Podcasts about administrative conference

On February 19 of this year, President Donald Trump issued one of his first executive orders, Commencing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy, leaving no doubt his aim to reduce its size and scope. As DOGE got to work firing federal workers—and cutting entire agencies, the president also fired heads of agencies—Democratic and Republican—cleaning house of leadership not deemed on side. As EO whiplash continues, so does pushback, with many in the public learning about the people behind the cost-cutting and loyalty tests—the federal workers and government agencies helping to make American life run smoothly and safely. What are the legal questions?Joining this episode is Anne Joseph O'Connell, a leading scholar of U.S. administrative law and the federal bureaucracy. She was a presidentially appointed member of the Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States, an independent federal agency dedicated to improving regulatory procedures, from October 2022 to January 2025. She combines a lawyer's doctrinal acumen and institutional sensibilities with a political scientist's deep understanding of American politics and political theory and an empiricist's rigor about facts in the world. Her scholarship explains how government really works. She has done pioneering and award-winning work on previously unforeseen questions about the problem of vacancies in federal office and about the legal and normative implications of unorthodox government entities such as the U.S. Postal Service or Smithsonian.Links:Anne Joseph O'Connell  >>> Stanford Law pageActings >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00)  Introduction to Anne Joseph O'Connell's background(00:03:44) Actings in Government(00:17:04) The Importance of Government Accountability(00:19:22) The Role of Detailees in Government and The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)(00:27:24) Government Waste and Fraud

City Council Meeting & Administrative Conference 4-21-25

Administrative Conference & City Council Meeting 12-19-24

As Elon Musk continues to plot, with Trumpian glee, against the American Federal government, it is important to remind ourselves of the essential value of this state bureaucracy. As the founding president and CEO of the Washington DC based Partnership for Public Service, Max Stier has spent the last quarter century focused on making American government more efficient and accountable. And Stier's warning about the incoming administration is critically important. Yes, he acknowledges, some of Musk's misgivings about the inefficiencies of the Federal bureaucracy are fair, but that isn't an excuse for a descent into what Stier describes as the patrimonial politics of MAGA in which the interests of Trump and of the American state are treated identically. The American Republic was founded against the 18th century absolutist conceit that L'État, c'est moi. So all Max Stier is doing, at the Partnership for Public Service, is defending the values of the Founders who, wanted to protect the Republic from a patrimonial state.Max Stier is the founding president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. Under his leadership, the Partnership has been widely praised as a first-class nonprofit organization and thought leader on federal government management issues. Max has worked previously in all three branches of the federal government. In 1982, he served on the personal staff of Congressman Jim Leach. Max clerked for Chief Judge James Oakes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1992 and clerked for Justice David Souter of the United States Supreme Court in 1994. Between these two positions, Max served as Special Litigation Counsel to Assistant Attorney General Anne Bingaman at the Department of Justice. In 1995, Max joined the law firm of Williams & Connolly where he practiced primarily in the area of white collar defense. Max comes most recently from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, having served as the Deputy General Counsel for Litigation. A graduate of Yale University and Stanford Law School, Max is a member of the Inaugural Advisory Council of the National Institute of Social Sciences, the National Academy of Public Administration, the Administrative Conference of the United States and the National Advisory Board for Public Service at Harvard College.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Members of Congress get, on average, three requests per day to help them with federal bureaucratic issues. A thousand requests a year. That means nearly half a million queries hitting federal agencies every year. My next guest got an assignment from the Administrative Conference of the United States. It wanted to explore ways to improve how agencies respond to congressional casework queries. With what he found, Boston University associate professor Sean Kealy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Members of Congress get, on average, three requests per day to help them with federal bureaucratic issues. A thousand requests a year. That means nearly half a million queries hitting federal agencies every year. My next guest got an assignment from the Administrative Conference of the United States. It wanted to explore ways to improve how agencies respond to congressional casework queries. With what he found, Boston University associate professor Sean Kealy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Administrative Conference & City Council Meeting 11-22-24

City Council Meeting & Administrative Conference 11-8-24 Replay

The Supreme Court last week overturned a 40 year precedent. In a case brought by New England fisherman, the court reversed what's been know as Chevron deference. In the 1984 case, the courts said judges should generally defer to federal agencies when rules they make are reasonable, and the enabling law was ambiguous. Last week's decision reverses that thinking. For what this may mean for agency rulemaking operations, we turn to the chair of the Administrative Conference of the United States, Andy Fois. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Supreme Court last week overturned a 40 year precedent. In a case brought by New England fisherman, the court reversed what's been know as Chevron deference. In the 1984 case, the courts said judges should generally defer to federal agencies when rules they make are reasonable, and the enabling law was ambiguous. Last week's decision reverses that thinking. For what this may mean for agency rulemaking operations, we turn to the chair of the Administrative Conference of the United States, Andy Fois. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Paul D. Kamenar, Lead Counsel for the National Legal and Policy Center. He also a Senior Fellow of the Administrative Conference of the United States and guest lectured at the U.S. Naval Academy. New York Trump Trial is a ‘Sideshow'

