Podcast appearances and mentions of karen harned

In this episode of Main Street Matters, Elaine Parker and Karen Harned discuss the impact of deregulation on small businesses, particularly during the Trump administration. They explore the burdens of regulations, the implications of the Chevron case, the student loan crisis, and the effects of new regulations under the Biden administration. The conversation highlights the role of the regulatory state and its influence on small businesses, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in regulatory processes. Chapters00:00 Introduction to Deregulation and Its Impact02:51 The Trump Administration's Deregulatory Agenda06:11 Understanding Regulatory Burdens on Small Biz09:02 The Chevron Case and Its Implications11:54 The Student Loan Crisis15:01 The Impact of New Regulations Under Biden17:49 The Role of DOGE21:06 The Regulatory State as the Fourth Branch of Government #deregulation #smallbusiness #Trump #regulations #ChevronCase #studentloans #Biden #regulatorystate #economicimpactSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Main Street Matters, Elaine and Jordan discuss the evolving regulatory landscape affecting small businesses, particularly under the Biden administration. They are joined by attorney, Karen Harned and explore the implications of recent legal decisions, such as the Loper-Brite case, and the introduction of the Prove It Act, which aims to ensure that small businesses are considered in regulatory impacts. The conversation also highlights the Corporate Transparency Act and its potential consequences for small businesses, emphasizing the need for awareness and compliance. Main Street Matters is part of the Salem Podcast Network. For more visit JobCreatorsNetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

In this episode of Main Street Matters, Karen Harned, JCN Senior Vice President of Policy, discusses the impact of regulations on small businesses and the tactics used by the current administration to implement regulations without congressional approval. She also talks about the Chevron case and its implications for curbing excessive regulations. Additionally, she addresses the Corporate Transparency Act and its impact on small businesses. Main Street Matters is part of the Salem Podcast Network. For more visit JobCreatorsNetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the fall 2023 term, the Court is currently set to consider a case of whether a civil rights "tester," someone who collects information as to whether a place of public accommodation is in compliance with laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) without an intent actually to visit those places or use those services, has standing to sue such businesses. At issue is whether "tester" Deborah Laufer, had standing to bring suit against Acheson Hotels. Laufer alleged that the website for a hotel operated by Acheson Hotels had insufficient information to comply with the ADA and accommodate those with disabilities. Acheson Hotels argued that since Ms. Laufer had no intention of visiting the hotel in question, she, therefore, had no standing to sue. Ms. Laufer lost in district court, which threw out her suit for lack of standing, but the First Circuit reinstated her lawsuit, ruling she did have standing. That prompted an appeal by Acheson Hotels to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.Interestingly, after certiorari was granted, Ms. Laufer dropped her case in district court after an attorney who has represented her in other cases was disciplined by a federal Court located in Maryland. Ms. Laufer's lawyers thus also asked SCOTUS to dismiss the Acheson Hotels case for mootness, given that the district case is no longer live. Oral argument in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer is still set for October 4, 2023. In this recorded webinar Karen Harned, who filed an amicus brief in the case, provided a preview of the case and the issues worth tracking in this conversation. Featuring:--Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC--(Moderator) Joel Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

In this episode, Alfredo Ortiz, Elaine Parker, and Karen Harned discuss various legal cases and issues related to small businesses and the American dream. They focus on a recent Supreme Court decision on student loan forgiveness and Job Creators Network's involvement in challenging the administration's program. They also highlight other cases that demonstrate the administration's overreach and emphasize the need for accountability and upholding the Constitution. The speakers delve into the problems with college tuition and student loans, advocating for accountability, measurement of success, and finding solutions. They express hope for positive changes and stress the importance of holding the administration accountable.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Normally, when the government is sued the public expects the government to defend itself. But what if the government doesn't defend itself, because it wants the same policy ends as the activists suing it? Then you get “sue-and-settle,” a practice that U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (Republican of Iowa) says “is used by federal agencies and like-minded special interest groups to impose new and burdensome regulations on businesses and communities without sufficient public notice or participation.” Joining us to discuss sue and settle tactics and how Congress can push back against them is Karen Harned, a longtime lawyer and advocate for small-business interests. Links: Grassley Leads Effort To Curb Red Tape Created Without Public InputSupreme Court takes up case concerning Americans with Disabilities Act ‘tester' of hotelsWildEarth GuardiansFollow us on our Socials:Twitter: @capitalresearchInstagram: @capitalresearchcenterFacebook: www.facebook.com/capitalresearchcenterYouTube: @capitalresearchcenter

On April 6, 2023, the Biden Administration announced two new efforts to "modernize regulatory review" – the first through the signing of Executive Order 14094 and the second through proposing revisions to OMB's Circular A-4, the government-wide guidance on regulatory analysis. Public comments on the proposed revision of Circular A-4 are due by June 6, 2023.In this Explainer podcast, Howard Beales, Karen Harned, and Paul Ray discuss the new developments around how the Biden Administration and federal agencies will approach cost-benefit analysis. They explore the importance of long-standing regulatory review processes, concerns around the potential politicization of cost-benefit analysis, changes to the threshold for OIRA to review regulations, and how these developments may ultimately affect the American people.Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Karen Harned, the Chief Legal Officer at the Job Creators Network Foundation (JCNF).  Biden Student Loan Bailout Lawsuit

THE LEAK of what could be a major decision on abortion rights is the focus of this week's show - we talk to Supreme Court litigator Karen Harned about how appellate lawyers see the case, the process of opinion drafting, and what might happen next. We also talk about the messy defamation case brought by actor Johnny Depp against ex-wife Amber Heard -- and why anyone would think bringing that kind of a civil lawsuit would make any sense. In segment three, some Key Biscayne residents could see their stormwater bills double or more...but is it fair? And will anyone mind? Support the show

Join your host, John Kabateck, Executive Director for NFIB California as he speaks with Karen Harned, Executive Director of the NIFB Small Business Legal Center. Hear how the representation of small business issues both Nationally and Statewide create value to small businesses otherwise unable to afford the legal expenses to pursue challenging operational issues. Karen, a 20 year veteran attorney for the NIFB, has seen more than many attorneys in how Government just simply doesn't understand small business. Her efforts have created landmark decisions in favor of small business including the most recent rulings on Covid at the Federal level. The Small Business Legal Center exists to serve the needs of the NFIB membership and it's your voice they both listen too and represent wherever necessary. For more information, simply visit www. NIFB.com/California

4:20 pm: Utah Speaker of the House Brad Wilson joins the program to discuss his concerns about the future of the Great Salt Lake and what lawmaker might be able to do legislatively to help save the lake4:38 pm: Derek Miller, President of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, joins Rod to discuss what he expects from Utah's economy in 20226:05 pm: Karen Harned, Executive Director of the NFIB Small Business Legal Center joins the program to discuss the group's lawsuit against Joe Biden's vaccine mandate, which will now be considered by the Supreme Court6:20 pm: John Matsusaka, Professor of Law, Business and Political Science at the University of Southern California, joins Rod to discuss his recent piece for Politico in which he says should Roe v. Wade be overturned, the decision about abortion should be left to a voter referendum6:35 pm: Steve Moore, Chief Economist for the Heritage Foundation, joins Rod for their weekly conversation about politics and the nation's economy

Some open phones, Karen Harned from NFIB, a plaintiff on the NO VAX MANDATE Supreme Court case, Matt from GP details sobering public ed facts, Diner 62 history question, more emails of the day.

On May 17, 2021 the Supreme Court decided BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.The issue was was whether 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) permits a court of appeals to review any issue encompassed in a district court’s order remanding a removed case to state court when the removing defendant premised removal in part on the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1443.In a 7-1 opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch, the Court vacated the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, holding, “Where defendant energy companies premised 28 U. S. C. § 1447(d) removal in part on the federal officer removal statute, Section 1442, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider all grounds for removal rejected by the district court.”Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.Karen Harned, Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, joins us to discuss this decision.

Nearly two dozen lawsuits against energy manufacturers seeking state tort damages over climate change have been filed in state courts. The defendants removed the cases to federal courts because the subject matter of the litigation involves exclusively federal issues, namely national energy policy over the worldwide uses of fossil fuels.On May 17, 2021, The Supreme Court released its decision in one of the cases, BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. By a vote of 7-1, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was vacated and the case remanded. Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion was joined by all other members of the Court except Justice Sotomayor, who dissented, and Justice Alito, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.Phil Goldberg and Karen Harned join us to discuss this decision and its implications. Featuring: -- Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project (MAP), a project of The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and Washington D.C. Office Managing Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP-- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center

On October 7, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eight Judicial Circuit Court. The issue presented was whether the “arise out of or relate to” requirement for a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant under Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz is met when none of the defendant’s forum contacts caused the plaintiff’s claims, such that the plaintiff’s claims would be the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts.Karen Harned, Executive Director at National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center and Jaime A. Santos, Partner at Goodwin Procter LLP, join us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On March 18, the Senate passed and the President signed into law the “Families First Coronavirus Response Act.” Among other things, this new law, set to take effect no later than April 2, 2020, creates a new paid sick leave mandate for all employers with fewer than 500 employees and expands the application of the Family Medical Leave Act to cover all employers in certain circumstances related to the coronavirus. Karen Harned and James Paretti will walk listeners through key provisions of this new law.Featuring: - Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center- James A. Paretti, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On March 18, the Senate passed and the President signed into law the “Families First Coronavirus Response Act.” Among other things, this new law, set to take effect no later than April 2, 2020, creates a new paid sick leave mandate for all employers with fewer than 500 employees and expands the application of the Family Medical Leave Act to cover all employers in certain circumstances related to the coronavirus. Karen Harned and James Paretti will walk listeners through key provisions of this new law.Featuring: - Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center- James A. Paretti, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On March 18, the Senate passed and the President signed into law the “Families First Coronavirus Response Act.” Among other things, this new law, set to take effect no later than April 2, 2020, creates a new paid sick leave mandate for all employers with fewer than 500 employees and expands the application of the Family Medical Leave Act to cover all employers in certain circumstances related to the coronavirus. Karen Harned and James Paretti will walk participants through key provisions of this new law.Featuring: -- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center-- James A. Paretti, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.

On March 18, the Senate passed and the President signed into law the “Families First Coronavirus Response Act.” Among other things, this new law, set to take effect no later than April 2, 2020, creates a new paid sick leave mandate for all employers with fewer than 500 employees and expands the application of the Family Medical Leave Act to cover all employers in certain circumstances related to the coronavirus. Karen Harned and James Paretti will walk participants through key provisions of this new law.Featuring: -- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center-- James A. Paretti, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires public accommodations be accessible to the disabled community. Since its enactment in 1991, it has been understood that any store, restaurant, theater, hotel facility, school, or other building private entities own or lease and make available to the public meet certain requirements for disability access.Plaintiffs attorneys have been aggressive in enforcing the ADA against all types of physical businesses for years. And now we are seeing a new frontier of litigation - websites. Banks, hotels, service providers, and retailers of all types are beginning to see lawsuits alleging their websites are not accessible to the disabled.Karen Harned will provide the background on this new trend in ADA litigation, the current state of the law, and highlight a case the Supreme Court is being asked to take this next term on the issue.Featuring:- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal CenterVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires public accommodations be accessible to the disabled community. Since its enactment in 1991, it has been understood that any store, restaurant, theater, hotel facility, school, or other building private entities own or lease and make available to the public meet certain requirements for disability access.Plaintiffs attorneys have been aggressive in enforcing the ADA against all types of physical businesses for years. And now we are seeing a new frontier of litigation - websites. Banks, hotels, service providers, and retailers of all types are beginning to see lawsuits alleging their websites are not accessible to the disabled.Karen Harned will provide the background on this new trend in ADA litigation, the current state of the law, and highlight a case the Supreme Court is being asked to take this next term on the issue.Featuring:- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal CenterVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires public accommodations be accessible to the disabled community. Since its enactment in 1991, it has been understood that any store, restaurant, theater, hotel facility, school, or other building private entities own or lease and make available to the public meet certain requirements for disability access.Plaintiffs attorneys have been aggressive in enforcing the ADA against all types of physical businesses for years. And now we are seeing a new frontier of litigation - websites. Banks, hotels, service providers, and retailers of all types are beginning to see lawsuits alleging their websites are not accessible to the disabled.Karen Harned will provide the background on this new trend in ADA litigation, the current state of the law, and highlight a case the Supreme Court is being asked to take this next term on the issue.Featuring:Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires public accommodations be accessible to the disabled community. Since its enactment in 1991, it has been understood that any store, restaurant, theater, hotel facility, school, or other building private entities own or lease and make available to the public meet certain requirements for disability access.Plaintiffs attorneys have been aggressive in enforcing the ADA against all types of physical businesses for years. And now we are seeing a new frontier of litigation - websites. Banks, hotels, service providers, and retailers of all types are beginning to see lawsuits alleging their websites are not accessible to the disabled.Karen Harned will provide the background on this new trend in ADA litigation, the current state of the law, and highlight a case the Supreme Court is being asked to take this next term on the issue.Featuring:Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

This morning the Supreme Court decided the much-anticipated Kisor v. Wilkie case. The Court had granted certiorari in Kisor to decide whether to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). Seminole Rock and Auer are often cited for the proposition that when an administrative agency promulgates a regulation and the regulation is ambiguous, a reviewing court must give “controlling weight” to the agency’s interpretation of the regulation unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or is inconsistent with the regulation. A number of the Court’s members had cast doubt on the soundness of the Seminole Rock/Auer deference doctrine in recent years, and many observers have predicted that the doctrine’s days are numbered. Karen Harned and Stephen Vaden will join us today to discuss that morning’s highly-fractured decision in Kisor and its potential implications -- including for the Chevron deference doctrine that applies to agency interpretations of statutory provisions (set forth in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)). Featuring: Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal CenterStephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Last week the Supreme Court decided the much-anticipated Kisor v. Wilkie case. The Court had granted certiorari in Kisor to decide whether to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). Seminole Rock and Auer are often cited for the proposition that when an administrative agency promulgates a regulation and the regulation is ambiguous, a reviewing court must give “controlling weight” to the agency’s interpretation of the regulation unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or is inconsistent with the regulation. A number of the Court’s members had cast doubt on the soundness of the Seminole Rock/Auer deference doctrine in recent years, and many observers have predicted that the doctrine’s days are numbered.Karen Harned and Stephen Vaden discuss that morning’s highly-fractured decision in Kisor and its potential implications — including for the Chevron deference doctrine that applies to agency interpretations of statutory provisions.Featuring:- Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal Center- Stephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of AgricultureVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Last week the Supreme Court decided the much-anticipated Kisor v. Wilkie case. The Court had granted certiorari in Kisor to decide whether to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). Seminole Rock and Auer are often cited for the proposition that when an administrative agency promulgates a regulation and the regulation is ambiguous, a reviewing court must give “controlling weight” to the agency’s interpretation of the regulation unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or is inconsistent with the regulation. A number of the Court’s members had cast doubt on the soundness of the Seminole Rock/Auer deference doctrine in recent years, and many observers have predicted that the doctrine’s days are numbered.Karen Harned and Stephen Vaden discuss that morning’s highly-fractured decision in Kisor and its potential implications — including for the Chevron deference doctrine that applies to agency interpretations of statutory provisions.Featuring:- Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal Center- Stephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of AgricultureVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

This morning the Supreme Court decided the much-anticipated Kisor v. Wilkie case. The Court had granted certiorari in Kisor to decide whether to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). Seminole Rock and Auer are often cited for the proposition that when an administrative agency promulgates a regulation and the regulation is ambiguous, a reviewing court must give “controlling weight” to the agency’s interpretation of the regulation unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or is inconsistent with the regulation. A number of the Court’s members had cast doubt on the soundness of the Seminole Rock/Auer deference doctrine in recent years, and many observers have predicted that the doctrine’s days are numbered. Karen Harned and Stephen Vaden will join us today to discuss that morning’s highly-fractured decision in Kisor and its potential implications -- including for the Chevron deference doctrine that applies to agency interpretations of statutory provisions (set forth in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)). Featuring: Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal CenterStephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On March 19, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al. v. DeVries, which concerned whether federal maritime law requires a manufacturer of non-asbestos containing parts -- like pumps, turbines and blowers for Navy ships -- to warn Navy sailors when it is likely asbestos will be used with those parts later (in this case as insulation or connected parts). The plaintiffs were two Navy veterans (and their families) who had been exposed to asbestos, developed cancer and died. They sued the manufacturers of the non-asbestos containing products for failing to warn. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer but the Third Circuit vacated and remanded arguing for application of a foreseeability test.The plaintiffs argued that the manufacturers had a duty to warn because they knew that asbestos would be required to be incorporated with their parts to function properly. The defendants argued that they had no duty to warn because they were not incorporating the asbestos with their product, the Navy was.The Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh held that “a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when (i) its product requires incorporation of a part, (ii) the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and (iii) the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s users will realize the danger.” The Court noted that they did not agree with the entirety of the Third Circuit’s reasoning but affirmed its judgment directing the district court to reconsider its grant of summary judgment.Karen Harned will discuss the Supreme Court’s decision and what it could mean for product liability law outside of the maritime context.Featuring: Karen R. Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal Center Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On March 19, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al. v. DeVries, which concerned whether federal maritime law requires a manufacturer of non-asbestos containing parts -- like pumps, turbines and blowers for Navy ships -- to warn Navy sailors when it is likely asbestos will be used with those parts later (in this case as insulation or connected parts). The plaintiffs were two Navy veterans (and their families) who had been exposed to asbestos, developed cancer and died. They sued the manufacturers of the non-asbestos containing products for failing to warn. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer but the Third Circuit vacated and remanded arguing for application of a foreseeability test.The plaintiffs argued that the manufacturers had a duty to warn because they knew that asbestos would be required to be incorporated with their parts to function properly. The defendants argued that they had no duty to warn because they were not incorporating the asbestos with their product, the Navy was.The Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh held that “a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when (i) its product requires incorporation of a part, (ii) the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and (iii) the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s users will realize the danger.” The Court noted that they did not agree with the entirety of the Third Circuit’s reasoning but affirmed its judgment directing the district court to reconsider its grant of summary judgment.Karen Harned will discuss the Supreme Court’s decision and what it could mean for product liability law outside of the maritime context.Featuring: Karen R. Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal Center Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On the morning of March 27, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Kisor v. Wilkie. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Kisor to decide whether to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). Seminole Rock and Auer are often cited for the proposition that when an administrative agency promulgates a regulation and the regulation is ambiguous, a reviewing court must give “controlling weight” to the agency’s interpretation of the regulation unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or is inconsistent with the regulation. A number of the Court’s members have cast doubt on the soundness of the Seminole Rock/Auer deference doctrine in recent years. Many observers believe that the doctrine’s days are numbered. Importantly, the United States filed a merits brief in Kisor that forcefully criticized Auer/Seminole Rock deference, yet argued that the Court should not overrule Auer and Seminole Rock “in their entirety.” The brief foreshadows what will likely be a memorable oral argument, featuring Paul Hughes of Mayer Brown LLP and Solicitor General Noel Francisco. Hughes