RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast

In the past several months, President Biden released a new national cybersecurity strategy. As part of that strategy, the Administration says that it will seek to “Shape Market Forces to Drive Security and Resilience – We will place responsibility on those within our digital ecosystem that are best positioned to reduce risk and shift the consequences of poor cybersecurity away from the most vulnerable in order to make our digital ecosystem more trustworthy, including by: . . . Shifting liability for software products and services to promote secure development practices.”

The concept of software liability has been the subject of much debate since it was first suggested more than a decade ago. With the new national strategy that debate becomes much more salient. In this webinar, cybersecurity experts will debate both sides of the question.

Featuring:
- Prof. Paul Rosenzweig, Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University
- Prof. Jamil N. Jaffer, Founder and Executive Director of the National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
- [Moderator] Robert Strayer, Executive Vice President of Policy, Information Technology Industry Council


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

Following concerns about the information collected by and influence of the immensely popular Chinese-owned social media app TikTok, debates have sprung up: should TikTok be banned?

Some contend that TikTok poses a tangible and imminent threat to the United States’ national security, and that as such it should be banned immediately. Others assert it is a valuable and important platform for free speech, and that a full ban would violate citizens’ rights. These contrasting positions raise some important questions: is TikTok a threat to national security, and if so how should that be handled? Does TikTok’s “Project Texas,” which would purportedly have U.S. TikTok user data stored by a U.S. company suffice? Can one simply place restrictions on its use for individuals who deal with sensitive data (government employees, military members, etc.) or does the threat require a full ban? Additionally, who can/ should implement those restrictions? For a ban to be effective does it need to be national, or can states act effectively to restrict or ban TikTok themselves?

Featuring:

• Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor, NSI Founder, and Director, National Security Law & Policy Program, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
• Will Duffield, Policy Analyst, Cato Institute
• [Moderator] Jennifer Huddleston, Technology Policy Research Fellow, Cato Institute

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

*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

On June 13, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Inc. a case that would ban attempts to patent naturally occurring DNA sequences.

Now, ten years down the line with a decade of hindsight, Dr. Roger Klein, who played a central role as an expert, advisor, and spokesperson for the Association for Molecular Pathology in AMP v. Myriad, joins us to discuss this important case. In this Explainer we discuss the context surrounding this case, the debates that arose, and the impact this rule had across the past 10 years.

Featuring:

• Dr. Roger D. Klein, Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science & Innovation Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law

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

*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

The plaintiffs in Utah v. Walsh filed a motion to halt implementation of the Department of Labor’s new rule, which provides increased flexibility for retirement plan fiduciaries to consider environmental, social, or governance (ESG) factors when making investment decisions and exercising shareholder rights. This coalition of 26 states, energy companies, a trade association, and private individuals argues that the new rule undermines the protections established by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). In this webinar, Jared Kelson, Counsel for Plaintiffs Liberty Energy Inc., Liberty Oilfield Services LLC, and Western Energy Alliance, will provide an update on the ongoing litigation and discuss the broader implications of ESG considerations in retirement planning.
Featuring:

Jared Kelson, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates
Brett Swearingen, Associate, Miller Johnson

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

In this Tech Roundup episode, we delve into the discussions raised by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's recent hearing on AI regulation.

Neil Chilson and Adam Thierer offer an in-depth analysis of the various approaches to AI that are being considered by regulators and in public policy circles – from voluntary efforts by the industry to promote transparency and accountability to advocating for licensing and testing requirements for AI deployment to the prospect of a global regulatory body for AI. They explore whether AI presents fundamentally new questions for policymakers, or whether regulators already have the tools they need. They discuss the risk of over-regulating this new innovative space and the potential consequences of doing so.

Don't miss out on this extensive conversation on one of the most important issues in tech policy today.

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

*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

On April 6, 2023, the Biden Administration announced two new efforts to "modernize regulatory review" – the first through the signing of Executive Order 14094 and the second through proposing revisions to OMB's Circular A-4, the government-wide guidance on regulatory analysis. Public comments on the proposed revision of Circular A-4 are due by June 6, 2023.

In this Explainer podcast, Howard Beales, Karen Harned, and Paul Ray discuss the new developments around how the Biden Administration and federal agencies will approach cost-benefit analysis. They explore the importance of long-standing regulatory review processes, concerns around the potential politicization of cost-benefit analysis, changes to the threshold for OIRA to review regulations, and how these developments may ultimately affect the American people.

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

*******

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Biosimilars, a category of biologic (medicine derived from a living organism), require approval, at least in the U.S. by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). There are two types of approval the FDA can give a biosimilar: “approved” and “interchangeable.” This distinction, unique to the U.S. system, along with the burden of proof required by the FDA, can cause confusion and create challenges for manufacturers seeking to get a biosimilar licensed.

