Podcasts about regulatory transparency projec

President Trump's budget bill, having recently passed the House of Representatives, is headed for the Senate with a proposed 10-year moratorium on AI regulations at the state level. How should lawmakers approach this rapidly-developing technology without stalling US progress in the AI "arms race," while still prioritizing consumers' data privacy and online safety?Dr. Scott Babwah Brennen, Kevin Frazier, and Adam Thierer join the RTP Fourth Branch Podcast to discuss and debate the arguments of AI regulation, innovation, and preemption.

Short-term rentals—popularized by Airbnb and Vrbo—have been given modern platforms for the customary alternative to hotels: in-home stays. Yet their rapid growth has prompted a wave of local and state regulations at odds with the practice, driven by lobbying from the hotel industry, concerns about housing affordability, neighborhood character, and other regulatory assertions. While some critics, including city officials and interest groups, support increased oversight, others—including advocates of limited government and individual rights—contend that these services represent an exercise of property rights, expand consumer choice, and note that there is limited evidence of significant impact on the housing market.This panel will explore the constitutional, statutory, historical, and policy implications of short-term rental regulation. Are local governments properly protecting community interests, or are they infringing on fundamental property rights? What legal frameworks govern this space—and what should they be?Join us for a lively discussion featuring the Hon. Paul Clement, Tony Francois, and Ron Klain, moderated by Prof. Donald Kochan, that will examine the intersection of private property, regulatory authority, and economic liberty.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to regulate emissions that “cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” The Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases are considered pollutants under the Act, so whether they can be regulated depends on whether they endanger public health. The EPA issued the Endangerment Finding that greenhouse gas emissions cross this threshold in 2009. Any actual regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is issued by EPA separately, such as greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles. On March 12th, 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the EPA would be initiating “formal reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding in collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other relevant agencies.” Join us Friday, May 9th, from 11am – 12pm EST, as our panel of legal experts discusses the various questions surrounding the proposed revisions, such as preemption, cost revision, and how these changes would be implemented. Featuring: Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC Richard Belzer, Independent Consultant Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law (Moderator) Laura Stanley, Gibson Dunn, LLP

On April 17, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that Google violated antitrust law through the monopolization of digital advertisement. Google’s “exclusionary conduct substantially harmed Google's publisher customers, the competitive process, and, ultimately, consumers of information on the open web,” said the Court. This is the second case in which the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division has scored a win against Google, the first having come in August 2024 and relating to Google’s monopoly of “general search.” Google has vowed that they will appeal both cases. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss the case and its possible future effects.Featuring:Prof. Rebecca Haw Allensworth, David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair of Law, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolBilal Sayyed, Senior Competition Counsel, TechFreedomJoel Thayer, President, Digital Progress InstituteModerator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce--To register, click the link above.

In March of 2025, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released a major new publication, “Modernizing the EPA: A Blueprint for Congress.” This book explores numerous issues across the EPA and the statutes that it administers. The podcast discussion focuses primarily on how the EPA’s role has evolved, particularly as it relates to air regulation, including greenhouse gas regulation. In addition, the discussion highlights flaws and outdated aspects of the Clean Air Act and the need for Congress to reassert its lawmaking power. The lead author and co-editor of the book offers ideas on how Congress can refine the federal approach to environmental and climate policy. Listen in as Michael Buschbacher, Partner at Boyden Gray PLLC, interviews Daren Bakst, Director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment highlighting the key findings and recommendations in the publication.

In this Tech Roundup Episode of RTP's Fourth Branch podcast, Kevin Frazier and Aram Gavoor sit down to discuss the recent, fast-moving developments in AI policy in the second Trump administration, as well as the importance of innovation and procurement.

