239 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

    • News
    • 5.0 • 21 Ratings

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.

    Deep Dive 198 – Eyes to The Sky: Privacy, Property, Innovation, and Commerce in The Age Of The Drone

    Deep Dive 198 – Eyes to The Sky: Privacy, Property, Innovation, and Commerce in The Age Of The Drone

    Drones are rapidly becoming part of our everyday lives, and society will soon need to grapple with profound issues related to property, privacy, and nuisance. While drones are aircraft, the laws governing aircraft may soon be challenged as drones operate closer to the ground and in airspace never before occupied by manmade flying objects. The unique flying capability of drones is what makes them so valuable and is what will challenge settled laws, individual rights, and liberties.

    The editor and two of the co-authors of "Eyes to the Sky: Privacy and Commerce in the Age of the Drone" joined us for a panel discussion of these legal and policy issues and more.

    Featuring:
    - Matthew Feeney, Director, Project on Emerging Technologies, Cato Institute
    - Brent Skorup, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University
    - Gregory S. Walden, Partner, Dentons
    - [Moderator] Gregory McNeal, Professor of Law and Public Policy, Pepperdine University and Co-Founder, AirMap

    Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

    • 1 hr 6 min
    Deep Dive 197 – Competition at a Crossroads: Will the Executive Order on Competition Advance Competition, or Restrict It?

    Deep Dive 197 – Competition at a Crossroads: Will the Executive Order on Competition Advance Competition, or Restrict It?

    Protecting and preserving competition are the key objectives of U.S. antitrust laws, which are all phrased as prohibitions: on agreements "in restraint of trade," of mergers and acquisitions where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly," and on "unfair methods of competition." In a July 2021 Executive Order, the Biden Administration directed agencies to pursue 72 specific initiatives to tackle what are seen as our most pressing competition problems. Will these initiatives enhance the role of competition, or are they instead initiatives that would replace the outcomes of competitive markets with regulatory requirements? Both views have strong champions and well-articulated views. A distinguished panel joined us to lay out the arguments and implications of these important policy choices.

    Featuring:
    - Neil Averitt, Opinion Columnist, FTC:Watch
    - Howard Beales, Professor Emeritus of Strategic Management and Public Policy, School of Business, The George Washington University
    - Robert Bork, Jr., President, Antitrust Education Project
    - Ioana Marinescu, Associate Professor, School of Social Policy & Practice, University of Pennsylvania and Faculty Research Fellow, National Bureau of Economic Research
    - [Moderator] Jane Luxton, Managing Partner - Washington, D.C., Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP

    Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

    • 1 hr 3 min
    Deep Dive 196 – Brace Yourself: Discussing The ATF’s Rulemaking On Forearm Stabilizing Braces

    Deep Dive 196 – Brace Yourself: Discussing The ATF’s Rulemaking On Forearm Stabilizing Braces

    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) in 2012 determined that forearm stabilizing braces for firearms serve a legitimate function and do not automatically subject a firearm to the strict requirements of the National Firearms Act of 1934. In December 2020, however, the BATFE proposed new regulations that could subject almost all firearms with forearm stabilizing braces to the NFA. On August 31, 2021, an expert panel joined us for a discussion on the proposed rule and how it fits into wider debates over agency rulemaking on controversial issues.

    Featuring:
    - Michael D. Faucette, Associate, Wiley Rein
    - Paul Helmke, Professor of Practice and Director, Civic Leaders Center, Paul H. O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University
    - [Moderator] John Shu, Attorney and Legal Commentator

    Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

    • 1 hr
    Deep Dive 195 – President Biden’s Executive Order on Foreign-Controlled Apps

    Deep Dive 195 – President Biden’s Executive Order on Foreign-Controlled Apps

    In June, President Biden revoked a Trump-era executive order that sought to ban TikTok and WeChat, and replaced it with a new executive order directing the government to review the security threats posed by foreign-controlled software applications. "The Federal Government should evaluate these threats through rigorous, evidence-based analysis," Biden's order dictated, "and should address any unacceptable or undue risks consistent with overall national security, foreign policy, and economic objectives, including the preservation and demonstration of America's core values and fundamental freedoms."

