Podcasts about Neomi Rao

The Supreme Court's latest term was one of its most significant for administrative law. The Court ended Chevron deference, declared a right to a jury trial in securities fraud adjudications at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and expanded the statute of limitations to challenge agency decisions. Other leading cases included a challenge to a major Trump-era rulemaking on guns and a challenge to a significant federal environmental implementation plan. The Court's opinions have raised important questions about the separation of powers, the role of Congress, and the future of regulatory governance in America. Now that the Court has issued its rulings, the panel considers: What comes next for the regulated public, Congress, executive branch agencies, and the States?FeaturingHon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLCProf. Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science; Director, Penn Program on Regulation, Penn Carey Law, University of Pennsylvania Prof. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolHon. Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, Judge, United States District Court, Middle District of FloridaModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Introduction: Caleb O. BrownAlex Nowrasteh and Gene Healy on the Executive Orders HandbookHon. Neomi Rao on the Supreme Court's return to a best meaning approach to the lawNicholas Anthony and Caleb O. Brown on Trump's proposal to limit credit card interestU.S. Representative Patrick McHenry and Jennifer J. Schulp on the decline of American financial privacyExclusive: Thomas Berry on Cato's 23rd annual Constitution Day Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Cato's annual Constitution Day symposium marks the day in 1787 that the Constitutional Convention finished drafting the U.S. Constitution. We celebrate that event each year with the release of the new issue of the Cato Supreme Court Review and with a day‐​long symposium featuring noted scholars discussing the recently concluded Supreme Court term and the important cases coming up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Wednesday, May 29th, 2024Today, both parties finish their closing arguments in the election interference trial; Trump tells donors that he will crush pro-Palestinian protests if he's elected; Judge Cannon denies Jack Smith's motion for a limited gag order in the Florida case; the Biden campaign has tapped Jan. 6 officers to campaign in battleground states ahead of the Presidential debate; the DNC is planning a virtual meeting to nominate Biden early so he can be on the Ohio ballot; an appeals court rejects the argument that the Democratic-lean of DC's jury pool makes it unfit for January 6 cases; an appeals court has upheld a retired NYPD officer's 10-year prison sentence for his role in the insurrection; plus Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.com Democrats To Hold Virtual Roll Call To Place Biden on Ohio's Ballot (Democracy Docket)Appeals court rejects argument that Democratic-lean of DC's jury pool makes it unfit for January 6 cases (CNN)Trump tells donors he will crush pro-Palestinian protests if re-elected (The Guardian)Appeals court upholds retired NYPD officer's 10-year prison sentence for Capitol riot attack (AP News) Subscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.comSubscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://post.news/@/MuellerSheWrote?utm_source=TwitterAG&utm_medium=creator_organic&utm_campaign=muellershewrote&utm_content=FollowMehttps://muellershewrote.substack.comhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://www.threads.net/@muellershewrotehttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good NewsNo Mow Mayhttps://beecityusa.org/no-mow-mayPublic Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/public-service Live Show Ticket Links:https://allisongill.com (for all tickets and show dates)Sunday, June 2nd – Chicago IL – Schubas TavernFriday June 14th – Philadelphia PA – City WinerySaturday June 15th – New York NY – City WinerySunday June 16th – Boston MA – City WineryMonday June 17th Boston, MA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-Bos2Wednesday July 10th – Portland OR – Polaris Hall(with Dana!)Thursday July 11th – Seattle WA – The Triple Door(with Dana!)Thursday July 25th Milwaukee, WI https://tinyurl.com/Beans-MKESunday July 28th Nashville, TN - with Phil Williams https://tinyurl.com/Beans-TennWednesday July 31st St. Louis, MO https://tinyurl.com/Beans-STLFriday August 16th Washington, DC - with Andy McCabe, Pete Strzok, Glenn Kirschner https://tinyurl.com/Beans-in-DCSaturday August 24 San Francisco, CA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-SF Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

Featuring:Prof. J. Joel Alicea, Co-Director, Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, Assistant Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of AmericaProf. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Founding Director, Georgetown Center for the ConstitutionProf. Richard H. Fallon, Story Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolProf. Stephen E. Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

What’s Trending: 76 percent approve of Trump’s SOTU, rumors of sweeping changes to Major League Baseball, border protection is reporting almost 2,000 illegal crossings a day, a new study suggests religious people are happier and Nancy Pelosi bungles a supposed bible quote. Corey Booker’s attempted grilling of Kavanaugh’s replacement, Neomi Rao, shows he and other Democrats have no idea when it comes to religion. Culture of life vs culture of death.