On his first day back in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14154 (Unleashing American Energy). Among numerous other objectives, this broad Executive Order directs the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to “expedite and simplify the permitting process” by providing guidance on the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and rescinding CEQ’s NEPA regulations.Less than four weeks later, CEQ issued a Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies on how to conform their NEPA practices to the President’s Executive Order and other factors. Less than a week after that, CEQ published an interim final rule removing its NEPA regulations. Among the potential intended impacts of these actions is more expeditious federal government reviews of environmental permits. Even before these Executive Actions, courts had expressed concern over CEQ’s NEPA regulations. In November 2024, the D.C. Circuit held the CEQ regulations to be ultra vires. Marin Audubon v. FAA, 121 F.4th 902 (D.C. Cir. 2024)). In February 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota followed suit. Iowa v CEQ, No. 1:24-cv-00089-DMT-CRH, 2025 WL 598928 (D.N.D. Feb. 3, 2025).Join attorneys Mario Loyola and Ted Boling as they discuss these important developments in environmental law.Featuring:Ted Boling, Partner, Perkins Coie LLPMario Loyola, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Policy and Regulation, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment, The Heritage Foundation(Moderator) Garrett Kral, Administrative and Environmental Law Attorney

As the second Trump administration kicks off an ambitious AI agenda, individual states have been busy on this front as well. Should each state have their own approach, or should states like California and Texas lead the way?Dean Ball, Sunny Gandhi, and Kevin Frazier join the Fourth Branch podcast to discuss these various efforts to cover the conversation of AI on the state level and the increasing need for public AI literacy.

An estimated 5% of foster youth qualify for Social Security benefits, but in many states, child welfare agencies use these funds to help cover the cost of care. In 2018 alone, agencies in 49 states and Washington, D.C., received at least $165 million in benefits intended for foster youth.In this episode, Shoshana Weissmann interviews Maureen Flatley, subject matter expert in child welfare and child exploitation. They discuss how these funds are managed, the policies guiding their use, and the ongoing conversations about their impact on foster youth and the child welfare system.

Artificial Intelligence has been rapidly brought to the forefront of the public conversation in recent months. President Trump has pledged to support AI innovation, while the newly-established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been working to streamline government processes through AI. Join our panel of experts, including Dhruva Krishna, Dr. Megan Ma, and Kevin Fraizer, for a discussion on the benefits and legal ramifications of incorporating AI into government.

The 2025 Pacific Palisades Fire has underscored the challenges of building in California’s complex regulatory landscape. In response, Governor Newsom issued an executive order suspending CEQA and Coastal Act requirements to expedite reconstruction, raising important questions about the future of development in the state. In this podcast, experts Jeremy Talcott and Donald Kochan examine California's regulatory environment before the disaster and the broader implications of its permitting processes in the effort to rebuild. Join us for an in-depth discussion on balancing efficient recovery with long-term regulatory considerations.

On January 15, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, a case involving Texas H.B. 1181, which is a law that imposes an age-verification requirement for adult sexual content websites. While content filtering has been used in the past by parents to regulate their children’s access to adult websites, the rapid advancement of technology in the past 20 years has raised concerns about the success of content filtering. The age verification requirement poses a more effective alternative, but if implemented, it could have implications for privacy concerns and free speech rights. Jennifer Huddleston from the Cato Institute is joined by Clare Morell of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Bailey Sanchez of the Future of Privacy Forum, and Shoshana Weissmann of the R Street Policy Institute, to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of age verification laws, the policy implications of H.B. 1181, and the potential outcome of the Supreme Court case.

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

In this episode, Rachel Morrison from the Ethics and Public Policy Center and Gregory Baylor from Alliance Defending Freedom discuss recent court and agency decisions. These experts discuss whether “gender dysphoria” is a “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Featuring: Gregory S. Baylor, Senior Counsel & Director of the Center for Religious Schools, Alliance Defending Freedom Rachel Morrison (Moderator), Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

In this episode, Randel K. Johnson and Andrew Kilberg discuss the relationship between immigration enforcement and employment policy, with a focus on the unique challenges faced by both small and large businesses in maintaining compliance. Additionally, the experts examine the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), considering potential legislative reforms to better align incentives for small businesses while preserving accountability in immigration matters.Featuring:Randel Keith Johnson, Distinguished Immigration Scholar, Cornell Law SchoolAndrew Kilberg, Partner, Gibson Dunn

