Podcast appearances and mentions of nicholas bagley

In the face of what is inarguably bad governance and fake—but spectacular!—technocracy (the list goes on and on, but we'll stop at AI-generated tariffs), we thought we'd take a moment to join the conversation about what good governance looks like. A couple of weeks ago, one of us reviewed Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's new book, Abundance, for the New York Times, and then the other one of us reviewed the review. So we figured: let's work it out on the pod? No guests on this episode, just the two of us in a brass-tacks, brass-knuckles discussion of the abundance agenda and the goals of twenty-first century economic policy.We dive right into what the abundance agenda is and who its enemies are: innovators and builders against NIMBYs and environmentalists on David's account; techno-utopians who discount the environment and politics on Sam's. We agree that housing policy, at least, has helped the better-off create a cycle of entrenching their position through stymieing construction and production. We find another point of agreement on how Klein and Thomson's abundance agenda attempts to harness the power of the state to build, and that certain left-wing critiques are off base, but disagree about whether their proposal is a break from the neoliberal era of governance and what that even was. In some ways, we end up right where we started, disagreeing about whether the abundance agenda seeks to unleash a dammed-up tide that can lift all boats, or whether the abundance agenda leaves behind everyone but a vanguard of “innovators” in the technology and finance sectors. Let us know if you've got a convincing answer.This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review.Referenced ReadingsWhy Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress―and How to Bring It Back by Marc DunkelmanStuck: How the Privileged and the Propertied Broke the Engine of American Opportunity by Yoni AppelbaumOn the Housing Crisis: Land, Development, Democracy by Jerusalem DemsasOne Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger by Matthew Yglesias“Kludgeocracy: The American Way of Policy” by Steven TelesThe Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil War by Robert GordonThe Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era by Gary GerstlePublic Citizens: The Attack on Big Government and the Remaking of American Liberalism by Paul Sabin“The State Capacity Crisis” by Nicholas Bagley and David SchleicherRed State Blues: How the Conservative Revolution Stalled in the States by Matt GrossmannThe Captured Economy: How the Powerful Enrich Themselves, Slow Down Growth, and Increase Inequality by Brink Lindsey and Steven Teles“Why has Regional Income Convergence in the U.S. Declined?” by Peter Ganong and Daniel Shoag“Exclusionary Zoning's Confused Defenders” by David Schleicher“Cost Disease Socialism: How Subsidizing Costs While Restricting Supply Drives America's Fiscal Imbalance” by Steven Teles, Samuel Hammond, and Daniel Takash”On Productivism” by Dani Rodrik 

President Donald Trump's choice to lead the vast Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., faced sharp questioning from senators this week, particularly over his history of vaccine denialism. Meanwhile, the Trump administration's second week has been even more disruptive than its first, with an on-again, off-again funding freeze that left many around the country scrambling to understand what was going on. Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet join KFF Health News' Julie Rovner to discuss these stories and more. Also this week, Rovner interviews Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor, who explains how the federal regulatory system is supposed to operate to make health policy.Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:Julie Rovner: 404 Media's “Medical Device Company Tells Hospitals They're No Longer Allowed to Fix Machine That Costs Six Figures,” by Jason Koebler.Sandhya Raman: ProPublica's “Dozens of People Died in Arizona Sober Living Homes as State Officials Fumbled Medicaid Fraud Response,” by Mary Hudetz and Hannah Bassett.Sarah Karlin-Smith: CBS News' “Wind-Blown Bird Poop May Help Transmit Bird Flu, Minnesota's Infectious Disease Expert Warns,” by Mackenzie Lofgren. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