I talk about the ruling by judge Neomi Rao that slapped the SEC in the face. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/christopher-ckarke5/support

The Honorable Neomi Rao gives keynote remarks about the tendency of courts to look at tradeoffs between the executive and judicial branches and largely ignore Congress in separation of powers cases. Her speech came out of a forthcoming symposium in the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty and took place on campus at NYU.

The Honorable Neomi Rao gives keynote remarks about the tendency of courts to look at tradeoffs between the executive and judicial branches and largely ignore Congress in separation of powers cases. Her speech came out of a forthcoming symposium in the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty and took place on campus at NYU. Source

Law schools are the gatekeepers of the legal profession and thus wield substantial influence on the law’s future shape. In recent times, law schools have increasingly viewed themselves less as charged with training lawyers to serve their clients’ needs and more as engines of social justice. Is that an appropriate role for law schools? How compatible are the two missions? Does the highly and increasingly ideologically homogeneous character of law school faculties, as shown in many studies, exacerbate the tension between those missions?Featuring:Dean Mark Alexander, Arthur J. Kania Dean and Professor of Law, Charles Widger School of Law, Villanova UniversityProf. Joshua Kleinfeld, Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of LawProf. Paul G. Mahoney, David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawDean Dayna Matthew, Dean and Harold H. Greene Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Larry Klayman v. Neomi Rao

The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel explored "Originalism: Perspectives from the Bench."Many would agree that originalism is now a standard when it comes to judicial philosophy. On this panel, a variety of judges will discuss how they 'do' originalism while sitting on a case. Furthermore, they will provide their views on whether and how advocates can best brief and argue cases along originalist lines.Featuring:Hon. Edith Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitHon. Kevin Newsom, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitHon. Andrew Oldham, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitHon. Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. CircuitModerator: Hon. John Nalbandian, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

On October 21, 2021, the Gray Center and the Heritage Foundation co-hosted a special event to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court of the United States. This event, consisting of a daytime law symposium and evening lecture, brought together jurists, legal academics and practitioners, including many of the Justice's former clerks, where we discussed his jurisprudence and impact on the Court over the past three decades. The first panel focused on the structural constitution, including the concepts of federalism and the separation of powers. It included a discussion featuring: William Pryor Jr., Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; Edith Jones, Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; Neomi Rao, Gray Center Founder and Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and Thomas Hardiman, Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. It was moderated by John Yoo, Professor of Law at UC Berkeley School of Law. This episode features The Honorable Thomas M. Hardiman, The Honorable Edith H. Jones, The Honorable William H. Pryor, Jr., The Honorable Neomi Rao, and John Yoo.

On October 1, 2021, the Gray Center hosted a conference to mark the twentieth anniversary of Elena Kagan's published article on “Presidential Administration,” where authors and scholars discussed and presented seven new working papers and two new books on this important and timely concept, during a series of panel discussions. D.C. Circuit Judge and Gray Center Founder Neomi Rao sat down with Gray... Source

On October 1, 2021, the Gray Center hosted a conference to mark the twentieth anniversary of Elena Kagan's published article on “Presidential Administration,” where authors and scholars discussed and presented seven new working papers and two new books on this important and timely concept, during a series of panel discussions. D.C. Circuit Judge and Gray Center Founder Neomi Rao sat down with Gray Center Co-Executive Director Jennifer Mascott for a conversation about her career, the administrative state, and the creation of the Gray Center. This episode features Jennifer Mascott and The Honorable Neomi Rao.

On October 1, 2021, the Gray Center hosted a conference to mark the twentieth anniversary of Elena Kagan's published article on “Presidential Administration,” where authors and scholars discussed and presented seven new working papers and two new books on this important and timely concept, during a series of panel discussions. D.C. Circuit Judge and Gray […]

On May 17, as part of their annual Executive Branch Review Conference, the Federalist Society's Practice Groups hosted an expert panel on the non-delegation doctrine.Whether as the result of hyper-partisanship or as a residue of the constitutional design for lawmaking, government by executive "diktat" is lately increasing. Many of these executive actions appear to have dubious — if any — statutory authority, but the courts have been reticent to validate objections along these lines. The U.S. Supreme Court has indicated a willingness to revisit and possibly to reinvigorate the non-delegation doctrine (with 5 Justices adhering to that view publicly), or at least to put some teeth into its supposedly constraining intelligibility principle. To do so, the Court first will have to grapple with whether Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution contains a non-delegation principle at all.Featuring: - Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School- Prof. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School- Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School- Prof. Nicholas Parrillo, William K. Townsend Professor of Law, Yale Law School- Moderator: Hon. Neomi Rao, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

Professor Frank Bowman from the University of Missouri School of Law gives us a civics lesson about the process of impeachment. Stay tuned to find out what happens when you get impeached for eating Twinkies. Sources: National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution ‘Article I, Sections 1-3’ by William N. Eskridge Jr., Neomi Rao, Bradley A. Smith, Daniel P. Tokaji, Steven G. Calabresi, and Michael J. Gerhardt National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution ‘Article II, Section 4’ by Neil J. Kinkopf and Keith E. Whittington NPR article by Nina Totenberg ‘Can the Senate Try an Ex-President’ United States Senate post ‘Constitution of the United States’ Wikipedia article ‘Impeachment in the United States’ Wikipedia article ‘Pardon of Richard Nixon’

Professor Frank Bowman from the University of Missouri School of Law gives us a civics lesson about the process of impeachment. Stay tuned to find out what happens when you get impeached for eating Twinkies. Sources: National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution ‘Article I, Sections 1-3’ by William N. Eskridge Jr., Neomi Rao, Bradley A. Smith, Daniel P. Tokaji, Steven G. Calabresi, and Michael J. Gerhardt National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution ‘Article II, Section 4’ by Neil J. Kinkopf and Keith E. Whittington NPR article by Nina Totenberg ‘Can the Senate Try an Ex-President’ United States Senate post ‘Constitution of the United States’  Wikipedia article ‘Impeachment in the United States’ Wikipedia article ‘Pardon of Richard Nixon’

On November 9, 2020, The Federalist Society's Religious Liberties Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The topic of the panel was "Religious Liberty and the New Court."Religious liberty and religious free exercise in the modern era often involve the question of when religious exemptions are appropriate or required. A well-trodden debate asks whether the Free Exercise Clause provides relief only from laws that target religion, or whether it also requires courts to grant exemptions from generally applicable laws that happen to burden religion. But much less has been said about how courts should implement either of these two readings. First, how can courts tell if a law is truly general in application? If religious entities must be treated as well as secular analogues, what makes a secular entity "analogous"? Second, if the Free Exercise Clause requires something more than even-handed treatment of religious entities, what more is needed? What sort of test should be used to determine when to grant exemptions from a general law? The first question came up repeatedly in cases challenging the shutdown orders prompted by COVID-19, and is also at issue in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Depending on how the Court decides that case, it may address the second question as well. This panel explores both questions, and features opposing perspectives on religious exemptions as a matter of history, doctrine, and constitutional law.Featuring:Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law Ms. Lori Windham, Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious LibertyModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia CircuitIntroduction: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society *******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On January 3-4, 2020, the Federalist Society hosted its 22nd annual Faculty Conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. The luncheon featured a debate on whether the electoral college should be abrogated.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers. Featuring:Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law SchoolStephen Sachs, Duke University School of LawModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

On January 3-4, 2020, the Federalist Society hosted its 22nd annual Faculty Conference at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. The luncheon featured a debate on whether the electoral college should be abrogated.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers. Featuring:Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law SchoolStephen Sachs, Duke University School of LawModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted the fourth showcase panel of the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "Originalism and Precedent."The Supreme Court has decided hundreds of cases, many of which do not seem to square with the original meaning. How much account, if any, should originalism take account of precedent. Are there particular precedent rules that originalism can generate?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Mills E. Godwin, Jr., Professor of Law and Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law SchoolProf. Bernadette Meyler, Carl and Sheila Spaeth Professor of Law and Associate Dean, Research and Intellectual Life, Stanford Law SchoolProf. Michael Stokes Paulsen, Distinguished University Chair and Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of LawProf. Lawrence B. Solum, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