Paul Kamenar is Lead Counsel for the National Legal and Policy Center. He is also a Senior Fellow of the Administrative Conference of the United States. DoJ stonewalling turn over of Hur-Biden Interview transcript

Ganesh Sitaraman joins us today to discuss his new book, Why Flying Is Miserable And How to Fix It. Air travel has become an increasingly frustrating experience, with countless horror stories of cancellations, delays, lost baggage, cramped seats, and poor service. For most of the 20th century flying was luxurious and fun, so it's especially baffling that air travel is plagued by these problems in the 21st century. Sitaraman delves into the reasons behind this dismal state of affairs, tracing it back to a deliberate choice made by elected leaders in the 1970s to roll back regulations, supposedly in order to increase competition and improve the experience of flying for everyone. After enduring half a century of turbulence caused by deregulation, people are fed up with the state of air travel, and Sitaraman gives us some insight into how we can begin to fix it. Ganesh Sitaraman is a law professor and the director of the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator for Political Economy and Regulation. He was previously a senior advisor to Senator Elizabeth Warren on her presidential campaign and is a member of the Administrative Conference of the United States and the FAA's Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee. Sitaraman is the author of several influential books, including "The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution," "The Public Option: How to Expand Freedom, Increase Opportunity, and Promote Equality," and his most recent book, “Why Flying Is Miserable And How to Fix It.” Twitter: @GaneshSitaraman Why Flying Is Miserable And How to Fix It https://bookshop.org/a/101360/9798987053584  Book Website https://globalreports.columbia.edu/books/why-flying-is-miserable/ More from Ganesh Sitaraman:  The Atlantic - Airlines Are Just Banks Now https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/airlines-banks-mileage-programs/675374/ The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution https://bookshop.org/a/101360/9781101973455 Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Twitter: @PitchforkEcon Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Nick's twitter: @NickHanauer

Federal employees, who make rules on behalf of their agencies, are wondering if the Supreme Court will change the ground rules. InLoper Bright Enterprises versus Raimondo, herring fishermen suing the Commerce Department basically said that Congress lets agencies go way too far. For some perspective, Federal Drive Host Tom Temin spoke with the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States, Andrew Fois. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Federal employees, who make rules on behalf of their agencies, are wondering if the Supreme Court will change the ground rules. In Loper Bright Enterprises versus Raimondo, herring fishermen suing the Commerce Department basically said that Congress lets agencies go way too far. For some perspective, Federal Drive Host Tom Temin spoke with the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States, Andrew Fois. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode features two of the Tibetan settlement officers who attended the 15th Administrative Conference of the Tibetan Settlement Officers organised by the Department of Home, Central Tibetan Administration. The officers are Mr. Dhondup Tashi, Chief Representative Officer of Ladakh Tibetan settlement and Miss Kunchok Lhamo of Bir Tibetan Settlement. The officers talks about the important agendas from the conference and current challenges at hand at their settlement.

The current conservative super-majority on the U.S. Supreme Court has a chance to reshape American law in a dramatic way. One such way is in the realm of administrative law, as members of this conservative majority have sought to restrain the powers of federal bureaucratic agencies, as in the 2022 case of West Virginia vs. EPA. Similar future decisions could profoundly affect federal policy implementation and law enforcement, possibly shifting powers to state and local governments.Meet The Speakers Ilaria Di Gioia is Senior Lecturer in American Law and Associate Director of the Centre for American Legal Studies at Birmingham City School of Law. Her research focuses on questions of law and policy within the U.S. federalist structure. She is the editor of the British Journal of American Legal Studies, as well as the Inaugural Philip Davies Fellow of the Eccles Centre for American Studies at the British Library. Finally, she also serves as Honorary Vice Consul for Italy in Birmingham, representing the Italian government as well as over 10,000 Italians in the British Midlands. James Tierney was the attorney general of Maine from 1980 to 1990. He currently is a lecturer at Harvard Law School where he teaches classes on state attorneys general and has directed the attorney general clinic. Before coming to Harvard, Professor Tierney was the Director of the National State Attorneys General Program at Columbia Law School. Since his time as Maine AG, Professor Tierney has also consulted with serving state attorneys general and the National Association of Attorneys General. In this role, he worked with then-AGs in negotiating the tobacco settlement of the 1990s. https://www.stateag.org   Rachel Augustine Potter is an Associate Professor in the Department of Politics at the University of Virginia. She has published extensively on bureaucratic politics and she published her award-winning book, Bending the Rules: Procedural Politicking in the Bureaucracy, in 2019. Professor Potter also contributes to the Brookings Institution Centre on Regulation and Markets and has served as a consultant to the Administrative Conference of the United States. Chaired by: Dr. Colin Provost, UCL Department of Political Science

