RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast

The Regulatory Transparency Project’s Fourth Branch Podcast presents Explainer Episode 68. In this Fourth Branch Explainer podcast, Rachel N. Morrison from the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) discusses the implications of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Regulations recently released. Listen in as Morrison discusses the pros and cons of new rules.

Congress has been working on comprehensive federal data privacy legislation for decades without reaching agreement. But the finish line may be closer today than before. With the recent introduction of the American’s Privacy Rights Act (APRA), the chairs of the Senate and House Commerce Committees announced a bipartisan compromise, hoping to end the legislative stalemate.Our panel of data privacy experts will take a deeper look at APRA, including its provisions and implications. Who wins and who loses in APRA’s mix of provisions from preemption to enforcement? Is the decision to embrace regulation of algorithmic decision-making a deal maker or breaker? And does it stand a chance of passing in an election year? Tune in to hear our panelists explore the ongoing dynamic of federal privacy legislation in the United States.Register and Join the webinar on May 23rd at 3 pm EST.

The Regulatory Transparency Project’s Fourth Branch Podcast presents Explainer Episode 67. In this Fourth Branch Explainer podcast, health policy experts Michael Cannon and Christina Sandefur discuss the regulatory landscape of veterans’ benefits, and how veterans’ healthcare impacts American foreign policy. The experts discuss Michael Cannon’s new book “Recovery”.

The Regulatory Transparency Project presents a panel of legal experts, including Bob Eitel, Christian Corrigan, Will Trachman, and Kim Richey. Watch as these experts discuss the Biden Administration’s newly released Title IX Regulations and their implications for educational institutions, school districts, students, faculty, and parents. Join us for this webinar at 1 pm EST on May 8th.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or SPR, held approximately 358 million barrels, its lowest level in forty years. Is that a problem? What is the SPR and how is it supposed to operate? How much petroleum is it supposed to hold?Listen in on the Regulatory Transparency Project's Explainer Episode 66, as expert J. Kennerly Davis discusses SPR.

In this RTP explainer episode 65, we are joined by Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President of the Goldwater Institute to discuss Michael Cannon’s new book, Recovery. Listen in as these experts consider the role of government agencies like the FDA in health spaces across America. "Recovery" discusses treatments approved by the FDA and the implications of approved drugs entering the market. Americans are inadvertently affected by the decisions of government agencies. With this said, "Recovery" argues the FDA takes away people’s rights to make their own health decisions. Does the FDA prohibit safe and effective drugs from entering the market? In this episode, experts discuss the implications of the decisions made by the FDA and the consequences of unsafe access to drugs. Copies of Michael Cannon’s book can be found at, https://www.cato.org/books/rec...

The Regulatory Transparency Project (RTP) is pleased to host a stellar panel of top labor and employment law experts for a lively discussion in which our panelists will grade the Biden Administration’s administrative, regulatory, and enforcement activity under the Department of Labor (DOL) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).How have these agencies’ approaches to administrative law under the Biden Administration been similar to or different from prior administrations? Where have they been aggressive, where have they been conservative, and why? What have been the regulatory successes of the first three years? The failures? And what unaddressed or latent regulatory issues might the agencies be taking up in 2024 (and beyond)? Tune in and find out how the experts view the Biden Administration’s actions from divergent points of view.Featuring:Moderator: Gregory Frederick Jacob, Partner, O'Melveny & Myers LLPJudy Conti, Government Affairs Director, National Employment Law ProjectHon. Philip Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLPTimothy Taylor, Partner, Holland & Knight LLP

Murthy v. Missouri, originally filed as Missouri v. Biden, concerns whether federal government officials had violated the First Amendment by "coercing" or "significantly encouraging" social media companies to remove or demote particular content from their platforms. Multiple individuals, advocacy groups, academics, and some states sued various officials and federal agencies for censoring conservative-leaning speech on the 2020 election, COVID policies, and election integrity. The plaintiffs argued the officials and federal agencies used "jawboning" tactics to force social media companies to suppress content in a manner that violated the plaintiffs' freedom of speech. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction in the case, which was then vacated in part by the Fifth Circuit, which nonetheless held that there had been some violations of the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court then granted an emergency stay order and oral argument is set for March 18, 2024. Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went the same day. Featuring: Prof. Adam Candeub, Professor of Law & Director of the Intellectual Property, Information & Communications Law Program, Michigan State University College of Law Dr. Matthew Seligman, Partner, Stris & Maher LLP & Fellow, Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School (Moderator) Stewart A. Baker, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP

In this episode, Jon Riches and James Sherk discuss fundamental questions related to government labor unions and their impact on public policy. They explore the nuances between public and private unions, their influence on public policy, and the concept of release time – its definition, prevalence across federal, state, and local levels, funding sources, legality, and potential policy remedies. Join us as we navigate through these critical questions and discuss real-world examples, including insights into official time at the federal level. Featuring: Jonathan Riches, Director of National Litigation, Goldwater Institute James Sherk, Director, Center for American Freedom, America First Policy Institute

On February 20, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The case asks whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)—the six-year default federal statute of limitations—when an agency issues a rule or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to “suffer legal wrong” or “be adversely affected or aggrieved,” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Petitioner Corner Post is a North Dakota convenience store and truck stop that seeks to challenge a 2011 Federal Reserve rule governing certain fees for debit card transactions. Corner Post didn’t open its doors until 2018 but the lower courts in this case held that its challenge is time barred because the statute of limitations ran in 2017—before Corner Post accepted its first debit card payment. On February 20, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The case asks whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)—the six-year default federal statute of limitations—when an agency issues a rule or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to “suffer legal wrong” or “be adversely affected or aggrieved,” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Petitioner Corner Post is a North Dakota convenience store and truck stop that seeks to challenge a 2011 Federal Reserve rule governing certain fees for debit card transactions. Corner Post didn’t open its doors until 2018 but the lower courts in this case held that its challenge is time barred because the statute of limitations ran in 2017—before Corner Post accepted its first debit card payment. Please join us as we discuss the case and how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC John Kendrick, Associate, Covington Susan C. Morse, Angus G. Wynne, Sr. Professor in Civil Jurisprudence and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law Molly Nixon, Attorney, Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation Moderator: John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law