RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast

On April 18, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida vacated the Centers for Disease Control's mask mandate for public transportation.Health law and policy expert Joel Zinberg joined the podcast to break down the ruling and examine the strategy behind the Department of Justice's decision to appeal it without requesting a stay.Featuring:- Joel Zinberg, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise InstituteVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Stablecoins are unique types of digital tokens that have emerged out of the cryptocurrency revolution and have taken center stage in the debate about crypto regulation. Tied to the value of an asset or fiat currency such as the dollar, stablecoins were initially created to ease the trade between different cryptocurrencies and crypto exchanges. Yet they have taken on innovative and beneficial new uses that both increase financial inclusion at home and provide vital assistance to those facing oppression and financial instability, as some argue that the situation in Ukraine demonstrates.But as stablecoins gain prominence, concerns have arisen over risks they might pose to the financial system. Some, such as Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Pat Toomey, have argued for light-touch regulation for stablecoin issuers that would simply require disclosure of reserves and redemption policies. Others have called for strict bank-like regulation on stablecoins with reserve requirements that specify the amount of assets stablecoin issuers must hold and backstop guarantee programs similar to deposit insurance. The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets of the Biden Administration recently recommended that federal laws should only allow stablecoins to be issued by "insured depository institutions" such as banks and savings associations. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is also sending signals that it considers stablecoins as well as other cryptocurrencies to be "securities," and will subject them to regulatory enforcement under securities laws, despite, as some argue, the lack of clear authority by Congress.This webinar explored the potential of stablecoins as a payment instrument, the inefficiencies of the current payment system, and the appropriate level of regulation that allows for beneficial innovation in this sector.Featuring:- Paul Jossey, Principal Attorney, Jossey PLLC- Timothy Massad, Consultant; Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law- [Moderator] John Berlau, Senior Fellow & Director of Finance Policy, Competitive Enterprise InstituteVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Are state governors subject to the same separation of powers restrictions as the federal president?Expanding on a Regulatory Transparency Project panel discussion on emergency executive power during the pandemic, this event featured experts engaging in a broader separation of powers discussion about the distinctions between the federal and state separation of powers doctrines, using California as an example.In a conversation moderated by Braden Boucek, David. A. Carrillo, Luke A. Wake, and John C. Yoo explored those distinctions, examined how they affect the latitude and options state and federal executives have, and debated the extent to which federal separation of powers doctrines can or should be applied to the states through judicial interpretation.Featuring:- David A. Carrillo, Lecturer in Residence and Executive Director, California Constitution Center, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law- Luke A. Wake, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation- John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law; Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center; and Director, Public Law & Policy Program, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law- [Moderator] Braden Boucek, Director of Litigation, Southeastern Legal FoundationVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

With the Supreme Court about to hear two cases involving the use of race in admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, what do Americans actually think about preferential treatment? Dr. Althea Nagai, Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO), presented her analysis of recent data from the Pew Research Center on what Americans believe colleges should consider when deciding whom to admit. Her study focuses on the attitudes of some of the beneficiaries of affirmative action, based on a large sample of black and Hispanic respondents as well as Asians and whites. Joining Dr. Nagai on the panel discussion were Theodore Johnson, Director of the Fellows Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, and moderator Linda Chavez, CEO Chair.Featuring:- Theodore Johnson, Director, Fellows Program, Brennan Center for Justice- Althea Nagai, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Equal Opportunity- [Moderator] Linda Chavez, Chairman, Center for Equal OpportunityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Experts Ian Adams and Ike Brannon join the podcast to break down recent proposals regarding forced access to railroads. Is concentration an issue within the rail industry? If so, would forced access solve the problem? And what implications would a forced access rule have for the rail industry, and for technological innovation more generally?Read Ike's recent paper on the topic here: https://www.cato.org/regulation/spring-2022/switching-wrong-trackFeaturing:- Ian Adams, Executive Director, International Center for Law & Economics- Ike Brannon, President, Capital Policy AnalyticsVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In January 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized its SUNSET Rule. Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires agencies to have a written plan to review their significant regulations every ten years to determine their impact on small entities (and to determine whether the regulations should be amended or rescinded based on the findings of the review). Because HHS found it was not reviewing all its significant regulations, it issued the SUNSET Rule to better incentivize review. Under the SUNSET Rule, all HHS regulations must be assessed every ten years to determine whether they are significant under the RFA and if they are, the review called for by the RFA must be performed. If the assessment or review of a regulation is not conducted every ten years, the regulation would expire. Critics of the rule argue that committing HHS to reassessing the economic impacts of many of the department’s existing regulations is a large undertaking and it establishes an extreme penalty for noncompliance. Last fall, HHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to rescind the SUNSET Rule, and reports suggest a final repeal may be near. This webinar discussed the SUNSET rule, the effort to repeal it, and possible future actions in this area. Featuring: William Funk, Lewis & Clark Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, Lewis & Clark Law School Jonah Hecht, Attorney, McGonigle; Former Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [Moderator] Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Small Business Legal Center Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic was sweeping the country and governors throughout the nation were issuing declarations of emergency. What followed was a perhaps unprecedented period of emergency governance, wherein governors in many states asserted power to manage not only their state's economy, but significant portions of civil society, in response to the pandemic. The state of emergency continues in some states, with renewed restrictions still possible.The Regulatory Transparency Project hosted a virtual discussion on Wednesday, March 16 featuring an expert panel debating whether states should be updating and reforming their emergency management statutes in light of our collective experience with emergency governance over the past 24 months. Braden Boucek of the Southeastern Legal Foundation moderated the discussion between David A. Carrillo of the U.C. Berkeley California Constitution Center and Luke A. Wake of the Pacific Legal Foundation.Featuring:- David Carrillo, Lecturer in Residence and Executive Director, California Constitution Center, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law- Luke Wake, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation- [Moderator] Braden Boucek, Director of Litigation, Southeastern Legal FoundationVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Data privacy and data security are tech policy concerns that resonate with many voters and policymakers. In the absence of federal data privacy legislation, some states have passed, and others are considering, their own legislation to deal with data privacy questions related to specific technologies including biometrics, among many others. While California had the first general data privacy law at a state level, Virginia and Colorado passed different laws last year. Now states ranging from Connecticut to Utah are considering data privacy laws often modeled after these two examples. What do these data privacy laws mean for consumers and companies, both large and small? What might the landscape of state data privacy laws look like after the 2022 legislative session?Featuring:- Daniel Castro, Vice President and Director, Center for Data Innovation, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation- Keir 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.

Faced with a limited supply of recently-approved COVID-19 treatments, both the State and City of New York have issued directives instructing physicians and providers on how to prioritize treatment. One of the factors to be considered is race. In Roberts v. Bassett, two lifelong New Yorkers challenge the government's race-based allocation of potentially lifesaving COVID-19 treatments. Wen Fa, an attorney who represents the plaintiffs, joined us to discuss the latest in the case.Featuring:- Wen Fa, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Social media has become a prominent way for lawmakers, public agencies, experts, and governments to communicate with the public. Meanwhile, a once-obscure provision in federal communications law — Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — has become a political football because it provides liability protections to internet-based companies like Facebook and Twitter. Our guests, Kristian Stout, Brent Skorup, and moderator Adam Thierer, are legal experts who have written about the history of media law and Section 230. They joined us for a moderated discussion featuring audience Q&A, as Stout and Skorup debated how lawmakers and courts should approach future Section 230 issues, political speech, and free speech online.Featuring:- Brent Skorup, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University- Kristian Stout, Director of Innovation Policy, International Center for Law & Economics- [Moderator] Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason UniversityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.