In this podcast Dr. Roger Klein (M.D. J.D.) joins us to provide an introduction to biologics & biosimilars: what they are, how they are regulated/ approved in the United States, and what the effects of our current regulatory system can be for the approval of biosimilars.

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

*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rules have careened wildly back and forth as administrations have changed. Most recently, on February 9, 2023, the Department of Housing and Urban Development published in the Federal Register a proposed regulation entitled “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.” Under this version, HUD would require recipients of federal financial assistance to do more than simply stamp out discrimination, but rather to take affirmative action to overcome disparate racial outcomes in housing.

HUD first proposed detailed regulations concerning AFFH during the Obama administration, and ultimately adopted final regulations in 2015, which required more than 5,000 program participants, including states, municipalities, and public housing authorities to develop plans, utilizing a computer based geospatial mapping and data tool and a template of required questions to address “fair housing issues” such as perceived disparities in access to areas of opportunity. Implementation was delayed under the Trump administration, but the first attempt at an alternative regulation, which would have focused grantees’ efforts on the dismantling of regulatory barriers to housing production, was never finalized, and, instead, a final regulation that replaced the 2015 rule with a barebones certification requirement was implemented at the end of his term. That regulation, in turn, was repealed early in the Biden administration before it then published the proposed rule this February. Under it, communities must affirmatively address any existing patterns of adverse impact by providing housing for them in better areas or, alternatively, transforming the community. It focuses on state and local jurisdictions preparing “equity plans” that describe how they will incorporate procedures, not only with respect to housing but also education, transportation, and other local planning considerations, to advance more racially balanced communities. The comment period on the regulation ended on April 10, 2023.

In this webinar, a panel of ideologically diverse experts will discuss the latest proposal of HUD’s AFFH requirements for state and local governments.

Featuring:

• Paul Compton, Founding Partner, Compton Jones Dresher
• Thomas Silverstein, Associate Director, Fair Housing & Community Development Project, Lawyer' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
• [Moderator] Braden Boucek, Director of Litigation, Southeastern Legal Foundation

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

*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

This webinar will explore central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and the ongoing debates over financial privacy, especially in relation to use of cryptocurrencies and other software privacy tools.
The webinar will begin with a discussion between Rep. Tom Emmer, the Majority Whip of the U.S. House of Representatives, and Prof. J.W. Verret of the Antonin Scalia Law School regarding legislation introduced by Rep. Emmer and a coalition of members to prevent the Federal Reserve from introducing a CBDC. They will also discuss the Treasury Department's sanctioning of the Tornado Cash privacy protocol and the legal authority of that action. This discussion will be followed by an expert panel that will further explore these issues, as well as legislation proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren to ban crypto and other software privacy tools.

In March 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed a new rule that would establish climate-risk disclosure requirements for public companies. The 490-page proposal includes requirements for disclosing direct greenhouse gas emissions (scope 1) and indirect emissions related to use of electricity or other forms of energy (scope 2). While supporters hailed the proposed rule’s effort to standardize the disclosures many ESG-focused funds have been making, others zeroed in on a requirement that would obligate larger companies to disclose GHG emissions from upstream suppliers and downstream customers (scope 3).
After receiving thousands of comments favoring and opposing the proposal, the SEC postponed its target date for finalizing the rule to spring 2023. Much of the debate centers on the scope of the SEC’s authority to mandate climate risk disclosure, an issue that took on additional dimensions after the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in West Virginia v. EPA, which struck down an EPA rule regulating GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act as contrary to the “major questions doctrine.” Many predict that the final ESG rule will be litigated regardless of what changes the SEC may make to address issues that commenters raised.
With the SEC ESG final rule expected soon, this program brings together distinguished speakers who will outline the arguments for and against the SEC’s effort to regulate in this area.

Paul Ray leads The Heritage Foundation’s work on regulatory and economic policy as Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, building on his previous experience as Senate-confirmed Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget. He has written widely on a number of regulatory issues, including the SEC’s authority to set corporate climate policy.
George Georgiev is an Associate Professor of Law at Emory University Law School, focusing on Business Law, Corporate Governance, Securities Regulation, Mergers & Acquisitions, Corporate Finance, and Executive Compensation. Professor Georgiev co-authored an analysis affirming the SEC’s authority to adopt climate-related disclosure rules, and filed comments in the rulemaking.

The panel will be moderated by Jane Luxton, Managing Partner of the Washington, DC office of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, and co-chair of the firm’s Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice.