RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast

In this episode, Adam Thierer interviews Professor Daniel Crane regarding state restrictions on direct car sales and their implications for automobile markets, including the antitrust concerns they may raise.

Featuring:
- Daniel Crane, Frederick Paul Furth Sr. Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
- [Moderator] Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University

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

Eight years after he was first sworn in, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey will leave office in January 2023 due to the state's limit of two consecutive terms. In this episode, Governor Ducey joined tech policy experts Brent Skorup and Adam Thierer to discuss initiatives aimed at boosting innovation Arizona has launched during his time in office. Their conversation covered regulatory sandboxes, occupational licensing reform, autonomous vehicle policy, and much more.

This episode was co-sponsored by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Featuring:
- Doug Ducey, Governor, State of Arizona
- Brent Skorup, Senior Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University
- [Moderator] Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University

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

In February 2022, the Catawba Nation of South Carolina voted to approve the first tribal digital economic zone in the United States. This "Catawba Digital Economic Zone" includes an independent regulatory framework and commercial code, which its organizers intend to utilize to attract financial technology firms to the Zone as online "ecorporations."

In this episode, Catawba Digital Economic Zone CEO Joseph McKinney joined tech policy expert Ryan Hagemann to discuss the Zone and its novel regulatory framework.

Featuring:
- Joseph McKinney, CEO, Catawba Digital Economic Zone
- [Moderator] Ryan Hagemann, Co-Director, IBM PolicyLab

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

In 2018, then-Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim announced with great fanfare the "New Madison Approach" to intellectual property and antitrust disputes, rejecting the application of antitrust law to licensing disputes involving Standards Essential Patents (SEPs) and announcing that SEP holders should be entitled to injunctive relief like any other patent holder. Many patent holders cheered this development, particularly after years of perceived weakening of their rights as patent holders. They celebrated this new policy as supportive of innovation and technology licensing. Others argued that this new approach would lead to hold-up abuses by SEP holders in licensing negotiations, or that hold-out behaviors by licensees were overstated. They argued that this would only spark additional costly litigation.

As the current administration continues to reevaluate its antitrust policies and rolls back some "New Madison" policies, an expert panel discussed the impact of these policies, including whether they did more to promote innovation or to spark unnecessary litigation, and examined upcoming issues in the areas of SEPs and Standards-Setting Organizations.

Featuring:
- Jay Jurata, Partner and Antitrust & Competition Practice Group Leader, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
- Taylor Owings, Partner, Baker Botts L.L.P.
- [Moderator] Brian Pandya, Partner, Duane Morris LLP

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

On April 18, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida vacated the Centers for Disease Control's mask mandate for public transportation.

Health law and policy expert Joel Zinberg joined the podcast to break down the ruling and examine the strategy behind the Department of Justice's decision to appeal it without requesting a stay.

Featuring:
- Joel Zinberg, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute

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

Stablecoins are unique types of digital tokens that have emerged out of the cryptocurrency revolution and have taken center stage in the debate about crypto regulation. Tied to the value of an asset or fiat currency such as the dollar, stablecoins were initially created to ease the trade between different cryptocurrencies and crypto exchanges. Yet they have taken on innovative and beneficial new uses that both increase financial inclusion at home and provide vital assistance to those facing oppression and financial instability, as some argue that the situation in Ukraine demonstrates.

But as stablecoins gain prominence, concerns have arisen over risks they might pose to the financial system. Some, such as Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Pat Toomey, have argued for light-touch regulation for stablecoin issuers that would simply require disclosure of reserves and redemption policies. Others have called for strict bank-like regulation on stablecoins with reserve requirements that specify the amount of assets stablecoin issuers must hold and backstop guarantee programs similar to deposit insurance. The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets of the Biden Administration recently recommended that federal laws should only allow stablecoins to be issued by "insured depository institutions" such as banks and savings associations. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is also sending signals that it considers stablecoins as well as other cryptocurrencies to be "securities," and will subject them to regulatory enforcement under securities laws, despite, as some argue, the lack of clear authority by Congress.

This webinar explored the potential of stablecoins as a payment instrument, the inefficiencies of the current payment system, and the appropriate level of regulation that allows for beneficial innovation in this sector.

Featuring:
- Paul Jossey, Principal Attorney, Jossey PLLC
- Timothy Massad, Consultant; Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law
- [Moderator] John Berlau, Senior Fellow & Director of Finance Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute

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

Are state governors subject to the same separation of powers restrictions as the federal president?

Expanding on a Regulatory Transparency Project panel discussion on emergency executive power during the pandemic, this event featured experts engaging in a broader separation of powers discussion about the distinctions between the federal and state separation of powers doctrines, using California as an example.

In a conversation moderated by Braden Boucek, David. A. Carrillo, Luke A. Wake, and John C. Yoo explored those distinctions, examined how they affect the latitude and options state and federal executives have, and debated the extent to which federal separation of powers doctrines can or should be applied to the states through judicial interpretation.

Featuring:
- David A. Carrillo, Lecturer in Residence and Executive Director, California Constitution Center, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
- Luke A. Wake, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
- John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law; Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center; and Director, Public Law & Policy Program, University of California, Berkeley, School of 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.

With the Supreme Court about to hear two cases involving the use of race in admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, what do Americans actually think about preferential treatment? Dr. Althea Nagai, Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO), presented her analysis of recent data from the Pew Research Center on what Americans believe colleges should consider when deciding whom to admit. Her study focuses on the attitudes of some of the beneficiaries of affirmative action, based on a large sample of black and Hispanic respondents as well as Asians and whites. Joining Dr. Nagai on the panel discussion were Theodore Johnson, Director of the Fellows Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, and moderator Linda Chavez, CEO Chair.

Featuring:
- Theodore Johnson, Director, Fellows Program, Brennan Center for Justice
- Althea Nagai, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Equal Opportunity
- [Moderator] Linda Chavez, Chairman, Center for Equal Opportunity

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

Experts Ian Adams and Ike Brannon join the podcast to break down recent proposals regarding forced access to railroads. Is concentration an issue within the rail industry? If so, would forced access solve the problem? And what implications would a forced access rule have for the rail industry, and for technological innovation more generally?

Read Ike's recent paper on the topic here: https://www.cato.org/regulation/spring-2022/switching-wrong-track

Featuring:
- Ian Adams, Executive Director, International Center for Law & Economics
- Ike Brannon, President, Capital Policy Analytics

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

In January 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized its SUNSET Rule. Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires agencies to have a written plan to review their significant regulations every ten years to determine their impact on small entities (and to determine whether the regulations should be amended or rescinded based on the findings of the review). Because HHS found it was not reviewing all its significant regulations, it issued the SUNSET Rule to better incentivize review. Under the SUNSET Rule, all HHS regulations must be assessed every ten years to determine whether they are significant under the RFA and if they are, the review called for by the RFA must be performed. If the assessment or review of a regulation is not conducted every ten years, the regulation would expire.
Critics of the rule argue that committing HHS to reassessing the economic impacts of many of the department’s existing regulations is a large undertaking and it establishes an extreme penalty for noncompliance. Last fall, HHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to rescind the SUNSET Rule, and reports suggest a final repeal may be near. This webinar discussed the SUNSET rule, the effort to repeal it, and possible future actions in this area.
Featuring:



William Funk, Lewis & Clark Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, Lewis & Clark Law School
Jonah Hecht, Attorney, McGonigle; Former Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
[Moderator] Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Small Business Legal Center

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