On February 15, 2023, Social Science Matrix was honored to host Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, for a Matrix Distinguished Lecture entitled "Reimagining Global Integration." Abstract Whether they live in vast cities or rural villages, people in virtually every corner of the world have experienced enormous growth in cross-border economic, political, and social connections since World War II. This latest chapter in the story of transnational activity has coincided with enormous changes in the well-being of billions of people. As China gained access to global markets and its share of worldwide trade increased eight-fold in a single generation, for example, the percentage of its population living in extreme poverty plunged from 72 percent in 1990 to 14 percent in 2010. Global life expectancy has risen from less than 47 years in 1950 to 71 years in 2021, and the male-female gap in primary and secondary schooling globally has almost disappeared. But increased cross-border trade, migration, flows of information, and political ties have also engendered an intense backlash to “globalization” and related concepts. Today, at a time of major geopolitical upheaval and technological change, policymakers and the public are vigorously debating the merits of domestic policies suitable for an interconnected world. They are exploring new trade and migration rules, reviving strategies for national industrial and technological development, and reflecting on the lessons of 1990s-style globalization for international law and institutions substantially influenced by the United States. Discussions of “reshoring” supply chains and United States-China economic “decoupling” are just two examples of rising concerns in Washington about cross-border ties. Yet global cooperation remains vital to solving many of humanity's most urgent challenges: mitigating and adapting to climate change, harnessing technology for the benefit of humanity while taming its risks, reducing poverty, and preventing violent conflict. By better understanding the long-simmering conflicts over global cooperation and integration, policymakers and civil society can further develop the ideas, institutions, and coalitions necessary to create a stable foundation for a more reflective version of global integration: one that addresses the connections between economic well-being and security, and better aligns domestic realities with international norms to tackle the pressing issues of our time. About the Speaker A former justice of the Supreme Court of California, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar served two U.S. presidents at the White House and in federal agencies, and was a faculty member at Stanford University for two decades. Before serving on California's highest court, Justice Cuéllar was the Stanley Morrison Professor of Law, Professor (by courtesy) of Political Science, and director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford. In this capacity, he oversaw programs on international security, governance and development, global health, cyber policy, migration, and climate change and food security. Previously, he co-directed the Institute's Center for International Security and Cooperation and led its Honors Program in International Security. While serving in the Obama White House as the president's special assistant for justice and regulatory policy, he led the Domestic Policy Council teams responsible for civil and criminal justice reform, public health, immigration, transnational regulatory issues, and supporting the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. He then co-chaired the U.S. Department of Education's Equity and Excellence Commission, and was a presidential appointee to the Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States. As a California Supreme Court justice, he oversaw reforms of the California court system's operations to better meet the needs of millions of limited-English speakers. A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cuéllar is the author of Governing Security: The Hidden Origins of American Security Agencies (2013) and has published widely on American institutions, international affairs, and technology's impact on law and government. Cuéllar co-authored the first ever report on the use of artificial intelligence across federal agencies. He has served on the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Social and Ethical Implications of Computing Research and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences Commission on Accelerating Climate Action. He chairs the board of the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation and is a member of the Harvard Corporation. He currently serves on the U.S. Department of State's Foreign Affairs Policy Board. Earlier, he chaired the boards of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and the Stanford Institute for Innovation in Developing Economies, and co-chaired the Obama Biden Presidential Transition Task Force on Immigration. Born in Matamoros, Mexico, he grew up primarily in communities along the U.S.-Mexico border. He graduated from Harvard College and Yale Law School, and received a Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University. He began his career at the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

A federal attorney steeped in administrative law now has a chance to influence it. He's general counsel at AmericCorps. He has also spent years developing and teaching courses on administrative law and government oversight. Now he's just been appointed a member of the council of the Administrative Conference of the United States. Federal Drive host Tom Temin spoke with Fernando Laguarda.

President Biden recently appointed four new members to the 10-member Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States. The Council is not an agency widely known to the public. For an update, Federal Drive host Tom Temin spoke with Chairman Andrew Fois.

Major regulatory changes and new rules -- which one agency or another deal with almost daily -- require that affected parties be notified. But a notice in the Federal Register is not enough, and agencies need to do more or they risk losing in court. That's according to a recently completed analysis done on behalf of the Administrative Conference of the United States. To find out the details, Federal Drive host Tom Temin spoke with study co-authors E. Donald Elliot, a professor at Yale Law School and Josh Galperin, a law professor at Pace University.

