Podcasts about regproject

The 2024 super election year has captured the world's attention, with the US elections playing a central role in shaping global politics. Join Kathryn Ciano Mauler and Katie Harbath as they delve into the complexities of worldwide political elections while discussing how to counteract and recognize how these elections will intersect with emerging technologies like AI.Featuring:Kathryn Ciano Mauler, Corporate Counsel, GoogleKatie Harbath, Chief Global Affairs Officer, DucoVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Six months ago, we experienced bank runs and three of the four largest bank failures in U.S. history. Regulators declared there was "systemic risk" and provided bailouts for large, uninsured depositors. What is the current situation? While things seem calmer now, what are the continuing risks in the banking sector? Banks face huge mark-to-market losses on their fixed-rate assets, and serious looming problems in commercial real estate. How might banks fare in an environment of higher interest rates over an extended period, or in a recession? Reform ideas include a 1,000-page "Basel Endgame" capital regulation proposal. Which reforms make the most sense and which proposals don't? Our expert and deeply experienced panel will take up these questions and provide their own recommendations in their signature lively manner.Featuring:- William M. Isaac, Chairman, Secura/Isaac Group- Keith Noreika, Executive VP & Chairman, Banking Supervision & Regulation Group, Patomak Global Partners- Lawrence J. White, Robert Kavesh Professorship in Economics, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University- [Moderator] Alex J. Pollock, Senior Fellow, Mises InstituteVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In October 2022, President Biden issued an executive order regarding the European Union - U.S. Data Privacy Framework. The Framework allows for data flows between the EU and the U.S., and it was established after the European Court of Justice struck down a prior agreement known as the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. The executive order addresses U.S. collection of signals intelligence, which has been a source of concern for EU regulators and privacy advocates. The executive order limits signals intelligence collection to defined national security objectives, requires the privacy and civil liberties of all persons be considered regardless of nationality, and the collection must be proportionate. In addition, the executive order calls for a multi-layered review process that will allow individuals to lodge complaints regarding the collection of signals intelligence.Our experts will discuss whether the Framework addresses the concerns of privacy advocates in the EU and the U.S., and they will consider the implications of the review process for U.S. intelligence collection. This program will also explore whether the EU and U.S. can reach a durable privacy agreement given the tension between EU privacy preferences and U.S. national security needs.Featuring:- Stewart Baker, Of Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson LLP- Max Schrems, Founder, NOYB- [Moderator] Matthew R. A. Heiman, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, Waystar Health; Senior Fellow and Director of Planning, National Security InstituteVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

As children's lives become increasingly digital, how can we protect their safety online while weighing potential trade-offs like privacy interests and free speech?Join us for a panel discussion examining the complex legal and ethical implications of enacting age verification requirements for access to social media and adult websites. The panel will dive into regulatory and legislative proposals and efforts, the role of tech companies and educational institutions, and the technological solutions available. Key questions include: How can we balance children's privacy and safety? What are the roles of government, companies, and parents? Is it necessary to restrict access by age? This timely discussion will provide a nuanced look at the issues from all sides as we seek to build a safer, more responsible digital world for the next generation.Featuring: - Clare Morell, Senior Policy Analyst, Technology and Human Flourishing Project, Ethics and Public Policy Center- Ben Sperry, Senior Scholar, Innovation Policy, International Center for Law & Economics- Jamie Susskind, Legislative Director for Senator Marsha Blackburn, U.S. Senate- Shoshana Weissmann, Director, Digital Media, Communications and Fellow, R Street Institute- [Moderator] Ashkhen Kazaryan, Senior Fellow, Free Speech & Peace, Stand TogetherVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Join us for an in-depth exploration into the SEC's recent lawsuit against Coinbase – a case that will no doubt influence the legal landscape of crypto asset trading and securities laws well into the future.The SEC alleges that Coinbase has operated its trading platform as an unregistered exchange, broker, and clearing agency, and further contends that Coinbase's staking-as-a-service program has been unlawfully engaged in securities offerings. On the other hand, Coinbase has challenged the classification of digital currencies as 'investment contracts' and has invoked the Major Questions Doctrine to question the SEC's authority to regulate without affirmative Congressional authorization.Join Paul Grewal from Coinbase, Stephen Palley from Brown Rudnick LLP, and Professor J.W. Verret from George Mason University as they discuss regulators' approach towards this burgeoning asset class, the legal arguments at play in the SEC's lawsuit, and the broader implications of the case going forward.Featuring:- Paul Grewal, Chief Legal Officer, Coinbase- Stephen Palley, Partner, Brown Rudnick LLP- Moderator: J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, George Mason UniversityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

What does it take to attract the world's most brilliant minds?In this Tech Roundup episode, Caleb Watney and Adam Thierer explore the United States' approach towards highly skilled immigration, its impact on innovation and economic growth, and how it might be improved going forward.They begin by looking backwards, highlighting contributions from scientific refugees that led to remarkable advances such as the Manhattan Project. The conversation then delves into present-day legislative scenarios, including bipartisan support and barriers to immigration reform, alongside an analysis of specific policies like the CHIPS Act and the potential to expand the O-1 visa for extraordinary ability. The episode underscores immigrants' contributions to entrepreneurship and contrasts the United States' policies with those of Canada, the UK, and China's aggressive talent recruitment strategies.Tune in for an in-depth exploration of how the United States could maintain its competitive edge in the global race for talent.Featuring:- Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow, Technology & Innovation, R Street Institute- Caleb Watney, Co-Founder and Co-CEO, Institute for ProgressAdditional Resources:- STEM Immigration Is Critical to American National SecurityVisit 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.