represents James Kisor, the Vietnam War veteran who is the petitioner in the case. Kisor is challenging a decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that denied Kisor’s request for retroactive disability benefits connected to his wartime service. Francisco will be defending the VA’s decision.Karen Harned, Andrew Varcoe, and moderator Stephen Vaden will join us on the afternoon of March 27 to discuss that morning’s oral argument in Kisor and its potential implications -- including the implications, if any, for the Chevron deference doctrine that applies to agency interpretations of statutory provisions (set forth in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)). Harned and Varcoe will have attended the oral argument that morning and will be sharing their observations about it. Featuring: Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal CenterAndrew Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & AssociatesModerator: Stephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On the morning of March 27, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Kisor v. Wilkie. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Kisor to decide whether to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). Seminole Rock and Auer are often cited for the proposition that when an administrative agency promulgates a regulation and the regulation is ambiguous, a reviewing court must give “controlling weight” to the agency’s interpretation of the regulation unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or is inconsistent with the regulation. A number of the Court’s members have cast doubt on the soundness of the Seminole Rock/Auer deference doctrine in recent years. Many observers believe that the doctrine’s days are numbered. Importantly, the United States filed a merits brief in Kisor that forcefully criticized Auer/Seminole Rock deference, yet argued that the Court should not overrule Auer and Seminole Rock “in their entirety.” The brief foreshadows what will likely be a memorable oral argument, featuring Paul Hughes of Mayer Brown LLP and Solicitor General Noel Francisco. Hughes represents James Kisor, the Vietnam War veteran who is the petitioner in the case. Kisor is challenging a decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that denied Kisor’s request for retroactive disability benefits connected to his wartime service. Francisco will be defending the VA’s decision.Karen Harned, Andrew Varcoe, and moderator Stephen Vaden will join us on the afternoon of March 27 to discuss that morning’s oral argument in Kisor and its potential implications -- including the implications, if any, for the Chevron deference doctrine that applies to agency interpretations of statutory provisions (set forth in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)). Harned and Varcoe will have attended the oral argument that morning and will be sharing their observations about it. Featuring: Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal CenterAndrew Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & AssociatesModerator: Stephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On March 6, 2018, the U.S Department of Labor's (DOL) Wage and Hour Division announced its new Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program. A six-month pilot program, PAID allows employers to proactively address potential wage and hour underpayments under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by seeking early resolution of potential wage and hour violations. Karen Harned, Executive Director of the NFIB Small Business Legal Center, will provide an overview of the program and discuss the benefits and possible pitfalls of participation by employers. Featuring:Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On March 6, 2018, the U.S Department of Labor's (DOL) Wage and Hour Division announced its new Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program. A six-month pilot program, PAID allows employers to proactively address potential wage and hour underpayments under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by seeking early resolution of potential wage and hour violations. Karen Harned, Executive Director of the NFIB Small Business Legal Center, will provide an overview of the program and discuss the benefits and possible pitfalls of participation by employers. Featuring:Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump ran on a platform of rolling back the “administrative state.” Since taking office, President Trump has followed through on some of his campaign promises, signing various Executive Orders aimed at undoing previous Executive Orders issued by President Obama. What will be the impact of the president’s regulatory agenda? Is Trump restoring constitutional order and checks and balances through his executive orders? Joining us to discuss these important questions and more are two of America’s leading scholars of administrative law. Dan Hemel is Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School. His research focuses on taxation, risk regulation, and innovation law. His current projects examine the effect of tax expenditures on inequality; the role of cost-benefit analysis in tax administration; and the use of tax incentives to encourage knowledge production. He has served as visiting counsel at the Joint Committee on Taxation. He blogs at Take Care. Karen Harned is Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, a post she has held since April 2002.  Prior to joining the Legal Center, Ms. Harned was an attorney at a Washington, D.C. law firm specializing in food and drug law, where she represented several small and large businesses and their respective trade associations before Congress and federal agencies.  Her organization, NFIB, was involved in litigation against the Affordable Care Act, in NFIB v. Sebelius, and is currently involved as an amicus in the NAM case before the Court.