The topic of this episode is, “What role should Congress have in foreign affairs?” My guest is Alissa Ardito, the author of the book Machiavelli and the Modern State: The Prince, the Discourses on Livy, and the Extended Territorial Republic (Cambridge University Press, 2015). She has had a rich and varied career in governance, and she has thought deeply about legislatures and policymaking. Dr. Ardito has served as a general counsel at the Congressional Budget Office, and as an attorney advisor with the Administrative Conference of the United States. She received a Ph.D. in political science from Yale University, a J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law, and a B.A. from the University of Virginia—all of which makes her wise in the ways of statecraft. Kevin Kosar: Welcome to Understanding Congress, a podcast about the first branch of government. Congress is a notoriously complex institution, and few Americans think well of it, but Congress is essential to our republic. It's a place where our pluralistic society is supposed to work out its differences and come to agreement about what our laws should be. And that is why we are here: to discuss our national legislature and to think about ways to upgrade it so it can better serve our nation. I'm your host, Kevin Kosar, and I'm a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank in Washington, DC. Welcome to the podcast. Alissa Ardito: Thank you, Kevin. It's great to be here. Kevin Kosar: Let's start our inquiry with the Constitution, the foundation for our system of national self-governance. What constitutional powers does Congress have over foreign affairs? Alissa Ardito: Well, actually, if you look at the text of the Constitution, Congress has quite a lot of power over foreign affairs. The issue is that they are littered in various different parts of Section 8 and Section 10 of Article 1. I'll just mention a few. Actually, the first is Clause 1 of Section [8], tax and spend—the “Power To lay and collect Taxes…pay the Debts, and provide for the common Defence.” Congress also has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; establish uniform rule of naturalization; define and punish piracies on the high seas; the great war power of Section 8, Clause 11, “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” And then it even moves in, arguably, to everything about raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, regulate and call forth the militia. And then you get into—I think [it's] fascinating—I would argue that Section 9, Clause 7, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,” also constitutes a foreign affairs power. Then you get into all the limitations in Section 10 on states. The real concern was at the time of the Framing that they were exercising foreign relations independently. And then you can even move into Article 2 and the powers in the Senate, the treaty power and advise and consent on nominations as well. So, taken together, that's actually a pretty robust set of powers. Kevin Kosar: Yes, and these powers were, as you alluded to, scraped away from executive authority and scraped away from state authority and centered in the first branch: Congress. Now, Congress's authorities, we should probably also mention, go beyond those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Obviously there are a whole number of statutes that assign powers to Congress over foreign affairs, such as the War Powers Resolution, but additional legislative powers exist beyond that. For example, senators and members of the House can use their positions to raise the salience of issues, such as when Congress allows leaders of foreign nations to address it, or when legislators engage in legislative diplomacy and make trips abroad to meet with heads of state. There seems to be so much that Congress can do in foreign affairs. Is that right?...

The Administrative Conference of the United States is concerned with how federal agencies carry out laws. Now it's launched a study to examine the laws governing disclosure of agency legal activities, and whether there's a way to streamline legal disclosure. It's an effort that potentially affects every agency. For more, the Federal Drive turned to one of the study group members, Ohio State University law professor Margaret Kwoka.

Federal contractors, like companies throughout the economy, must live under the regulatory regimes established by federal agencies. But what about the use of contractors in the act of rulemaking itself. An activity you might have thought was inherently governmental. Not so fast. A study done for the Administrative Conference of the United States shows how much agencies do use contractors for this purpose. The Federal Drive got more now from study co-author and University of Virginia professor Rachel Augustine Potter.

Presidents make sure their and their party's policies are carried out in large measure by whom they appoint. Each time, though, it seems like the confirmation process goes slower and slower. For a look at how things stand now for the Biden administration, the Federal Drive with Tom Temin turned to someone who counts these things. Anne Joseph O'Connell is a Stanford Law School professor and a public member of the Administrative Conference of the United States.

Adam White is the Co-Executive Director of the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. Adam is also a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a Public Member of the Administrative Conference of the United States. Adam has served on the Leadership Councils for the Administrative Law Sections of both the ABA and the Federalist Society. After clerking for Judge David B. Sentelle of the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, Adam practiced constitutional and regulatory law in Washington with special focus on energy infrastructure regulation, financial regulation, administrative law, and constitutional separation of powers.