Today, we're diving into everyone's favorite Statecraft topic: administrative law! The two court cases we're discussing could have huge ramifications for how we build things in America.We brought three of our favorite administrative law professors together: James Coleman is a professor at the University of Minnesota, Adam White is the Executive Director of the Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University, and Nicholas Bagley is a professor at the University of Michigan and was Chief General Counsel to Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.We discussed:* Why the National Environmental Policy Act is a problem* How a small White House office grew to wield power Congress never gave it* Why a seemingly simple environmental case has thrown environmental regulations into doubt* Why D.C. appellate lawyers don't challenge laws they believe are wrong* The potential for reforming environmental review This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Brief intros: Nicholas Bagley was General Counsel to Governor Gretchen Whitmer. Kathy Stack served almost three decades at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Jenny Mattingley also served at the OMB, focusing on hiring reform and workforce efforts.Timestamps:(00:00) Introduction(04:42) “I think all three of you have something to say about the Paperwork Reduction Act.”(12:38) A one-way ratchet(22:16) How to get a new form approved(32:04) Why is there no natural constituency to improve this?(42:14) Inheriting judicial review from the Civil Rights era(59:13) What should be on the new administration's agenda? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Jesse is on vacation until August, so this is a special, Rob-only summer episode of Shift Key.Over the past few weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court has profoundly changed how the federal government does its day-to-day work. In a series of landmark rulings, the high court sharply curtailed the ability of government agencies — including the Environmental Protection Agency — to write and enforce rules and regulations.That will change how the federal government oversees the products we buy, the air we breathe, and the water we drink. But it could also alter how the government regulates heat-trapping greenhouse gas pollution.But how, exactly, will these new rulings affect climate law? And is there an upside to the deregulatory revolution? This week, Rob holds a roundtable with two environmental law experts about what the high court's rulings mean for America's decarbonization project — and whether the court just inadvertently made the country's already burdensome permitting process even worse. They are Jody Freeman, a Harvard law professor and former Obama administration lawyer, and Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor.This episode of Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap.Mentioned: This year's four big decisions: Loper Bright, Corner Post, Jarkesy, Ohio v. EPAThe Supreme Court Is Slowly Breaking the EPAHow the Supreme Court Just Changed Climate Law, According to 9 LawyersThe Big Winners of This Supreme Court Term, by Nicholas Bagley Other important cases to know: • Massachusetts v. EPA established that the agency could regulate greenhouse gas pollution• West Virginia v. EPA codified “the major questions doctrine”--This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …Watershed's climate data engine helps companies measure and reduce their emissions, turning the data they already have into an audit-ready carbon footprint backed by the latest climate science. Get the sustainability data you need in weeks, not months. Learn more at watershed.com.As a global leader in PV and ESS solutions, Sungrow invests heavily in research and development, constantly pushing the boundaries of solar and battery inverter technology. Discover why Sungrow is the essential component of the clean energy transition by visiting sungrowpower.com.Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In The Atlantic, law professor Nicholas Bagley looks at a set of recent Supreme Court decisions that have fundamentally reshaped power in Washington. Outside magazine argues for banning fireworks for health and environmental reasons. CBS New York explains why Joey Chestnut is not on this year’s list of Nathan’s Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest competitors, despite being the reigning champion. Today’s episode was guest-hosted by Gideon Resnick.

Earlier this month, Florida became the first state to get FDA approval to import cheaper drugs from Canada. But will it work? Nicholas Bagley and Joel Lexchin join Meghna Chakrabarti. About: Hosted by Meghna Chakrabarti, On Point is WBUR's award-winning, daily public radio show and podcast. Its unique combination of original reporting, first-person stories, and in-depth analysis creates an experience that makes the world more intelligible and humane. Deep dives. Original stories. Fresh takes. We'd appreciate your help to better understand On Point's podcast listeners and get your feedback — it'll take you about 10 minutes or less! Take our survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/onpointpodcast  

Hosts Jim Maher and Gayle Knutson talk about why drugs cost so much in America and how pharmaceutical companies are trying to defend their profits with Prof. Nicholas Bagley, law professor, University of Michigan (6:00); and hear from Marius Anderson producer/director of the kickoff documentary for Marine Documentary Night, 40 Below: The Toughest Race In The World (26:00). Also featured is an update of local news (46:30). Matt Quast is technical director.Prof. Nicholas Bagley, University of MichiganPolitico Article – The Real Reason Drugs Cost So Much, And Do Too LittleMarius Anderson, Director, 40 Below: The Toughest Race in the WorldGovernment Links:City of Marine on St. CroixCity of ScandiaMay TownshipWashington CountyNewsLake Elmo School Issues – Pioneer PressLake Elmo School Issues – Star TribuneBusiness/Organization Links:Marine Community LibraryLibrary Donation PageEvent LinksPeter Mayer at Christ Lutheran ChurchBreakfast with Santa in ScandiaName the Snowplow EntriesWashington County Name the Snowplow Entries

