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.
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
The 2024 super election year has captured the world's attention, with the US elections playing a central role in shaping global politics. Join Kathryn Ciano Mauler and Katie Harbath as they delve into the complexities of worldwide political elections while discussing how to counteract and recognize how these elections will intersect with emerging technologies like AI.
Featuring:
Kathryn Ciano Mauler, Corporate Counsel, Google
Katie Harbath, Chief Global Affairs Officer, Duco
Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.
For many years FDA has claimed the authority to regulate Laboratory Developed Tests, that is tests that are designed, produced, and used in a single lab – never being put up for sale. This authority, however, has been contested, and the FDA itself has traditionally practiced “discretionary enforcement,” wherein it has regulated LDTs very little. A change occurred in October 2023 when the FDA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking wherein it indicated its intention to codify its claim of authority and begin enforcing oversight of LDTs. Dr. Joel Zinberg, M.D., J.D., joined us to discuss the history the FDA’s regulation of LDTs, the proposed rule, and what the ramifications may be.
Featuring:
Dr. Joel Zinberg, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
The approach the FDA has taken to regulating e-cigarettes and vape products, particularly those that are flavored, has been the topic of conversation for some years. Experts debate the best methods for review, risks and benefits involved in such products, and the means by which the FDA reviews such applications. Jeff Stier joined us to discuss a recent Fifth Circuit decision (Wages and White Lion Investments, L.L.C., doing business as Triton Distribution v. FDA) concerning the FDA's approval (or lack thereof) of flavored cartridge e-cigarettes --the state of the flavored e-cigarette market, the facts of this case, the existing circuit split, and the potential ramifications of this decision moving forward.
Featuring:
Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow, Consumer Choice Center
What are bias response teams (BRTs)? What role do they play on American college campuses? And how is freedom of speech under the First Amendment involved?
In this Fourth Branch Explainer podcast, experts Jonathan Butcher and Jon Riches briefly explain the intellectual foundations of bias response teams, how these systems operate on American college campuses, and how legal protections such as due process and freedom of speech are involved.
Featuring:
Jonathan Butcher, Will Skillman Fellow in Education, Center for Education Policy, The Heritage Foundation
Jon Riches, Director of National Litigation, Goldwater Institute
This is a podcast version of a live webinar held on December 13, 2023. The webinar was co-sponsored by the Regulatory Transparency Project & the Religious Liberties Practice Group.
***
In Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, a Colorado faith-based healthcare provider is challenging a recent Colorado law banning a treatment commonly known as abortion pill reversal on the grounds it forced them to violate their religious beliefs. The law, passed in April 2023, makes it illegal for healthcare professionals to offer progesterone (a naturally occurring hormone crucial to a healthy pregnancy) to women who have taken mifepristone as part one in a two-step abortion pill regimen but who subsequently want to maintain their pregnancy. The law imposes significant fines and jeopardizes the medical licenses of those who provide or advertise using progesterone to reverse the effects of an abortion pill.
Bella Health, founded by Catholic mother and daughter nurse practitioners Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett, which has traditionally offered this route of care for women as a part of its life-affirming OB-GYN practice, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado for an injunction to stop the law from going into effect. A limited injunction was issued in late April, pending reports by the state's Medical, Nursing, and Pharmacy licensing boards. The last of those regulations were issued in September. The next day, Bella again asked the Court for injunctive relief. In an order issued on October 21, 2023, the district court preliminarily enjoined Colorado from enforcing the law, and the case remains live.
Moderated by Brent Skorup, experts Timothy B. Lee, Professor Pamela Samuelson, and Kristian Stout discuss the emerging legal issues involving artificial intelligence, and its use of works protected under copyright law. Topics include how artificial intelligence uses intellectual property, whether allegations of violations of intellectual property are analogous to prior historical challenges or are novel, and the tradeoffs involved.
Featuring:
This Term, the Supreme Court will hear Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo—a case concerning judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Pursuant to Chevron v. NRDC and follow-on cases, courts defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Loper Bright offers the Court an opportunity to abandon Chevron deference entirely. But the phrasing of the Question presented in Loper Bright also presents an off-ramp for the Court, allowing it to keep Chevron’s framework intact. How the Court resolves Loper Bright will have massive implications for administrative law. On this panel, three distinguished administrative law scholars discuss the task before the Court in Loper Bright and the future of Chevron deference.
Featuring:
Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
(Moderator) Eli Nachmany, Former Law Clerk to Hon. Steven J. Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
It may surprise some to know that the government has definitive racial classifications for Americans, and it can be still further intriguing to find that the agency tasked with collecting, recording, and managing this data is the Office of Management and Budget. In this podcast, Prof. David Bernstein, author of Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America, joins us for an explanation of why this is and how we got here.
Featuring:
Prof. David Bernstein, University Professor of Law and Executive Director, Liberty & Law Center, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
In September, a panel of judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Illumina v. Federal Trade Commission. Earlier this year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ordered biotechnology company Illumina to unwind its $8 billion acquisition of Grail, a cancer-screening startup. This case began with a 2021 administrative complaint challenging the transaction. In September 2022, the FTC’s administrative law judge (FTC) concluded that the FTC “failed to prove its asserted prima facie case that Illumina’s post-Acquisition ability and incentive to advantage Grail to the disadvantage of Grail’s alleged rivals is likely to result in a substantial lessening of competition in the relevant market.” The FTC complaint counsel appealed the decision of the ALJ to the commissioners, who then voted to overturn the ALJ’s decision, ordering Illumina to divest the acquisition. The case is now pending before the Fifth Circuit.
Please join us as we break down oral argument and discuss the broader implications of Illumina v. FTC.
Featuring:
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
