RTP's Free Lunch Podcast

On April 9th, President Trump signed E.O. 14267, Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers, which “commences the process for eliminating anti-competitive regulations to revitalize the American economy.” The order instructs the agency heads to review all regulations that may stifle economic competition or impose restraints on the free market. Many applaud the order, arguing that it addresses an overburdened economy, while others question the necessity of government regulation for ensuring a fair and just market.What does President Trump’s order mean for the future of the economy and the laws that regulate it?FeaturingAlden Abbott, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason UniversityCharlie Beller, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)Kathleen Bradish, Vice President and Director of Legal Advocacy, American Antitrust InstituteModerator: Bilal Sayyed, Senior Adjunct Fellow, TechFreedom

On March 20, President Trump signed E.O. 14242, Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities, which directs the Secretary of Education to take steps to “facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.” The subject of intense controversy, EO 14242 raises important questions about executive power, the role of Congress, and the future of federal education programs. Join us for a discussion about the legal implications of dismantling the Department of Education and the potential consequences for education policy. Featuring: Jonathan Butcher, Will Skillman Senior Research Fellow in Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation Michael J. Petrilli, President of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute David Randall, Director of Research at the National Association of Scholars Kent Talbert, Investigative Counsel, U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce; former General Counsel to the U.S. Department of Education Moderator: Robert S. Eitel, President and Co-Founder of the Defense for Freedom Institute; former Senior Counselor to the Secretary of Education from 2017-2020

Join us Monday, June 9th, at 12:00pm EST for a timely discussion examining how artificial intelligence is fundamentally upending existing data protection laws and reshaping the debate over privacy protections.The rise of AI has created a tension between unlocking AI’s transformative potential and protecting personal data. As AI systems require vast amounts of data to function effectively, traditional privacy frameworks face unprecedented challenges. Our panel of experts will address emerging issues in data privacy such as how AI is challenging conventional data privacy best practices, state-level privacy regulations and their impact on AI innovation, sectoral challenges in healthcare, education, and finance, and what a modern privacy framework designed for the AI era might look like.Featuring:Pam Dixon- Founder & Executive Director, World Privacy ForumKevin Frazier- AI Innovation and Law Fellow, University of Texas School of LawJennifer Huddleston- Senior Fellow, Technology Policy, Cato Institute[Moderator] Ashley Baker- Executive Director, Committee for Justice

On April 23, President Trump signed E.O. 14281, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, declaring that “disparate-impact liability is wholly inconsistent with the Constitution and threatens the commitment to merit and equality of opportunity that forms the foundation of the American Dream.” In this episode, experts explore the origins, evolution, and controversy surrounding disparate impact law—from Section VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to landmark Supreme Court decisions like Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) and Wards Cove Packing Co., Inc. v. Atonio (1989), to the legislative response in the Civil Rights Act of 1991. What is disparate impact liability? How has it shaped outcomes in employment, housing, and equal access to opportunity? Is it a justifiable basis for legal liability without evidence of disparate treatment? Join us for a conversation on one of the most debated legal doctrines in American civil rights history and its role in shaping the future of equality and meritocracy.Featuring:Dan Morenoff, Executive Director, American Civil Rights Project and Adjunct Fellow, Manhattan InstituteGail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law[Moderator] Linda Chavez, Chairman, Center for Equal OpportunityAdditional Reading:Morenoff, Dan. "Disparate-Impact Liability: Unfounded, Unconstitutional, & Not Long For This World." Fedsoc.org. June 6, 2025. https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/disparate-impact-liability-unfounded-unconstitutional-not-long-for-this-world

Shortly after taking office, President Trump reportedly removed two Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) commissioners and the general counsel. While this has effectively left the five-member Commission without a quorum, some legal experts have questioned the limits of presidential power to remove officials from agencies like the EEOC. Now operating under Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, the EEOC has shifted its priorities and taken actions in response to President Trump's executive orders. New priorities include removing gender ideology, protecting women, addressing anti-American bias, and combatting antisemitism in the workplace. The EEOC moved to dismiss several EEOC-initiated claims and lawsuits, alleging discrimination based on gender identity. Acting Chair Lucas sent letters to top law firms requesting information about their DEI-related employment practice.What are the limits of presidential power over agencies such as the EEOC? What would a lack of quorum mean practically for the Commission, employees and employers, as well as the new direction of the EEOC in the Trump Era? In this webinar, employment law experts will address these questions and more.Featuring:Bradford J. Kelley, Shareholder, LittlerRyan H. Nelson, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston[Moderator] Eric Dreiband, Partner, Jones Day