On Wednesday, November 29, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. The case involves three constitutional challenges to the agency, involving the right to a jury trial; the nondelegation doctrine; and the scope of executive power. In this episode, Noah Rosenblum, assistant professor of law at NYU, and Ilan Wurman, assistant professor at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, join Jeffrey Rosen to break down the arguments in the case, which pits the federal regulatory agency against a hedge fund manager charged with securities violations. They break down the constitutional claims at play, and discuss how the case could affect the future of the SEC and the modern administrative state as we know it.    Resources:  SEC v. Jarkesy (oral argument via CSPAN; transcript)  Noah Rosenblum, “The Case That Could Destroy the Government,” The Atlantic (Nov. 27, 2023)  Ilan Wurman, Brief in Support of Neither Party, SEC v. Jarkesy   Ilan Wurman, “Nondelegation at the Founding” (Yale L.J. 2021)  Julian Davis Mortenson & Nicholas Bagley, “Delegation at the Founding,” (Columbia L.Rev. 2021)      Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.   Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

This Term, the Supreme Court will hear Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo—a case concerning judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Pursuant to Chevron v. NRDC and follow-on cases, courts defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Loper Bright offers the Court an opportunity to abandon Chevron deference entirely. But the phrasing of the Question presented in Loper Bright also presents an off-ramp for the Court, allowing it to keep Chevron's framework intact. How the Court resolves Loper Bright will have massive implications for administrative law. On this panel, three distinguished administrative law scholars discuss the task before the Court in Loper Bright and the future of Chevron deference.Featuring:Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolProf. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University(Moderator) Eli Nachmany, Former Law Clerk to Hon. Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

This Term, the Supreme Court will hear Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo—a case concerning judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Pursuant to Chevron v. NRDC and follow-on cases, courts defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Loper Bright offers the Court an opportunity to abandon Chevron deference entirely. But the phrasing of the Question presented in Loper Bright also presents an off-ramp for the Court, allowing it to keep Chevron's framework intact. How the Court resolves Loper Bright will have massive implications for administrative law. On this panel, three distinguished administrative law scholars discuss the task before the Court in Loper Bright and the future of Chevron deference.Featuring:--Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School--Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School--Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University--(Moderator) Eli Nachmany, Former Law Clerk to Hon. Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

At the start of the pandemic, China built a 1,500 room hospital in 5 days. In the United States, things don't tend to go that way. We're notorious for our boondoggles, cost overruns, and the slug-like pace it takes us to complete relatively small projects. It's given rise to a debate over why we so often suck at building stuff, and what we should do to get better at it. Is the problem red tape that ultimately cripples projects or falls victim to abuse? Is it that powerful interests have a monopoly over what gets built? Is the key to creating state capacity for progressive ends building comparable progressive power? A bunch of the scholarly legwork that gave rise to this debate about the future of liberalism was undertaken by a University of Michigan law professor named Nicholas Bagley. He's the author of the influential law review article “The Procedure Fetish,” and he joins host Brian Beutler for a discussion about how systems that were designed to either sabotage government or keep government honest have combined to make government incapable of building new projects that would make life better.

Recently, the application of Textualism by the Supreme Court of the United States--the predominant method of statutory interpretation that favors the plain meaning of text over legislative intent, statutory purpose, or legislative history--has given rise to rich debate as to its legitimacy, vitality, and future application. This webinar will explore and advance that debate with some of the leading minds in the field. Featuring:Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law SchoolProf. William Baude, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Emily Bremer, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School[Moderator] Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Related Links: The 2023 Scalia Lecture: Beyond Textualism?, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 46, 2023, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4464561Interpreting the Administrative Procedure Act: A Literature Review, 98 Notre Dame L. Rev. (forthcoming 2023), available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=4340363.

