Stay ConnectedThe Regulatory Transparency Project is a nonprofit, nonpartisan effort dedicated to fostering discussion and a better understanding of regulatory policies.
On RTP’s Fourth Branch Podcast, leading experts discuss the pros and cons of government regulations and explain how they affect everyday life for Americans.
The debate over the electrification agenda and its implications for consumer choice and the environment remains contentious. As federal agencies like the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and The Department of Energy look to regulate natural gas home appliances, many consumers have questions: where does the federal government draw authority to regulate climate? What potential health risks and price impacts loom over natural gas and electric appliances? Should consumers have the choice between natural gas appliances and electric appliances, or should new electric appliances be mandated and subsidized? In this episode, Ben Lieberman and Professor James Coleman discuss these questions and more.
Featuring:
- Ben Lieberman, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
- Host: James W. Coleman, Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law
Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Regulatory modernization has been a topic of nationwide interest in recent months. With its recently revised Circular A-4, the federal Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has embraced an approach that could potentially lead to a massive expansion in the regulatory state. At the same time, the Commonwealth of Virginia has been pursuing a very different approach. Governor Glenn Youngkin issued an executive order, EO 19, which strives to reduce regulatory burdens by 25% while promoting more transparency in the process and better regulatory analysis.
This panel, which includes the Director and Deputy Director of Virginia’s Office of Regulatory Management as well as leading scholars in the regulatory space, will consider the reforms that Virginia is pursuing and examine whether and how they might work in other states and at the federal level. They will consider the challenges and opportunities associated with regulatory economic analysis and a regulatory budget, look at how the Virginia reforms have fared over the last year, and explore what it might mean to implement similar reforms in other jurisdictions.
Additional Reading:Reeve T. Bull, Virginia's Model: The Commonwealth Leads the Way on State Regulatory Modernization, Washington Legal Foundation, July 13, 2023, available at: https://www.wlf.org/2023/07/13/publishing/virginias-model-the-commonwealth-leads-the-way-on-state-regulatory-modernization/
*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Affirmative action plans, though perhaps most associated with college admissions and higher education, actually crop up in a wide array of spaces, including in the context of employment. In this podcast, Eric Dreiband breaks down how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies in the context of voluntary affirmative action plans. He explains not only what the criteria for such plans are, but also the risks employers should consider, what, if anything, has changed post SFFA v. Harvard, and when it could be legal to discriminate based on protected characteristics in the context of employment.
Are we ready to live under the watchful eye of drones?
In this Tech Roundup podcast, Trace Mitchell (Institute for Justice), Brent Skorup (Mercatus Center), and Jay Stanley (ACLU) discuss the rapid adoption of drone technology by law enforcement entities and the legal and policy implications of this trend.
They provide insights into recent court cases involving warrantless drone surveillance, spotlighting the difficulty in applying previous Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to this new technology. They discuss the legitimate interests of law enforcement in using drones but grapple with the societal risks of normalizing unending overhead surveillance. They explore establishing reasonable limitations, transparency, and democratic oversight in law enforcement drone programs.
Tune in to this thought-provoking conversation on personal liberties, privacy, and the future of law enforcement.
Featuring:
- Trace Mitchell, Litigation Fellow, Institute for Justice
- Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst, Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, ACLU
- [Moderator] Brent Skorup, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University
Additional Resources:
- Michigan Drone Surveillance
- Eye-in-the-Sky Policing Needs Strict Limits
- 2023 State Drone Commerce Rankings
- Drones, Airspace Design, and Aerial Law in States and Cities
Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), an arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), recently saw one of its major agency efforts that placed severe limits on the Maine lobster fishing industry in the name of protecting right whales from being entangled in fishing gear rejected by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The far-reaching impact of NMFS’s rule on the Maine $1.5 billion dollar lobster fishing industry was widely reported, resulting in multiple lawsuits, and congressional action before it was rejected by the appeals court, who chided the federal agency for being “egregiously wrong” about its authority and assessments.
NMFS's efforts to restrict the lobster fishing industry through the enactment of rules under both the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act is part of a larger trend. NMFS is also considering putting a speed limit on recreational boats in the Florida gulf to protect Rice’s whales, and another proposal to impose a speed limit across nearly the entirety of the Eastern seaboard, which coastal communities, boaters and fishermen claim will shut down harmless boating activity and place boaters in danger by demanding they travel at the speeds that make boat travel impossible. Environmental groups argue that these rules are necessary to protect a species that hangs on the brink of extinction.