There have been significant changes in federal AI policy over the course of the first term of the Trump administration and Biden administration that present a major inflection point for President-elect Trump as he prepares for his second term in office. This panel will delve into the differing doctrinal and policy frameworks for executive branch and congressional AI policy to map out how this transformative technology and its associated policy might manifest in President Trump's second term in office. Featuring: Neil Chilson, Head of AI Policy, Abundance Institute Satya Thallam, Senior Vice President, Americans for Responsible Innovation Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow, R Street Institute (Moderator) Prof. Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor of Law, St. Thomas University Benjamin L. Crump College of Law

This virtual event explored the potential trajectories of AI policy under the upcoming shift in presidential administrations. Our expert panel, featuring Ash Kazaryan, Adam Kovacevich, and Neil Chilson, examined the critical issues surrounding AI and offered insights on what policymakers need to know as they navigate rapidly evolving AI technologies. This discussion, moderated by Adam Thierer, provides a balanced range of perspectives on how future administrations can effectively approach AI governance.

In this episode, Ketan Bhirud and Luke Wake take a closer look at the role of the use of outside legal counsel by state attorneys general. Outside counsel can provide valuable expertise and resources, but what are the implications of relying on external firms for state legal matters? What are the advantages and potential pitfalls of these partnerships? How might they shape state legal practice and ultimately impact the public?

Federal regulators were busy in April 2024, with agencies publishing a record-breaking 66 significant new regulations; more than half of which had price tags higher than $200 million. This burst of regulatory activity can be attributed to a once obscure law known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA). If the November election brings Republican control of the White House and Congress, rules issued this summer or fall may be subject to review and disapproval in 2025. This panel will review how both parties have used the CRA to signal displeasure with a president’s policies and to overturn regulations. It will also explore Congress’s options under the Act. Featuring: Steven Balla, Associate Professor of Political Science, Public Policy and Public Administration, and International Affairs, George Washington University Todd F. Gaziano, President, Center for Individual Rights Anthony Papian, Staff Director at United States Senate, Subcommittee on Government Operations and Border Management Susan Dudley, Founder, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington University

Legal experts Jonathan Butcher and Jon Riches discuss the debate between parental rights and children’s privacy in education under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”). Moderated by Luke Wake, their discussion examines the debates over the role of student privacy, parental rights, and the role that the government is playing in education.

Alex J. Adams, Director of Idaho's Department of Health and Welfare is joined by Reeve T. Bull, Director of the Virginia Office of Regulatory Management. Director Adams and Director Bull detail the importance of regulatory reform efforts in Idaho and Virginia, respectively, and discuss the impact that regulatory reform can have on employment opportunities, business development, and the cost of living. What is zero-based regulation ("ZBR")? What did Idaho's zero-based regulation executive order do? What has been the impact of Idaho's use of incorporation of regulation into law? What is cost-benefit analysis? How did Virginia's Executive Order 19 use cost-benefit analysis for regulatory reform? Why did Virginia's Office of Regulatory Management apply cost-benefit analysis to regulations and guidance documents?

Kathryn Ciano Mauler and Eric Wang join the podcast to discuss the FEC rules behind campaign funds, particularly in the transfer of said funds between candidates. Their discussion breaks down the questions surrounding the recent changes to the 2024 ballot, and how that will affect each campaign's fundraising efforts, especially in a post-Chevron legal landscape.

On July 2, 2024, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case, Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC. In Explainer Episode 70, expert Jeff Stier discusses the FDA's regulatory action prohibiting specific vape flavors from being sold by these two companies, and the legal issues that the Supreme Court will review in the October 2024 term. What are the implications of the FDA prohibiting the sale of these vape flavors? What regulatory process did the FDA use to make this determination? Why did the FDA decide to allow certain vape flavors, and not others? What are the effects on the FDA's decision in this case on smokers? In promoting public health? On consumers? On the companies?

Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This “Chevron Deference” has been a topic of great debate, with many calling for it to be overturned, while others argue it is a vital part of how Courts address the complexity of law and agency actions.In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court considered challenges to that precedent. Oral argument was heard in both cases on January 17th, 2024.On June 28, 2024, a 6-3 Court issued its decision overturning Chevron, in a decision that may notably change the nature of the administrative state and the role of judges in reviewing agency actions moving forward.Join us for a courthouse steps program where we will discuss and break down the decision and the potential future impacts of this sea change in administrative law.Featuring:Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of LawJohn J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance(Moderator) Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School

On October 30, 2023, President Biden signed the most far-reaching presidential action in AI, Executive Order 14,110, Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. The EO directs dozens of federal agencies to take over 100 discrete actions to implement it over eight distinct policy areas. The EO received significant attention and a broad range of responses from the regulated public and congressional policymakers. Moreover, the States have grown highly active in regulating AI. This panel will discuss the consequences of the EO on the federal executive branch, the federal legislative process, States, and the tech industry as well as independent federal agency AI regulatory action with an eye toward the opportunities and challenges to come.Featuring:Johnathan Smith, Vice President and Legal Director, MacArthur Justice CenterHon. Keith Sonderling, Commissioner, Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionerAdam Thierer, Senior Fellow, R Street Institute(Moderator) Prof. Aram A. Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School

The Regulatory Transparency Project (RTP) is pleased to host a stellar panel of top labor and employment law experts for a lively discussion in which our panelists will grade the Biden Administration's administrative, regulatory, and enforcement activity under the Department of Labor (DOL) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).How have these agencies' approaches to administrative law under the Biden Administration been similar to or different from prior administrations? Where have they been aggressive, where have they been conservative, and why?  What have been the regulatory successes of the first three years?  The failures? And what unaddressed or latent regulatory issues might the agencies be taking up in 2024 (and beyond)?  Tune in and find out how the experts view the Biden Administration's actions from divergent points of view.Featuring:Moderator: Gregory Frederick Jacob, Partner, O'Melveny & Myers LLPJudy Conti, Government Affairs Director, National Employment Law ProjectHon. Philip Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLPTimothy Taylor, Partner, Holland & Knight LLP

In this RTP explainer episode 65, we are joined by Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President of the Goldwater Institute to discuss Michael Cannon’s new book, Recovery. Listen in as these experts consider the role of government agencies like the FDA in health spaces across America. "Recovery" discusses treatments approved by the FDA and the implications of approved drugs entering the market. Americans are inadvertently affected by the decisions of government agencies. With this said, "Recovery" argues the FDA takes away people’s rights to make their own health decisions. Does the FDA prohibit safe and effective drugs from entering the market? In this episode, experts discuss the implications of the decisions made by the FDA and the consequences of unsafe access to drugs. Copies of Michael Cannon’s book can be found at, https://www.cato.org/books/rec...

Murthy v. Missouri, originally filed as Missouri v. Biden, concerns whether federal government officials had violated the First Amendment by "coercing" or "significantly encouraging" social media companies to remove or demote particular content from their platforms.Multiple individuals, advocacy groups, academics, and some states sued various officials and federal agencies for censoring conservative-leaning speech on the 2020 election, COVID policies, and election integrity. The plaintiffs argued the officials and federal agencies used "jawboning" tactics to force social media companies to suppress content in a manner that violated the plaintiffs' freedom of speech. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction in the case, which was then vacated in part by the Fifth Circuit, which nonetheless held that there had been some violations of the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court then granted an emergency stay order and oral argument is set for March 18, 2024.In this recorded webinar we broke down and analyzed how oral argument went on the same day.Featuring:Prof. Adam Candeub, Professor of Law & Director of the Intellectual Property, Information & Communications Law Program, Michigan State University College of LawDr. Matthew Seligman, Partner, Stris & Maher LLP & Fellow, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School(Moderator) Stewart A. Baker, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP

In this episode, Jon Riches and James Sherk discuss fundamental questions related to government labor unions and their impact on public policy. They explore the nuances between public and private unions, their influence on public policy, and the concept of release time – its definition, prevalence across federal, state, and local levels, funding sources, legality, and potential policy remedies. Join us as we navigate through these critical questions and discuss real-world examples, including insights into official time at the federal level.Featuring:Jonathan Riches, Director of National Litigation, Goldwater InstituteJames Sherk, Director, Center for American Freedom, America First Policy Institute

