RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast

The COVID-19 pandemic has the medical community scrambling to address shortages of supplies and some clinicians to properly care for all of the many patients who will present soon with significant symptoms. Among the problems is a lack of sufficient numbers of physicians in some of the communities that have been hardest hit by the spread of the virus.This episode will examine the current process for educating, training, and licensing physicians in the US, with a focus on whether the current process is sufficiently flexible to adjust as needed to accommodate changing demand by patients. James Capretta, the author of a recent paper on the subject ("Promoting a More Adaptable Physician Pipeline" released as part of the Regulatory Transparency Project), and Chris Pope, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, will briefly discuss the historical context of the US' licensing system, the basic steps that are involved, the federal government's role in financing residency training, the immigration rules for foreign-born physicians, and policies that might make the current system more flexible and adaptable to changing societal needs.Featuring:- James C. Capretta, Resident Fellow and Milton Friedman Chair, American Enterprise Institute- Chris Pope, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Governments at all levels are figuring out how to make sure sick people are treated and that coronavirus doesn’t spread. Some experts are now drawing attention to possible regulatory reforms (https://www.rstreet.org/2020/03/18/small-regulatory-reforms-that-can-help-people-during-the-pandemic/), as early reports suggested that federal agencies may have prevented private testing for COVID-19 before slowly issuing approval.Others are calling for state-level reforms, such as changes to occupational licensing requirements. Existing occupational licensing laws arguably restrict medical professionals, including nurses and pharmacists, from practicing to the full scope of their training by limiting what duties they can take on and making nurses practice under doctor supervision. Licenses rarely transfer across state lines. This means that qualified doctors in one state cannot practice in other states, severely restricting their ability to provide telehealth services to potential patients. Advocates posit that these doctors should be allowed to prioritize the most pressing cases on telehealth. Many states have implemented emergency reforms regarding these issues to help prevent physician burnout and make sure medical professionals can focus their energies where needed.Municipal-level reforms are also being discussed as vital to avoid penalizing residents for acting responsibly. In many localities, working from home requires the worker to overcome regulatory requirements. Some view this as generally unwise but are now drawing even greater attention to the topic because Americans are being urged to stay inside.Further, while some regulations like parking limits make perfect sense in normal times, is suspending such rules worth considering in the current environment? This episode will discuss these issues and more.Featuring:- David Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown University- Roger Klein, Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science & Innovation, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law- Shoshana Weissmann, Senior Manager of Digital Media and Fellow, R Street InstituteVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In this episode, Matthew Feeney hosts a discussion with Ashkhen Kazaryan and Caleb Watney on the approach regulators might take to the brave new world of facial recognition technology. Featuring:- Ashkhen Kazryan, Director of Civil Liberties, TechFreedom- Caleb Watney, Fellow, Technology and Innovation, R Street Institute- [Moderator] Matthew Feeney, Director, Project on Emerging Technologies, Cato InstituteVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.Additional Resources:- Brookings Institution: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2019/06/20/what-are-the-proper-limits-on-police-use-of-facial-recognition/- Cato Institute: https://www.cato.org/blog/should-police-facial-recognition-be-banned- Tech Policy Corner: https://techpolicycorner.org/creeped-out-congress-grills-fbi-on-facial-recognition-tech-37a1123f48f8

