On June 27th, the Supreme Court ruled in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton that Texas’s age-verification law did not violate the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. Justice Thomas wrote the Court’s opinion, holding that States had a right to protect children from obscenity, even if that meant incidentally burdening adults’ own access to that content. Many are celebrating the 6-3 decision as a victory for the protection of children, as it will cement similar laws in the 21 other states that have implemented them. Yet, as in Justice Kagan's dissent, others worry about Paxton’s implications for Freedom of Speech in the digital age. When does an incidental burden become a substantial violation of adults' First Amendment Rights? What kind of precedent does Paxton set for speech cases going forward?
Featuring:

Ashkhen Kazaryan, Senior Legal Fellow, The Future of Free Speech, Vanderbilt University
Clare Morell, Fellow, Ethics & Public Policy Center
Bailey Sanchez, Deputy Director of U.S. Legislation, FUture of Privacy Forum
[Moderator] Jennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow, Technology Policy, Cato Institute

On January 17, the Biden-Harris Administration added 15 new drugs, including Ozempic, to the list of drugs covered by the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Now there are a total of 25 drugs that are covered by the IRA’s requirement that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) pays only a “fair price” for selected drugs covered by Medicare Part D. The new prices are set to take effect on January 1, 2027. What implications does this have for patients and for drug research and development?
Join the discussion on the 'fair price' mandate and its impact on pharmaceutical innovation.
Featuring:
Lisa Ouellette, Deane F. Johnson Professor of Law at Stanford Law School
Dan Troy, Managing Director at the Berkeley Research Group
Brad Watts, Senior Vice President at the Global Innovation Policy Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
[Moderator] Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

On April 9th, President Trump signed E.O. 14267, Reducing Anti-Competitive Regulatory Barriers, which “commences the process for eliminating anti-competitive regulations to revitalize the American economy.” The order instructs the agency heads to review all regulations that may stifle economic competition or impose restraints on the free market. Many applaud the order, arguing that it addresses an overburdened economy, while others question the necessity of government regulation for ensuring a fair and just market.
What does President Trump’s order mean for the future of the economy and the laws that regulate it?
Featuring

Alden Abbott, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University
Charlie Beller, Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
Kathleen Bradish, Vice President and Director of Legal Advocacy, American Antitrust Institute
Moderator: Bilal Sayyed, Senior Adjunct Fellow, TechFreedom

On March 20, President Trump signed E.O. 14242, Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities, which directs the Secretary of Education to take steps to “facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.” The subject of intense controversy, EO 14242 raises important questions about executive power, the role of Congress, and the future of federal education programs.
Join us for a discussion about the legal implications of dismantling the Department of Education and the potential consequences for education policy.
Featuring:

Jonathan Butcher, Will Skillman Senior Research Fellow in Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation
Michael J. Petrilli, President of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute
David Randall, Director of Research at the National Association of Scholars
Kent Talbert, Investigative Counsel, U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce; former General Counsel to the U.S. Department of Education
Moderator: Robert S. Eitel, President and Co-Founder of the Defense for Freedom Institute; former Senior Counselor to the Secretary of Education from 2017-2020

Join us Monday, June 9th, at 12:00pm EST for a timely discussion examining how artificial intelligence is fundamentally upending existing data protection laws and reshaping the debate over privacy protections.
The rise of AI has created a tension between unlocking AI’s transformative potential and protecting personal data. As AI systems require vast amounts of data to function effectively, traditional privacy frameworks face unprecedented challenges. Our panel of experts will address emerging issues in data privacy such as how AI is challenging conventional data privacy best practices, state-level privacy regulations and their impact on AI innovation, sectoral challenges in healthcare, education, and finance, and what a modern privacy framework designed for the AI era might look like.
Featuring:

Pam Dixon- Founder & Executive Director, World Privacy Forum
Kevin Frazier- AI Innovation and Law Fellow, University of Texas School of Law
Jennifer Huddleston- Senior Fellow, Technology Policy, Cato Institute
[Moderator] Ashley Baker- Executive Director, Committee for Justice