Are we ready to live under the watchful eye of drones?In this Tech Roundup podcast, Trace Mitchell (Institute for Justice), Brent Skorup (Mercatus Center), and Jay Stanley (ACLU) discuss the rapid adoption of drone technology by law enforcement entities and the legal and policy implications of this trend.They provide insights into recent court cases involving warrantless drone surveillance, spotlighting the difficulty in applying previous Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to this new technology. They discuss the legitimate interests of law enforcement in using drones but grapple with the societal risks of normalizing unending overhead surveillance. They explore establishing reasonable limitations, transparency, and democratic oversight in law enforcement drone programs.Tune in to this thought-provoking conversation on personal liberties, privacy, and the future of law enforcement.Featuring:- Trace Mitchell, Litigation Fellow, Institute for Justice- Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst, Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, ACLU- [Moderator] Brent Skorup, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason UniversityAdditional Resources:- Michigan Drone Surveillance- Protecting Privacy From Aerial Surveillance: Recommendations for Government Use of Drone Aircraft- 2023 State Drone Commerce Rankings- Drones, Airspace Design, and Aerial Law in States and CitiesVisit 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.

On June 3, President Biden signed into law H.R. 3746, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Public Law 118-5). The Act made significant changes to federal permitting for major infrastructure projects, including the first significant amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in its history. In this webinar, experts aim to shed light on the implications of these changes for our nation's environmental policy framework.Our distinguished panelists will provide expert analysis and engage in a robust discussion on major issues raised by the new changes and their implications for permitting and NEPA review of major infrastructure projects.Discussion will focus on changes to NEPA and related permitting for major infrastructure projects, including:Empowering lead agencies"Reasonably foreseeable" limitation on environmental impacts that must be studiedGuidance on alternatives that must be consideredStatement of purpose and needTime limits and page limits for EISs and EAsProject proponent can prepare their own EISsNew definition of "major federal action"Mining, offshore leases, and other Department of Interior issuesJoin us for this engaging webinar to gain a comprehensive understanding of the significant changes to NEPA resulting from the debt ceiling compromise.Featuring: Emily Domenech, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the SpeakerThomas Connally, Counsel, House Natural Resources CommitteeJason Hill, Counsel, Hunton Andrews KurthModerator: Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise InstituteVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The plaintiffs in Utah v. Walsh filed a motion to halt implementation of the Department of Labor's new rule, which provides increased flexibility for retirement plan fiduciaries to consider environmental, social, or governance (ESG) factors when making investment decisions and exercising shareholder rights. This coalition of 26 states, energy companies, a trade association, and private individuals argues that the new rule undermines the protections established by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). In this webinar, Jared Kelson, Counsel for Plaintiffs Liberty Energy Inc., Liberty Oilfield Services LLC, and Western Energy Alliance, will provide an update on the ongoing litigation and discuss the broader implications of ESG considerations in retirement planning.Featuring: Jared Kelson, Counsel, Boyden Gray & AssociatesBrett Swearingen, Associate, Miller JohnsonVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In the past several months, President Biden released a new national cybersecurity strategy. As part of that strategy, the Administration says that it will seek to “Shape Market Forces to Drive Security and Resilience – We will place responsibility on those within our digital ecosystem that are best positioned to reduce risk and shift the consequences of poor cybersecurity away from the most vulnerable in order to make our digital ecosystem more trustworthy, including by: . . . Shifting liability for software products and services to promote secure development practices.” The concept of software liability has been the subject of much debate since it was first suggested more than a decade ago. With the new national strategy that debate becomes much more salient. In this webinar, cybersecurity experts will debate both sides of the question.Featuring: - Prof. Paul Rosenzweig, Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University- Prof. Jamil N. Jaffer, Founder and Executive Director of the National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University- [Moderator] Robert Strayer, Executive Vice President of Policy, Information Technology Industry CouncilVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Following concerns about the information collected by and influence of the immensely popular Chinese-owned social media app TikTok, debates have sprung up: should TikTok be banned?Some contend that TikTok poses a tangible and imminent threat to the United States' national security, and that as such it should be banned immediately. Others assert it is a valuable and important platform for free speech, and that a full ban would violate citizens' rights. These contrasting positions raise some important questions: is TikTok a threat to national security, and if so how should that be handled? Does TikTok's “Project Texas,” which would purportedly have U.S. TikTok user data stored by a U.S. company suffice? Can one simply place restrictions on its use for individuals who deal with sensitive data (government employees, military members, etc.) or does the threat require a full ban? Additionally, who can/ should implement those restrictions? For a ban to be effective does it need to be national, or can states act effectively to restrict or ban TikTok themselves? Featuring:Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityWill Duffield, Policy Analyst, Cato Institute[Moderator] Jennifer Huddleston, Technology Policy Research Fellow, Cato InstituteVisit 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.

On June 13, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Inc. a case that would ban attempts to patent naturally occurring DNA sequences.Now, ten years down the line with a decade of hindsight, Dr. Roger Klein, who played a central role as an expert, advisor, and spokesperson for the Association for Molecular Pathology in AMP v. Myriad, joins us to discuss this important case. In this Explainer we discuss the context surrounding this case, the debates that arose, and the impact this rule had across the past 10 years. Featuring:Dr. Roger D. Klein, Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science & Innovation Sandra Day O'Connor College of LawVisit 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.

In this Tech Roundup episode, we delve into the discussions raised by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's recent hearing on AI regulation. Neil Chilson and Adam Thierer offer an in-depth analysis of the various approaches to AI that are being considered by regulators and in public policy circles – from voluntary efforts by the industry to promote transparency and accountability to advocating for licensing and testing requirements for AI deployment to the prospect of a global regulatory body for AI. They explore whether AI presents fundamentally new questions for policymakers, or whether regulators already have the tools they need. They discuss the risk of over-regulating this new innovative space and the potential consequences of doing so. Don't miss out on this extensive conversation on one of the most important issues in tech policy today. Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

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.

