Podcast appearances and mentions of todd gaziano

Why is the vast regulatory state dangerous? Todd Gaziano, chief of legal policy and strategic research at the Pacific Legal Foundation, explains how Congress' delegation of legislative authority to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats has undermined the “separation of powers” enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, what led us here and how to reverse the trend. Learn more about how PLF is defending liberty and justice for all here.

On this episode of the AIER Standard Ethan sits down with Pacific Legal Foundation's Todd Gaziano, who is their Chief of Legal Policy and Strategic Research, to discuss the recent landmark Supreme Court Decision, West Virginia v. EPA. Todd is a veteran legal mind in the free market and classical liberal movement having previously served as a director at the Heritage Foundation's legal studies center. Mr. Gaziano also held positions in the federal government, including the Department of Justice and the US Commission on Civil Rights. The conversation covers the implications of West Virginia v. EPA, which checked the administrative state's power to make rules and regulations without more explicit Congressional authorization. Ethan and Todd discuss the premise and history of the administrative state, its role today, and why limits on its power matter. Furthermore, Todd explains the legal constraints placed on the administrative state due to the decision and how they tie into a broader conversation about non-delegation, Chevron Deference, and the balance of federal power. Finally, Todd and Ethan discuss how the structural incentives before and after West Virginia v. EPA affect the way our democratic system of government functions.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) was used in 2017 to overturn 15 rules issued near the end of the Obama administration. The shift in political control in the White House and Congress this year set the stage for a possible repeat with respect to Trump administration rules. The CRA's period for expedited congressional procedures (free of the Senate filibuster) has now expired for late Trump era regulations, and Congress overturned only three such rules. On June 24, Congress finished action to repeal the EEOC conciliation rule and the OCC (Comptroller) true lender rule, and it took final action to repeal the EPA methane rule the following day. President Biden has since signed all three resolutions, making them law.This latest cycle of CRA actions merit general exploration as well as consideration of the specific rules at issue. What process did Congress use to disapprove the three rules? Why did it use the CRA relatively sparingly this year, and what will the impact be of the three disapprovals? The answers to the last two questions are arguably related. When Congress uses the CRA to repeal federal regulations, the respective agencies are automatically barred from issuing another rule that is "substantially the same" as the one disapproved without new statutory authorization. Though there is no court ruling on what the CRA's anti-circumvention clause means, the resulting uncertainty may have skewed the CRA's use in interesting ways.In this live podcast, Todd Gaziano and Professor Jonathan Adler discuss the CRA, how it has been used, and the ramifications of its use on the three rules this year and on future federal regulations.Featuring:- Todd F. Gaziano, Chief of Legal Policy and Strategic Research and Director, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation- Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of LawVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

How executive orders affect your life & checks and balances.  Continuing our “The Amendments and YOU!” series, Janine Turner, Cathy Gillespie, and student ambassadors Jewel and Jorne Gilbert interview constitutional scholar Todd Gaziano on the history and current application of executive orders. Episode 62 of Constitutional Chats Podcast.  Livestreamed on 3/16/2021.  Sign up for our next Constitutional Chat via Zoom at http://constitutingamerica.org

How executive orders affect your life & checks and balances.  Continuing our “The Amendments and YOU!” series, Janine Turner, Cathy Gillespie, and student ambassadors Jewel and Jorne Gilbert interview constitutional scholar Todd Gaziano on the history and current application of executive orders.   Episode 61 of Constitutional Chats Podcast.  Livestreamed on 3/16/2021.  Sign up for our next Constitutional Chat via Zoom at http://constitutingamerica.org

