UnCommon Law

For decades, generations of schoolchildren linked to the video on the Schoolhouse Rock YouTube channellearned from Schoolhouse Rock that bills become laws through careful committee work, open debate, and thoughtful compromise. But as today's episode of UnCommon Law makes clear, that tidy version of lawmaking no longer reflects reality. Instead, leaders often craft omnibus bills in back rooms and create deliberately vague laws that punt hard decisions to federal agencies. But with the Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision ending 40 years of judicial deference to agencies, critics say Congress can no longer hide behind this broken system. In this season finale, we hear from a current and a former senator on opposite sides of the aisle who both argue that Congress must reclaim its constitutional role. They agree that decades of delegating authority to agencies has weakened the legislature, but they diverge on what should happen next. Should lawmakers strip out vague catchall words to limit agency discretion? Or should Congress work more closely with agencies to ensure workable, expert-informed legislation? But can a deeply polarized institution actually change? While both senators agree on some solutions, they differ sharply on whether a different approach is even possible in today's political climate. On today's episode, we explore whether Congress can reclaim its constitutional role. Featuring: Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo. Former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D.

Cary Coglianese, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of the Penn Program on Regulation, joins the discussion on the transformative aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision on the Chevron Doctrine. He unveils how the Loper Bright case has drastically reshaped regulatory practices, leading to a stunning 84% invalidation of agency rules. The conversation explores the implications for net neutrality, labor laws, and the strategic dismantling of Biden-era regulations by the Trump administration, raising questions about the future of administrative authority.

Dive into the legal tempest surrounding the Chevron doctrine and its potential repeal. Hear about the tug-of-war between Congress and federal agencies, with the plight of fishermen at the center of the debate. The complexities of regulatory interpretation take the spotlight, raising questions about judicial power versus agency authority. Experts share insights on the implications of recent Supreme Court decisions as tensions mount over who gets to interpret the law. Can bureaucrats balance expertise with accountability, or are we opening Pandora’s box?

Wayne Reichle – who’s been in the fishing business his whole life – had never heard of the Chevron doctrine. That's the two-step legal test that courts used for the past 40 years to decide whether a federal agency had the authority to make a regulation. "No idea," said Reichle, president of New Jersey-based Lund's Fisheries. "Myself, and many, many fellow fishermen had no idea what the Chevron doctrine was." That changed after a group of fishermen challenged a federal regulation requiring the herring industry to pay for onboard federal observers. "I think there’s quite a few that know what the Chevron doctrine is today," Reichle said. This season on UnCommon Law, we’re exploring the limits of agency power. To what extent are federal agencies authorized to create and implement regulations that aren't explicitly mandated by Congress? And what happens when an agency goes too far? In this episode, the story of the fishermen who fought back. Featuring: Wayne Reichle, president of Lund's Fisheries Jeff Kaelin, director of sustainability and government relations at Lund's Fisheries Ryan Mulvey, counsel with the Cause of Action Institute Erica Fuller, senior counsel with the Conservation Law Foundation Leif Axelsson, captain of the Dyrsten fishing vessel Greg Stohr, Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg News *** Hosted and produced by Matthew S. Schwartz Editor/Executive Producer: Josh Block Additional Editing: Andrew Satter Cover Art: Jonathan Hurtarte

David Doniger, a Senior Attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, dives into the complex interplay between environmental regulation and agency power. He sheds light on the historical backdrop of air pollution laws in America and the impact of the Chevron Doctrine on regulatory interpretations. Doniger discusses significant legal battles over the Clean Air Act, the Reagan administration's industry-favoring shifts, and how recent Supreme Court decisions could reshape future environmental policies. It's a compelling look at how definitions can alter the landscape of regulation.

This season on UnCommon Law, join us as we explore the rise and fall of agency power, and what that could mean for the future of regulation in America.

Generative AI has promised to reshape the practice of law ever since ChatGPT emerged. However, it's been unclear just how large law firms are using AI. Has it changed how practitioners do their jobs on a daily basis? Are we witnessing the emergence of a revolution in how lawyers do their work?Uncommon Law's Matthew Schwartz sits in as guest host on this episode of On the Merits. He talks with John Quinn, founder and chair of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, as they discuss his firm's stance on artificial intelligence and the future of the billable hour.

Isabel Gottlieb, a Bloomberg Law reporter with a focus on AI in corporate legal departments, joins legal powerhouse John Quinn, founder of a leading law firm, and Stanford law professor Daniel Ho. They tackle the transformative potential of AI in legal practice, discussing both efficiency gains and significant accuracy concerns. The guests illuminate challenges like 'hallucinations' in AI responses and explore real-world implications, such as contract interpretation post-Hurricane Katrina. Together, they envision a future where human oversight and AI coalesce in law.

The podcast delves into the urgent need for legislation to address the dangers of artificial intelligence, including deepfakes and misinformation. It highlights the challenges lawmakers face in regulating AI, reflecting on past failures with social media oversight. The discussion extends to the ramifications of recent Supreme Court decisions on future AI governance. Additionally, there's a look at the rapid development of state-level AI regulations and their potential impact on the legal profession.

The podcast dives into the fierce debate over AI-generated art and its implications for traditional artists. Guests share personal experiences of backlash and fear amidst the rise of AI tools. It raises ethical questions on copyright, asking whether AI can truly own creativity. Artists express concerns about emotional and financial struggles as their styles are replicated by machines. The discussion also highlights the urgent need for legal protections in an industry grappling with the consequences of this technological evolution.