The Affordable Care Act says you don't have to pay for preventative health care. But a federal judge in Texas recently struck that down. And it could change the way 160 million Americans get their care. Nicholas Bagley joins Meghna Chakrabarti.

Nicholas Bagley is a professor of law at the University of Michigan, former Chief Legal Counsel to Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and a former attorney in the US Department of Justice. He joins the podcast to talk about his article, “The Procedure Fetish,” in which he calls for liberals to embrace reforms to make federal government agencies less sclerotic and more capable of addressing social problems. Richard presents Bagley with questions surrounding issues such as why we should trust government agencies with more power, the role of cost-benefit analysis, the performance of the FDA during Covid-19, and civil service reform, including President Trump's executive order that would have made it easier to fire more officials. The two discuss whether there can be a synthesis between the right and left on major issues surrounding government regulation.Listen to the podcast here, or watch on YouTube.Links: * Nicholas Bagley, “The Procedure Fetish”* Bagley on The Ezra Klein Show* Bagley on Twitter* Michael Lewis, The Fifth Risk* Matt Yglesias on Operation Warp Speed and the blowback to it* Cass Sunstein on the role of OIRA* Derek Thompson, “The Abundance Agenda” Get full access to Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology at www.cspicenter.com/subscribe

In my columns and on this show over the past few years, I've argued that to achieve the goals liberals hold most dear, we need a liberalism that builds. A liberalism that builds everything from multifamily housing and mass transit systems to transmission lines and solar farms. And we need a liberalism that can build it all quickly, cheaply and effectively. But even in the places where liberals have governing power, they are often failing to do exactly that. Why?Nicholas Bagley is a law professor at the University of Michigan, the former chief legal counsel to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and the author of a fascinating paper called “The Procedure Fetish.” In it, Bagley argues that liberals — liberal lawyers in particular — have helped hobble the very government they now need to act swiftly and decisively. It's easy to see how conservatives have strategically used a thicket of procedures and paperwork to slow down government, but what Bagley shows is that liberals too have been complicit in that project — to the detriment of many of the very causes they hope to advance.So this is a conversation about what I've come to think of as the divided soul of American liberalism — one that simultaneously demands big government action while also constantly acting to restrain it. We also discuss the importance of the administrative state, what liberals often fail to understand about government legitimacy, how corporate interests end up “capturing” government agencies, why Bagley thinks that American politics broadly and the Democratic Party in particular have a “lawyer problem,” how government paralysis helps fuel the rise of right-wing populists like Donald Trump, what it will take to restore Americans' trust in government, the problems with the public interest legal movement, how progressives are getting in the way of their own decarbonization agenda and more.Mentioned:“The Procedure Fetish” by Nicholas BagleyPresidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy by William G. Howell and Terry M. MoeBook Recommendations:Public Citizens by Paul SabinThe Fifth Risk by Michael LewisBabel by R.F. KuangThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.“The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Emefa Agawu, Annie Galvin, Jeff Geld, Rogé Karma and Kristin Lin. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris and Kate Sinclair. Mixing by Sonia Herrero. Original music by Isaac Jones. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta. The executive producer of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser. Special thanks to Pat McCusker and Kristina Samulewski.

