Podcasts about administrative conference

Tardive dyskinesia (TD) is often misunderstood, misdiagnosed, or simply ignored — leaving many people feeling isolated, frustrated, and afraid to speak up. In this episode, we share the deeply personal story of Sherland Peterson, a woman living with tardive dyskinesia, while exploring the physical, emotional, and social impact of this complex movement disorder. Whether you are living with TD yourself, caring for someone who is, or simply trying to better understand the realities of long-term mental health treatment, this episode offers insight, validation, and practical understanding. Our guest discusses what it was like to first notice the symptoms, the challenges of getting answers, and how TD affected confidence, relationships, communication, and daily life. Listeners will learn: the emotional toll of living with visible involuntary movements  how psychiatric medication side effects can create complicated treatment decisions  what caregivers and loved ones should know about supporting someone  how stigma and shame can prevent people from seeking help  If you've ever wondered what TD actually feels like beyond the clinical definition — or if you're searching for hope, support, and real-world perspective — this episode delivers an authentic and compassionate look at life with TD.We would like to thank Teva Pharmaceuticals for providing educational support for this episode. “In my case, my mouth was so affected by TD (tardive dyskinesia), my jaw would quiver, my speech would be slurred.” ~Sherland Peterson Our guest, Sherland Peterson, is a vocal advocate for mental health awareness and has appeared in numerous podcasts, TV, and radio interviews in which she shares her mental health journey. Ms. Peterson attended Hunter College and City College of NYC. She has taught English at LaGuardia Community College, City College of NYC, and DeVry Institute in NYC. She has also served as a Schedule C in the Obama administration's Administrative Conference of the US. Our host, Gabe Howard, is an award-winning writer and speaker who lives with bipolar disorder. He is the author of the popular book, "Mental Illness is an Asshole and other Observations," available from Amazon; signed copies are also available directly from the author. Gabe is also the host of the "Inside Bipolar" podcast with Dr. Nicole Washington. Gabe makes his home in the suburbs of Columbus, Ohio. He lives with his supportive wife, Kendall, and a Miniature Schnauzer dog that he never wanted, but now can't imagine life without. To book Gabe for your next event or learn more about him, please visit gabehoward.com.