Short-term rentals—popularized by Airbnb and Vrbo—have been given modern platforms for the customary alternative to hotels: in-home stays. Yet their rapid growth has prompted a wave of local and state regulations at odds with the practice, driven by lobbying from the hotel industry, concerns about housing affordability, neighborhood character, and other regulatory assertions. While some critics, including city officials and interest groups, support increased oversight, others—including advocates of limited government and individual rights—contend that these services represent an exercise of property rights, expand consumer choice, and note that there is limited evidence of significant impact on the housing market.This panel will explore the constitutional, statutory, historical, and policy implications of short-term rental regulation. Are local governments properly protecting community interests, or are they infringing on fundamental property rights? What legal frameworks govern this space—and what should they be?Join us for a lively discussion featuring the Hon. Paul Clement, Tony Francois, and Ron Klain, moderated by Prof. Donald Kochan, that will examine the intersection of private property, regulatory authority, and economic liberty.

President Trump's budget bill, having recently passed the House of Representatives, is headed for the Senate with a proposed 10-year moratorium on AI regulations at the state level. How should lawmakers approach this rapidly-developing technology without stalling US progress in the AI "arms race," while still prioritizing consumers' data privacy and online safety?Dr. Scott Babwah Brennen, Kevin Frazier, and Adam Thierer join the RTP Fourth Branch Podcast to discuss and debate the arguments of AI regulation, innovation, and preemption.

In a little over 100 days, the Department of Government Efficiency, or "DOGE," has fundamentally remade the federal bureaucracy by slimming the workforce and ending federal contracts. So far, its major focus has not been on regulatory issues, but recent executive orders suggest that DOGE may soon set its sights on cutting back excess regulation. When it does, it should consider successful regulatory reform efforts that have been underway in the states for several years. This panel will focus on two of the most successful state regulatory reform initiatives, in Virginia and Indiana, and explore how similar reforms might be enacted federally.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to regulate emissions that “cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases are considered pollutants under the Act, so whether they can be regulated depends on whether they endanger public health. The EPA issued the Endangerment Finding that greenhouse gas emissions cross this threshold in 2009. Any actual regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is issued by EPA separately, such as greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles. On March 12th, 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the EPA would be initiating “formal reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding in collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other relevant agencies.” Join us Friday, May 9th, from 11am – 12pm EST, as our panel of legal experts discusses the various questions surrounding the proposed revisions, such as preemption, cost revision, and how these changes would be implemented. Featuring: Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC Richard Belzer, Independent Consultant Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law (Moderator) Laura Stanley, Gibson Dunn, LLP

Amidst the flurry of new Executive Orders that launched the second Trump Administration, many questions have arisen concerning regulatory action and executive power. Our panelists will focus on the regulatory analysis guidance of Circular A-4, the role of benefit-cost analysis in regulatory and deregulatory actions, and the 10-for-1 Executive Order. Join us on Wednesday, April 23rd, at 11:30am EST for a discussion of regulatory analysis and administrative law featuring Hon. Susan Dudley and Professor Donald Kenkel, and moderated by Hon. Paul Ray.

In March of 2025, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released a major new publication, “Modernizing the EPA: A Blueprint for Congress.” This book explores numerous issues across the EPA and the statutes that it administers. The podcast discussion focuses primarily on how the EPA’s role has evolved, particularly as it relates to air regulation, including greenhouse gas regulation. In addition, the discussion highlights flaws and outdated aspects of the Clean Air Act and the need for Congress to reassert its lawmaking power. The lead author and co-editor of the book offers ideas on how Congress can refine the federal approach to environmental and climate policy. Listen in as Michael Buschbacher, Partner at Boyden Gray PLLC, interviews Daren Bakst, Director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment highlighting the key findings and recommendations in the publication.

In this Tech Roundup Episode of RTP's Fourth Branch podcast, Kevin Frazier and Aram Gavoor sit down to discuss the recent, fast-moving developments in AI policy in the second Trump administration, as well as the importance of innovation and procurement.