Biosimilars, a category of biologic (medicine derived from a living organism), require approval, at least in the U.S. by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). There are two types of approval the FDA can give a biosimilar: “approved” and “interchangeable.” This distinction, unique to the U.S. system, along with the burden of proof required by the FDA, can cause confusion and create challenges for manufacturers seeking to get a biosimilar licensed. In this podcast Dr. Roger Klein (M.D. J.D.) joins us to provide an introduction to biologics & biosimilars: what they are, how they are regulated/ approved in the United States, and what the effects of our current regulatory system can be for the approval of biosimilars. 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.

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rules have careened wildly back and forth as administrations have changed. Most recently, on February 9, 2023, the Department of Housing and Urban Development published in the Federal Register a proposed regulation entitled “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.” Under this version, HUD would require recipients of federal financial assistance to do more than simply stamp out discrimination, but rather to take affirmative action to overcome disparate racial outcomes in housing.HUD first proposed detailed regulations concerning AFFH during the Obama administration, and ultimately adopted final regulations in 2015, which required more than 5,000 program participants, including states, municipalities, and public housing authorities to develop plans, utilizing a computer based geospatial mapping and data tool and a template of required questions to address “fair housing issues” such as perceived disparities in access to areas of opportunity. Implementation was delayed under the Trump administration, but the first attempt at an alternative regulation, which would have focused grantees' efforts on the dismantling of regulatory barriers to housing production, was never finalized, and, instead, a final regulation that replaced the 2015 rule with a barebones certification requirement was implemented at the end of his term. That regulation, in turn, was repealed early in the Biden administration before it then published the proposed rule this February. Under it, communities must affirmatively address any existing patterns of adverse impact by providing housing for them in better areas or, alternatively, transforming the community. It focuses on state and local jurisdictions preparing “equity plans” that describe how they will incorporate procedures, not only with respect to housing but also education, transportation, and other local planning considerations, to advance more racially balanced communities. The comment period on the regulation ended on April 10, 2023.In this webinar, a panel of ideologically diverse experts will discuss the latest proposal of HUD's AFFH requirements for state and local governments.Featuring:Paul Compton, Founding Partner, Compton Jones DresherThomas Silverstein, Associate Director, Fair Housing & Community Development Project, Lawyer' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law[Moderator] Braden Boucek, Director of Litigation, Southeastern Legal FoundationVisit 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.

In March 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed a new rule that would establish climate-risk disclosure requirements for public companies. The 490-page proposal includes requirements for disclosing direct greenhouse gas emissions (scope 1) and indirect emissions related to use of electricity or other forms of energy (scope 2). While supporters hailed the proposed rule's effort to standardize the disclosures many ESG-focused funds have been making, others zeroed in on a requirement that would obligate larger companies to disclose GHG emissions from upstream suppliers and downstream customers (scope 3).After receiving thousands of comments favoring and opposing the proposal, the SEC postponed its target date for finalizing the rule to spring 2023. Much of the debate centers on the scope of the SEC's authority to mandate climate risk disclosure, an issue that took on additional dimensions after the Supreme Court's June 2022 decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which struck down an EPA rule regulating GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act as contrary to the “major questions doctrine.” Many predict that the final ESG rule will be litigated regardless of what changes the SEC may make to address issues that commenters raised. With the SEC ESG final rule expected soon, this program brings together distinguished speakers who will outline the arguments for and against the SEC's effort to regulate in this area.Paul Ray leads The Heritage Foundation's work on regulatory and economic policy as Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, building on his previous experience as Senate-confirmed Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget. He has written widely on a number of regulatory issues, including the SEC's authority to set corporate climate policy.George Georgiev is an Associate Professor of Law at Emory University Law School, focusing on Business Law, Corporate Governance, Securities Regulation, Mergers & Acquisitions, Corporate Finance, and Executive Compensation. Professor Georgiev co-authored an analysis affirming the SEC's authority to adopt climate-related disclosure rules, and filed comments in the rulemaking.The panel will be moderated by Jane Luxton, Managing Partner of the Washington, DC office of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, and co-chair of the firm's Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice.Visit our website - 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.