On the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it's worth asking: What was the American Revolution actually about? We all remember the broad strokes we learned in school: Independence from the British crown. Taxes on tea. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But on a deeper level, the American Revolution was—and is—a revolution in political theory, reimagining what a legitimate government is and what its relationship to its citizens should be. Washington's troops won the ground war 245 years ago at Yorktown, but the ideological battle continues against forces on both the left and the right who are pursuing a ruthless assault on America's core values. The American Revolution isn't over. Inscribed inside the dome of the Jefferson Memorial are the words: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson wrote that in an 1800 letter, but that feeling of hostility toward the tyranny of a distant monarch is what drove him and his fellow revolutionaries in 1776. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch summarized the Declaration's core ideas in an interview with Reason: "The Declaration of Independence had three great ideas in it. That all of us are equal. That each of us has inalienable rights given to us by God, not government. And that we have the right to rule ourselves." That's why Jefferson declared that a legitimate government requires the "consent of the governed." Thomas Paine put it more scathingly in his 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, writing that "government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens." Monarchy was the Devil's most effective and enduring form of "idolatry." We don't fret over tyrannical kings in today's America. Only ceremonial vestiges of hereditary monarchy remain in the modern world. The Revolution achieved a complete victory in that sense. Yet a counterrevolution is underway, one that views the American Revolution and the republic it birthed as a failed liberal regime that has outlived its usefulness. And these counterrevolutionaries sit remarkably close to the levers of power. Self-Rule Under Threat Three years before he became vice president, J.D. Vance told podcaster Jack Murphy that America had reached a point of no return. "We are in the late republican period," he said. "If we're going to push back against it we have to get pretty wild and pretty far out there and go in directions that a lot of conservatives right now are uncomfortable with. Indeed, among some of my circle the phrase 'extra-constitutional' has come up quite a bit." Vance regularly cites and associates with a group of so-called "postliberals." He appeared on a panel with one of this movement's leading intellectuals, Patrick Deneen, a Notre Dame political science professor and the author of Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future, in 2023. Deneen believes there is an unbridgeable divide between the "elite" and "ordinary" people. "What is needed," he writes in the book, "in short, is regime change—the peaceful but vigorous overthrow of a corrupt and corrupting liberal ruling class," which will be replaced by a more virtuous one. He envisions the kind of aristocratic government favored by the ancients like Plato and Aristotle, endorsing "aristopopulism," where an elite class works to further the interests of the masses. "The replacement of the current elites in our society ought to be more closely aligned to the interests of ordinary people," Deneen said at the panel. He invokes a "premodern conception of liberty—expressed in the pages of Plato, Aristotle, the Bible," where institutions like the family, the church, and the state worked together to impose "guardrails" protecting individuals from becoming "slaves" to their own desires. My colleague Stephanie Slade writes about the postliberal right for Reason magazine. "He says people like [himself] should just be in charge of our government. That's what he means by regime change," Slade says. "[That] we should replace the current elites." She notes that postliberals are willing to frame the entire American Founding as a mistake: "They might say, yeah, America did have a liberal founding and that's why it was a mistake. Actually, this whole experiment was a mistake, and it maybe took a couple hundred years for that mistake to play out….We now can see that it doesn't lead to good conservative outcomes." In his book Common Good Constitutionalism, Adrian Vermeule, a postliberal Harvard Law professor and appointee to President Donald Trump's Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States, wrote that "the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to 'protect liberty' as an end in itself." That's a rejection of the spirit of 1776. Paine saw the existence of government as a necessary evil because of "the inability of moral virtue to govern the world." A minimal state, in his view, should be restricted to supplying "freedom and security." As Gorsuch put it in the same Reason interview: "If you think of the Declaration as kind of our mission statement, our ideals, and the Constitution is the how-to manual—well, the Constitution is all about dividing power. Madison realized men are not angels and that their aspirations for power need to be checked and checked and checked again." The "regime change" Deneen and Vermeule call for isn't explicitly violent. Deneen describes "Machiavellian means to achieve Aristotelian ends." The strategy manifests as a steady expansion of presidential authority, as we've seen under Donald Trump's second term: the 143 executive orders he signed in just his first 100 days, more than any other president in history; his decision to send troops to American cities without permission from local authorities; his declaring of 21 national emergencies while in office; and his decision to send illegal immigrants to overseas prisons in defiance of the judicial branch. Incidentally, one of the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence was King George III's penchant for shipping the accused "beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses." Before