Podcast appearances and mentions of Ronald A Cass

Adam White and Jace Lington chat with Ronald A. Cass about the future of judicial deference to agency actions. They discuss Cass's recent papers, “Fixing Deference: Delegation, Discretion, and Deference Under Separated Powers,” published by the New York University Journal of Law & Liberty, and “Getting Deference Right,” published by National Affairs. Ron insists on […]

Adam White and Jace Lington chat with Ronald A. Cass about the future of judicial deference to agency actions. They discuss Cass's recent papers, “Fixing Deference: Delegation, Discretion, and Deference Under Separated Powers,” published by the New York University Journal of Law & Liberty, and “Getting Deference Right,” published by National Affairs. Ron insists on the crucial distinction between court decisions on what the law means and agency decisions about policy implementation.Notes:Fixing Deference: Delegation, Discretion, and Deference Under Separated Powers (NYU JLL, 2023) Getting Deference Right (National Affairs, 2024) Loper Bright Amicus Brief, Gray Center Separation of Powers Clinic Gray Center 2023 Rule of Law Symposium

Ronald A. Cass, Sally Katzen, and Noah J. Philips kick off the 2023 Annual Gray Lecture with a conversation about the "rule of law" in administrative law. This panel discussion builds on a forthcoming symposium featuring essays on the rule of law that will soon appear in the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty. The Gray Center and the NYU JLL cohosted an event in February on campus at NYU to discuss the themes of the essays. We were glad to bring the conversation to Washington, D.C., to continue the discussion.Notes:Video of the panel discussion

On June 11, 1946, President Truman signed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) into law, and it was intended to be “a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated in one way or another by agencies of the Federal Government,” according to its lead sponsor in the Senate. If we were to redesign the APA for today's version of the administrative state, what would it be? To mark the 75th anniversary of the APA, on June 11, 2021, the Gray Center hosted a conference gathering many of the George Mason Law Review Symposium Issue authors together at the Historic Decatur House in DC for an afternoon of conversations on this and related questions. The second panel session, titled “The Life of the Law: What Has Happened Since 1946?” centered on papers by four Symposium Issue authors: The Honorable Ronald A. Cass, Aaron L. Nielson, Richard J. Pierce, Jr., and Stuart Shapiro. The panel session was moderated by Jennifer Mascott, Co-Executive Director of the Gray Center, who also gave opening remarks, along with Adam White. Links to the papers by this panel's authors are available below, and the videos from the entire event as well as all Symposium Issue papers are available at https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/events/the-75th-anniversary-of-the-apa-the-george-mason-law-reviews-3rd-annual-symposium-on-administrative-law/. This episode features Ronald Cass, Jennifer Mascott, Aaron Nielson, Richard Pierce, Stuart Shapiro, and Adam White. Papers discussed during this panel session include: “Rulemaking Then and Now: From Management to Lawmaking” by Ronald Cass, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/rulemaking-then-and-now-from-management-to-lawmaking/ “Three Wrong Turns in Agency Adjudication” by Aaron Nielson, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/three-wrong-turns-in-agency-adjudication/ “Agency Adjudication: It Is Time to Hit the Reset Button” by Richard Pierce, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/agency-adjudication-it-is-time-to-hit-the-reset-button/ “The Impossibility of Legislative Regulatory Reform and the Futility of Executive Regulatory Reform” by Stuart Shapiro, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/the-impossibility-of-legislative-regulatory-reform-and-the-futility-of-executive-regulatory-reform/

On November 9, 2020, The Federalist Society's Administration Law & Regulation Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The topic of the panel was "Regulatory Practice and Oversight in 2021 and Beyond." While we think of “The Administrative State” as the relatively permanent apparatus of government, it has no lawful powers beyond those vested in officials the voters have chosen. “[T]he Constitution presumes that lesser executive officers will assist the President in discharging his duties.” (Seila Law) Those duties are, for the most part, implementing, administering, and enforcing the provisions of the laws Congress has enacted. What, then, are the implications of the 2020 elections for regulatory policy?From the earliest days of his Administration, President Trump made it a priority to cut back on the regulations he believed were impeding American economic success. Among other things, he instructed agencies to drop two regulations for each one added, and to comply with all procedural requirements in issuing guidance, and the Department of Justice announced it would not defend “subregulatory guidance.” In response to the arrival and spread of the contagious and deadly novel coronavirus, additional regulatory streamlining accelerated the approval of vaccines and other medical technologies, and of federally funded or permitted projects. Where do these initiatives stand? What will a second term/new administration bring? What will the 117th Congress do? Will it give early attention to administrative rules under the Congressional Review Act? Recent Supreme Court decisions on delegation (Gundy), on deference (Kisor), and on presidential authority (Seila Law) mean that Congressional oversight, and the President’s management, of the administrative state will play out on an evolving landscape of administrative law.This panel will discuss the likely consequences of the post-election prevailing winds.Featuring:Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School Law; President, Cass & Associates Hon. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Resident; Co-Director, Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of LawProf. Adam J. White, Assistant Professor of Law, Director, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Resident Scholar, American Enterprise InstituteModerator: Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Section 230 of Communications Decency Act protects platforms from liability for the content produced by users. As social media platforms have evolved, concerns about free speech and platform liability have sparked debates among legislators regarding the best way to regulate social media companies. Some have questioned whether Section 230 is the best solution and have proposed Congressional enforcement of ‘platform neutrality.’ Others have argued that Section 230 is the best way to protect free speech. During this program, our experts will debate and discuss Section 230 and how Congress should approach regulation of social media companies.Featuring:-- Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law; President, Cass & Associates, PC-- Neil Chilson, Senior Research Fellow for Technology and Innovation, Charles Koch Institute-- Josh Divine, Deputy Counsel, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley

Section 230 of Communications Decency Act protects platforms from liability for the content produced by users. As social media platforms have evolved, concerns about free speech and platform liability have sparked debates among legislators regarding the best way to regulate social media companies. Some have questioned whether Section 230 is the best solution and have proposed Congressional enforcement of ‘platform neutrality.’ Others have argued that Section 230 is the best way to protect free speech. During this program, our experts will debate and discuss Section 230 and how Congress should approach regulation of social media companies.Featuring:-- Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law; President, Cass & Associates, PC-- Neil Chilson, Senior Research Fellow for Technology and Innovation, Charles Koch Institute-- Josh Divine, Deputy Counsel, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley

The Eighth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference was held on April 28, 2020 via an online webinar. The second panel was titled "Restoring Judicial Power: Righting the Ship of Judicial Review and Deference Doctrines."One aspect of almost all constitutional systems is judicial deference, which could be loosely defined as the concept that certain matters are best decided by entities other than the judiciary. While nearly all agree that some level of judicial deference is necessary in our current constitutional system, the extent to which the Judiciary should practice deference remains a highly complex and controversial area of constitutional law. During the past several decades, the rise of the administrative state in the federal government has only added fuel to this ongoing legal debate. On one side, many believe that the administrative state is better equipped to deal with particular matters, because members of the administrative state will have more expertise in specific subject matter areas than federal judges. Many of these proponents of deference support Supreme Court cases that carved out the well-known deference doctrines of Chevron and Auer. On the other hand, skeptics of excessive judicial deference criticize much of the Supreme Court’s related jurisprudence. They instead argue that the increasing number of "cases and controversies" decided by regulators, enforcers, and adjudicative bodies within the administrative state, that are neither elected nor directly subject to the political process, has led to a less democratic form of government in America. Proponents of judicial power taking a less deferential approach believe that a strong doctrine of judicial review is a vital way to ensure that we truly have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That said, is there a way to prevent a less-deferential judiciary from becoming overly ambitious?This distinguished panel of experts will be discussing and debating this controversial and engaging issue. The panel will provide helpful information to attorneys practicing many fields of law, in particular, attorneys working in administrative, constitutional, and regulatory law. Featuring:Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PCProf. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor, Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law SchoolProf. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence; Co-Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of LawDean Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law; Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law SchoolHon. Beth A. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of JusticeModerator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

The Eighth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference was held on April 28, 2020 via an online webinar. The second panel was titled "Restoring Judicial Power: Righting the Ship of Judicial Review and Deference Doctrines."One aspect of almost all constitutional systems is judicial deference, which could be loosely defined as the concept that certain matters are best decided by entities other than the judiciary. While nearly all agree that some level of judicial deference is necessary in our current constitutional system, the extent to which the Judiciary should practice deference remains a highly complex and controversial area of constitutional law. During the past several decades, the rise of the administrative state in the federal government has only added fuel to this ongoing legal debate. On one side, many believe that the administrative state is better equipped to deal with particular matters, because members of the administrative state will have more expertise in specific subject matter areas than federal judges. Many of these proponents of deference support Supreme Court cases that carved out the well-known deference doctrines of Chevron and Auer. On the other hand, skeptics of excessive judicial deference criticize much of the Supreme Court’s related jurisprudence. They instead argue that the increasing number of "cases and controversies" decided by regulators, enforcers, and adjudicative bodies within the administrative state, that are neither elected nor directly subject to the political process, has led to a less democratic form of government in America. Proponents of judicial power taking a less deferential approach believe that a strong doctrine of judicial review is a vital way to ensure that we truly have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. That said, is there a way to prevent a less-deferential judiciary from becoming overly ambitious?This distinguished panel of experts will be discussing and debating this controversial and engaging issue. The panel will provide helpful information to attorneys practicing many fields of law, in particular, attorneys working in administrative, constitutional, and regulatory law. Featuring:Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PCProf. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor, Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law SchoolProf. Sally Katzen, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence; Co-Director of the Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic, New York University School of LawDean Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law; Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law SchoolHon. Beth A. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of JusticeModerator: Dean Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

The Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference will examine the changing and often convoluted relationship between the legislative and the executive branches in the United States government. The Conference began with an opening address by Senator Mike Lee and concluded with a closing address by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney. -- This panel of the 2017 Executive Branch Review Conference was held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. on May 17, 2017. -- Featuring: Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PC; Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law; Prof. Richard Pierce, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School; and Mr. M. Edward Whelan, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center. Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit.

For all of his many contributions to modern American jurisprudence, no area of law bears Justice Scalia's imprint more than administrative law. Indeed, he dedicated his entire career to it: from teaching at Virginia and Chicago, to serving in the Ford Administration, to his regulatory policy and legal writings at the American Enterprise Institute, to his service on the D.C. Circuit and ultimately the Supreme Court, he left a body of work unmatched by any modern Supreme Court justice. Whether writing in defense of particular doctrine or in criticism of it, his opinions and essays fundamentally shaped modern administrative law. Yet even late in his career, he continued to reflect and rethink his views, especially on questions such as Chevron deference and Seminole Rock deference. This panel collects some of the nation's most significant administrative law minds, to reflect on his legacy and evolution. -- This panel was held on November 19, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Hon. Ronald A. Cass, President, Cass & Associates, PC and Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law; Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Prof. E. Donald Elliott, Senior of Counsel at Covington & Burling, Professor (Adjunct) of Law, Yale Law School; and Prof. Lisa Heinzerling, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Moderator: Mr. Eugene Scalia, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. Introduction: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, PLLC.

Intellectual Property & Access to Medicines in the Developing World