Food is a necessity for life. It should therefore surprise few that the federal government regulates the production and processing of food before it reaches our dinner tables. Labels indicating some meats are “USDA-Prime” or confirming that the product was inspected and approved as safe before delivery to the grocery store reflect this regulatory role.While labels may make the regulation apparent, which part of the administrative state handles that regulation can be less clear. Two agencies: the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) -- part of the Department of Health and Human Services -- both have jurisdiction over the foods we consume. Which agency handles what is not always apparent. Recent illnesses and deaths involving baby formula and spinach -- both under the FDA's inspection jurisdiction -- have emphasized that regulatory structure can have life-or-death consequences. This has led some on both sides of the aisle to suggest a revamp of how we handle food safety regulation. One group contends the FDA should take the lead (Food being literally in the name); a second argues the USDA should run point (agriculture being the first step to food production), and a third group argues creating a separate agency entirely would be the best solution. The FDA itself has proposed an internal reorganization to emphasize its food safety mandate.This panel of FDA and USDA veterans whose service spanned multiple administrations will examine the questions (1) how safe is our food, (2) is a reorganization of the agencies that handle food safety necessary to achieve the maximum level of safety, and (3) how should such a reorganization look.Featuring:Dr. Mindy Brashears, Associate Vice President of Research, Endowed Chair, Professor & Director, International Center for Food Industry Excellence, Texas Tech University; Former Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety, United States Department of AgricultureDr. Stephen Ostroff, Former Acting Commissioner and Former Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine, United States Food and Drug AdministrationFrank Yiannas, Former Deputy Commissioner for Food Policy and Response, United States Food and Drug Administration[Moderator] Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge, United States Court of International Trade; Former General Counsel of the United States Department of AgricultureVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On December 30, 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published an updated rule on the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that represents a significant departure from previous RFS rules. It includes a major new regulatory regime for Renewable Identification Numbers from renewable electricity (eRINs) and it proposes renewable fuel volume targets that are no longer prescribed in statute.In this webinar, leading experts will provide background on the RFS, delve into the details of the proposed rule, including its potential costs and benefits, and address questions regarding statutory authority and the non-delegation doctrine. Within the next two months, the agency is expected to finalize this rule that could drastically change the nature of the RFS.Featuring: Jonathan Brightbill, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLPBrendan Williams, Vice President of Government Relations, PBF Energy[Moderator] Daren Bakst, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director of the Center for Energy and Environment, Competitive Enterprise InstituteVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The European Union is considering adopting a wide-ranging regulatory regime for the licensing and litigation of standard essential patents (SEPs). Proposed for release on World IP Day (April 26, 2023), a leak revealed the EU plan to create an administrative tribunal to perform mandatory “essentiality checks” of certain SEPs, set royalty rates for those SEPs, mandate public disclosure of licenses, and provide mandatory but non-binding conciliation for disputes. Critics contend that this regulatory regime is unnecessary and will stifle the explosive rate of innovation in mobile telecommunications with added costs. Supporters argue this regime will bring more certainty in the marketplace and reduce costs in litigation over SEPs. This panel of experts will discuss the EU proposal and its implications for participation in standards development, patent law, commercial law, competition law and innovation policy in the global innovation economy.Featuring:Elisabeth Opie, Founder and Principal Solicitor, Opie International Technology LawyersAdam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityJorge Contreras, Professor of Law, University of Utah College of Law[Moderator] Urška Petrovčič, Senior Fellow, Hudson InstituteVisit 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.

Artificial Intelligence (AI), once the stuff of science fiction, is now more than ever a part of everyday life, regularly affecting the lives of individuals the world over, sometimes in ways they may not even know. AI is increasingly used both in the public and private sectors for facial recognition, dataset analysis, risk and performance predictions, and much more, though how companies use it and the actual input it has can be unclear.Experts have warned that the expanded use of AI, especially in areas related to labor and employment, if uninvestigated, could pose serious issues. Some contend that the use of AI tools can help make hiring processes more efficient and perhaps remove human biases from the equations. Others note that while this may be an admirable goal, many AI tools have been shown to produce discriminatory outcomes. The opaque nature of how some of these AI tools operate further complicates matters, as how an AI came to a particular decision and the data it referenced may not be clear to the human reviewer, thus making the identification of discriminatory practices harder to identify.All of these issues, especially given the increasing use of AI tools in the hiring processes of many companies, raise several questions concerning AI's entrance into the Labor and Employment space. What benefits and challenges does using AI in hiring present? How can AI be used to combat discrimination? What happens when AI itself is discriminatory, how can that be identified and addressed? What statutes and regulations apply to AI, and do the existing legal and regulatory frameworks concerning anti-discrimination in labor and employment suffice to address the novel nature of AI?Featuring:Hon. Keith Sonderling, Commissioner, Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionVisit 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.

Artificial Intelligence (AI), once the stuff of science fiction, is now more than ever a part of everyday life, regularly affecting the lives of individuals the world over, sometimes in ways they may not even know. AI is increasingly used both in the public and private sectors for facial recognition, dataset analysis, risk and performance predictions, and much more, though how companies use it and the actual input it has can be unclear.Experts have warned that the expanded use of AI, especially in areas related to labor and employment, if uninvestigated, could pose serious issues. Some contend that the use of AI tools can help make hiring processes more efficient and perhaps remove human biases from the equations. Others note that while this may be an admirable goal, many AI tools have been shown to produce discriminatory outcomes. The opaque nature of how some of these AI tools operate further complicates matters, as how an AI came to a particular decision and the data it referenced may not be clear to the human reviewer, thus making the identification of discriminatory practices harder to identify. All of these issues, especially given the increasing use of AI tools in the hiring processes of many companies, raise several questions concerning AI's entrance into the Labor and Employment space. What benefits and challenges does using AI in hiring present? How can AI be used to combat discrimination? What happens when AI itself is discriminatory, how can that be identified and addressed? What statutes and regulations apply to AI, and do the existing legal and regulatory frameworks concerning anti-discrimination in labor and employment suffice to address the novel nature of AI?Featuring:David Fortney, Co-Founder, Fortney & Scott LLC, & former Chief Legal Officer, U.S. Department of LaborProf. Aram Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs; Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington UniversityHon. Keith Sonderling, Commissioner, Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionModerator: Hon. Phillip Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan & Lewis, & former Chairman, National Labor Relations BoardVisit 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.Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

