RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast

The Federalist Society

The Regulatory Transparency Project is a nonprofit, nonpartisan effort dedicated to fostering discussion and a better understanding of regulatory policies.

On RTP’s Fourth Branch Podcast, leading experts discuss the pros and cons of government regulations and explain how they affect everyday life for Americans. read less
NewsNews
PoliticsPolitics

Episodes

Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Murthy v. Missouri
Mar 18 2024
Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Murthy v. Missouri
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
Deep Dive 287 - Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Feb 27 2024
Deep Dive 287 - Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
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
Deep Dive 286: Litigation Update: Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser
Dec 13 2023
Deep Dive 286: Litigation Update: Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser
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.
Deep Dive 284 - Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Illumina v. FTC
Oct 4 2023
Deep Dive 284 - Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Illumina v. FTC
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.