On November 16, 2019, the Federalist Society hosted the fourth showcase panel of the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "Originalism and Precedent."The Supreme Court has decided hundreds of cases, many of which do not seem to square with the original meaning. How much account, if any, should originalism take account of precedent. Are there particular precedent rules that originalism can generate?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Tara Leigh Grove, Mills E. Godwin, Jr., Professor of Law and Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law SchoolProf. Bernadette Meyler, Carl and Sheila Spaeth Professor of Law and Associate Dean, Research and Intellectual Life, Stanford Law SchoolProf. Michael Stokes Paulsen, Distinguished University Chair and Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of LawProf. Lawrence B. Solum, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Despite the presence of Article VI to the Constitution, confirmation hearings for judicial nominees have continued to include questions pertaining to the nominee’s religious viewpoints. This is not fair, nor permitted by the Constitution. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Confirmation hearings have been interesting of late. Some senators are asking questions of nominees that are more than tough. They are unfair. My favorite example of this came when Sen. Cory Booker asked judicial nominee Neomi Rao whether she believed homosexuality is a sin.  That’s a question that seems out of line because it invites the nominee to assert a theological pronouncement.  Senator Mike Lee thought so too.  He said, “I can’t fathom a circumstance in which it’s ever appropriate for us to ask a nominee about his or her religious beliefs about whether x, y or z is a sin.”  Senator Lee then had to remind Sen. Mazie Hirono of Sen. Booker’s actual question about sin when Hirono shot back, “It is not that we all ask ‘do you think such and such is a sin, etc., etc.'” These questions may in fact violate Article VI of the Constitution, which guarantees that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”  Forcing citizens to adhere to a specific religious ideology—or none at all—violates the rights common to our humanity, rights endowed to us by our Creator.  Article VI exists to keep the halls of government open to an ideological variety of Americans.  That’s something our senators would do well to remember. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Senator Elizabeth Warren wants to break up tech companies; former Attorney General Eric Holder wants a future Democratic President and Congress to pack the Court, which would break it. What do Hoover Institution fellows Richard Epstein and Adam White think of these proposals? They disagree with both of them ... but they also disagree with one another about how to think about what Google does today. But before they start to debate those issues, they begin by applauding the Senate's move toward confirming Neomi Rao's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Did you like the show? You can rate, review, subscribe, and download the podcast on the following platforms:Podbean | Apple Podcasts | RadioPublic | Overcast | Google Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Senator Marsha Blackburn talks with Tim about Neomi Rao and her appointment/approval as a DC Circuit Judge. What kind of person is she and is she qualified to replace now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh? Blackburn sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and has the inside scoop.

Last month in El Salvador, a third-party outsider won in a landslide election, defeating his opponents, promising to crack down on corruption, to fight crime, and improve the economy. President-elect Nayib Bukele shares with us his thoughts on immigration, gangs, and how the U.S. and El Salvador can work together. We also cover these stories:•After dozens of countries suspended use of the Boeing 737 MAX 8, President Trump is following suit.•Neomi Rao has been confirmed by the Senate, and will now take Brett Kavanaugh's old seat on the D.C. Circuit Court.•Paul Manafort has now been sentenced to 7 years in prison.The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this special double-episode, Steve Hayward takes the occasion of the last-minute hesitation over the nomination of Neomi Rao for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to talk once again with “Lucretia,” Power Line's International Woman of Mystery, about the issue of “substantive due process” that apparently worried a couple of Republican senators, and then we bring on our own John Hinderaker for a... Source