he became vice president, Vance encouraged Trump to emulate Andrew Jackson and dare the Supreme Court to try enforcing its rulings against him. "If I was giving him one piece of advice," Vance said, "fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people, and when the courts—because you will get taken to court—and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, 'The chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.'" "That's a really dangerous idea to be even casually trotting out there, let alone for somebody who is now the sitting vice president to be on the record," Slade says. "He said it a number of years ago when he was just a candidate for office, but I've never seen anything from him since he's been in office that makes me think that he doesn't ultimately believe in that sort of approach to politics." Some postliberals call for measures far more dramatic than the steady erosion of constitutional restraints currently underway. Michael Anton, who worked in Trump's State Department over two terms, wrote in his book The Stakes about the prospect of a "Red Caesar"—a right-wing dictator who would rise from the ashes of the fallen republic. "Caesar's word replaces constitutionalism and even, in the final analysis, law," he wrote. In a podcast conversation with pro-monarchist blogger Curtis Yarvin, Anton discussed what that might look like. "Caesarism is a form of monarchy, but that follows a nonfunctioning republic, a republic that doesn't work anymore," Anton said. Yarvin proposed that the path to power would begin with declaring a state of emergency in an inaugural address, "taking direct control over all law enforcement authorities….Basically like Caesar, you're using all of the force available to you."  "There is just clearly much more of a sense that government power is meant to be used to advance our side in the face of our enemies," Slade says. "And the enemies are the left, the political left, and anyone on the right who isn't going to line up with [them]. [They believe] political power should be used to reward our friends and punish our enemies, and that to me is a clear violation of one of the core principles of rule of law, which is equal treatment for everyone under law." In the COVID era, President Joe Biden imposed national mandates by executive fiat, and his administration tried to suppress dissent by pressuring tech companies to censor critics. The Democratic Party has also flirted with the idea of packing the Supreme Court to get its way, which is not a new impulse for the party. When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the Court in 1937, it cost him the support of progressives who had previously backed the New Deal. FDR is revered by progressives and cited by Yarvin as a prototype for an American Caesar. "Was FDR a dictator? What does it mean to be a dictator? What does this pejorative word mean?" Yarvin asks. "A dictator is somebody who rules alone. And that, I think, is a beautiful thing." The Revolution was, first and foremost, about self-rule: We would no longer abide by a diktat from an overseas king. From the very beginning of the republic, power-seeking men have tried to undermine that vision. In its earliest days, there was a plot to install a Prussian prince as king of a new American monarchy. Jefferson accused John Adams and Alexander Hamilton of being monarchists, recounting in horror a dinner conversation in which Hamilton told him "the greatest man…that ever lived was Julius Caesar." But monarchy is seductive because strongmen promise order in chaotic times. In the wake of Shays' Rebellion, a post-Revolution farmer's uprising, Jefferson worried the Constitution's drafters were overreacting by creating a powerful presidency that would devolve into a monarchy. "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?" he wrote. And then, famously: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Hopefully, patriots won't be shedding blood anytime soon. But Jefferson's point stands: Preserving the promises of the Revolution will always be an ongoing battle. Self-rule was one of those promises. Another was self-ownership, which includes the right to do what you want with your own property. The Rise of 'Right-Wing Progressivism' The Declaration accused the king of "cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world." The American colonies experienced unprecedented economic growth, a topic of keen interest to the laissez faire economist Adam Smith, whose book The Wealth of Nations also turns 250 this year. Smith was fascinated by the American colonies, observing that their "progress has been more rapid than that of the English in North America. Plenty of good land, and liberty to manage their own affairs their own way, seem to be the two great causes of the prosperity." Other imperial powers, such as the Spanish and Portuguese, mandated that their colonists trade only through state-created monopolies. Smith pointed out that because American colonists could export lumber to the wider European market, they were incentivized to clear and improve land. Low taxes enabled them to reinvest their profits. Smith criticized England's Navigation Acts for prohibiting colonists from buying from other countries and for discouraging manufacturing to protect domestic competitors. Although England's "mercantile spirit" hampered the economy, Smith believed that in virtually every other respect the liberty of the English colonists "to manage their own affairs their own way is complete," concluding that both England and the colonies would be better off with an independent America that traded freely with England. Like the American revolutionaries, Smith described economic freedom as not just smart policy, but as a natural right. "To prohibit a great people…from making all that they can of every part of their own produce," he wrote, "is a manifest violation of the most sacred rights of mankind." That revolutionary understanding is still under attack today from both the left and the right. Socialists like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani talk about individual profits as if they are the property of the collective. And Trump has the same mercantilist instincts toward trade that Smith argued against 250 years ago. "I love tariffs. Most beautiful word," Trump said in September 2025. "I said my favorite word in the English dictionary is the word tariff."  