RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast

The creators of the award-winning documentary, They Say It Can't Be Done, in partnership with the Federalist Society's Regulatory Transparency Project, present It Can Be Done Live - a conversation between entrepreneurs, regulatory experts, and noted academics around creative and bipartisan solutions to global challenges to our shared future. The first of four panel events, It Can Be Done Live: The Future of Our Seas took place on September 10th, 2020.Our oceans are changing rapidly and not for the better. Ocean acidification, rising sea levels, plastic waste, and overfishing are contributing to an unsustainable and unhealthy ecosystem in our seas. Can we find a way to reverse the damage? The panelists will explore the potential of human ingenuity to solve these problems and the conditions necessary to make those solutions a reality. We say it can be done.Featuring:- Tom Bell, Professor, Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University- Patrick Reasonover, Producer, They Say It Can't Be Done- Scotty Schmidt, Co-Founder & CEO, Primary Ocean Providers- Julie Friedman Steele, CEO & Board Chair, World Future Society- [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.

On September 22, the Federalist Society's Villanova Student Chapter co-sponsored a debate on Medicare for All with the Villanova Law Health Law Society. In this live podcast, experts debate the pros and cons of a single-payer health insurance system, discuss the practical likelihood of such a system being implemented, and compare the United States' approach to health insurance to those of other countries.Featuring:- Michael F. Cannon, Director, Health Policy Studies, Cato Institute- Delphine O'Rourke, Partner, Goodwin Procter LLP- Ed Weisbart, Chair, Missouri Chapter, Physicians for a National Health ProgramVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In May, the Environmental Protection Agency announced a new proposed rule to "establish the procedures and requirements for how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will manage the issuance of guidance documents subject to the requirements of the Executive order entitled 'Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents'." The EPA indicated that they "intended to increase the transparency of EPA's guidance practices and improve the process used to manage EPA guidance documents."The comment period for the proposed rule closed in late June. This live podcast features an update and an informative conversation with Administrator Wheeler and Jeffrey Holmstead.Featuring:- Andrew Wheeler, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency- [Moderator] Jeffrey Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell LLPVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Citing national security concerns, the Trump administration has ordered TikTok's Chinese parent company, Bytedance Ltd., to sell U.S. operations of the popular video-sharing app to an American company by November 12. As the deadline inches closer, three major American companies have come to the fore as prospective purchasers but no sale has been completed, due in part to complications imposed by the Chinese government.How might this standoff play out? Does TikTok pose a significant enough national security threat to warrant the forced sale? And how does this situation fit into the broader picture of U.S.-China relations?Experts discuss.Featuring: - Matthew Feeney, Director, Project on Emerging Technologies, The Cato Institute- Jamil Jaffer, Founder & Executive Director, National Security Institute- [Moderator] Ashkhen Kazaryan, Director of Civil Liberties, TechFreedomVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides liability protection to platforms, internet service providers, and other online intermediaries for third-party content they host or republish. It also provides liability protections for actions taken "in good faith" by such entities to moderate content. Section 230 has recently come under scrutiny from President Trump, members of Congress, and others who have raised questions about the appropriateness of these protections and their continued viability "in the Age of Twitter."In May, President Trump issued an Executive Order that directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposing regulations to clarify the scope of Section 230. The FCC is currently soliciting public comment on the NTIA petition, which was filed on July 27.In this live podcast, panelists discuss the background of Section 230 and reflect on whether it continues to encourage innovation and free speech online, or if changes are needed. What should the FCC do to address the pending NTIA petition? And, in light of the upcoming elections, what are the political dynamics at play-at the FCC, in Congress, and in the White House?Featuring:- Jon Adame, General Counsel, Office of Sen. Marsha Blackburn- Hon. Adam Candeub, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information- Prof. Eric Goldman, Professor of Law and Co-Director, High Tech Law Institute, Santa Clara University School of Law- Ashkhen Kazaryan, Director of Civil Liberties, TechFreedom- [Moderator] Jamie Susskind, Vice President of Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Consumer Technology AssociationVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