This year marks the 75th Anniversary of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This “super statute” governs the way administrative agencies develop and issue regulations and allows for oversight of agency actions by federal courts. On FEDtalk this week, our guests take a brief look at the history of the APA and how the law has evolved over the last 75 years. Finally, the group discusses modern issues in administrative law and how these challenges impact the civil service. Co-hosts Natalia Castro and Chris Keeven of Shaw Bransford & Roth are joined by Adam White and Paul Verkuil. Adam is a co-executive director of the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School. He is also a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Paul is a senior fellow and former president of the Administrative Conference of the United States. He is also President Emeritus of the College of William and Mary. The show airs live on Friday, August 6th, 2021 at 11:00 am ET on Federal News Network. You can stream the show online anytime via the Federal News Network app and listen to the FEDtalk podcast on PodcastOne and Apple Podcasts. FEDtalk is a live talk show produced by Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C., a federal employment law firm. Bringing you the insider's perspective from leaders in the federal community since 1993. FEDtalk is sponsored by the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP). The FLTCIP is sponsored by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, insured by John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company, under a group long term care insurance policy, and administered by Long Term Care Partners, LLC (doing business as FedPoint).

Former Trump Appointee Sues Biden Administration Mark discusses the complaint just filed in Severino v. Biden over the firing of Trump appointees to the Administrative Conference. Former U.S. Department of Health and Human Services official Roger Severino sued President Joe Biden in D.C. federal court late Wednesday over the Biden administration's efforts to fire him from the Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States following former President Donald Trump's eleventh-hour appointment.   Axon Faces 9th Circ. Loss Later in the episode, John discusses January's Ninth Circuit decision in Axon v. FTC Axon began its lawsuit in the U.S. Federal District Court of Arizona by challenging the constitutionality of the FTC's adjudicative process in which NCLA filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Axon Enterprise Inc. NCLA's brief solely addresses the “Tentative Ruling” issued by the Court, which concluded that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to evaluate a facial challenge brought under the U.S. Constitution. The district court sided with the FTC, so Axon appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On January 28, 2021, the court came to a split 2-1 panel decision to affirm the dismissal, requiring Axon to fight the FTC on its home court—the administrative procedures prescribed by statute, irrespective of its prospective constitutional claims. Read more: https://nclalegal.org/2021/02/axon-suffers-a-defeat-in-the-9th-circuit-but-both-majority-and-dissent-see-the-problem/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today's episode of The Marketplace of Ideas brings you a conversation between two of the leading minds in the academy on cost-benefit analysis. Caroline Cecot is an Assistant Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. She teaches administrative law, environmental law, and torts. Professor Cecot has published widely in leading journals, and is a co-author of the casebook Environmental Law and Policy, 4th Ed. (Foundation Press, 2019). Prior to joining the faculty, Professor Cecot was a Postdoctoral Research Scholar in Law and Economics at Vanderbilt Law School and clerked for the Honorable Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She was also a Legal Fellow at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. Professor Cecot is an affiliated scholar at the Atlantic Council, the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, the Institute for Policy Integrity, and the Technology Policy Institute. She also regularly serves as an instructor in Law & Economics Center educational programming. She currently serves on the US Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board's Economic Guidelines Review Panel. Professor Cecot earned an AB degree, magna cum laude, in economics from Harvard College, a JD from Vanderbilt Law School, and a PhD in law and economics from Vanderbilt University. During her graduate studies, she received the Robert F. Jackson Prize and the Archie B. Martin Memorial Prize for her grades; and she was elected to Order of the Coif. Click here to read Professor Cecot's recent article, and the focal point for today's episode, on “Deregulatory Cost-Benefit Analysis and Regulatory Stability.”   Michael A. Livermore is the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He teaches environmental law, administrative law, regulatory law and policy, and advanced seminars on these topics. Professor Livermore is a leading expert on the use of cost-benefit analysis to evaluate regulation, and has published widely in leading journals. He is the co-author of Reviving Rationality: Saving Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Sake of the Environment and Our Health (Oxford University Press, 2020) and Retaking Rationality: How Cost-Benefit Analysis Can Better Protect the Environment and Our Health (Oxford University Press, 2008).  He is also the co-editor of The Globalization of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental Policy (Oxford University Press, 2013). Prior to joining the faculty, Livermore was the founding executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law. Livermore earned his JD magna cum laude from NYU Law, where he was a Furman Scholar, was elected to the Order of the Coif, and served as a managing editor of the Law Review. After law school, he spent a year as a fellow at NYU Law's Center on Environmental and Land Use Law before clerking for Judge Harry T. Edwards on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Professor Livermore is also Professor Livermore is a public member of the Administrative Conference of the United States. Click here to read Professor Livermore's new book with Richard L. Revesz on “Reviving Rationality: Saving Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Sake of the Environment and Our Health.”   Links Caroline Cecot, Deregulatory Cost-Benefit Analysis and Regulatory Stability, 68 Duke L.J. 1593 (2019), https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol68/iss8/2 Michael A. Livermore and Richard L. Revesz, Reviving Rationality: Saving Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Sake of the Environment and Our Health, Oxford University Press (2020), https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780197539446.001.0001/oso-9780197539446