In 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Daimler AG v Bauman that, as a general matter, companies could only be sued in the state in which they are headquartered and incorporated or the plaintiff is injured. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court in BNSF Railways Co.. v. Tyrell was asked to define, once again, when a company has a substantial and continuous enough presence in a state to provide “general jurisdiction.” In BNSF, plaintiffs brought suit in Montana state court although neither were injured in that state and BNSF is headquartered in Texas. On May 30, the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision issued by Justice Ginsburg reaffirmed its holding in Daimler. In BNSF, it found that -- barring an exceptional case -- companies may only be sued where they are headquartered/incorporated or the plaintiff is injured. Karen Harned discussed the BNSF opinion and its impact on business and the plaintiff’s bar. -- Featuring: Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.

On February 21, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in McLane Co. v. EEOC. Damiana Ochoa worked for McLane Company, a supply chain company. After returning from maternity leave, Ochoa was required to take a “physical abilities” test, which she failed three times. Ochoa was fired by McLane but then filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that McLane violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC opened up an investigation and issued a subpoena for information McLane withheld, including either “pedigree information” for each test-taker or reasons the test-taker’s employment was terminated. When McLane refused, EEOC filed a subpoena enforcement action. The district court granted enforcement of the subpoena with respect to some information (such as the gender and score of each test taker) but declined to require the production of pedigree information or the reasons why others who had failed the test were terminated. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, reviewing the district court’s decision “de novo,” held that the district court had erred in refusing to compel production of the pedigree information, and also needed to consider whether production of the reasons for other terminations would be unduly burdensome. -- The question before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether a district court’s decision to quash or enforce an EEOC subpoena should be reviewed de novo, which only the Ninth Circuit does, or should be reviewed deferentially, which eight other circuits do. -- To discuss the case, we have Karen Harned, who is Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.

In McLane v. EEOC the Supreme Court is being asked to resolve a circuit split regarding appellate court standard of review of district court decisions to quash or enforce an EEOC subpoena. -- Damiana Ochoa worked for McLane Company, a supply chain company. After returning from maternity leave, Ms. Ochoa was required to take a “physical abilities” test, which she failed three times. Subsequently, she was fired and Ms. Oschoa brought a gender discrimination claim against McLane. The district court denied part of one of the subpoenas EEOC issued to McLane. The 9th Circuit reversed, reviewing the district court’s decision to limit the scope of the EEOC subpoena “de novo,” which is contrary to the deferential review eight other appellate courts follow. The Supreme Court has been asked to resolve this circuit court split. -- Karen Harned, Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, attended oral argument and will join us to provide her impressions of argument, examine the case, and explore potential impacts of the upcoming decision on employers, employees, and the EEOC during this Courthouse Steps Teleforum conference call. -- Featuring: Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.

Pacific Legal Foundation's Harold Johnson interviews Karen Harned, Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), and PLF Principal Attorney Damien Schiff about Pacific Legal Foundation's case challenging the “union walk-around” rule that OSHA has promulgated in violation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.

On November 10, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo. Peg Bouaphakeo and the rest of the plaintiffs in this class action are current and former employees of Tyson Foods. They claim that Tyson violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying them for time spent putting on and taking off protective clothing at the beginning and end of the work day and before and after lunch. The district court certified the class, and the jury returned a multi-million dollar verdict in their favor. Tyson argued on appeal that certification was improper due to factual differences among plaintiffs, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court. -- The questions before the Supreme Court are twofold: (1) Whether differences among individual class members may be ignored and a class action certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), or a collective action certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act, where liability and damages will be determined with statistical techniques that presume all class members are identical to the average observed in a sample; and (2) whether a class action may be certified or maintained under Rule 23(b)(3), or a collective action certified or maintained under the Fair Labor Standards Act, when the class contains hundreds of members who were not injured and have no legal right to any damages. -- To discuss the case, we have Karen Harned, who is Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Center.

A weekly meeting of conservative bloggers, online journalists and modern media strategists hosted by The Heritage Foundation.