Guests: Pete Peterson, JP Yahannon and Todd Gaziano 1/27/21 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Supreme Court will hear its 7th challenge involving Obamacare this term. We sat down to talk about the first Obamacare case, NFIB v. Sebelius, with Randy Barnett, Todd Gaziano, and Josh Blackman and to look for clues about whether the joint dissent actually began as the majority opinion. And will this newest challenge be the one that brings down the whole law? Tune in to find out!Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends! Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal Guests @RandyEBarnett @ToddGaziano @JoshMBlackman Email us at Dissed@pacificlegal.org See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Jason Snead joins Elizabeth Slattery to talk about the snurlough (snow day + furlough), the return of #GorsuchStyle, and creative ideas for funding SCOTUS during the government shutdown. Elizabeth also chats with Todd Gaziano about recent SCOTUS arguments. Don't miss Supreme Trivia - Silly SCOTUS edition.Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org. And don't forget to leave a 5-star rating! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Since 1789, the Supreme Court has struck down only two laws on “nondelegation” grounds, both in 1935. Gundy v. United States will potentially be a third such ruling, depending on whether the Deputy Solicitor General can convince the justices to save the delegation of authority in the Sexual Offence Notification Act (SORNA). The particular provision of SORNA at issue, which directs the Attorney General to decide whether SORNA’s registration requirements apply to sexual offenders convicted before the Act’s passage, may allow the Court to issue a narrow or broad ruling, but any opinion applying the nondelegation doctrine is likely to be a landmark ruling. The case directly affects three of the Federalist Society’s practice groups, and the case indirectly affects almost every other area of federal law.The nondelegation doctrine operates to prevent Congress from delegating the lawmaking power the people vested in it to another branch or any other entity, but what is the core lawmaking power that Congress cannot delegate? How broadly can Congress phrase its legislation, and how much can it delegate to the regulatory agencies to fill in? The courts’ role in enforcing the constitutional delegation line is even more hotly debated. No justice has disagreed that the nondelegation rule is essential to maintaining the constitutional Separation of Powers, but some have expressed concern in prior decades about a judicially manageable standard for the courts to apply. In recent years, the Court’s lax enforcement of its “intelligible principle” standard from 1928 has been criticized by Justice Thomas, then Judge Gorsuch and many other commentators. The Gundy case presents the Court with a range of options, including from amici who have asked the Court to provide teeth to its intelligible principle standard or to adopt a textually-based standard that would more fully restore the delegation doctrine. How far will the majority go to revive the nondelegation rule, and will concurring justices urge additional movement in the same direction? Or will the doctrine, now on life support, be further diminished?Todd Gaziano is the counsel of record for Pacific Legal Foundation’s brief in Gundy supporting reversal of the decision below, and joins us to discuss the oral arguments.Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Since 1789, the Supreme Court has struck down only two laws on “nondelegation” grounds, both in 1935. Gundy v. United States will potentially be a third such ruling, depending on whether the Deputy Solicitor General can convince the justices to save the delegation of authority in the Sexual Offence Notification Act (SORNA). The particular provision of SORNA at issue, which directs the Attorney General to decide whether SORNA’s registration requirements apply to sexual offenders convicted before the Act’s passage, may allow the Court to issue a narrow or broad ruling, but any opinion applying the nondelegation doctrine is likely to be a landmark ruling. The case directly affects three of the Federalist Society’s practice groups, and the case indirectly affects almost every other area of federal law.The nondelegation doctrine operates to prevent Congress from delegating the lawmaking power the people vested in it to another branch or any other entity, but what is the core lawmaking power that Congress cannot delegate? How broadly can Congress phrase its legislation, and how much can it delegate to the regulatory agencies to fill in? The courts’ role in enforcing the constitutional delegation line is even more hotly debated. No justice has disagreed that the nondelegation rule is essential to maintaining the constitutional Separation of Powers, but some have expressed concern in prior decades about a judicially manageable standard for the courts to apply. In recent years, the Court’s lax enforcement of its “intelligible principle” standard from 1928 has been criticized by Justice Thomas, then Judge Gorsuch and many other commentators. The Gundy case presents the Court with a range of options, including from amici who have asked the Court to provide teeth to its intelligible principle standard or to adopt a textually-based standard that would more fully restore the delegation doctrine. How far will the majority go to revive the nondelegation rule, and will concurring justices urge additional movement in the same direction? Or will the doctrine, now on life support, be further diminished?Todd Gaziano is the counsel of record for Pacific Legal Foundation’s brief in Gundy supporting reversal of the decision below, and joins us to discuss the oral arguments.Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPMr. Todd Gaziano, Director, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal FoundationProf. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Greg Katsas, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

The Sixth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference is scheduled for Tuesday, April 17 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. and will examine the increase in federal regulatory activity and the legal and practical considerations of regulatory reform. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels.Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLPMr. Todd Gaziano, Director, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal FoundationProf. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Jonathan Turley, J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law; Director of the Environmental Law Advocacy Center; Executive Director, Project for Older Prisoners, The George Washington University Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Greg Katsas, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Rod Arquette Show Daily Rundown - Monday, December 4, 20174:20 pm: Todd Gaziano, Executive Director of the Pacific Legal Foundation, joins the show for a discussion about the legal ramifications of President Trump’s decision to shrink two of Utah’s national monuments4:35 pm: Navajo Nation Vice President Johnathan Nez and Attorney General Ethel Branch join the show to give us their reaction to President Trump’s announcement that he will shrink both the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments6:05 pm: Political reporter Alex Isenstadt of Politico joins Rod to discuss how President Trump is urging Senator Orrin Hatch to run for re-election in an attempt to undermine a possible run by Mitt Romney6:20 pm: Woods Cross Police Chief Greg Butler joins the show to discuss a program his department is running that allows city residents to have packages delivered to the police station during the month of December to help fight “porch pirates” theft6:35 pm: Utah Congressman Rob Bishop joins the show to give us his reaction to President Trump’s announcement today that he will shrink both the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments

In this episode of Opening Arguments, the guys look at both United Airlines and an obscure law from 1996 that could threaten the "administrative state" held in such disdain by our newest Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch. First, of course, Andrew breaks down the legality of the recent decision by United Airlines to forcibly remove a passenger.  How badly is United going to get sued?  You know we deliver the goods. Then, Andrew and Thomas discuss a little-known law passed in 1996 as part of the Republican Revolution and Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America":  the Congressional Review Act.  What is it, and why does it matter?  Listen and find out! In the "C" segment, Andrew answers a question from his mom.  Really! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #19 about diversity jurisdiction.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew was recently a guest on the Embrace the Void podcast, Episodes 5 and 6.  Listen and enjoy! Show Notes & Links The Congressional Review Act is 5 U.S.C. § 802. ...and the Brookings Institute study can be found here. Finally, you can read Todd Gaziano's efforts to beef up the CRA here. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

In 1996, Congress passed the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Before an executive agency rule—broadly defined to include agency guidance documents—can take effect, the CRA requires the agency to submit it to Congress and the Government Accountability Office. The CRA provides fast-track procedures for Congress to overrule any rule with a joint resolution of disapproval if the President signs it into law (or Congress overrides any veto). The expedited procedures may be used during the first 60 session days after the rule is submitted and during the first 60 session days of the next session if the rule was submitted near the end of the previous session. The only successful invalidation of a regulation prior to this year was in 2001, when the Department of Labor ergonomics rule issued at the end of the Clinton Administration was voided. -- In the last few months, there has been renewed attention to the CRA, with Congress’ action to overrule many more rules. And some have asserted that the law may have much broader implications for rules passed over the past 8 years and not previously sent to Congress as the CRA requires. -- Former Congressman David McIntosh, who sponsored the CRA, and former congressional counsel to Mr. McIntosh, Todd Gaziano, will join us to discuss the ins and outs of the CRA and its potential applications in the coming months. This Teleforum is the second installment in our Legal Options for the New Administration series. -- Featuring: Hon. David M. McIntosh, President of the Club for Growth and Vice Chairman of The Federalist Society and Todd F. Gaziano, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law and Executive Director of Pacific Legal Foundation’s DC Center.

President Trump has announced the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. PLF attorneys Todd Gaziano, Mark Miller and Tony Francois discuss the nominee and highlight some of his qualifications for the nation's highest court.

PLF's Chief Communications Officer Robert Krauter interviews Todd Gaziano, Executive Director of PLF’s DC Center, and PLF attorney Jonathan Wood about the Antiquities Act and what it means for National Monuments throughout the state. The Antiquities Act is an act passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. This law gives the President of the United States the authority to, by presidential proclamation, create national monuments from public lands to protect significant natural, cultural, or scientific features. The Act has been used, and abused, over a hundred times since its passage.

Pacific Legal Foundation's John Groen, Todd Gaziano, Jim Burling and Tony Francois talk about the administrative state, it's history, and reflect on how some of PLF's recent wins have affected it. We have seen a disturbing and dangerous trend of government agencies creating their own rules and acting as judge and jury. Our podcast discussion describes how PLF intends to build upon the existing precedents that strengthen judicial review of administrative agency decisions, and specifically to expand access to federal courts for all Americans confronting arbitrary and abusive agency actions.

Todd Gaziano joined Pacific Legal Foundation in 2014 as the Executive Director of PLF’s DC Center and as its Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law. He brings valuable experience from distinguished government jobs in all three branches of the federal government, positions in the private sector, and as a long-time, nonprofit foundation scholar and leader in the freedom-based public interest legal ... Read More

A weekly meeting of conservative bloggers, online journalists and modern media strategists hosted by The Heritage Foundation. House Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) on jobs and the debt ceiling.  Also Karen Harned the Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent and Todd Gaziano, Director of Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.