When the FCC put forward its proposed repeal of the net neutrality rule, it received 22 million public comments, by far the largest number any agency has ever received in connection with a rulemaking. The overwhelming public reaction was probably a bit surprising to agency staff, regulatory lawyers, lobbyists, and others who work in the wonky world of regulatory policymaking, where getting a hundred or so comments is perceived as a very robust response rate. And the rule vaulted agency rulemaking into the public consciousness in a way that very seldom happens, with TV host John Oliver and others encouraging everyday Americans to file comments on the proposed rule.Though the increased public awareness of the power of regulatory agencies is undoubtedly a good thing, what exactly is an agency supposed to do with 22 million public comments? Even discounting for fraudulent or computer-generated comments (of which the agency received millions), does the agency have any obligation to consider whether or not members of the public approve of its proposed action? Should it? And if it should, is counting comments an effective way of determining public sentiment? The law provides very few clear answers to these questions, and there’s a major disconnect between the views of the public (who tend to see the public comment process as a vote) and regulators (who view comments as valuable only if they provide technical information). This panel considers both the legal and policy issues surrounding the question of whether, and how, an agency should take account of public opinion as expressed in comments.Featuring:- Steven Balla, Associate Professor of Political Science, Public Policy and Public Administration, and International Affairs, George Washington University- Reeve Bull, Research Director, Administrative Conference of the United States- Michael Livermore, Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law, University of Virginia- [Moderator] Susan Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington UniversityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.Any views expressed by the speakers are those of the speakers in their personal capacities. They do not necessarily reflect the positions of their affiliated organizations. In Mr. Bull’s case, he is speaking exclusively in his personal capacity and not as an employee of the Administrative Conference.

Speakers:Brian Klaas is a political scientist at UCL and a weekly columnist for the Washington Post. He has written three books: The Despot's Accomplice (Oxford University Press), The Despot's Apprentice (Hurst & Co), and How to Rig an Election (Yale University Press). His research focuses on democracy, authoritarianism, Trumpism, the nature of power, political violence, and US foreign policy. Before becoming an academic, he co-managed a winning campaign for Governor in his home state of Minnesota.Anne Joseph O'Connell is the Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law at Stanford Law School. She is a lawyer and political scientist whose research and teaching focuses on administrative law and the federal bureaucracy. Outside of the Stanford Law School, she is a contributor to the Center on Regulation and Markets at the Brookings Institution and an appointed senior fellow of the Administrative Conference of the United States, an independent federal agency dedicated to improving regulatory procedures. She is an elected fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Public Administration, and an elected member of the American Law Institute.Colin Provost is Associate Professor of Public Policy and Director of the MSc in Public Policy at UCL. His research focuses primarily on the design and enforcement of regulatory policy in the United States; much of his research has examined how the behaviour of elected prosecutors (state attorneys general) affects the enforcement of state and federal law and how this in turn affects business regulatory compliance. His research has been published in Governance, Journal of Public Policy, Law and Policy, Political Research Quarterly, Political Psychology, Publius: the Journal of Federalism, Regulation and Governance, State Politics and Policy Quarterly and Review of Policy Research.Sherrill Stroschein is a Reader in the Department of Political Science at UCL. Her research examines the politics of ethnicity in democratic and democratising states, especially democratic processes in states with mixed ethnic or religious populations. She has published articles in Perspectives on Politics, Party Politics, Nations and Nationalism, Political Science Quarterly, Europe-Asia Studies, and Ethnopolitics, as well as other journals. Her current project is funded by the ISRF, on local politics in ethnic enclaves.Moderator: Adam Smith, Director of Oxford's Rothermere American Institute (RAI)