On February 20, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The case asks whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)—the six-year default federal statute of limitations—when an agency issues a rule or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to “suffer legal wrong” or “be adversely affected or aggrieved,” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Petitioner Corner Post is a North Dakota convenience store and truck stop that seeks to challenge a 2011 Federal Reserve rule governing certain fees for debit card transactions. Corner Post didn’t open its doors until 2018 but the lower courts in this case held that its challenge is time barred because the statute of limitations ran in 2017—before Corner Post accepted its first debit card payment. On February 20, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The case asks whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)—the six-year default federal statute of limitations—when an agency issues a rule or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to “suffer legal wrong” or “be adversely affected or aggrieved,” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Petitioner Corner Post is a North Dakota convenience store and truck stop that seeks to challenge a 2011 Federal Reserve rule governing certain fees for debit card transactions. Corner Post didn’t open its doors until 2018 but the lower courts in this case held that its challenge is time barred because the statute of limitations ran in 2017—before Corner Post accepted its first debit card payment. Please join us as we discuss the case and how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC John Kendrick, Associate, Covington Susan C. Morse, Angus G. Wynne, Sr. Professor in Civil Jurisprudence and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law Molly Nixon, Attorney, Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation Moderator: John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

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.

For many years FDA has claimed the authority to regulate Laboratory Developed Tests, that is tests that are designed, produced, and used in a single lab – never being put up for sale. This authority, however, has been contested, and the FDA itself has traditionally practiced “discretionary enforcement,” wherein it has regulated LDTs very little. A change occurred in October 2023 when the FDA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking wherein it indicated its intention to codify its claim of authority and begin enforcing oversight of LDTs. Dr. Joel Zinberg, M.D., J.D., joined us to discuss the history the FDA’s regulation of LDTs, the proposed rule, and what the ramifications may be. Featuring: Dr. Joel Zinberg, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute

The approach the FDA has taken to regulating e-cigarettes and vape products, particularly those that are flavored, has been the topic of conversation for some years. Experts debate the best methods for review, risks and benefits involved in such products, and the means by which the FDA reviews such applications. Jeff Stier joined us to discuss a recent Fifth Circuit decision (Wages and White Lion Investments, L.L.C., doing business as Triton Distribution v. FDA) concerning the FDA's approval (or lack thereof) of flavored cartridge e-cigarettes --the state of the flavored e-cigarette market, the facts of this case, the existing circuit split, and the potential ramifications of this decision moving forward. Featuring: Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow, Consumer Choice Center

What are bias response teams (BRTs)? What role do they play on American college campuses? And how is freedom of speech under the First Amendment involved?In this Fourth Branch Explainer podcast, experts Jonathan Butcher and Jon Riches briefly explain the intellectual foundations of bias response teams, how these systems operate on American college campuses, and how legal protections such as due process and freedom of speech are involved. Featuring:Jonathan Butcher, Will Skillman Fellow in Education, Center for Education Policy, The Heritage FoundationJon Riches, Director of National Litigation, Goldwater Institute *******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 is a podcast version of a live webinar held on December 13, 2023. The webinar was co-sponsored by the Regulatory Transparency Project & the Religious Liberties Practice Group. *** In Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, a Colorado faith-based healthcare provider is challenging a recent Colorado law banning a treatment commonly known as abortion pill reversal on the grounds it forced them to violate their religious beliefs. The law, passed in April 2023, makes it illegal for healthcare professionals to offer progesterone (a naturally occurring hormone crucial to a healthy pregnancy) to women who have taken mifepristone as part one in a two-step abortion pill regimen but who subsequently want to maintain their pregnancy. The law imposes significant fines and jeopardizes the medical licenses of those who provide or advertise using progesterone to reverse the effects of an abortion pill. Bella Health, founded by Catholic mother and daughter nurse practitioners Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett, which has traditionally offered this route of care for women as a part of its life-affirming OB-GYN practice, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado for an injunction to stop the law from going into effect. A limited injunction was issued in late April, pending reports by the state's Medical, Nursing, and Pharmacy licensing boards. The last of those regulations were issued in September. The next day, Bella again asked the Court for injunctive relief. In an order issued on October 21, 2023, the district court preliminarily enjoined Colorado from enforcing the law, and the case remains live.

In Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, a Colorado faith-based healthcare provider is challenging a recent Colorado law banning a treatment commonly known as abortion pill reversal on the grounds it forced them to violate their religious beliefs. The law, passed in April 2023, makes it illegal for healthcare professionals to offer progesterone (a naturally occurring hormone crucial to a healthy pregnancy) to women who have taken mifepristone as part one in a two-step abortion pill regimen but who subsequently want to maintain their pregnancy. The law imposes significant fines and jeopardizes the medical licenses of those who provide or advertise using progesterone to reverse the effects of an abortion pill. Bella Health, founded by Catholic mother and daughter nurse practitioners Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett, which has traditionally offered this route of care for women as a part of its life-affirming OB-GYN practice, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado for an injunction to stop the law from going into effect. A limited injunction was issued in late April, pending reports by the state's Medical, Nursing, and Pharmacy licensing boards. The last of those regulations were issued in September. The next day, Bella again asked the Court for injunctive relief. In an order issued on October 21, 2023, the district court preliminarily enjoined Colorado from enforcing the law, and the case remains live. Join us for a litigation update on this case and what its implications may be, featuring Prof. Mark Rienzi who is President of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which is representing Bella Health in this case. Featuring: Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School(Moderator) Ms. Amanda Salz, Associate, Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP

Featuring:Hon. Lina M. Khan, Chair, Federal Trade CommissionProf. Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia, Law School, George Mason University

Moderated by Brent Skorup, experts Timothy B. Lee, Professor Pamela Samuelson, and Kristian Stout discuss the emerging legal issues involving artificial intelligence, and its use of works protected under copyright law. Topics include how artificial intelligence uses intellectual property, whether allegations of violations of intellectual property are analogous to prior historical challenges or are novel, and the tradeoffs involved.Featuring:Timothy B. Lee, Understanding AIPamela Samuelson, Richard M. Sherman Distinguished Professor of Law and Professor of School Information at the UC Berkeley School of Law and Co-Director, Berkeley Center for Law & TechnologyKristian Stout, Director of Innovation Policy, International Center for Law & EconomicsModerator: Brent Skorup, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center at George Mason University*******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 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.

In September, a panel of judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Illumina v. Federal Trade Commission. Earlier this year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ordered biotechnology company Illumina to unwind its $8 billion acquisition of Grail, a cancer-screening startup. This case began with a 2021 administrative complaint challenging the transaction. In September 2022, the FTC's administrative law judge (FTC) concluded that the FTC “failed to prove its asserted prima facie case that Illumina's post-Acquisition ability and incentive to advantage Grail to the disadvantage of Grail's alleged rivals is likely to result in a substantial lessening of competition in the relevant market.” The FTC complaint counsel appealed the decision of the ALJ to the commissioners, who then voted to overturn the ALJ's decision, ordering Illumina to divest the acquisition. The case is now pending before the Fifth Circuit.Please join us as we break down oral argument and discuss the broader implications of Illumina v. FTC.Featuring:Ashley Baker, Director of Public Policy, Committee for JusticeJohn B. Kirkwood, Professor of Law, Seattle University School of LawModerator: Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

It may surprise some to know that the government has definitive racial classifications for Americans, and it can be still further intriguing to find that the agency tasked with collecting, recording, and managing this data is the Office of Management and Budget. In this podcast, Prof. David Bernstein, author of Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America, joins us for an explanation of why this is and how we got here. Featuring: Prof. David Bernstein, University Professor of Law and Executive Director, Liberty & Law Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