What happens when the Administration's "whole-of-government approach" to climate change meets federal contracting? The Department of Defense, the Government Services Administration, and NASA have jointly proposed a revision to the Federal Acquisition Regulations that would require government contractors to publicly disclose greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risk and to set science-based reduction targets. The agencies cast the proposal as a way to reduce climate-related risks, increase U.S. competitiveness, and promote economic growth. But critics say that the proposed rule would exceed the agencies' authority, increase federal procurement costs, and unconstitutionally delegate policy-making authority to the private entities that would be charged with policing contractors' compliance.The panel will discuss the origins as well as the potential benefits and risks of this innovation in government contracting policy.Featuring:John Kostyack, Ceres Accelerator for Sustainable Capital Markets, CeresBrian Richman, Associate, Gibson, Dunn & CrutcherMarkus Speidel, Procurement Law Alumnus, The George Washington UniversityModerator: Adam Gustafson, Senior Counsel for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, BoeingVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Social media platforms have emerged as the new “town square” and a key forum for public debate, but some have questioned whether that debate is as open and robust as it should be. On the other hand, some worry that efforts to regulate social media platforms may themselves crimp debate. At the heart of the discussion is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. A panel of experts discussed what Section 230 permits and doesn't permit—a question now before a number of courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzalez v. Google.Featuring:Ashkhen Kazaryan, Senior Fellow, Free Speech & Peace, Stand TogetherRandolph May, President, The Free State FoundationJoel Thayer, President, Digital Progress InstituteModerator: Boyd Garriott, Associate, Wiley Rein LLPVisit 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.

In January 2023, the FTC announced a proposed rule that would ban noncompete agreements across most of the U.S. economy – a move President Biden lauded in his recent State of the Union address. While noncompete clauses have existed for centuries and have traditionally been regulated under state law, they have also become a focal point for the executive and legislative branches of late. The FTC's proposed rule represents a recent effort to shift enforcement, both substantively and procedurally. The proposed rule purports to rely on the Commission's "unfair methods of competition" (UMC) authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act. This is the first time in decades the FTC has sought to engage in a UMC rulemaking, and only the second time it has ever done so.Questions are already beginning to arise as to not only the substantive benefits of such a ban, but also the FTC's underlying authority to enact this rule. As a threshold matter, the FTC's ability to engage in UMC rulemaking is somewhat unclear – the statutory basis for this authority is hotly disputed and very likely to be challenged. The FTC's assertion that the rule would supersede contradictory state laws is also likely to draw challenges. Moreover, many have raised concerns that the proposed rule – which the FTC argues would immediately impact about 20% of the U.S. workforce – runs afoul of the major questions and nondelegation doctrines. Additionally, there are questions regarding how such a rule would ultimately impact employees, employers, and the workforce more broadly – in particular, whether such a ban is more likely to enhance or impair innovation. Our experts will discuss the genesis of the FTC's proposed ban on noncompete agreements, including the statutory and empirical evidence underpinning the rule, as well as what we can expect in the coming months and years as the FTC moves towards adopting and enforcing the rule.Introduction:Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLPKeynote Address:Rahul Rao, Deputy Director, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade CommissionPanel Discussion:Corbin Barthold, Internet Policy Counsel and Director of Appellate Litigation, TechFreedomDiana Furchtgott-Roth, Director, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment and The Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in Energy and Environmental Policy, The Heritage FoundationJustin (Gus) Hurwitz, Professor of Law and the Menard Director of the Nebraska Governance and Technology Center, University of Nebraska College of LawMatthew Sipe, Assistant Professor of Law, University of BaltimoreEvan Starr, Associate Professor, Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of MarylandModerator: Elyse Dorsey, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPVisit 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.

In late February 2023, the FDA released its responses to the December 2022 Reagan-Udall Foundation reports on the FDA's Human Foods and Tobacco programs. In this follow-on explainer podcast, we once again host Jeff Stier to discuss what these initial responses include, what issues they address, and what one might want to watch moving forward. Featuring: Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow, Consumer Choice Center and Taxpayers Protection Alliance Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Recent months have seen a flurry of notable developments at the Federal Trade Commission, including oral arguments in the high-profile Axon v. FTC and SEC v. Cochran Supreme Court cases, administrative complaints challenging deals between Altria and JUUL and Illumina and GRAIL, and FTC Commissioner Christine Wilson's announced resignation.This episode is a live recording of a panel of antitrust law experts examining these developments and debating what might come next at the FTC.Featuring:Debbie Feinstein, Partner, Arnold & Porter; Former Director, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade CommissionHon. William Kovacic, Global Competition Professor of Law and Policy, The George Washington University Law School; Former Chairman, Federal Trade CommissionProf. Richard J. Pierce, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law SchoolHon. Joshua D. Wright, University Professor and Executive Director, Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Former Commissioner, Federal Trade CommissionModerator: Bilal Sayyed, Senior Adjunct Fellow, TechFreedom; Former Director, Office of Policy Planning, Federal Trade CommissionVisit 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.

Signed into law in 1965, Medicaid has been active for almost 58 years, during which time its scope has fluctuated and many conversations have been had as to what the appropriate reach, means, and aims for the program should be. In this podcast featuring Tom Miller, he lays out a brief summary of how we got to where we are. He highlights the benefits Medicaid has brought as well as some of the downsides he perceives, and lays out a possible path forward to better healthcare that practically addresses the hurdles to healthcare reform legally, financially, and politically. Featuring: Thomas Miller, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise InstituteVisit 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.