The postliberal right argues that laissez faire economics has undermined the working class. "Conservatives have outsourced our economic and domestic policy thinking to libertarians," Vance said at a 2019 National Conservatism Conference. "Do we serve pure unfettered commercial freedom, do we serve commerce at the expense of the public good, or do we serve something higher? And are we willing to use political power to actually accomplish those things?" "It is really important to recognize that what the postliberal right is pushing in terms of economics is progressivism," Slade says. "It's not conservatism." Tucker Carlson made the point in 2019 when he praised Elizabeth Warren's "economic patriotism" platform, noting it "sounds like Donald Trump at his best." What the so-called "economic patriots" of the left and right are converging on is a rejection of the spirit of 1776 and an embrace of monarchy. In the 18th century, many colonists could trade only through state-licensed monopolies. Warren has proposed remarrying corporations and the state through "stakeholder capitalism," in which political appointees sit on corporate boards to steer them in the right direction. Trump took a major step toward the corporatist approach in 2025 when directing the federal government to take a 10 percent stake in Intel. Before him, President Barack Obama took stakes in GM and Chrysler as part of a bailout package. "I don't think it's really a sustainable political equilibrium to have two parties that are both economically leftist," Slade says. "The American people are not on board with that. That is the horseshoe in action. And it's part of why I think there is an opportunity for old-school Reagan-style free-market conservatism to make a comeback." The slow abandonment of the revolutionary ideas of self-rule and private property that American patriots fought for in the late 18th century is downstream of a third, fundamental aspect of the American Revolution that is also under attack: freedom of conscience. Remarrying Church and State The postliberal right wants to tear down the wall between church and state. "They want to integrate church and state instead of separating them," Slade says. In some cases, it's Catholic integralists like Harvard's Vermeule, who has described a strategy of turning the government Catholic by "strategically locat[ing]" integralists "within liberal institutions…to undo the liberalism of the state from within." Deneen has suggested passing "blue laws" that would ban pornography, online gambling, and operating businesses on Sundays. A Protestant variety of Christian nationalism is embodied by pastor Doug Wilson—a spiritual mentor to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who invited Wilson to lead a prayer at the Pentagon. In a recent interview, Wilson said the "governing authorities should recognize formally that Jesus rose from the dead" and that "the basis of law would have to be Christian, and I would want it to be Protestant." Most of the revolutionaries were Christian Protestants, but they insisted on separating church and state to avoid the horrific religious wars that had ravaged Europe. "Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world" to end religious discord by establishing state churches, wrote James Madison in opposition to taxes that would have funded an official church of Virginia. An even deeper problem for these devout believers in divine providence was that marrying religion to the state removed the very freedom to choose faith that God desires. In his opposition to the Virginia law, Jefferson wrote that "Almighty God hath created the mind free" and that "all attempts" to force religious belief "are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion." Madison argued historically that Christianity reached its "greatest lustre" in the times before it incorporated with the state, and that religious laws would counterproductively discourage nonbelievers from entering a region he hoped would become a beacon of Christianity. "Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man." Slade draws on her own Catholic faith in making the case. "I am a libertarian because I'm a Catholic, because I believe that every person was created in the image of God," she says. "I just think it's morally wrong from a Catholic or Christian perspective to try to use the coercive, violent power of the state to make people live a certain way. Even if the way that these guys would like to make people live—going to church on Sunday, praying, investing in your community and your family, self-sacrifice—all these good Christian values. They're good Christian values, but they can't be coerced or imposed from the top down. It's wrong and morally offensive from a Christian perspective." Slade says she understands the despair postliberals feel about the collapse of faith and virtue in contemporary America and that they have a point about the progressive capture of institutions. "What they're channeling is a really influential belief, which isn't totally wrong, that the left made a very concerted effort to make what is often referred to as a 'long march through the institutions' and to capture so many of our elite institutions—both at the governmental level but also at the cultural level: higher education, Hollywood, the mainstream media." Critics of the progressive agenda—or "wokeness"—often describe it as its own kind of religion. Linguist and social critic John McWhorter has argued that it has "slowly transmogrified into a kind of replacement for Protestant Christianity" among its adherents. Whether religious or not, progressives have imposed their social values on Americans through public school curricula, federal policy, and civil rights law. They have violated the freedom of conscience that Jefferson and Madison wrote about in a way