I continue our discussion on how the conservative legal movement is not only wrong about the power of the courts, but is pushing certain judicial nominees who are part of the problem. Next, I address the congressional resolution of disapproval on Trump’s emergency declaration. A lot of people don’t realize that Congress actually originally had the power to veto such a declaration without needing the president’s signature. Yet we allowed the courts to nullify it. Now the same people who complain about the president’s power and are begging the courts to nullify it originally allowed the courts to nullify their own power. Why do people only question presidential authority, but not judicial authority?  Finally, a lightning round of important news you might have missed on all fronts.  Show links What the fight over Neomi Rao really reveals We continue to arm al Qaeda Copyright Blaze Media All Rights Reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Do you know why we continue to get screwed by Republican-appointed judges?  Because so many of the people pushing them are really progressive libertarians, not even traditional libertarians, much less conservatives.  On today’s show, I update you on Republican Sen. Josh Hawley’s fight for a modicum of social conservatism and the concerns he is raising about Neomi Rao, Trump’s nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Those pushing her and attacking Hawley only care about libertarian issues, which is why the Kochs are pushing her. They don’t care about the attacks of the judiciary on our civil society. Thus, they are not concerned with the fact that she might be pro-abortion and subscribe to some of the doctrines creating B.S. rights.  Tied into this narrative is the latest radical GOP appointee’s ruling that it’s unconstitutional not to draft men and women equally for military service. The reason we have lost so many cultural battles overnight because of the courts is because the “conservative” legal movement is not really conservative at all. Show links Judge mandates potential draft of women Hawley’s concerns about Rao Copyright Blaze Media All Rights Reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Lindsey Burke of Heritage joins to examine the Democrats’ proposals for universal pre-K. Jay and Mona then reflect on Ilhan Omar v. Elliott Abrams, Kamala Harris v. Neomi Rao, and Robert Kraft’s trouble.Join the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/need-to-know/warrentless-childcare/.Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/membership/.Subscribe to Need to Know in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

In today’s special edition of the podcast, The Daily Signal’s Kelsey Harkness sits down with a number of Heritage Foundation scholars to get their take on the policy proposals in President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address.We also cover these stories:•Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., asked Neomi Rao, a judicial nominee, whether she thought gay marriage was "sinful".•A woman accusing Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax of sexual assault, which he denies, is now working with the same law firm that helped Christine Blasey Ford. •Ivanka Trump reacts to a new art exhibit in Washington, D.C. that features a model resembling her vacuuming crumbs visitors throw. The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.Hon. Neomi Rao, Administrator, Office of Information & Regulatory AffairsIntroduction: Mr. Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.Hon. Neomi Rao, Administrator, Office of Information & Regulatory AffairsIntroduction: Mr. Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

During the annual Missouri Farm Bureau Fly-In to Washington, D.C., Eric spoke with Neomi Rao, the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; MFB Ambassadors Charlie Ebbesmeyer and Jacqueline Janorschke; and Spencer Tuma, MFB National Legislative Affairs Director.

In 2017, the U.S. experienced a dramatic shift in regulatory policy at the federal level. This shift is attributable to a new presidential administration that has made regulatory reform a priority. This priority is evidenced by numerous regulatory initiatives including Executive Order 13771 that directs agencies, among other things, to repeal two regulations for every new regulation promulgated. The Administration recently reported that it had far exceeded this goal by instead, repealing twenty-two regulations for every new regulation created. However, debate remains over how the new administration’s regulatory efforts, in its totality, should be scored thus far. We are pleased to have OIRA Administrator Neomi Rao as our Foruth Branch podcast guest to share her perspective on that question.Featuring:- Neomi Rao, Administrator, OIRAVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In 2017, the U.S. experienced a dramatic shift in regulatory policy at the federal level. This shift is attributable to a new presidential administration that has made regulatory reform a priority. This priority is evidenced by numerous regulatory initiatives including Executive Order 13771 that directs agencies, among other things, to repeal two regulations for every new regulation promulgated. The Administration recently reported that it had far exceeded this goal by instead, repealing twenty-two regulations for every new regulation created. However, debate remains over how the new administration’s regulatory efforts, in its totality, should be scored thus far. We are pleased to have OIRA Administrator Neomi Rao as our Foruth Branch podcast guest to share her perspective on that question.Featuring:- Neomi Rao, Administrator, OIRAVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In this episode Matt Kelly and myself take a deep dive into the weeds of the recent remarks by Neomi Rao, head of the Office for Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the Administration’s top regulatory review office outlining ambitious plans for more deregulation in 2018 — including efforts to sweep independent federal agencies into her purview and to crack down on the “sub-regulatory” guidance that corporate compliance professionals consume all the time. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode Matt Kelly and myself take a deep dive into the weeds of the recent remarks by Neomi Rao, head of the Office for Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the Administration’s top regulatory review office outlining ambitious plans for more deregulation in 2018 — including efforts to sweep independent federal agencies into her purview and to crack down on the “sub-regulatory” guidance that corporate compliance professionals consume all the time. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In recent decades, the President has sought to control the regulatory state through the Office of Management and Budget and through the office within OMB known as OIRA. This panel will discuss whether that is a positive development, and whether presidential review powers should apply to independent as well as executive branch agencies, which could be accomplished by allowing removal of independent agency heads by the President. Would such implementation of the unitary executive lodge too much power in one man, as clearly the Framers feared? Do views on such matters depend on who is the President at any given moment? The panel will also discuss possible changes to notice and comment rulemaking, and what guidance agencies ought to give to their prosecutorial law enforcement personnel.Prof. Aditya Bamzai, Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Susan Dudley, Director, Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington UniversityProf. Lisa Heinzerling, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law, Georgetown UniversityHon. Neomi Rao, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, The Office of Management and BudgetModerator: Hon. David Barron, United States Court of Appeals, First CircuitIntroduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