In November 2022, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, against the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on behalf of the Alliance of Hippocratic Medicine (AHM) and others. The suit challenges the FDA's 2000 decision to legalize mifepristone and misoprostol, two drugs often used in conjunction as chemical abortifacients. The petitioners argue that the legalization of these chemical abortion drugs undermines the FDA's legal obligation to protect the health, safety, and welfare of young girls and women. Further, the petitioners allege the FDA disregarded notable evidence that chemical abortion drugs are more likely to cause more harm and complications than a surgical abortion, and terminated the necessary safeguards for pregnant women and girls who undergo this controversial drug regimen. Finally, the petitioners contend that the FDA allowed these chemical abortion pills to be delivered via mail in violation of long-standing federal laws. This Litigation Update with Erik Baptist, a litigating attorney for ADF, will provide a current look at this case, what the facts are, how the case is going, and what the possible outcomes and ramifications thereof may be. Featuring:Erik Baptist, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom[Moderator] Roger Klein, Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science & Innovation, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State UniversityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Last November, the Federal Trade Commission accepted comments on its proposal to start a rulemaking related to "Commercial Surveillance" - the agency's newly minted term for any and all business use of data about customers. The FTC has for decades sought to protect consumer privacy and data security through case-by-case application of its general consumer protection authority. It also is charged with rulemaking in a few narrow areas of privacy and data security. In practice, the FTC has become the U.S.'s primary privacy and data security enforcer. Now, while congress deliberates on whether and how to adopt a general privacy law, the FTC seeks to fill a perceived gap with agency rules. Does the agency have the authority to do so? What can we learn from the proceeding thus far? What are the agency's likely next steps and will it succeed? Our participants will discuss the proceeding, their participation in it, and what comes next.Featuring:Ashley Baker, Director of Public Policy, Committee for JusticeNeil Chilson, Senior Research Fellow for Technology and Innovation, Charles Koch InstituteVisit 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.

The collapse of FTX has intensified the debate about how cryptocurrencies should be regulated, including proposed federal legislation. With a string of cryptocurrency failures and tens of billions in losses for investors, increased regulation has become a hot topic. As Bloomberg summarized: “Crypto is squarely in the cross hairs of Washington” and “Oversight of digital assets is among the most pressing issues for US financial watchdogs.”Should cryptocurrency firms be regulated as banks? Should cryptocurrency assets be regulated as securities or as commodities? If so, who is the right regulator? Do we need new federal legislation? With enhanced financial and risk disclosures, should cryptocurrency firms only be subject to standard commercial law and, if they fail, normal bankruptcy proceedings? These issues will be addressed by this fourth in a continuing series of cryptocurrency webinars presented by the Federalist Society's Financial Services and E-Commerce Practice Group.Featuring:The Honorable Cynthia Lummis, United States Senator, WyomingTodd H. Baker, Managing Principal, Broadmoor Consulting, LLCJerry Loeser, Of Counsel, Winston & Strawn LLP (Retired)Steve Lofchie, Partner, Financial Services, Fried FrankAlex J. Pollock, Senior Fellow, Mises InstituteModerator: J.C. Boggs, Partner, Government Advocacy and Public Policy, King & Spalding Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Although primarily an enforcement agency, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued a historic number of proposed rules over the past two years. From prohibiting non-compete provisions potentially impacting 30 million employment contracts or privacy and data security rules implicating personal information online, these proposed rules will affect most sectors of the U.S. economy. This panel of experts will explore how a federal agency undertakes the cost-benefit analysis for proposed rules, comparing independent agencies to those subject to OIRA review, and provide practical tips for lawyers and economists working on agency rulemaking comments.Featuring:Dr. Andrew Stivers, Associate Director, NERA Economic ConsultingPaul Ray, Director, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Heritage FoundationJonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero InstitutePaul Metrey, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, National Automotive Dealers Association [Moderator] Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLPVisit 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.

On December 29, 2022, President Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 into law. This omnibus law is over 4,100 pages, and, like many omnibus bills, affects a broad range of issues.According to Dr. Joel M. Zinberg, physician and health care expert, one such issue is the practice of medicine, as a nineteen-line section relating to the authority of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) may fundamentally change the future viability of off-label prescriptions. Dr. Zinberg joins us in this podcast to explain the Act's provisions concerning the FDA, the possible implications on the practice of medicine, and possible solutions to the potential pitfalls posed by these new health care provisions.Featuring: Joel Zinberg, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise InstituteVisit 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.

Energy consumers continue to see rising rates, but how do regulators decide the rate that consumers pay? In this episode, James Coleman and Mark Ellis explain the relationship between federal and state regulators and utility companies, the financing models behind regulated rates, and the incentives created by these models. What are the implications of state-regulated projects? How do utility companies respond, and what are the risks? What is the impact on consumers? In this episode, experts address these questions and more.Featuring:James W. Coleman, Robert G. Storey Distinguished Faculty Fellow and Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of LawMark Ellis, Financial & Regulatory ConsultantVisit 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.

Under the Biden Administration, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Rohit Chopra has dramatically increased the substantive reach of the CFPB's use of guidance documents and examination and supervision powers. This includes the articulation of a new standard of Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices (UDAAP) that includes allegedly discriminatory practices. It also has announced it intends to use “dormant” powers from Dodd-Frank that would allow it to conduct supervisory exams on nonbanks or any fintech it believes is risky. Many critics argue that many of these acts should be conducted through notice and comment rule-making processes and point to similar efforts during the Obama Administration when similar extensive use of guidance was treated as equivalent to a rulemaking for purposes of the Congressional Review Act. A major lawsuit has also challenged this assertion of authority by the CFPB.In this episode, experts discuss the specifics of the CFPB's assertion of expansive authority in these areas, the use of supervision more generally in relation to rulemaking, and the lawsuit that has challenged these acts.Featuring:Brian Johnson, Managing Director, Banking Supervision and Regulation Group, Patomak Global PartnersBryan Schneider, Partner, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP[Moderator] Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityVisit 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.