In a time of rapidly shifting administrative law norms, the Department of Labor and NLRB have had busy and in some ways aggressive dockets over the last year. Our panel of experts will assess the regulatory and enforcement approach and key initiatives at DOL and NLRB during the final year of the Biden Administration; how does it grade out compared to prior years? And during the early days of the Trump Administration, how is the regulatory approach changing—or staying the same?

As the second Trump administration kicks off an ambitious AI agenda, individual states have been busy on this front as well. Should each state have their own approach, or should states like California and Texas lead the way?Dean Ball, Sunny Gandhi, and Kevin Frazier join the Fourth Branch podcast to discuss these various efforts to cover the conversation of AI on the state level and the increasing need for public AI literacy.

An estimated 5% of foster youth qualify for Social Security benefits, but in many states, child welfare agencies use these funds to help cover the cost of care. In 2018 alone, agencies in 49 states and Washington, D.C., received at least $165 million in benefits intended for foster youth.In this episode, Shoshana Weissmann interviews Maureen Flatley, subject matter expert in child welfare and child exploitation. They discuss how these funds are managed, the policies guiding their use, and the ongoing conversations about their impact on foster youth and the child welfare system.

Hawaii leads the nation in high housing prices. Experts Ted Kefalas and Jonathan Helton from Grassroot Institute explain the regulatory obstacles to building sufficient housing for Hawaiians, and regulatory reform efforts that could increase the housing supply. It has been over 18 months since the fires that nearly destroyed the town of Lahaina in Maui County, Hawaii. Since that time, thousands of commercial and residential properties have been destroyed or damaged, and only 6 houses have been rebuilt. In this segment, Kefalas and Helton discuss the legal and regulatory hurdles that have prevented Hawaiians to rebuild their destroyed homes and businesses, and proposals that could help facilitate rebuilding. In the final segment, the experts discuss what lessons California could learn from Hawaii's experience to ensure that Angelinos do not experience the same slow rebuild after the Pacific Palisades Fire.

Artificial Intelligence has been rapidly brought to the forefront of the public conversation in recent months. President Trump has pledged to support AI innovation, while the newly-established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been working to streamline government processes through AI. Join our panel of experts, including Dhruva Krishna, Dr. Megan Ma, and Kevin Fraizer, for a discussion on the benefits and legal ramifications of incorporating AI into government.

The 2025 Pacific Palisades Fire has underscored the challenges of building in California’s complex regulatory landscape. In response, Governor Newsom issued an executive order suspending CEQA and Coastal Act requirements to expedite reconstruction, raising important questions about the future of development in the state. In this podcast, experts Jeremy Talcott and Donald Kochan examine California's regulatory environment before the disaster and the broader implications of its permitting processes in the effort to rebuild. Join us for an in-depth discussion on balancing efficient recovery with long-term regulatory considerations.

Since its inception, the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program has been contentiously debated. For example, several pharmaceutical manufacturers filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) challenging the program’s constitutionality. This webinar will discuss whether the Biden Administration’s implementation and interpretation of the IRA go beyond Congress’s intent or constitutional boundaries. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently issued a statement that the Trump Administration is committed to “incorporating lessons learned to date from the program and considering opportunities to bring greater transparency in the Negotiation Program. CMS intends to provide opportunities for stakeholders to provide specific ideas to improve the Negotiation Program, consistent with the goals of achieving greater value for beneficiaries and taxpayers while continuing to foster innovation.” Accordingly, this webinar discusses whether the Trump Administration may pause the program and whether Congress should repeal the program. Featuring: (Moderator) John Shu, Attorney and Legal Commentator Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow, Conumer Choice Center and Taxpayers Protection Alliance Dan Troy, Managing Director, Berkeley Research Group

On January 22, 2025, newly-elected President Trump announced a widespread project to invest $500 billion in American AI development, known as “Stargate.” A few days later, a new Chinese AI chatbot program “DeepSeek” was launched to the shock of US tech investors.What do these new developments mean for the AI dominance race? What will the changing global and trade relations signify for AI innovation and production? Join us for a discussion on these and other updates to the international AI conversation, featuring Neil Chilson from the Abundance Institute, and John Villasenor from Brookings, and moderated by Ashkhen Kazaryan from Stand Together.

Linda Chavez, Chairman for the Center for Equal Opportunity, moderates a discussion between the Heritage Foundation’s Senior Legal Fellow, GianCarlo Canaparo and Dan Morenoff, Executive Director of the American Civil Rights Project. They discuss President Trump’s orders relating to civil rights enforcement and discrimination (including discrimination touted as serving “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion,” “accessibility,” and “environmental justice,” among others).

