The panelists will discuss Biden Administration policies and regulations at the DOL and SEC addressing investing based on environmental, social, and governance (or “ESG”) factors; whether they are consistent with statutory law; and whether the agencies followed appropriate administrative processes in promulgating these ever-evolving policies.Moderator: Gregory Jacob, Partner, O'Melveny & Myers LLPSpeakers:Paul Atkins, Chief Executive Officer, Patomak Global Partners LLCElliot Gaiser, Associate, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLCSharon Rose, Partner, Berliner Corcoran & Rowe LLP

In this episode of the Fourth Branch Explainer podcast, Prof. Eugene Volokh, from UCLA Law School, and Prof. David Bernstein, from the Antonin Scalia Law School, discuss the features, implications, and possibilities of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.

The Regulatory Transparency Project’s Fourth Branch Podcast presents Explainer Episode 68. In this Fourth Branch Explainer podcast, Rachel N. Morrison from the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) discusses the implications of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Regulations recently released. Listen in as Morrison discusses the pros and cons of new rules.

Congress has been working on comprehensive federal data privacy legislation for decades without reaching agreement. But the finish line may be closer today than before. With the recent introduction of the American’s Privacy Rights Act (APRA), the chairs of the Senate and House Commerce Committees announced a bipartisan compromise, hoping to end the legislative stalemate.Our panel of data privacy experts will take a deeper look at APRA, including its provisions and implications. Who wins and who loses in APRA’s mix of provisions from preemption to enforcement? Is the decision to embrace regulation of algorithmic decision-making a deal maker or breaker? And does it stand a chance of passing in an election year? Tune in to hear our panelists explore the ongoing dynamic of federal privacy legislation in the United States.Register and Join the webinar on May 23rd at 3 pm EST.

The Regulatory Transparency Project’s Fourth Branch Podcast presents Explainer Episode 67. In this Fourth Branch Explainer podcast, health policy experts Michael Cannon and Christina Sandefur discuss the regulatory landscape of veterans’ benefits, and how veterans’ healthcare impacts American foreign policy. The experts discuss Michael Cannon’s new book “Recovery”.

The Regulatory Transparency Project presents a panel of legal experts, including Bob Eitel, Christian Corrigan, Will Trachman, and Kim Richey. Watch as these experts discuss the Biden Administration’s newly released Title IX Regulations and their implications for educational institutions, school districts, students, faculty, and parents.Join us for this webinar at 1 pm EST on May 8th.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or SPR, held approximately 358 million barrels, its lowest level in forty years. Is that a problem? What is the SPR and how is it supposed to operate? How much petroleum is it supposed to hold?Listen in on the Regulatory Transparency Project's Explainer Episode 66, as expert J. Kennerly Davis discusses SPR.

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...

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

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. Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went the same day. Featuring: Prof. Adam Candeub, Professor of Law & Director of the Intellectual Property, Information & Communications Law Program, Michigan State University College of Law Dr. 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 Institute James 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 Foundation Jon Riches, Director of National Litigation, Goldwater Institute

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.

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 School Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University (Moderator) Eli Nachmany, Former Law Clerk to Hon. Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

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