RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast

The Goldwater Institute’s Christina Sandefur moderates a discussion with the Cato Institute’s director of health care policy Michael F. Cannon, on the role that the federal government plays in requiring prescriptions for medications. If you would like to read more from Cannon, see his and Jeffrey A. Singer’s white paper, Drug Reformation: End Government’s Power to Require Prescriptions.Featuring:Michael F. Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies, Cato Institute [Moderator] Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater InstituteVisit 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.

One of the longest-standing environmental law challenges is how to define the scope of waters regulated under the Clean Water Act known as “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). After decades of regulatory uncertainty, the Supreme Court has again taken up a case that may provide clarity. On October 3rd, the Court will hear oral argument in Sackett v. EPA, the first case of this new term and the second time the case will be reviewed by the high court. Perhaps this time the Court will definitively determine what is a WOTUS. Will the Court definitively determine what is a WOTUS? Join us for a discussion on this important case with Damien Schiff (arguing for petitioners), Tony Francois (represented petitioners in the Ninth Circuit), and William Snape (Director of the American University Washington College of Law’s Program on Environment and Energy Law). The panel will be moderated by Hunton Andrews Kurth partner Matt Leopold, who served previously as EPA general counsel and assisted in drafting the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule defining WOTUS. Featuring: Tony Francois, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation Damien Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation Prof. William Snape, Director of Program on Environmental and Energy Law, Assistant Dean of Adjunct Faculty Affairs, and Fellow in Environmental Law, American University Washington College of Law Moderator: Matt Leopold, Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shocked the world – and directed renewed attention to the global energy system. Suddenly, the topic of energy security rose to the forefront as consumers across the globe began to feel the impact of the conflict when filling their gas tanks and paying their electricity bills. As Europe struggles to disentangle itself from dependence upon Russian energy sources, the United States and others have directed renewed focus toward their supply chains for both hydrocarbon fuels and renewable power generation. Our panel of energy experts discuss these recent events and consider the legal and policy levers available to the United States and its allies to enhance their energy security.Featuring:Prof. James Coleman, Robert G. Storey Distinguished Faculty Fellow and Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of LawGeorge Fibbe, Partner, Baker Botts, Former Deputy General Counsel, Department of EnergyModerator: Daniel G. West, Vice President, SCF PartnersVisit 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.

As a condition of his vote for the Inflation Reduction Act, Sen. Joe Manchin demanded space for his own permitting-reform package in the latest spending bill. While his proposed legislation was ultimately pulled over objections to aspects tangential to permitting, interest in permitting reform remains strong. The target of many reformers’ ire is the current interpretation of the National Environmental Policy Act: a 1970 statute designed to ensure that the government gives adequate consideration to environmental impacts before embarking on major actions. While this has had significant benefits for environmental quality, the review process is often long, costly, and subject to aggressive litigation that often stretches for years. Is it time to rewrite portions of NEPA? And, if so, what should those reforms look like?Featuring:David Adelman, Harry Reasoner Regents Chair in Law, The University of Texas at Austin School of LawJames W. Coleman, Robert G. Storey Distinguished Faculty Fellow and Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law[Moderator] Michael Buschbacher, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLCVisit 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.

A private right of action, or the ability of individuals to bring lawsuits for violations of a statute, has been a major point of contention in debates over a potential federal data privacy law. This podcast featuring Andrew Kingman (Mariner Strategies), Jennifer Huddleston (NetChoice), and Keir Lamont (Future of Privacy Forum) will dive into the questions surrounding this debate. Is the litigation risk from a private right of action harmful to innovation and small businesses or is it necessary to redress individual concerns? What can policymakers and practitioners learn from state level privacy laws like Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) about the impact of a private right of action?Featuring:Andrew Kingman, President, Mariner Strategies LLCKeir Lamont, Senior Counsel, Future of Privacy Forum[Moderator] Jennifer Huddleston, Policy Counsel, NetChoiceVisit 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.

One of the most controversial and long-standing environmental issues deals with what waters are regulated under the Clean Water Act. For decades, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers have struggled to define "waters of the United States" (WOTUS) and the Supreme Court has not been able to provide clarity in its previous WOTUS decisions. Now though, the U.S. Supreme Court's first case of the new term is Sackett v. EPA, which provides the Court another chance to provide some clarity. In this podcast discussion, the lead counsel for the Sacketts, Damien Schiff, and Georgetown University's William Buzbee, delve into the legal issues of the case and its implications.Featuring:William W. Buzbee, Professor of Law, Georgetown LawDamien Schiff, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation[Moderator] Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow in Environmental Policy and Regulation, The Heritage FoundationVisit 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.

Ashley Baker and Asheesh Agarwal discuss the FTC's Strategic Plan for 2022 - 2026, which sets out the FTC's priorities over the next five years. Ashley and Asheesh discuss goals that the FTC would like to achieve, their shift from the historically used consumer welfare standard to a public interest standard, and challenges to the FTC's assertion of jurisdiction to keep an eye on. Featuring:Ashley Baker, Director of Public Policy, Committee for JusticeAsheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of CommerceVisit 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.

In this episode, Michael F. Cannon argues that the federal income tax exclusion of employer-sponsored health insurance is an "accident of history," and has had a significant impact on the American markets for health insurance, medical care, and on the U.S. political system. Read more from Michael Cannon in his article, End the Tax Exclusion for Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance.Featuring:Michael F. Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies, Cato InstituteVisit 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 US-EU Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework, announced in March of this year, is a new agreement governing trans-Atlantic data flows between the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) – specifically data flows from EU countries to the U.S. that contain personal information of EU residents. The new framework is intended to replace the previous Privacy Shield Framework, which the EU Court of Justice found did not provide adequate protection of privacy, as required by the General Data Protection Regulation and other law.In this podcast, experts discuss whether the new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework effectively addresses the concerns of the EU Court of Justice providing for a solid legal basis for future Trans-Atlantic data transfers.Featuring:Stewart Baker, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLPTheodore Christakis, Professor of International and European Law, University Grenoble AlpesPeter Swire, Elizabeth and Tommy Holder Chair, Scheller College of Business, Georgia Institute of Technology[Moderator] Paul Rosenzweig, Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington UniversityVisit 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 Supreme Court’s recent abortion decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization will no doubt have many ramifications. One of the more unusual questions is the impact that Dobbs might have on data privacy. It has long been the case, for example, that cell phone location data can be used to identify certain personal behavior patterns, such as routine attendance at church. Some are now concerned that location data may be used to identify pregnant women by the locations they visit – potentially exposing them to civil or criminal charges as the underlying substantive abortion law changes. Other women are deleting period tracking apps from their phones for much the same reason. In this podcast, experts explore and debate these issues.Featuring:Stewart Baker, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLPJane Bambauer, Dorothy H. and Lewis Rosenstiel Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of LawDanielle Citron, Jefferson Scholars Foundation Schenck Distinguished Professor in Law and Caddell and Chapman Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law[Moderator] Paul Rosenzweig, Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington UniversityVisit 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.