On January 15, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, a case involving Texas H.B. 1181, which is a law that imposes an age-verification requirement for adult sexual content websites. While content filtering has been used in the past by parents to regulate their children’s access to adult websites, the rapid advancement of technology in the past 20 years has raised concerns about the success of content filtering. The age verification requirement poses a more effective alternative, but if implemented, it could have implications for privacy concerns and free speech rights. Jennifer Huddleston from the Cato Institute is joined by Clare Morell of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Bailey Sanchez of the Future of Privacy Forum, and Shoshana Weissmann of the R Street Policy Institute, to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of age verification laws, the policy implications of H.B. 1181, and the potential outcome of the Supreme Court case.

In November 2024, Spirit Airlines filed for bankruptcy after a federal judge blocked their proposed merger with JetBlue Airlines earlier that year. Far from simply impacting travel plans, however, the failed merger shows the Federal Trade Commission's recent focus on efficiency. Former FTC General Counsel Alden Abbott joins the podcast to discuss the antitrust background of the case, and whether such federal interference actually benefits consumer competition.

President-elect Trump has announced that entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will lead a new Department of Government Efficiency “to cut the federal government down to size.” In a Wall Street Journal op-ed last month, Musk and Ramaswamy promised DOGE would yield “a drastic reduction in federal regulations” that would pave the way for “mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy.” So far, however, there are questions about the specifics of how the new president would nullify thousands of regulations.Hon. Susan Dudley discusses what the future of DOGE may look like in an article for Forbes and a second piece in the Wall Street Journal. In addition, Prof. Nicholas Bagley discusses DOGE in his article for The Atlantic.Please join us on December 19 at 3 PM EST, as this panel will provide a practical overview of how DOGE might operate to reduce regulations, and the opportunities and challenges it will face.Featuring: Hon. Susan Dudley (Moderator), Founder, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington UniversityProf. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolProf. Christopher Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School

President-elect Trump has announced that entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will lead a new Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”). In a Wall Street Journal op-ed this past November, the pair explained that they have a sweeping mandate to cut the overreaching contra-constitutional federal bureaucracy “down to size” and “deliver a federal government that would make our Founders proud.” They said they will first focus on identifying executive actions that can be taken to rescind “thousands” of regulations that exceed the statutory authority of the issuing agencies. These dramatic regulatory rollbacks will support significant agency staff reductions in force and other cost-saving administrative reforms. Musk and Ramaswamy alsopromised that DOGE will cut the size and cost of government by challenging the constitutionality of the 1974 Impoundment Control Act and identifying executive actions that can be taken to materially improve the cost-effectiveness of the government’s procurement process.The panel discussion in Part One of this program, Department of Government Efficiency: Opportunities and Challenges (Part I) discussed the main challenges that DOGE will face as it attempts to fulfill its sweeping mandate within the eighteen-month time limit set for the task. These challenges include the certainty that widespread resistance to DOGE will be mounted by interests benefitting from the status quo, the complexity and length of the typically contested process required to rescind existing regulations, and the strength of the widely held conflicting belief that administrative reform efforts should be focused on improving regulation rather than simply eliminating regulation. Part II of this program will continue a discussion of the challenges that DOGE will face, and will also identify some specific executive actions that could mitigate at least some of these challenges. Featuring: Abhishek Kambli, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Kansas Attorney GeneralJ. Kennerly Davis, Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together

In this episode, Rachel Morrison from the Ethics and Public Policy Center and Gregory Baylor from Alliance Defending Freedom discuss recent court and agency decisions. These experts discuss whether “gender dysphoria” is a “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Featuring: Gregory S. Baylor, Senior Counsel & Director of the Center for Religious Schools, Alliance Defending Freedom Rachel Morrison (Moderator), Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

State Attorneys General have been active in recent years in filing lawsuits against federal agencies. From cases like West Virginia v. EPA to Biden v. Nebraska, state AG lawsuits have prevented significant overreach by federal agencies. In the past year, the Office of the Kansas Attorney General has been one of the most active in this space. Abhishek Kambli and Erin Gaide from the Kansas AG's office discuss the litigation that their office has done this past year. They have filed lawsuits in cases such as Kansas v. Biden (later retitled Alaska v. Department of Education) that challenged the $475 billion student loan forgiveness plan called "SAVE" and Kansas v. Department of Education that challenged the new Title IX regulation that expanded the definition of sex to include gender identity. Abhishek Kambli and Erin Gaide discuss these and other cases in depth to provide a window into this unique type of litigation. Featuring: Abhishek Kambli, Deputy Attorney General, Kansas Office of the Attorney General Erin Gaide, Assistant Attorney General, Kansas Office of the Attorney General