On April 23, President Trump signed E.O. 14281, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, declaring that “disparate-impact liability is wholly inconsistent with the Constitution and threatens the commitment to merit and equality of opportunity that forms the foundation of the American Dream.”
In this episode, experts explore the origins, evolution, and controversy surrounding disparate impact law—from Section VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to landmark Supreme Court decisions like Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) and Wards Cove Packing Co., Inc. v. Atonio (1989), to the legislative response in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
What is disparate impact liability? How has it shaped outcomes in employment, housing, and equal access to opportunity? Is it a justifiable basis for legal liability without evidence of disparate treatment?
Join us for a conversation on one of the most debated legal doctrines in American civil rights history and its role in shaping the future of equality and meritocracy.
Featuring:

Dan Morenoff, Executive Director, American Civil Rights Project and Adjunct Fellow, Manhattan Institute
Gail Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
[Moderator] Linda Chavez, Chairman, Center for Equal Opportunity

Additional Reading:
Morenoff, Dan. "Disparate-Impact Liability: Unfounded, Unconstitutional, & Not Long For This World." Fedsoc.org. June 6, 2025. https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/disparate-impact-liability-unfounded-unconstitutional-not-long-for-this-world

Shortly after taking office, President Trump reportedly removed two Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) commissioners and the general counsel. While this has effectively left the five-member Commission without a quorum, some legal experts have questioned the limits of presidential power to remove officials from agencies like the EEOC. Now operating under Acting Chair Andrea Lucas, the EEOC has shifted its priorities and taken actions in response to President Trump’s executive orders. New priorities include removing gender ideology, protecting women, addressing anti-American bias, and combatting antisemitism in the workplace. The EEOC moved to dismiss several EEOC-initiated claims and lawsuits, alleging discrimination based on gender identity. Acting Chair Lucas sent letters to top law firms requesting information about their DEI-related employment practice.
What are the limits of presidential power over agencies such as the EEOC? What would a lack of quorum mean practically for the Commission, employees and employers, as well as the new direction of the EEOC in the Trump Era? In this webinar, employment law experts will address these questions and more.
Featuring:

Bradford J. Kelley, Shareholder, Littler
Ryan H. Nelson, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
[Moderator] Eric Dreiband, Partner, Jones Day

Short-term rentals—popularized by Airbnb and Vrbo—have been given modern platforms for the customary alternative to hotels: in-home stays. Yet their rapid growth has prompted a wave of local and state regulations at odds with the practice, driven by lobbying from the hotel industry, concerns about housing affordability, neighborhood character, and other regulatory assertions. While some critics, including city officials and interest groups, support increased oversight, others—including advocates of limited government and individual rights—contend that these services represent an exercise of property rights, expand consumer choice, and note that there is limited evidence of significant impact on the housing market.

This panel will explore the constitutional, statutory, historical, and policy implications of short-term rental regulation. Are local governments properly protecting community interests, or are they infringing on fundamental property rights? What legal frameworks govern this space—and what should they be?
Join us for a lively discussion featuring the Hon. Paul Clement, Tony Francois, and Ron Klain, moderated by Prof. Donald Kochan, that will examine the intersection of private property, regulatory authority, and economic liberty.

President Trump's budget bill, having recently passed the House of Representatives, is headed for the Senate with a proposed 10-year moratorium on AI regulations at the state level. How should lawmakers approach this rapidly-developing technology without stalling US progress in the AI "arms race," while still prioritizing consumers' data privacy and online safety?
Dr. Scott Babwah Brennen, Kevin Frazier, and Adam Thierer join the RTP Fourth Branch Podcast to discuss and debate the arguments of AI regulation, innovation, and preemption.

In a little over 100 days, the Department of Government Efficiency, or "DOGE," has fundamentally remade the federal bureaucracy by slimming the workforce and ending federal contracts. So far, its major focus has not been on regulatory issues, but recent executive orders suggest that DOGE may soon set its sights on cutting back excess regulation. When it does, it should consider successful regulatory reform efforts that have been underway in the states for several years. This panel will focus on two of the most successful state regulatory reform initiatives, in Virginia and Indiana, and explore how similar reforms might be enacted federally.