38 states have certificate of need (CON) laws which make it illegal for healthcare providers to offer healthcare services to patients without first getting government permission. Defenders of CON laws assert that they are needed to control healthcare costs. However, these anti-competitive laws may violate a host of constitutional provisions, including state anti-monopoly clauses. Many courts have observed that CON laws are in fact anti-competitive but despite legal challenges, a majority of states have CON laws on the books today.This episode discusses recent and current state CON law litigation, including the pending Singh v. North Carolina Dept of Health & Human Services matter.Featuring:- Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater Institute- Josh Windham, Attorney, Institute for JusticeVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Does New York’s “rent stabilization” law violate the federal Constitution? The law, which regulates approximately 1 million apartments in New York City, was enacted more than fifty years ago and remains in effect based on an every-three-year declaration of a housing “emergency.” The law does not merely regulate rent levels, it also limits a property owner’s right to determine who uses an apartment, to convert the property to new uses, and to occupy the property for use by the owner and his or her family.A lawsuit filed last year asserts that the New York law—including 2019 amendments that significantly increased the restrictions on property owners—violates due process and effects both physical and regulatory takings of the property that it regulates. New York City, New York State, and tenant advocacy groups have moved to dismiss the action.Rent control is not just a New York phenomenon. Other cities across the country have enacted, or are considering, rent regulation legislation. Andrew Pincus, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, and Prof. Richard Epstein, of New York University School of Law, will discuss the constitutional challenge in the context of the Supreme Court’s evolving property rights jurisprudence.Featuring:- Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law- Andrew Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown LLPVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In this Explainer episode, Jeff Stier tells the innovative story of Impossible Burger, a company that developed leghemoglobin to mimic the taste of meat in non-meat-based products. Instead of rushing to regulate this new development, FDA took a hands-off approach, allowing the company to bring a beneficial, and widely recognized as safe, product to market. Jeff argues that innovation, rather than heavy-handed regulation, ought to be the primary way of reducing harm.Featuring:- Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow, Consumer Choice Center and Taxpayers Protection AllianceVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On March 15, 2020, certain authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will expire absent renewal by Congress. The authorities set to expire fall into three categories: 1) the business records provision (often referred to as Section 215) that allows for collection of call detail records, among other things; 2) roving wiretaps; and 3) the lone wolf provision. On March 11, the House passed a compromise bill that the Senate will soon consider. However, several Republican Senators have already urged President Trump to veto the reauthorization bill, should it pass both chambers.This decision point comes at a time of heightened scrutiny, given the recent Department of Justice Inspector General report addressing the FBI's use of FISA while investigating the 2016 presidential election and a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review order expressing "serious concerns about the accuracy and completeness" of the FBI's FISA applications in that case. Please join us for a timely discussion of the mechanics and processes of FISA, recent controversies, and issues Congress will consider as it determines whether and how to renew these key provisions.Featuring:- Ashley Baker, Director of Public Policy, Committee for Justice- Nathan Leamer, Vice President of Public Affairs, Targeted VictoryVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology. Among other things, the FTC claimed that Qualcomm had maintained its market position by requiring chip customers to license their chips separately (known as the “no license, no chips” policy) and had refused to license its standard-essential patents (SEPs) to competitors. Judge Lucy Koh held a bench trial in January 2019 and issued a decision in favor of the FTC in May 2019. In a lengthy opinion, the court determined that Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy violated antitrust law and that Qualcomm had a separate antitrust duty to deal with its competitors. Judge Koh then issued an injunction that, among other things, prohibited Qualcomm from conditioning the supply of chips on a customer’s patent-license status and required Qualcomm to negotiate and make available licenses on FRAND terms. Qualcomm appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In August 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued an order partially staying Judge Koh’s injunction. According to the Ninth Circuit, “Qualcomm has shown, at a minimum, the presence of serious questions on the merits” of the district court’s opinion. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit needs to decide whether the district court’s “order and injunction represent a trailblazing application of the antitrust laws, or instead an improper excursion beyond the outer limits of the Sherman Act.”While these issues alone would be interesting, this case is even more intriguing because the Department of Justice (DOJ) has intervened in the case – in favor of Qualcomm. The DOJ filed an amicus brief in favor of the stay of injunction, as well as an amicus brief on the merits. The Ninth Circuit has also granted DOJ’s request for five minutes of oral argument time. Oral argument in the Ninth Circuit is set for February 13, 2020.This episode will recap the district court’s decision, discuss the arguments likely to be made on appeal, and explore the bigger issues this case brings up for antitrust policy.Featuring:- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law and Director, Planning and Publications, Center for Law, Economics, & Finance, George Washington University Law School- Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

For the past 50 years, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has required that the federal government assess the potential environmental impact of any major development projects involving the federal government.Proponents of NEPA argue that changes to the NEPA review process would threaten sensitive wildlife habitats and roll back protections against climate change. Others argue, however, that the current NEPA process unnecessarily delays critical infrastructure projects, such as the building of highways, roads, pipelines, and telecommunications networks, without any material benefit in return.In this episode, Professors David Adelman and James Coleman will discuss the recently proposed changes to the NEPA process and examine the potential effects.Featuring:- David Adelman, Harry Reasoner Regents Chair in Law, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law- James Coleman, Associate Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of LawVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The state of California and the Canadian province of Quebec have agreed to link their cap-and-trade systems for carbon emissions – these systems require polluters to pay for a permit when they emit greenhouse gases.Now the federal government is suing California. The lawsuit alleges that this agreement violates the Constitution, which says states can’t make international treaties or enter into compacts with foreign powers without the consent of Congress. And it also alleges that California’s agreement discriminates against foreign commerce and interferes with the federal government’s exclusive authority over foreign affairs.The lawsuit raises important issues about federal and state power that are as old as America but have rarely been tested in Court. Listen to expert law professors talk about how the Courts might look at these provocative and urgent questions and the challenge of climate regulation.Featuring:-James W. Coleman, Associate Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law-Sharmila L. Murthy, Associate Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School Visit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.