, dealmakers should capitalize on the reduced filing requirements while remaining vigilant for a potential return to the more expansive disclosure regime.
Timeline
Timeline
New HSR Rules Effective
The FTC's expanded premerger notification requirements go into effect, increasing disclosure burdens.
District Court Vacatur
A lower court rules the 2025 HSR requirements are invalid and vacates the rule.
Fifth Circuit Denies Stay
The appellate court refuses to pause the vacatur, reinstating the pre-2025 filing forms immediately.
FTC Guidance Issued
The FTC announces it will accept old forms but allow voluntary submission of new forms.
Sources
Sources
Based on 2 source articles- National Law ReviewHSR Burdens Lifted: Fifth Circuit Denies FTC Stay, Reinstating Prior HSR Filing RequirementsMar 20, 2026
- National Law ReviewFifth Circuit Lifts Stay on Court Order Vacating New HSR Form, Filings Immediately Revert to Old FormMar 20, 2026
How we covered this story
Every story in our legal coverage is assembled from multiple primary sources, cross-referenced for factual consistency, and scored along three independent dimensions: sentiment, operational impact, and source-cluster confidence. Single-source rumors and unverifiable claims do not pass our editorial gate. When a story shows "Verified by N sources" with N≥2, the development is independently corroborated; when N=1, we mark it explicitly so readers can weigh the signal accordingly.
Impact scoring uses a 1-10 scale weighted toward regulatory, financial, and operational consequence rather than coverage volume. A topic that runs in every outlet but moves no real decisions ranks lower than a niche regulatory filing that reshapes how operators in the legal space have to behave. Read our full methodology for the scoring rubric, our glossary for term definitions, and our trends index for the longitudinal view across the beat.
| Signal on this page | What it tells you |
|---|---|
| Verified by N sources | Independent corroboration count. N≥2 is our confidence floor; N=1 is marked explicitly. |
| Impact score (1-10) | Regulatory + financial + operational weight. 8+ signals an experienced-operator action item. |
| Sentiment | Five-tier classification trained on labeled legal-specific corpora. |
| Timeline | Where applicable, the related-events sequence that contextualizes today's development. |