Axon and Jarkesy have renewed scrutiny of the constitutionality and fairness of FTC’s administrative litigation. For example, the President cannot remove Administrative Law Judges nor FTC Commissioners, and FTC Commissioners both vote to issue the complaint and decide its merits in proceedings. Parties before the DOJ-Antitrust Division, on the other hand, go directly before an Article III judge, and avoid administrative litigation altogether. This panel, featuring the former FTC Acting Chairman, Commission advisors, and administrative law experts, discussed these and other constitutional challenges to FTC’s administrative litigation. If the courts ultimately uphold constitutionality, is Congressional reform warranted? Should FTC’s administrative tribunal be abolished altogether? Or are internal process reforms sufficient to afford fairer process? Keith Klovers' article, "Three Options for Reforming Part 3 Administrative Litigation at the Federal Trade Commission," as referenced in the discussion.

In this episode, Randel K. Johnson and Andrew Kilberg discuss the relationship between immigration enforcement and employment policy, with a focus on the unique challenges faced by both small and large businesses in maintaining compliance. Additionally, the experts examine the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), considering potential legislative reforms to better align incentives for small businesses while preserving accountability in immigration matters.Featuring:Randel Keith Johnson, Distinguished Immigration Scholar, Cornell Law SchoolAndrew Kilberg, Partner, Gibson Dunn

In this episode, financial experts look back on recent SEC regulation, enforcement, and litigation, as well as their predictions for the next SEC leadership under a second Trump administration. C. Wallace DeWitt, Securities lawyerBrian Knight, Director of Innovation and Governance and Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center at George Mason UniversityJennifer Schulp, Director of Financial Regulation Studies, Cato Institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives

Antitrust efforts have become prevalent in the courts and legislative bodies, both in the United States and abroad. A recent example is the U.S. Department of Justice's case against Google for alleged anticompetitive behavior in its search business. Though cybersecurity and national security concerns are traditionally not included in antitrust efforts, the implications of such priorities should be carefully considered. Join a panel of leading security and antitrust experts for a discussion on recent antitrust actions, how security is directly and indirectly implicated, and considerations for the future.

J. Kennerly Davis presents an overview of electric industry regulation. Davis discusses how regulation has changed in a fundamental way over the last 140 years, and what that change has meant for electric customers large and small.

The Regulatory Transparency Project and the Federalism & Separation of Powers practice group hosted a virtual debate over the recent Supreme Court decision in SEC v. Jarkesy. The panel featured Matthew Wiener, from Penn Carey Law, and Josh Robbins, of the Pacific Legal Foundation. Michael Buschbacher, from Boyden & Gray PLLC, moderated the debate.

Tanner Jones and Jonathan Wolfson from the Cicero Institute discuss their co-authored paper titled "Restoring Legislative Authority: A Balanced Approach to Agency Deference." They explore the implications of the Chevron deference decision and the Loper Bright case. The conversation addresses the impact of these decisions on administrative law, regulation, and specifically on the states.

A panel of experts will engage in a legal discussion about the implications of using AI in rulemaking, as AI technologies inadvertently influence the process of creating and implementing regulations. The panel will also consider how rulemaking and AI influence the legal and political realms.Featuring: Speakers: Catherine Sharkey, Segal Family Professor of Regulatory Law and Policy, New York University School of LawJohn Nay, Founder & CEO, Norm AiJ. Kennerly Davis, Former Senior Attorney, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP(Moderator) Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Accountability, U.S. House of Representatives

This virtual event explored the potential trajectories of AI policy under the upcoming shift in presidential administrations. Our expert panel, featuring Ash Kazaryan, Adam Kovacevich, and Neil Chilson, examined the critical issues surrounding AI and offered insights on what policymakers need to know as they navigate rapidly evolving AI technologies. This discussion, moderated by Adam Thierer, provides a balanced range of perspectives on how future administrations can effectively approach AI governance.