This week, David Plotz, Emily Bazelon, and John Dickerson discuss the Supreme Court's gutting of administrative authority in West Virginia v. EPA, the case coming next term that could upend U.S. elections, and the Highland Park shooting. Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Julian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley for The Atlantic: “The Nondelegation Doctrine Is A Fable”  Julian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley for The Columbia Law Review: "Delegation at the Founding" Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Susan Elizabeth Shepard for Willamette Week: “A Student at an Oregon Community College Says Instructors Flunked Her for Being a Porn Actress. She's Suing.” John: How Normal Am I? David: Twitter thread about: Jaroszewicz, et al: “How Effective Is (More) Money? Randomizing Unconditional Cash Transfer Amounts in the US” Listener chatter from Jocelyn Frank: “Humanity's First Cosmic Gallery of Children's Art: What the Youngest Members of Our Young Species Most Cherish About Life on Earth” Tweet us your questions and chatters @SlateGabfest or email us at gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Kevin Bendis. Research by Bridgette Dunlap. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, David Plotz, Emily Bazelon, and John Dickerson discuss the Supreme Court's gutting of administrative authority in West Virginia v. EPA, the case coming next term that could upend U.S. elections, and the Highland Park shooting. Here are some notes and references from this week's show: Julian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley for The Atlantic: “The Nondelegation Doctrine Is A Fable”  Julian Davis Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley for The Columbia Law Review: "Delegation at the Founding" Here are this week's chatters: Emily: Susan Elizabeth Shepard for Willamette Week: “A Student at an Oregon Community College Says Instructors Flunked Her for Being a Porn Actress. She's Suing.” John: How Normal Am I? David: Twitter thread about: Jaroszewicz, et al: “How Effective Is (More) Money? Randomizing Unconditional Cash Transfer Amounts in the US” Listener chatter from Jocelyn Frank: “Humanity's First Cosmic Gallery of Children's Art: What the Youngest Members of Our Young Species Most Cherish About Life on Earth” Tweet us your questions and chatters @SlateGabfest or email us at gabfest@slate.com. (Messages may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.) Podcast production by Kevin Bendis. Research by Bridgette Dunlap. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Weekly roundup for December 11, 2021 I return to the microphone after a short hiatus. Unfortunately, none of the issues facing America have been addressed in the two months since we last talked, and if anything, the crisis of American democracy has only deepened. Two major cases sit before SCOTUS this term. One case, covered extensively in the media, imperils fundamental rights and threatens to tear the country apart. The other case, almost completely ignored by the media, could be the most consequential ruling for federal governance in decades. Finally, a few short comments on the F-word. No, not that F-word -- the other F-word. NOTES: 1. "Supreme Court set to take up all-or-nothing abortion fight", PBS NewsHour Weekend, November 28, 2021; https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/supreme-court-set-to-take-up-all-or-nothing-abortion-fight 2. "Chevron deference at stake in fight over payments for hospital drugs", by Nicholas Bagley, SCOTUSblog, November 29, 2021; https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/11/chevron-deference-at-stake-in-fight-over-payments-for-hospital-drugs/ 3. "The Anatomy of Fascism", interview with Robert O. Paxton, C-SPAN BookTV, May 7, 2004; https://www.c-span.org/video/?181972-1/the-anatomy-fascism 4. "I've Hesitated to Call Donald Trump a Fascist. Until Now", by Robert O. Paxton, Newsweek, January 11, 2021; https://www.newsweek.com/robert-paxton-trump-fascist-1560652 MUSIC CREDIT: "Angry Bass Line", by Adigold; elements.envato.com IMAGE CREDIT: "Supreme Court of the United States -- Roberts Court 2020", Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States, public domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States_-_Roberts_Court_2020.jpg

In this episode we continue our discussion of the implications of the approval of the Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm (generic name Aducanumab). Our guest this week is Professor Nicholas Bagley. Bagley is a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School and a contributing writer to the Atlantic. Recently he wrote an article titled “The Drug that Could Break American Health Care” that discusses some of the broader (unintended) consequences of the approval of Aducanumab. In this episode we discuss some of the broader cost implications of the new drug. PRODUCER'S NOTE: Since the recording of this interview, Medicare officials have announced the largest ever dollar-amount rate hike for Part B coverage citing the need to build contingency reserves to potentially cover the Alzheimer's drug, Aduhelm. Professor Bagley discusses the concern of the cost of Aduhelm to the US Healthcare System in this Minding Memory episode. The transcript for this episode can be found here. Related Links: CAPRA Website: http://capra.med.umich.edu/ Atlantic Article – The Drug that Could Break American Healthcare by Nicholas Bagley & Rachel Sachs: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/aduhelm-drug-alzheimers-cost-medicare/619169/ You can subscribe to Minding Memory on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Vox senior correspondent Ian Millhiser talks to law professor Nicholas Bagley about the pandemic — and how the courts are undermining the government's ability to respond to emergencies. They discuss the constitutionality of vaccine mandates, religious exemptions to public health laws, and court decisions undermining the power of public health agencies. References: Delegation at the Founding (Columbia Law Review) The Supreme Court's coming war with Joe Biden, explained Religious conservatives have won a revolutionary victory in the Supreme Court A New Supreme Court case could gut the government's power to fight climate change Hosts: Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser)  Credits: Sofi LaLonde, producer and engineer Libby Nelson, editorial adviser Amber Hall, deputy editorial director of talk podcasts Sign up for The Weeds newsletter each Friday: vox.com/weedsletter  Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Prof. Nicholas Bagley is a professor at the University of Michigan Law School. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. N. Bagley. California v. Texas — Ending the Campaign to Undo the ACA in the Courts. N Engl J Med 2021;385:673-675.