very similar to how mandating religion would. Postliberalism is part of the political backlash. A poll conducted in early 2021 of people who voted for Trump in 2020 didn't find agreement on nationalist economic policies—tariffs, industrial policy, any of that—but found near-universal agreement on a sense of cultural siege. About 90 percent agreed with statements like "the mainstream media has become just an arm of the Democratic Party" or "Christianity is under attack today." "This sense that the culture has been captured by people who are hostile to people like me and who hate me and want to drive me out of the public square has created so much resentment and so much of a backlash that's driving this postliberal right-wing politics," Slade says. "I don't think it's possible to understand what's going on on the right without looking at what's been going on on the left, definitely ramping up during the period referred to as the great awakening." Slade's new book argues that the remedy to this postliberal moment is a rediscovery of "fusionism"—the reintegration of liberty and virtue. "A good society needs to be both free and virtuous. And the Founders certainly believed this," she says. John Adams wrote just 13 days before the signing of the Declaration that "the only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People…they will not obtain a lasting Liberty." "What he's saying is, we can have a limited government in a free society, but if the people aren't naturally virtuous, if they don't trust each other, if they aren't good to each other—that [the Republic] is going to end up succumbing to tyranny and to a strongman government," Slade says. His fellow revolutionary and intellectual adversary Jefferson flipped the equation by writing that liberty "is the great parent…of virtue." Balancing liberty and virtue means reconstructing some of the civic "guardrails" that Deneen laments having lost in modernity—but not handing the power to regulate our conscience to the government. "What we're seeing a lot is people who are focused either on liberty but don't spend a lot of time thinking about how do we cultivate virtue, or who say, forget your liberty, we want virtue at the point of a gun," Slade says. "Government's job is to protect our basic rights and liberties. It should be prioritizing the protection of liberty." "That doesn't mean that virtue isn't important. In fact, it's the highest, most important thing in life—to pursue a virtuous life," Slade continues. "But it's not OK to expect government to do that for us. Government protects our freedom and we use that freedom to pursue virtue." The solution, Slade argues, has to be ground-up. She invokes Alexis de Tocqueville, who observed when he came to America in the 1830s that Americans excel at coming together and creating voluntary community solutions to social problems. "We should have some muscle memory here. We should be able to get back to that idea of thinking of ourselves as being on the front lines of solving problems, building new civil society institutions, nongovernmental institutions that can try to solve the problems we see in our society," Slade says. "Good policy can make this easier. And bad policy can crowd it out and make it a lot harder." The Declaration of Independence is 250 years old, but the Revolution it started is as vital as ever. During the final days of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was famously asked what kind of government they were in the process of designing. "A Republic," he said, "if you can keep it." Photo Credits: Horst Galuschka/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom/ Dennis Flaherty / Jaynes Gallery / DanitaDelimont.com / Danita Delimont/ Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom/ TIA DUFOUR/UPI/Newscom/Antonio Perez/TNS/Newscom/ Aaron Schwartz - Pool via CNP/picture alliance / Consolidated News Photos/Newscom/ Ron Adar / SOPA/ Images/Sipa USA/Newscom/ JT Vintage/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom/ AdMedia/SIPA/Newscom/ Hugh Rooney / Eye Ubiquitous/Newscom/ Bonnie Cash - Pool via CNP/CNP / Polaris/Newscom/AdMedia/Newscom/ Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA/Newscom/ Polaris/Newscom; Eric Lee - Pool via CNP/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Department of Defense The post The American Revolution Isn't Over appeared first on Reason.com.

Administrative Conference & City Council Meeting 5-26-26

Administrative Conference & City Council Meeting 12-18-25

City Council & Administrative Conference 11-21-2025 Replay

City Council Meeting & Administrative Conference 11-10-2025 Replay

On October 15, 2025, The Institute of Bill of Rights Law and the Center for the Study of Law and Markets hosted the Professor Charles Koch Administrative Law Forum. Panelists included Paul Verkuil, Former Chair of the Administrative Conference of the United States and President Emeritus of William & Mary, and John Duffy, Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, and one of the nation's leading scholars in administrative and patent law. They were joined by Professor Allison Orr Larsen, director of the Institute of Bill of Rights Law and an expert in administrative law. The subject of the forum this year was Presidential Control Over Administrative Agency Personnel: The Future of Independent Agencies, Civil Service, and More. The program explored fundamental questions at the intersection of constitutional law, separation of powers, and administrative governance.

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

Administrative Conference & City Council Meeting 5-23-25

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/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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

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 megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.

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.

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

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)

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.