RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast

In this episode, Anastasia P. Boden interviews Daniel Greenberg about his new article, "Regulating Glamour: A Quantitative Analysis of the Health and Safety Training of Appearance Professionals." (https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol54/iss1/2/)Featuring:- Daniel Greenberg, President, Advance Arkansas Institute- [Moderator] Anastasia P. Boden, Attorney, Economic Liberty Project, Pacific Legal FoundationVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In a conversation moderated by Kimberly Hermann, Braden Boucek and Emily Hamilton discuss several proposed legislative reforms to land use restrictions.Featuring:- Braden Boucek, Director of Litigation, Southeastern Legal Foundation- Emily Hamilton, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University- [Moderator] Kimberly Hermann, General Counsel, Southeastern Legal FoundationVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

It is hard to find a discussion of artificial intelligence these days that does not include concerns about Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems' potential bias against racial minorities and other identity groups. Facial recognition, lending, and bail determinations are just a few of the domains in which this issue arises. Laws are being proposed and even enacted to address these concerns. But is this problem properly understood? If it's real, do we need new laws beyond those anti-discrimination laws that already govern human decision makers, hiring exams, and the like?Unlike some humans, AI models don't have malevolent biases or an intention to discriminate. Are they superior to human decision-making in that sense? Nonetheless, it is well established that AI systems can have a disparate impact on various identity groups. Because AI learns by detecting correlations and other patterns in a real world dataset, are disparate impacts inevitable, short of requiring AI systems to produce proportionate results? Would prohibiting certain kinds of correlations degrade the accuracy of AI models? For example, in a bail determination system, would an AI model which learns that men are more likely to be repeat offenders produce less accurate results if it were prohibited from taking gender into account?Featuring: - Stewart A. Baker, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP- Nicholas Weaver, Researcher, International Computer Science Institute and Lecturer, UC Berkeley- [Moderator] Curt Levey, President, Committee for JusticeVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On April 22, 2021, the Federalist Society's George Mason Student Chapter, the Regulatory Transparency Project, and the Global Antitrust Institute cosponsored an event featuring professors Joshua D. Wright and John Yun discussing the future of the conservative approach to antitrust law.Featuring:- Joshua D. Wright, Executive Director, Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University- John Yun, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University- [Introduction] Sydney Dominguez, President, The Federalist Society's George Mason Student ChapterVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Ken Davis joined the podcast to discuss why and how President Biden's memo on Modernizing Regulatory Review could significantly alter the regulatory review process.Featuring:- J. Kennerly Davis, Jr., Former Senior Attorney, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLPVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

India and South Africa have submitted a petition to the World Trade Organization seeking a waiver of all intellectual property rights under international treaties on drugs, vaccines, or other responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. This waiver petition has provoked an intense policy debate over the role of intellectual property in healthcare innovation.On the one hand, advocates for the waiver argue that patents have been a blockade for patient access and created higher prices, especially in developing countries. On the other hand, opponents of the waiver maintain that there is no evidence that patents are blocking drug development or distribution for the COVID-19 pandemic. The opponents also maintain that patents made possible over the past several decades the R&D investments, the creation of technical know-how, and the commercial agreements that have been the launching pad for the unprecedented development of several vaccines and other medical treatments in less than a year.This live podcast features experts in innovation policy on both sides of the issue debating the role of patents in medical care and how the United States should respond to the waiver petition.Featuring:- Richard Blaylock, Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP- Brian O'Shaughnessy, Partner, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP and Past President, Licensing Executives Society, USA & Canada- Hans Sauer, Deputy General Counsel and Vice President for Intellectual Property, Biotechnology Industry Organization- [Moderator] Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge (ret.), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On April 22, 2021, the Supreme Court decided AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice Breyer explained how Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not authorize the FTC to seek, or a court to award, monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement.A panel of experts will discuss the ruling and its implications.Featuring: - Alden Abbott, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University- Corbin Barthold, Director of Appellate Litigation and Internet Policy Counsel, TechFreedom- Maureen Ohlhausen, Partner, Baker Botts LLP- [Moderator] Asheesh Agarwal, Deputy General Counsel, TechFreedomVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Edward E. Bartlett and Linda Chavez join the podcast to discuss the future of Title IX implementation under the Biden administration, which could have significant ramifications on college campuses across the country.Featuring:- Edward E. Bartlett, President, SAVE- [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.

The debate over “Big Tech” and antitrust has intensified. On one side are those who consider certain Big Tech companies monopolies that reduce competition and exploit their users’ data. On the other side are those who believe that competition in the technology market is flourishing, particularly when considering a worldwide market, and that Big Tech empowers its consumers; after all, many users never pay financially for social media use.In addition to these economic considerations, Big Tech has raised a host of social and political concerns over speech, democracy, and power. Is Big Tech suppressing speech? Should it suppress more speech? Does it even matter if private companies “suppress speech”? Does Big Tech have too much control over our elections or none at all? What power does Big Tech wield over our lives, if any?On April 15, 2021, the Federalist Society's Chicago Lawyers Chapter hosted a panel of antitrust experts to discuss these issues and more.Featuring: - Asheesh Agarwal, Deputy General Counsel, TechFreedom- Jessica Melugin, Director, Center for Technology and Innovation, Competitive Enterprise Institute- Hal Singer, Managing Director, Econ One Research- [Moderator] Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law- [Introduction] John Adams, Stakeholder, Eimer Stahl LLPVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Commercial drone technology advanced rapidly in the past decade, and companies like Walmart, Amazon, Verizon, CVS, and UPS are now actively testing drone services like home delivery, medical logistics, and infrastructure inspections. These drones fly in low-altitude airspace, however, which raises pressing questions about property rights, privacy, and federalism. Where does private property end and navigable airspace begin? What role will states and cities have, if any, in allowing or prohibiting drone operations?In the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act, Congress asked the GAO to study and report on the roles of federal, state, and local authorities in the regulation of drone operations. That GAO report was released in September 2020 and noted the complicated caselaw surrounding low-altitude airspace. Meanwhile, many states and cities are passing drone laws, including drone no-fly zones. Some recent state bills propose leasing airspace above public roads to drone companies. Many in the drone industry and at the FAA, however, dispute the authority of states to regulate this area.In this live podcast, experts debate these issues and more.Featuring:- Diana Marina Cooper, Head of U.S. Policy, Hyundai Urban Air Mobility- Brent Skorup, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University- [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.