This live podcast discusses the Ninth Circuit's recent opinion in FTC v. Qualcomm, in which the court reversed the Federal Trade Commission's 2019 trial court win. The Ninth Circuit ruled that Qualcomm did not violate antitrust law through its licensing practices for standard-essential patents.John Shu, a professor, attorney, and legal commentator, discusses the ruling and examines the history, arguments, and ramifications of the case.Featuring:John Shu, Attorney and Legal CommentatorVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act allow private plaintiffs and environmental advocacy groups to file citizen suits alongside the government's environmental enforcement actions against polluters. The Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the Department of Justice is now pushing to end the practice in a federal case involving DTE Energy, Michigan's largest electrical utility and a major operator of natural gas pipelines. The Sierra Club intervened on the government's side and is seeking court approval of a side agreement in which DTE would close three coal plants, in addition to the penalties and mitigation secured by the Justice Department.Such Supplemental Environmental Projects (or SEPs) are supposed to supplement the government's enforcement actions. But critics - and now DOJ - argue that SEPs often supplant the penalty that the government has sought in its enforcement action. Such provisions, critics say, amount to a delegation of a core executive function that the Constitution vests in the president. It allows private advocacy groups to override the government's enforcement priorities with their own, and then profit from coercive use of penalties that arise under environmental protection laws, the faithful execution of which is entrusted to the president and to the officials under his control. Critics say that any citizen suit claims arising under federal environmental laws that also give rise to enforcement actions should be extinguished when the enforcement action is resolved.To the extent advocacy groups induce private companies to agree to such SEPs by promising to give up on claims arising under federal environmental laws subject to federal enforcement, should the practice of SEPs be viewed as an unconstitutional infringement on a core executive function? Should the government's ability to extinguish such private claims be viewed as a taking?Featuring:- Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law- Eric Groten, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP- Joel Mintz, Professor Emeritus of Law and C. William Trout Senior Fellow in Public Interest Law, Shepard Broad College of Law, Nova Southeastern University- [Moderator] Mario Loyola, 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.

Asserting their sovereign interests or “states' rights,” many states are increasingly attempting to inject state officials’ policy preferences on national and global issues through state legislation or regulation on myriad subjects including energy, the environment, immigration, drugs, labor, health, food, and transportation. In what ways does the Interstate Commerce Clause, or the so-called Dormant Commerce Clause, limit the scope of the constitutionally legitimate spheres of these kinds of state legislation or regulation? In other words, what is the meaning of federalism in a constitutional system designed to facilitate interstate commerce? And, what is the proper judicial role, if any, in policing state laws that seek to interfere or have the effect of interfering with the free flow of commerce among the several states?These questions are subject to considerable debate, with significant disagreement even within normally like-minded camps. Some conservatives and liberals alike think there is no such thing as an enforceable Dormant Commerce Clause. Others with various ideological priors view the Dormant Commerce Clause as invalidating only state laws that discriminate in favor of in-state activity over activities in other states. Another view posits that the Dormant Commerce Clause is broader than a non-discrimination principle and should be used to invalidate state laws that unduly burden or interfere with the flow of interstate commerce. And still others take views in between or beyond these positions.Responding to Professor Donald Kochan’s recent essay in the Notre Dame Law Review Reflection, “The Meaning of Federalism in a System of Interstate Commerce: Free Trade Among the Several States”—an essay that emphasizes that commerce facilitation was a primary driver of the move from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution—the panelists explore examples of current state laws and regulations that expand a state’s reach into national and international affairs, and they analyze and debate the different interpretations of the Constitution regarding the proper role of the judiciary in evaluating these laws.Featuring:Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of LawJames Coleman, Associate Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of LawDonald Kochan, Professor of Law and Deputy Executive Director, Law and Economics Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

As cryptocurrencies have proliferated in the private sector, central banks are now contemplating getting into the game. Venezuela tried unsuccessfully to popularize its currency with the digital petro. China may be more successful with its plan to digitize the yuan.Now, some are saying the U.S. Federal Reserve should issue its own cryptocurrency, with names like "Fedcoin" and the "digital dollar." Most proposals for this national cryptocurrency also include direct consumer deposit accounts with the Fed.Proponents give various reasons why the Fed should issue digital currency, from protecting the dollar competition with China to relieving the poor from high bank fees. But opponents cite multiple problems such a system would have from privacy concerns with the Fed having direct access to consumer spending data, to enabling currency manipulation, to crowding out innovation from private cryptocurrencies and payment systems.Featuring:- J. Christopher Giancarlo, Senior Counsel, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP- Norbert J. Michel, Director, Center for Data Analysis, Heritage Foundation- [Moderator] John Berlau, Senior Fellow, Competetive Enterprise InstituteVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The next presidential inauguration will be on January 20, 2021. The six months between then and today will involve a flurry of regulatory activity, just as the final months of presidential terms always do. Whether the next inauguration features Donald Trump or Joe Biden, agencies will try to complete as many regulatory proceedings as possible before the inauguration, with an eye to not just the end of the current presidential term but also the beginning of the next one.What actions should we expect agencies to take? To what extent can the current administration issue "midnight rules" affecting policy beyond January 20? And to what extent could the Congressional Review Act permanently erase those rules?Featuring:- Prof. Jack Beermann, Harry Elwood Warren Scholar and Professor of Law, Boston University Law School- Mr. Daniel Pérez, Senior Policy Analyst, GW Regulatory Studies Center- [Moderator] Prof. Adam White, Assistant Professor and Executive Director, The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason UniversityVisit our website - www.RegProject.org - to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.