For the past thirty years, the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) has given the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), an arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), the authority to place third-party observers on commercial fishing boats. Those observers have largely been federally funded except in certain limited instances where the MSA provides NMFS with the power to collect fees from the regulated industry. When NMFS and the New England Fishery Management Council decided to explore the possibility of increased discretionary monitoring in the Atlantic herring fishery, however, they realized the federal government would be unable to pay for additional monitoring. The solution was a rule that would instead shift the cost of increased coverage to small businesses—the fishermen themselves. NMFS estimated the cost of industry-funded monitoring in the herring fishery would run upwards of $700 per day and lead to a 20% reduction in most of the fleet's net revenue.If the story sounds familiar, that's because the 2022 Academy Award Best Picture, CODA, concerns the same kind of industry-funded monitoring scheme in New England's storied groundfish fishery. Up and down the Atlantic seaboard, commercial fishermen have long protested they are facing an onslaught of overlapping and ever-increasing state and federal regulations, all while fishing quotas and revenue continue to decline. NMFS, in the face of multiple lawsuits, has sought to justify industry-funded monitoring as a compliance cost necessary to preserve fishing stocks. Moreover, the agency has relied on Chevron deference to defend its reading of the MSA.In May 2023, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a lawsuit brought by a group of herring fishermen from Cape May, NJ challenging NMFS's industry-funded monitoring rule. Rather than agreeing to directly address NMFS's interpretation of its authority under the MSA, however, the Court agreed to consider whether Chevron v. NRDC should be overruled or, alternatively, clarified such that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in a statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to an agency. The implications of Loper Bright are tremendous across multiple agencies and regulatory spaces—it could turn out to mark a defining shift in administrative law.Featuring:Ryan Mulvey, Counsel, Cause of Action InstituteEli Nachmany, Former Law Clerk to Hon. Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

In May, the EPA proposed a new rule to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing power plants. This is a third attempt by the EPA to regulate these emissions. The Supreme Court struck down the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan in West Virginia v. EPA, which was the first time the Court formally acknowledged and explicitly relied on the “major questions” doctrine. The DC Circuit had previously struck down the Trump Administration's Affordable Clean Energy Rule and, although West Virginia involved an appeal of that decision, the Supreme Court did not rule on the Trump Administration's rule.The new rule's supporters say it's well in line with EPA's statutory authority, the state of the electric markets, and available emissions-reduction measures. Its opponents say it is legally flawed and threatens grid reliability. What are the potential legal and policy issues associated with the proposed rule? Does it raise “major questions” issues? Is the agency relying upon unproven technology in violation of the statutory requirement that its standards be based only on the “best system of emission reduction” that “has been adequately demonstrated?” Does this rule violate state prerogatives for regulating existing sources? Join us as we explain the rule and then discuss the legal and policy issues it raises.Featuring:Jeffrey Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLPKevin Poloncarz, Partner, Covington & Burling LLPJustin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law, PLLC[Moderator] Daren Bakst, Director of the Center for Energy and Environment and Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Eleventh Annual Executive Branch Review Conference — EBRXITheme: Transparency, Accountability, and the Administrative StateThe White House recently released much-anticipated changes to federal regulatory practices, including a new Executive Order 14094 on “Modernize Regulatory Review,” draft revisions to Circular A-4 governing regulatory impact analysis, and draft guidance on meetings with entities outside of the executive branch. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has the lead for implementing these changes, which comprise the most significant regulatory policy initiatives of the Biden administration. In this opening session, OIRA experts, including several former OIRA administrators will review these developments.Featuring:Anthony Philip Campau, Principal, Clark Hill Public Strategies & Attorney, Clark Hill PLCSusan Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington UniversitySally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence & Co-Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York UniversityModerator: Andrew Olmem, Partner, Mayer Brown