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

In this episode, Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School, discusses his article "The Procedure Fetish," which was published in the Michigan Law Review. Bagley begins by observing that administrative procedure has both costs and benefits. He argues that we fetishize administrative procedure, telling ourselves it provides benefits it can't deliver, at the cost of preventing agencies from regulating more effectively. He argues that administrative procedure pushes regulation in a libertarian or "status quo" direction. And he reflects on why we have chosen to put our administrative eggs in a procedural basket. Bagley is on Twitter at @nicholas_bagley.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Originalists have recently come under fire for trying to reinvigorate an old principle in administrative law called the nondelegation doctrine, which holds that Congress cannot delegate its own legislative power to other entities. Are originalists correct in claiming that the nondelegation doctrine was present at the founding? What does the historical record have to say about it? Why should living constitutionalists even care about this debate? Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, and Ilan Wurman, an associate professor at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, join the show to answer all of these questions and more.   Show Notes: -“There’s No Historical Justification for One of the Most Dangerous Ideas in American Law” by Nicholas Bagley and Julian Davis Mortenson in the Atlantic. -“Delegation at the Founding” by Nicholas Bagley and Julian Davis Mortenson in Columbia Law Review. -“No Nondelegation at the Founding? Not so fast,” by Ilan Wurman in the Yale Law Journal. -Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. -Above the Law. -The Second Founding: An Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment by Ilan Wurman. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On Tuesday, Speech First, Inc. filed a free speech lawsuit alleging that the University of Central Florida and its officials “created a series of rules and regulations that restrain, deter, suppress, and punish speech about the political and social issues of the day.” David and Sarah walk us through the history of campus cat and mouse battles over restrictive speech codes and explain whether this lawsuit will matter in the long run. On today’s episode, our hosts also chat about the nondelegation doctrine, the possibility of further criminal prosecution against Donald Trump, and how Rush Limbaugh’s passing might affect the conservative media climate.   Show Notes: -Speech First vs. Cartwright and Speech First, Inc. v. Gregory L. Fenves. -Nondelegation doctrine cases: Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, J.W. Hampton Jr., & Co. v. United States and Gundy v. United States. -“Trump’s Acquittal Exposed a Republic in Peril” by David French in Time. -“There’s No Historical Justification for One of the Most Dangerous Ideas in American Law” by Julian David Mortenson and Nicholas Bagley in the Atlantic. -“Opinion analysis: Court refuses to resurrect nondelegation doctrine” by Mila Sohoni in SCOTUSblog. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"We used to be a nation where people were one bad gene or one bad traffic accident away from bankruptcy. That's not true anymore." -Jonathan GruberIt's been 10 years since President Barack Obama  signed the Affordable Care Act into law. Some of its most popular provisions included protections for people with pre-existing conditions, allowing children to stay on their family’s health insurance until they turn 26, and expanding prescription drug coverage for Medicare recipients. But the law remains controversial. On Nov. 10, 2020, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the latest constitutional challenge to the law. In this bonus episode of American Diagnosis, we look back at the surprising origins of the Affordable Care Act, see why it’s become so controversial, and what the latest legal challenge to the ACA would mean for the millions of Americans who depend on the law for their health insurance. This podcast was created by Just Human Productions. We're powered and distributed by Simplecast. We're supported, in part, by listeners like you.

