The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has announced an open meeting for August 14th. The regulator will consider new rules for the placement of investment contracts with crypto assets. This decision was made against the background of a pause with the adoption of the CLARITY law. The senators were unable to pass the relevant document through a vote last week. The head of the department, Paul Atkins, previously announced his readiness to issue his own rules. He emphasized the commission's ability to act in the absence of federal law. A representative of the regulator confirmed the immutability of the agency's official position on digital assets. Clear rules should be designed for the long-term development of the industry. The Commission will continue to support the bipartisan efforts of Congress to advance the bill. The regulator will develop the base within its current powers.

The CLARITY bill still has a chance to reach the president's signature. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has filed a special motion to end the debate. The document will be reviewed after the legislators return from vacation on September 14th. The bill has to overcome several serious obstacles in Parliament. He needs to pass a vote in the Senate and return to the House of Representatives. Only then will the document appear on Donald Trump's desktop. The head of state is facing criticism because of his family's crypto projects. Many legislators insist on the inclusion of ethical provisions in the text of the law. The meeting of the regulator will be a test of readiness to act without federal law. The fate of the relevant act remains open until the autumn session of the Congress.

The regulator's decision to act without congress creates a certain legal fork. Analysts point to the risk of clashing with the doctrine of significant issues. This judicial principle limits the powers of independent federal agencies. Agencies cannot regulate important economic issues without congressional approval. Lawyers warn about the vulnerability of such rules in the field of information disclosure. Historical parallels show the difficulties of expanding rulemaking without a clear mandate. The U.S. Supreme Court has already applied this doctrine against the Environmental Protection Agency. The judicial system first explicitly established this principle in the year two thousand twenty-two. Future commission rules may face a similar test of strength.