This is a recording of the 2020 Annual John Gedid Lecture Series: The President and the Rise of Partisan Administration of the Law hosted by Widener University Commonwealth Law School, Law and Government Institute. This lecture series honors John Gedid, one of the founders of Widener Law Commonwealth, the school’s first vice-dean and the founder of Widener’s Law and Government Institute. Professor Gedid has served as a wonderful mentor to every faculty member the school has hired. The series showcases the work of nationally recognized young scholars much the same way Professor Gedid has fostered, encouraged, and applauded the work of those who joined the school he helped to found. Speaker Kevin M. Stack is Lee S. & Charles A. Speir Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School. He writes and teaches in the areas of administrative law, separation of powers, and statutory interpretation. In 2019, he was appointed as a Public Member of the Administrative Conference of the United States.  In 2013, he received the American Bar Association’s Annual Scholarship Award in 2013. He is co-author (with Lisa S. Bressman and Edward L. Rubin) of The Regulatory State, a casebook on statutes and administrative lawmaking. He served as law clerk for the Honorable Kimba N. Wood (S.D.N.Y) and the Honorable A. Wallace Tashima (Ninth Circuit). Before his J.D at Yale Law School, he earned a master’s degree in philosophy at Oxford University, supported by a Fulbright Scholarship, and a B.A. from Brown University. Widener University Commonwealth Law School is the Pennsylvania capital’s only law school, with three specialized centers of legal scholarship through its Law & Government Institute, Environmental Law and Sustainability Center, and Business Advising Program. Widener Law Commonwealth offers an exceptional learning experience that is personal, practical, and professional. Visit commonwealthlaw.widener.edu for more information. Follow the Law and Government Institute on Twitter @WidenerLG.     Music Credit: LeChuckz

As the federal government embarks on a project to modernize electronic rulemaking, agencies are looking for effective ways to deal with mass comments, some agencies have been hit with millions of nearly identical ones. And with fake comments, coming from aliases or even from outside of the United States. As part of our Federal Drive series on rulemaking modernization, we review some of the basics of notice-and-comment with the director of research at the Administrative Conference of the United States, Reeve Bull.

The Federal Vacancies Reform Act — the law that determines who can serve as an acting political appointee, and for how long — has been put through its paces over the last two-and-a-half years. The number of vacancies in Senate-confirmed positions, the length of those vacancies, and the circumstances surrounding them have raised questions the framers of the law apparently didn't envision when Congress passed it in 1998. So, according to our next guest, Anne Joseph O'Connell, now's a good time for lawmakers to revisit the act. O'Connell is a lawyer and professor at Stanford University. She's also the primary consultant on a project for the Administrative Conference of the United States on acting officials and delegated authority. Hear her take on Federal Drive with Tom Temin.

The Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project working group on agency enforcement and coercion released a report on July 5, 2017, which detailed numerous instances of potential coercive behavior by agencies. Additionally, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) sponsored a study in 2017 of agency guidance—advisories, interpretive letters, enforcement manuals, fact sheets, FAQs, etc. The ACUS study drew on interviews with 135 individuals across agencies, industries, and NGOs, finding that regulated parties often (though not always) have no practical choice but to follow informal agency guidance even when it is not mandatory. The ACUS report concluded that certain structural features of modern regulation—while not dismissing the concern of intentional or deliberate abuse—impose a strong incentive on regulated parties to figure out what an agency wants, even beyond the limits of its legal authority, and to do just that, regardless of the format in which agency wants are expressed. Can agency coercion be reduced or eliminated without reducing needed discretion in the agency?Hon. C. Boyden Gray, Founding Partner, Boyden Gray & AssociatesProf. Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law SchoolProf. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence; Co-Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of LawProf. Nicholas Parrillo, Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolModerator: Hon. David Stras, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Did you know that you have a say in the U.S. government’s regulatory process?The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that most regulations promulgated by administrative agencies go through a process called “notice and comment rulemaking.” Stripped to its basics, that means that the agency must give notice of a proposed rulemaking and then give the public a chance to comment. The law allows ordinary citizens, as much as sophisticated interest groups, opportunities to participate in, and have opinions heard on, the development of regulations. In a recent article (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3006157), Professor Donald Kochan calls this the underappreciated “commenting power.” The duty for agencies to consider and respond to significant comments is what makes commenting so powerful. In addition to Professor Kochan's article, Argive — a Silicon Valley non-profit that seeks to make regulatory processes more accountable and accessible to all — recently issued a report (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/586bee97c534a5731df8f6c4/t/5942c4c0be6594acc08fa2a5/1497547972474/Argive+Improving+Regulations.gov-2.pdf) on what they perceived as deficiencies in and suggested solutions for the actual commenting system.In this live podcast, Professor Kochan will explain the commenting process, the scope of agencies duties to respond to comments, and why it is important to comment whether you support or oppose a rule. The podcast will also discuss some recent and older examples of cases where agency’s failure to take comments seriously has invalidated or jeopardized rulemaking efforts. Maleka Momand, co-author of the Argive report and former President of Argive, will cover the points raised and solutions suggested in the report. Both speakers may also comment on a new Administrative Conference of the U.S. project studying public engagement in rulemaking (https://www.acus.gov/research-projects/public-engagement-rulemaking).Featuring:- Donald J. Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law- Maleka Momand, Co-Founder and CEO, Esper, Former-President, ArgiveVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Did you know that you have a say in the U.S. government’s regulatory process?The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that most regulations promulgated by administrative agencies go through a process called “notice and comment rulemaking.” Stripped to its basics, that means that the agency must give notice of a proposed rulemaking and then give the public a chance to comment. The law allows ordinary citizens, as much as sophisticated interest groups, opportunities to participate in, and have opinions heard on, the development of regulations. In a recent article (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3006157), Professor Donald Kochan calls this the underappreciated “commenting power.” The duty for agencies to consider and respond to significant comments is what makes commenting so powerful. In addition to Professor Kochan's article, Argive — a Silicon Valley non-profit that seeks to make regulatory processes more accountable and accessible to all — recently issued a report (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/586bee97c534a5731df8f6c4/t/5942c4c0be6594acc08fa2a5/1497547972474/Argive+Improving+Regulations.gov-2.pdf) on what they perceived as deficiencies in and suggested solutions for the actual commenting system.In this live podcast, Professor Kochan will explain the commenting process, the scope of agencies duties to respond to comments, and why it is important to comment whether you support or oppose a rule. The podcast will also discuss some recent and older examples of cases where agency’s failure to take comments seriously has invalidated or jeopardized rulemaking efforts. Maleka Momand, co-author of the Argive report and former President of Argive, will cover the points raised and solutions suggested in the report. Both speakers may also comment on a new Administrative Conference of the U.S. project studying public engagement in rulemaking (https://www.acus.gov/research-projects/public-engagement-rulemaking).Featuring:- Donald J. Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law- Maleka Momand, Co-Founder and CEO, Esper, Former-President, ArgiveVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The Future of the Administrative State is a weekly podcast, hosted by RealClearPolicy editor Tony Mills, that explores the virtues and vices of administrative power in the era of Trump. In this third episode, Tony talks with Paul Verkuil, former chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States (2010–2015) and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. His most recent book, Valuing Bureaucracy: The Case for Professional Government, makes a positive case for the administrative state. Their discussion touches on prospects for bureaucratic reform as well as the constitutional and practical implications of federal agencies’ increasing reliance on private-sector contractors.