The EPA has rescinded The Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program rule. It has reinstated a waiver of Clean Air Act (CAA) preemption for California's greenhouse gas standards and Zero Emission Vehicle sales mandate. These are some facets to California's Advanced Clean Car Program.In Ohio v. EPA, now pending before the D.C. Circuit, various industry and state petitioners have challenged EPA's reinstatement of the waiver as preempted by the CAA; and have argued that Congress has not implicitly authorized it either. Numerous amici have weighed in on this issue as well. The D.C. Circuit soon will hear oral argument in this case, which eventually might make it to the Supreme Court.Raised by some amici, one of the pertinent issues here is that the federal government is showing favoritism to California in contravention of the Constitution's equal-sovereignty principle, which the Supreme Court has recognized in a long line of cases (most recently culminating in Shelby County v. Holder).This litigation update will feature a vital discussion from the eminent Jonathan Brightbill, who served as Acting Assistant Attorney General of the United States (leading the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, where he worked on the Trump Administration's One National Standards Rule), and who currently is a partner at Winston & Strawn LLP; Robert Percival, the Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law and the Director of the Environmental Program at the University of Maryland School of Law; and Sohan Dasgupta, who served as the Deputy General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and who is a partner at Taft LLP.Featuring:Jonathan Brightbill, Partner, Winston & Strawn LLPRobert Percival, Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law, University of Maryland Carey School of Law[Moderator] Sohan Dasgupta, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLPVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Title VI and IX apply to all colleges and universities that accept federal funds, which, as a condition of accepting those funds, agree they will enforce all Federal Civil Rights laws. However, sometimes programs offered by such institutions seem to run afoul of Title VI and IX, and when that happens, a recourse is to file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights. In this explainer podcast, Dr. Mark Perry, who has filed Title VI and IX complaints against hundreds of colleges and universities across the U.S., joins us to discuss that process. He brings his expertise to give a window into the procedural aspects of this system, what they are, why such complaints may be valuable, and the considerations a potential complainant might want to consider.For those who would like to learn more, independent of this podcast or RTP, Dr. Perry notes he can be reached at mark.perry@aei.org, or via direct message on Twitter at https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Perry.Featuring:Mark Perry, Professor of Economics, University of Michigan-Flint and Resident Scholar, American Enterprise InstituteVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On December 19, 2022, the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the Food and Drug Administration, an independent 501(c)(3) organization created by Congress “to advance the mission of the FDA to modernize medical, veterinary, food, food ingredient, and cosmetic product development, accelerate innovation, and enhance product safety” released the second of two highly anticipated reports on its state of affairs. The first, released December 6, 2022, served as an operational evaluation of the FDA's Human Foods program, which had struggled significantly during the course of the supply chain issues brought on during the COVID pandemic. The second December 19th, 2022 report covered “certain components of FDA's Tobacco program,” evaluating operations there. Both were highly anticipated not just because of the serious and pertinent issues they addressed, but because questions circulated concerning how the Foundation is made up of many former FDA high officials, and how the report would rate the proceedings of the current FDA team.In this podcast Jeff Stier, a senior fellow at the Consumer Choice Center, senior fellow at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, and a policy advisor to the Heartland Institute breaks down some of what the reports say, and what the next steps for both the FDA and Congress may be.Featuring: Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow, Consumer Choice CenterVisit 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.

The first in a lecture series on how the administrative state functions in modern American government, presented by the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project and Capitol Hill Chapter.This first luncheon featured former “regulations czar” Paul J. Ray, who served as President Trump's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator (OIRA). As OIRA Administrator, Ray oversaw the review of hundreds of regulations, and led efforts on regulatory reform.The luncheon also featured Boris Bershteyn, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom, LLP. Mr. Bershteyn served as acting Administrator of ORIA in 2012 and 2013. He was also General Counsel of the Office of Management and Budget starting in 2011.Our moderator was Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden from the United States Court of International Trade. Before joining the bench, Judge Vaden served as General Counsel of the United States Department of Agriculture. During his nearly four-year tenure as head of the Office of General Counsel, the Department won two cases before the United States Supreme Court, relocated and reorganized the agencies that comprise the Department to better serve rural America, engaged in substantial regulatory reform, developed new regulations to allow for the legal sale of hemp and the labeling of bioengineered products, and implemented the 2018 Farm Bill.Featuring:Paul J. Ray, Director, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation, former OIRA AdministratorBoris Bershteyn, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom, former acting OIRA AdministratorModerator: Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, United States Court of International TradeVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project and Capitol Hill Chapter hosted the second in a lecture series on the administrative state's role in policymaking in modern American government.This second event of our co-sponsored series on the Administrative State focused on the role of the administrative state in policymaking. Through its various roles and capacities, the Administrative state can have great leeway to create policy that has similar effects to rules and laws created through the legislative process but comes to be via different means. Agencies can make rules, issue guidance documents that often carry significant weight, interpret statutes, and enforce their rules. All these can contribute to agencies making policies that have the force of law.Some argue that this policy-making by non-elected individuals serving in the administrative state is improper and usurps elected officials' authority. Others contend this is a valuable and necessary part of the Administrative State's ability to operate as authorized, and that the policy-making capacity of the Administrative State is a net benefit.Panelists David Fotouhi, a current partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP who spent four years serving with the EPA, and Richard Peirce, a professor of Law at George Washington University who focuses on the Administrative State, discussed the policy-making power of the Administrative State, and the practical ways in which that power can often be applied. Judge Lisa Branch moderated the discussion.Featuring: David Fotouhi, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPRichard Pierce, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Lisa Branch, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitVisit 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.

The Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project and Capitol Hill Chapter hosted the third in a lecture series on the administrative state. The subject of this discussion was the major questions doctrine and how Congress may respond to the Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA.Arguably unenforced for some time, recent federal court cases have once again raised the specter of nondelegation doctrine. In so doing, cases such as West Virginia v. EPA at the Supreme Court, and the 5th Circuit's decision in Jarkesy v. SEC, arguably throws into question the status quo under which administrative agencies have heretofore operated.In this final event in our co-sponsored luncheon series on the administrative state, experts investigated the impact such cases may have on Congress in terms of lawmaking delegation, and looked to forecast what Congress can expect if SCOTUS continues to enforce the nondelegation doctrine while moving away from former deference doctrines.Featuring:Sarah Binder, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings InstitutionDaniel Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Reform, House of RepresentativesModerator: Hon. Trevor McFadden, Judge, United States District Court, District of ColumbiaVisit 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.

