373 episodes

The 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.

RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast The Federalist Society

    • Politics

The 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.

    Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Murthy v. Missouri

    Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Murthy v. Missouri

    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

    • 1 hr 1 min
    Explainer 64 - Union Release Time: Who Should Pay?

    Explainer 64 - Union Release Time: Who Should Pay?

    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

    • 36 min
    Deep Dive 287 - Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

    Deep Dive 287 - Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

    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

    • 1 hr 28 min
    Explainer 63 - Super Elections Year

    Explainer 63 - Super Elections Year

    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.

    • 38 min
    Explainer 62 - FDA's Regulation of Laboratory Developed Tests

    Explainer 62 - FDA's Regulation of Laboratory Developed Tests

    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

    • 34 min
    Explainer 61: FDA & Flavored E-cigarettes - Discussing Triton v. FDA

    Explainer 61: FDA & Flavored E-cigarettes - Discussing Triton v. FDA

    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

    • 40 min

Top Podcasts In @@categoryName@@

Necessary & Proper Podcast
The Federalist Society
Faculty Division Bookshelf
The Federalist Society
FedSoc Forums
The Federalist Society
SCOTUScast
The Federalist Society
FedSoc Events
The Federalist Society

You Might Also Like

Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Senik
The Hoover Institution
U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments
Oyez
The Commentary Magazine Podcast
Commentary Magazine
FedSoc Forums
The Federalist Society
Divided Argument
Will Baude, Dan Epps
Federalist Radio Hour
Radio America