Andy talks with Nicholas Bagley, co-author of their recent New York Times piece on the razor’s-edge status of the Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act, and the pandemic. Nicholas is a law professor and former Justice Department attorney; he has also advised Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer on the pandemic. This episode prepares you for the monumental and rapid progression of the potential appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, the presidential election, and the ACA case on November 10. Andy and Nicholas are considered the foremost experts on this topic and this episode will be the authoritative take on this subject.  Keep up with Andy on Twitter @ASlavitt and Instagram @andyslavitt. Follow Nicholas Bagley on Twitter @nicholas_bagley. In the Bubble is supported in part by listeners like you. Become a member, get exclusive bonus content, ask Andy questions, and get discounted merch at https://www.lemonadamedia.com/inthebubble/    Support the show by checking out our sponsors! Livinguard masks have the potential to deactivate COVID-19 based on the testing they have conducted from leading universities such as the University of Arizona and the Free University in Berlin, Germany. Go to shop.livinguard.com and use the code BUBBLE10 for 10% off. You can digitally purchase life insurance from Haven Life Insurance Agency at havenlife.com/bubble. Haven Term is a Term Life Insurance Policy (ICC17DTC) issued by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (MassMutual), Springfield, MA 01111 and offered exclusively through Haven Life Insurance Agency, LLC. Policy and rider form numbers and features may vary by state and not be available in all states. Our Agency license number in California is 0K71922 and in Arkansas, 100139527.   Check out these resources from today’s episode:  Learn more about the existential threat facing the Affordable Care Act in this New York Times Op-Ed by Andy and Nicholas: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/opinion/trump-supreme-court-obamacare.html  Read more about what Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett has said about the Affordable Care Act: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trump-scotus-pick-amy-coney-barrett-s-past-critiques-obamacare-n1241191 Here is President Trump’s executive order on pre-existing conditions: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-america-first-healthcare-plan/.  Read Nicholas’s full reaction to the executive order in this Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/nicholas_bagley/status/1309297065357455361.  This article lays out the various scenarios that could play out with the Affordable Care Act: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/19/what-happens-to-obamacare-ginsburg-418406  Are you hoping to vote in the 2020 election? Are you confused about how to request an absentee ballot in your state? This website can help you with that: https://www.betterknowaballot.com/   Pre-order Andy’s book, Preventable: The Inside Story of How Leadership Failures, Politics, and Selfishness Doomed the U.S. Coronavirus Response, here: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250770165    To follow along with a transcript and/or take notes for friends and family, go to www.lemonadamedia.com/show/in-the-bubble shortly after the air date. Stay up to date with us on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram at @LemonadaMedia. For additional resources, information, and a transcript of the episode, visit lemonadamedia.com. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Before her death, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was preparing to hear a case that could determine the availability of affordable health insurance for roughly 20 million Americans. Dan is joined by University of Michigan law professor and Supreme Court expert Nicholas Bagley to discuss the case and what could happen next. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School, and Julian Davis Mortenson, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School, discuss their article "Delegation at the Founding," which will be published in the Columbia Law Review. They begin by explaining what "delegation" is, in the constitutional context, and the history of the concept of the "non-delegation doctrine" prohibiting many kinds of delegation of legislative authority, which plays an important role in originalist constitutional theory. They describe their research into the theory and practice of delegation in the early American republic, and why it doesn't support the idea that non-delegation is a constitutional principle, on originalist terms. And they reflect on why originalists are so committed to the non-delegation doctrine. Bagley is on Twitter at @nicholas_bagley and Mortenson is at @jdmortenson.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Is the entire Affordable Care Act unconstitutional? That was the question before a federal appeals court in New Orleans this week. Two of the three judges on the panel seemed inclined to agree with a lower court that the elimination of the tax penalty for failure to maintain coverage could mean the entire health law should fall. Also this week, President Donald Trump wants to improve care for people with kidney disease. Joanne Kenen of Politico, Kimberly Leonard of the Washington Examiner and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico join KHN’s Julie Rovner to discuss this, plus courts blocking efforts to require drug prices in TV ads and to kick Planned Parenthood out of the federal family planning program. Plus, Rovner interviews University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley about the latest legal threat to the ACA.