In this episode, Hon. Gail Heriot, discusses her recent article for the New Criterion, An Agenda for Congress, in which she provides recommendations for Congress to adjust existing incentives that provide structural support for race-preferential admissions. Professor Heriot shares her projections for the outcome of Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, and what the implications of these cases will be for colleges and universities.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.

In this podcast, technology and data privacy experts discuss the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and what these new technologies mean for existing and future policy and technology innovation. Without a clear regulatory framework, differing definitions and taxonomies have been adopted to regulate AI technology. What will future AI trends look like, and what should policymakers prioritize moving forward?Featuring:Jennifer Huddleston, Policy Counsel, NetChoiceHodan Omaar, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Data InnovationAdam Thierer, Senior Fellow, R Street InstituteVisit 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.

In this podcast episode, Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at Cato Institute and Marisa Maleck, Partner at King & Spalding LLP join us to discuss telehealth regulation - what it is, what happened to it during COVID-19, and what the opportunities and barriers are for future telehealth innovation.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.

Kimberly Hermann, General Counsel for Southeastern Legal Foundation and Tiffany Justice, Co-Founder of Moms for Liberty, share their insights on the interplay of parents, unions, and government regulators. In this episode, learn how "parental rights" have become a growing influence on education reform.Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On November 7, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, to decide whether Congress stripped federal district courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the FTC by granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction over FTC cease-and-desist orders. This panel will discuss key take-aways from the oral argument and implications for administrative litigation at the Federal Trade Commission, and perhaps for other agencies as well.Featuring:Ashley Baker, Director of Public Policy, Committee for JusticeRonald Cass, President, Cass & Associates, PCHenry Su, Partner, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP[Moderator] Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLPVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Some employers were surprised by the en banc Fifth Circuit's December 2021 decision in Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt that a supervisor for an offshore oil company who received approximately $1,000 per day for a total of over $200,000 annually was eligible for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Act exempts from overtime pay workers “employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity,” and the oil company argued that a highly compensated supervisor like Mr. Hewitt qualifies for this “EAP” exemption. The en banc Fifth Circuit applied a Department of Labor regulation requiring EAP-exempt employees to have a fixed weekly salary to conclude that, notwithstanding high pay and supervisory duties, Mr. Hewitt was non-exempt because he was paid on a daily rather than weekly basis.However, that argument has not been accepted across the bench. Judge Jones dissented that the weekly salary rule is inapplicable for workers who satisfy a separate regulatory requirement for exempt “highly compensated employees” who make over $100,000 per year (now $107,432). Judge Wiener's dissent added that application of the weekly salary rule—which dates from 1940s—is illogical and unreasonable under the circumstances. DOL took no view on this case. Additionally, Helix Energy created an apparent split with the First and Second Circuits, and the Supreme Court granted on certiorari May 2, 2022. Oral argument took place October 12. If the Court upholds the decision, employers that relied on the First and Second Circuits may face significant retroactive liability. In this podcast, experts provide a litigation update on Helix Energy, what it is, what the possible outcomes may be, and the potential consequences of the same. Featuring:Dave Dorey, Senior Litigation Counsel, The Fairness CenterTimothy Taylor, Partner, Holland & Knight LLP[Moderator] Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In the last few years, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has emerged from relative obscurity to find itself squarely in the middle of many of today's most contentious public policy fights. As the agency that regulates wholesale electricity and transmission rates, the Commission faces the tension between the rapid adoption of renewable generation sources and the reliability of the bulk power system. And as the agency that reviews applications to build natural gas pipelines and liquified natural gas export facilities, how should the Commission consider the European energy crisis? Given the “economic and political significance” of these tasks, how should the Commission carry out its mission in light of West Virginia v. EPA?At a live Regulatory Transparency Project event, following remarks from FERC Commissioner James Danly, an expert panel discussed the present and future challenges facing energy reliability and regulation.Featuring:Michael Buschbacher, Counsel, Boyden Gray & AssociatesJennifer Chen, Senior Manager, Clean EnergyJim Wedeking, Counsel, Sidley Austin LLP[Moderator] Marc L. Spitzer, Steptoe & JohnsonVisit our website – https://www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In the last few years, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has emerged from relative obscurity to find itself squarely in the middle of many of today's most contentious public policy fights. As the agency that regulates wholesale electricity and transmission rates, the Commission faces the tension between the rapid adoption of renewable generation sources and the reliability of the bulk power system. And as the agency that reviews applications to build natural gas pipelines and liquified natural gas export facilities, how should the Commission consider the European energy crisis? Given the “economic and political significance” of these tasks, how should the Commission carry out its mission in light of West Virginia v. EPA?At a live Regulatory Transparency Project event, FERC Commissioner James Danly addressed the present and future challenges facing energy reliability and regulation. An expert panel including Michael Buschbacher, Jennifer Chen, Jim Wedeking, and moderator Marc Spitzer then followed the Commissioner's remarks with a lively discussion.Featuring:James Danly, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionVisit our website - https://www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The Goldwater Institute's Christina Sandefur moderates a discussion with the Cato Institute's director of health care policy Michael F. Cannon, on the role that the federal government plays in requiring prescriptions for medications. If you would like to read more from Cannon, see his and Jeffrey A. Singer's white paper, Drug Reformation: End Government's Power to Require Prescriptions.Featuring:Michael F. Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies, Cato Institute [Moderator] Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater InstituteVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.