Farha v. United States, currently pending on a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, is a case study raising basic notions of due process, fair notice, the rule of lenity, mens rea, and whether administrative and civil remedies would be more appropriate. What began as a highly publicized raid by some 200 FBI agents on a Florida health care company over an accounting dispute ended in the indictment, conviction, and prison sentences for the Wellcare executives for fraud. -- On appeal, where the case was captioned Clay v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the convictions over the objections of the defendants that the jury instruction impermissibly allowed the jury to convict if the defendants were “deliberately indifferent” to the law’s requirement as opposed to finding a “knowing” violation as the statute requires. The Supreme Court in 2011, in Global-Tech Appliances, a civil case involving patent infringement, held that "knowledge" cannot include "deliberate indifference" to show sufficient mens rea to establish infringement. Accordingly, the cert petition, filed by Seth Waxman of WilmerHale, seeks to have the Court rule that the jury instructions should require a higher mens rea standard, all the more so in a criminal case. -- This case is particularly important for all regulated industries, where there are numerous laws and complex regulations governing conduct subject to administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement. -- Featuring: Paul Kamenar, Washington, D.C. Public Policy Attorney and Senior Fellow, Administrative Conference of the U.S. and Jeff Lamken, Partner, MoloLamken. Moderator: John G. Malcolm, Director and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation.

Over the years, and especially recently, it appears as though members of Congress primarily need to avoid offending constituents if they wish to stay in office. There are few rewards for genuine political leadership or the hard-nosed political deals that are oftentimes crucial to good governance. “Passing the buck" to the Executive branch, usually in the form of the Administrative State or even to the Judiciary seems less effective but more prudent. Are the incentives for members of Congress deleterious to its overall function? Is it possible to effectively change them? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Saturday, November 14, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Howard L. Berman, Former U.S. Representative, California’s 28th Congressional District, Senior Advisor, Covington & Burling LLP; Prof. James W. Ceaser, Professor of Politics, University of Virginia; Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law; Prof. Frances E. Lee, Professor, University of Maryland; Prof. Richard H. Pildes, Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law, New York University School of Law; and Mr. Matthew L. Wiener, Executive Director, Administrative Conference of the United States. Moderator: Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

Back in June of 2012, the Administrative Conference of the United States approved non-binding "Midnight Rules" guidelines. Midnight rulemaking involves the pushing through of rules by a President, in the last few months of their administration. Host David Yas, a BU Law alum, former publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly and a V.P. at Bernstein Global Wealth, chats with consultant for the Administrative Conference of the United States, Professor Jack M. Beermann, about Midnight Regulations, the new recommendations and the potential impact on current and future administrations.