    An expert panel joined us to break down the order and its implications for the apps it targets as well as for future relations between the United States and its foreign adversaries, such as China.

    Featuring:
    - Jennifer Hay, Senior Director for National Security Programs, DataRobot
    - Jamil N. Jaffer, Founder & Executive Director, National Security Institute and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program and Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School
    - Margaret Peterlin, Adjunct Lecturer, The Bush School of Government & Public Service, Texas A&M University
    - [Moderator] Matthew Feeney, Director, Project on Emerging Technologies, Cato Institute

    Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

    • 1 hr 1 min
    Deep Dive 194 – Examining the CDC's Eviction Moratorium

    Deep Dive 194 – Examining the CDC's Eviction Moratorium

    In September 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued its first nationwide eviction moratorium. Since then, the CDC renewed the moratorium several times and most recently issued a new eviction moratorium that is substantially the same as prior versions, but its applicability depends on COVID-positivity rates in each jurisdiction. Under the CDC eviction moratorium orders, state courts are prohibited from proceeding with eviction proceedings if the renter asserts that he cannot pay his rent as a result of the pandemic. The private property owners are required to allow the non-paying renter to live rent-free, until the renter can pay at a later, unspecified date.

    Following the CDC's first eviction moratorium, lawsuits were filed across the country. Many of them arguing that the federal government lacked the constitutional and statutory authority to stop state court eviction proceedings. As federal courts declared the CDC eviction moratorium unconstitutional and illegal, housing advocates rallied around the eviction moratorium in an effort to keep renters housed in their rental properties. And both sides – the private property owners and renters – all sought relief that never came from Congress and state legislatures. Many questions remain. In this virtual event, top experts dove deep into the CDC eviction moratorium, the legal issues, and the relief sought by both landlords and renters.

    Featuring:
    - Lawrence Gostin, University Professor, Founding Linda D. & Timothy J. O'Neill Professor of Global Health Law, Faculty Director of O'Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law, Georgetown University; Director, World Health Organization Collaborating Center on Public Health Law & Human Rights
    - Luke Wake, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
    - [Moderator] Kimberly Hermann, General Counsel, Southeastern Legal Foundation

    Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

    • 1 hr 3 min
    Deep Dive 193 – Arthrex: The End of Patent Exceptionalism in the Administrative State?

    Deep Dive 193 – Arthrex: The End of Patent Exceptionalism in the Administrative State?

    The decision in United States v. Arthrex was extremely fractured, with a mix of majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions that cut across traditional jurisprudential divisions on the Supreme Court. Although the split majority held that the appointment of the Administrative Patent Judges at the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) violates the Appointments Clause, the Court ultimately remedied this constitutional violation by revising the America Invents Act to give the Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) more direct review and control over the decisions reached by the PTAB concerning the validity of patents. Although this makes the PTAB decision-making process at the USPTO more like the adjudicatory processes at other agencies, in which agency heads have direct oversight and control over their administrative law judges, it raises fundamental questions about the PTAB process created by Congress, which was supposed to consist of solely legal analyses of the statutory conditions for patentability, free from political influence.

    Some have criticized the PTAB's operations for significant due process problems and other "shenanigans," but others have defended the PTAB as serving an important function as a corrective mechanism for mistakenly-issued patents that undermine the efficient operation of the innovation economy. This panel of experts discussed Arthrex and the ultimate effects that it may have in patent law, administrative law, and the innovation economy.

    Featuring:
    - Gary Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
    - Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law
    - Jonathan Stroud, Chief IP Counsel, Unified Patents
    - [Moderator] Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Executive Director, C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Antonin Scalia Law School

    Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

    • 1 hr 3 min

Customer Reviews

5.0 out of 5
21 Ratings

21 Ratings

Top Podcasts In News

Listeners Also Subscribed To

More by The Federalist Society