RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast The Federalist Society

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 LLP
Judy Conti, Government Affairs Director, National Employment Law Project
Hon. Philip Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Timothy 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