Join us for a lively and engaging discussion surrounding the recent decision, and the legality and constitutionality of NMFS’s regulatory efforts. This will be a discussion between Jane Luxton, the Managing Partner of the DC office of Lewis Brisbois, one of the attorneys on the briefs for Maine Lobstermen’s Association, and a former General Counsel of NOAA, and Braden H. Boucek, Director of Litigation at Southeastern Legal Foundation who recently filed comments in opposition to the proposal to impose a speed limit in the Florida gulf.
*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Our Nation’s environmental laws and regulations are designed to foster the responsible use of natural resources while ensuring air, water, and land that is clean and safe for the citizenry as well as fish and wildlife. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and states are tasked with working cooperatively to ensure that these laws are faithfully enforced in a fair, consistent, and unbiased manner.
Across industries, compliance with environmental laws is strongly influenced by corporate culture, or a collection of values, expectations, and practices established by a company’s leaders and implemented through daily compliance-related activities performed by employees. But just as culture influences corporate behavior, it also influences government decisions regarding civil and criminal enforcement, including the targets of enforcement and the penalties and injunctive relief sought for violations. While general enforcement policies and priorities shift from administration to administration, the perception that individual enforcement actions are subject to partisan politics and outside influences risks erosion of the public trust and confidence in these same institutions.
Co-hosted by The Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project and ConservAmerica, this panel, comprised of leading voices on environmental enforcement, will discuss past and current environmental enforcement priorities, policies and actions at EPA and DOJ, the value of transparency and impartiality in environmental enforcement, and share varying perspectives on the future of environmental enforcement in the United States. The panel will also explore ways to increase environmental compliance and integrity in enforcement decision-making.
Featuring:
Our Nation’s environmental laws and regulations are designed to foster the responsible use of natural resources while ensuring air, water, and land that is clean and safe for the citizenry as well as fish and wildlife. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and states are tasked with working cooperatively to ensure that these laws are faithfully enforced in a fair, consistent, and unbiased manner.
Across industries, compliance with environmental laws is strongly influenced by corporate culture, or a collection of values, expectations, and practices established by a company’s leaders and implemented through daily compliance-related activities performed by employees. But just as culture influences corporate behavior, it also influences government decisions regarding civil and criminal enforcement, including the targets of enforcement and the penalties and injunctive relief sought for violations. While general enforcement policies and priorities shift from administration to administration, the perception that individual enforcement actions are subject to partisan politics and outside influences risks erosion of the public trust and confidence in these same institutions.
At a luncheon and panel event hosted by The Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project and ConservAmerica, Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan delivered a keynote address on the value of transparency and impartiality in environmental enforcement.
This year's sudden collapse of First Republic, Silicon Valley, and Signature banks were the second, third, and fourth largest bank failures in US history, bringing perceived systemic risk and bailouts of wealthy depositors. In addition, the global Credit Suisse bank collapsed and commercial real estate losses threatened. Politicians, regulators, and bankers are debating why the massive regulatory expansion following the last crisis didn't prevent the renewed failures. Some emphasize repetition of the classic financial blunder of buying long and borrowing short. Others question the 2018 reforms to the Dodd-Frank Act, or cite the monetary actions of the Federal Reserve. Various proposals include more deposit insurance, mark-to-market accounting, higher capital requirements, more stress tests, or bigger regulatory budgets.
Our expert panel will discuss the issues and risks going forward, the outlook for new legislation and regulation, and what, if anything, should be done.
On June 3, President Biden signed into law H.R. 3746, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Public Law 118-5). The Act made significant changes to federal permitting for major infrastructure projects, including the first significant amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in its history. In this webinar, experts aim to shed light on the implications of these changes for our nation's environmental policy framework.
Our distinguished panelists will provide expert analysis and engage in a robust discussion on major issues raised by the new changes and their implications for permitting and NEPA review of major infrastructure projects.
Discussion will focus on changes to NEPA and related permitting for major infrastructure projects, including:
In the past several months, President Biden released a new national cybersecurity strategy. As part of that strategy, the Administration says that it will seek to “Shape Market Forces to Drive Security and Resilience – We will place responsibility on those within our digital ecosystem that are best positioned to reduce risk and shift the consequences of poor cybersecurity away from the most vulnerable in order to make our digital ecosystem more trustworthy, including by: . . . Shifting liability for software products and services to promote secure development practices.”
The concept of software liability has been the subject of much debate since it was first suggested more than a decade ago. With the new national strategy that debate becomes much more salient. In this webinar, cybersecurity experts will debate both sides of the question.
Featuring:
- Prof. Paul Rosenzweig, Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University
- Prof. Jamil N. Jaffer, Founder and Executive Director of the National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
- [Moderator] Robert Strayer, Executive Vice President of Policy, Information Technology Industry Council
Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