In recent decades, the President has sought to control the regulatory state through the Office of Management and Budget and through the office within OMB known as OIRA. This panel will discuss whether that is a positive development, and whether presidential review powers should apply to independent as well as executive branch agencies, which could be accomplished by allowing removal of independent agency heads by the President. Would such implementation of the unitary executive lodge too much power in one man, as clearly the Framers feared? Do views on such matters depend on who is the President at any given moment? The panel will also discuss possible changes to notice and comment rulemaking, and what guidance agencies ought to give to their prosecutorial law enforcement personnel.Prof. Aditya Bamzai, Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Susan Dudley, Director, Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington UniversityProf. Lisa Heinzerling, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law, Georgetown UniversityHon. Neomi Rao, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, The Office of Management and BudgetModerator: Hon. David Barron, United States Court of Appeals, First CircuitIntroduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

In today's Federal Newscast, a report issued by the Defense Department inspector general has found 350 known security vulnerabilities at three Army hospitals and clinics, adding Defense Heath Agency and Army officials have failed to effectively protect electronic patient health information.

Clearly, we live in a very different society from that of the founding period. Size of both population and territory, speed of communication, and America's role in the world are but three examples of many differences. Equally clear is that these changes require adaptation, even if the original design was perfect. But how true have those changes been to the structure and spirit of that design? Have the required changes in practice been consciously or unconsciously used as a way to alter the original conception? What has been lost that would be valuable today? Are there better ways to adjust the Congressional role to major changes in society? Hypothetically, how would Congress handle a greatly increased volume of work in the unlikely event that the size of the government was halved, and could it do so without excessive reliance on the Administrative State? Is Congress dysfunctional today? If so, how can we improve it? -- This panel was presented at the 2015 National Lawyers Convention on Friday, November 13, 2015, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Christopher C. DeMuth, Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute; Prof. Neal E. Devins, Sandra Day O'Connor Professor of Law, Cabell Research Professor, Professor of Government, and Director, Institute of Bill of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School; Prof. David Mayhew, Sterling Professor of Political Science, Yale University; Prof. Gillian E. Metzger, U.S. Constitutional Law Scholar and Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; and Prof. Neomi Rao, Associate Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Jerry Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society.

Three panelists discuss trends in recent Supreme Court cases and upcoming cases to watch. George Mason University School of Law associate professor Neomi Rao addresses cases associated with the ever expanding administrative state. Judicial Crisis Network Council Carrie Severino discusses upcoming cases related to public employee unions, 'one-person-one-vote' redistricting, and the death penalty. Heritage Foundation Legal Fellow Elizabeth Slattery looks at cases in lower courts that are likely working their way toward the high court in upcoming years. The event was recorded on October 9, 2015, at the Conservative Women's Network, a monthly event co-sponsored by the Luce Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

Three panelists discuss trends in recent Supreme Court cases and upcoming cases to watch. George Mason University School of Law associate professor Neomi Rao addresses cases associated with the ever expanding administrative state. Judicial Crisis Network Council Carrie Severino discusses upcoming cases related to public employee unions, 'one-person-one-vote' redistricting, and the death penalty. Heritage Foundation Legal Fellow Elizabeth Slattery looks at cases in lower courts that are likely working their way toward the high court in upcoming years. The event was recorded on October 9, 2015, at the Conservative Women's Network, a monthly event co-sponsored by the Luce Institute and the Heritage Foundation.