A panel of distinguished legal scholars and practitioners will provide an overview of the current landscape of litigation surrounding climate disclosure regulations. Experts will discuss the legal challenges facing both the SEC's climate disclosure rule and California's SB 253 and 261. Panelists will address the legal questions raised during litigation over climate disclosure regimes, as well as the regimes' implications for corporate governance, consumers, and investors.Featuring:Victor B. Flatt, Coleman P. Burke Chair in Environmental Law, School of Law, Case Western Reserve UniversityStephen W. Hall, Legal Director and Securities Specialist, Better MarketsTrent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC[Moderator] Marc Marie, Policy Fellow, Regulatory Policy, Americans for Prosperity

In this episode, Ketan Bhirud and Luke Wake take a closer look at the role of the use of outside legal counsel by state attorneys general. Outside counsel can provide valuable expertise and resources, but what are the implications of relying on external firms for state legal matters? What are the advantages and potential pitfalls of these partnerships? How might they shape state legal practice and ultimately impact the public?

In this episode, experts GianCarlo Canaparo and Mike Gonzalez provide a legal and historical interpretation of the term "equity." This discussion, moderated by Linda Chavez, highlights how the definition of equity extends beyond civil rights protection and how the evolving definition of the term "equity" affects the legal realm. Featuring: GianCarlo Canaparo, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation Mike Gonzalez, Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum Senior Fellow, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, The Heritage Foundation (Moderator) Linda Chavez, Chairman, Center for Equal Opportunity

Regulatory experts, Rosario Palmieri and Karen Harned, discuss industry self-regulation, soft law, and voluntary standards. Thousands of products, services, and systems use voluntary, consensus standards to govern product performance and safety, worker safety, financial services, and food safety. This is a layer of self-regulation that usually lies beneath the administrative state or in parts of the economy where private markets have developed mechanisms to ensure that businesses and consumers' expectations are met in exchanges. Emerging technologies and industries are often first governed by these types of private standards by voluntary agreement. Federal agencies, when deciding to regulate, are required to first rely on industry-created voluntary consensus standards whenever possible. The discussion includes understanding the costs and benefits of relying on private, often copyrighted, standards as a source of law that is incorporated by reference into the U.S. Code and Code of Federal Regulations.

Federal regulators were busy in April 2024, with agencies publishing a record-breaking 66 significant new regulations; more than half of which had price tags higher than $200 million. This burst of regulatory activity can be attributed to a once obscure law known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA). If the November election brings Republican control of the White House and Congress, rules issued this summer or fall may be subject to review and disapproval in 2025. This panel will review how both parties have used the CRA to signal displeasure with a president’s policies and to overturn regulations. It will also explore Congress’s options under the Act. Featuring: Steven Balla, Associate Professor of Political Science, Public Policy and Public Administration, and International Affairs, George Washington University Todd F. Gaziano, President, Center for Individual Rights Anthony Papian, Staff Director at United States Senate, Subcommittee on Government Operations and Border Management Susan Dudley, Founder, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington University

Experts will examine the major questions doctrine, its role in regulatory litigation, and its place in administrative law in light of recent developments.Please register and join us for a live webinar on August 14, 2024 at 11 am EST.Featuring: Paul Ray, Director, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Heritage FoundationElliot Gaiser, Ohio Solicitor General(Moderator) Susan Dudley, Founder, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington University

Kathryn Ciano Mauler and Eric Wang join the podcast to discuss the FEC rules behind campaign funds, particularly in the transfer of said funds between candidates. Their discussion breaks down the questions surrounding the recent changes to the 2024 ballot, and how that will affect each campaign's fundraising efforts, especially in a post-Chevron legal landscape.

Alex J. Adams, Director of Idaho's Department of Health and Welfare is joined by Reeve T. Bull, Director of the Virginia Office of Regulatory Management. Director Adams and Director Bull detail the importance of regulatory reform efforts in Idaho and Virginia, respectively, and discuss the impact that regulatory reform can have on employment opportunities, business development, and the cost of living. What is zero-based regulation ("ZBR")? What did Idaho's zero-based regulation executive order do? What has been the impact of Idaho's use of incorporation of regulation into law? What is cost-benefit analysis? How did Virginia's Executive Order 19 use cost-benefit analysis for regulatory reform? Why did Virginia's Office of Regulatory Management apply cost-benefit analysis to regulations and guidance documents?