Dylan Scott joins Dara and Matt to talk about the Trump administration’s latest moves to destabilize health insurance markets. Dylan's piece on risk adjustment payments, and another piece on the Trump administration’s latest steps to undermine the Affordable Care Act. Dylan also specifically referenced Nicholas Bagley. Read him on risk adjustments here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Prof. Nicholas Bagley is a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Managing Editor of the Journal. A. McIntyre, A.M. Joseph, and N. Bagley. Small Change, Big Consequences - Partial Medicaid Expansions under the ACA. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1004-6.

The central fight over the ACA has (for now) moved from Congress to the White House, where President Donald Trump is debating whether to yank key payments for insurers. But some senators are hinting that a bipartisan compromise on Obamacare is coming — as long as Trump doesn’t blow up their efforts, that is. First, POLITICO’s Jennifer Haberkorn and Paul Demko join Dan Diamond to talk about what's next in the Senate, the legal case that gives Trump the power to nix the payments, and what it was like to watch the dramatic vote early Friday morning. (Starts at 1:30.) Then after the break, Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor who’s a leading voice on the ACA's legal issues, explains the theory behind the current case, what happens in the courts if Trump yanks the payments, and the series of legal attacks on Obamacare over the years. (Starts at the 22:45 mark). We’d appreciate your help: Please share PULSE CHECK and rate us on your favorite podcast app! Have questions, suggestions or feedback? Email ddiamond@politico.com or tweet him @ddiamond. Stories referenced on the podcast: Jen’s story on how the GOP got stuck on repeal: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/31/republicans-obamacare-repeal-241152 Paul’s story on Trump’s looming decision on ACA payments: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/31/obamacare-payments-insurers-trump-decision-241171

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 fourth episode, Tony talks with Nicholas Bagley, a professor of law at the University of Michigan, who argues that contemporary critiques of executive power miss the mark. What we really need, he thinks, is not more “judicial review” of administrative actions, but more “judicial humility.” Their discussion touches on the nature of regulatory oversight, the role of the courts, and today’s political dysfunction.

(Bloomberg) -- Alden Bianchi, a member at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, and Nicholas Bagley, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, discuss the latest developments in republican attempts to pass the American Health Care Act. They speak with June Grasso, Michael Best and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

(Bloomberg) -- Alden Bianchi, a member at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, and Nicholas Bagley, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, discuss the latest developments in republican attempts to pass the American Health Care Act. They speak with June Grasso, Michael Best and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Six years after its enactment, Obamacare remains one of the most controversial, divisive, and enduring political issues in America. In this much-anticipated follow-up to his critically acclaimed Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare (2013), Professor Blackman argues that, to implement the law, President Obama has broken promises about cancelled insurance policies, exceeded the traditional bounds of executive power, and infringed on religious liberty. At the same time, he writes that conservative opponents have stopped at nothing to unravel Obamacare, including a three-week government shutdown, four Supreme Court cases, and fifty repeal votes. Author Joshua Blackman and Michigan Law Professor Nicholas Bagley joined us to discuss the book and the saga of Obamacare. -- Featuring: Prof. Josh Blackman, Author, Unraveled: Obamacare, Religious Liberty, & Executive Power, Associate Professor of Law, Houston College of Law and Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School.

Jonathan H. Adler from Case Western Reserve University and Nicholas Bagley from the University of Michigan join National Constitution Center president Jeffrey Rosen to analyze the core constitutional arguments in the latest Obamacare challenge at the Supreme Court.

Jonathan H. Adler from Case Western Reserve University and Nicholas Bagley from the University of Michigan join National Constitution Center president Jeffrey Rosen to analyze the core constitutional arguments in the latest Obamacare challenge at the Supreme Court.