During President Obama's second term, the U.S. Education Department began sharing studies indicating that black students were disciplined at higher rates than their white peers. These data were viewed as evidence of racial bias, and, in 2014, the Education and Justice Departments jointly published a resource package to help American schools “…promote fair and effective disciplinary practices that will make schools safe, supportive, and inclusive for all students,” (DOJ). Supporters applauded these steps from the federal government saying they reduced schools' racial disparities in disciplinary decisions thereby curtailing the “school-to-prison pipeline.” Critics countered that the guidance misstated federal civil rights law, encouraged racial discrimination in the allocation of school discipline to produce demographic parity, and left classrooms less functional. The 2014 resource package was ultimately rescinded in 2018 under the Trump Administration, only to be largely restored by the Biden Administration. In May 2023, the Education and Justice Departments published a “Resource on Confronting Racial Discrimination in Student Discipline.”What is the best path forward for appropriate and meaningful disciplinary decision making in American schools? How will our school children be best served? What does the evidence really show about race and school discipline? Please join us as an expert panel discusses the legal and educational contours of the most recent guidance on race and school discipline. Featuring:Dr. Juan Del Toro, Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, University of MinnesotaMax Eden, Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute (AEI)Kristen Harper, Vice President for Public Policy and Engagement, Child TrendsDan Morenoff, Executive Director, American Civil Rights Project[Moderator] Alison Somin, Legal Fellow, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Earlier this month, the White House released much-anticipated changes to federal regulatory practices, including a new Executive Order 14094 on “Modernize Regulatory Review,” draft revisions to Circular A-4 governing regulatory impact analysis, and draft guidance on meetings with entities outside of the executive branch. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has the lead for implementing these changes, which comprise the most significant regulatory policy initiatives of the Biden administration. In this opening session, OIRA experts, including several former OIRA administrators will review these developments.

Regulatory modernization has been a topic of nationwide interest in recent months. With its recently revised Circular A-4, the federal Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has embraced an approach that could potentially lead to a massive expansion in the regulatory state. At the same time, the Commonwealth of Virginia has been pursuing a very different approach. Governor Glenn Youngkin issued an executive order, EO 19, which strives to reduce regulatory burdens by 25% while promoting more transparency in the process and better regulatory analysis.This panel, which includes the Director and Deputy Director of Virginia's Office of Regulatory Management as well as leading scholars in the regulatory space, will consider the reforms that Virginia is pursuing and examine whether and how they might work in other states and at the federal level. They will consider the challenges and opportunities associated with regulatory economic analysis and a regulatory budget, look at how the Virginia reforms have fared over the last year, and explore what it might mean to implement similar reforms in other jurisdictions.Additional Reading:Reeve T. Bull, Virginia's Model: The Commonwealth Leads the Way on State Regulatory Modernization, Washington Legal Foundation, July 13, 2023, available at: https://www.wlf.org/2023/07/13/publishing/virginias-model-the-commonwealth-leads-the-way-on-state-regulatory-modernization/*******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.

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), an arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), recently saw one of its major agency efforts that placed severe limits on the Maine lobster fishing industry in the name of protecting right whales from being entangled in fishing gear rejected by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The far-reaching impact of NMFS's rule on the Maine $1.5 billion dollar lobster fishing industry was widely reported, resulting in multiple lawsuits, and congressional action before it was rejected by the appeals court, who chided the federal agency for being “egregiously wrong” about its authority and assessments.NMFS's efforts to restrict the lobster fishing industry through the enactment of rules under both the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act is part of a larger trend. NMFS is also considering putting a speed limit on recreational boats in the Florida gulf to protect Rice's whales, and another proposal to impose a speed limit across nearly the entirety of the Eastern seaboard, which coastal communities, boaters and fishermen claim will shut down harmless boating activity and place boaters in danger by demanding they travel at the speeds that make boat travel impossible. Environmental groups argue that these rules are necessary to protect a species that hangs on the brink of extinction.Join us for a lively and engaging discussion surrounding the recent decision, and the legality and constitutionality of NMFS's regulatory efforts. This will be a discussion between Jane Luxton, the Managing Partner of the DC office of Lewis Brisbois, one of the attorneys on the briefs for Maine Lobstermen's Association, and a former General Counsel of NOAA, and Braden H. Boucek, Director of Litigation at Southeastern Legal Foundation who recently filed comments in opposition to the proposal to impose a speed limit in the Florida gulf.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Affirmative action plans, though perhaps most associated with college admissions and higher education, actually crop up in a wide array of spaces, including in the context of employment. In this podcast, Eric Dreiband breaks down how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies in the context of voluntary affirmative action plans. He explains not only what the criteria for such plans are, but also the risks employers should consider, what, if anything, has changed post SFFA v. Harvard, and when it could be legal to discriminate based on protected characteristics in the context of employment.