MENU

Administrative Law

Why is the FAA regulating recreational drone use?

Short video featuring Gregory S. McNeal
Gregory S. McNeal January 27, 2016

Gregory S. McNeal, Associate Professor of Law and Public Policy at Pepperdine School of Law, discusses new regulations concerning recreational drone use recently issued by the FAA.  Professor McNeal explains that these new regulations represent an enormous break from the past, and likely stem from the widespread and increasing popularity of drones.

RESOLVED: The FCC Does Not Have the Legal Authority to Implement Net Neutrality - Event Audio/Video

18th Annual Faculty Conference
Adam Candeub, Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, Geoffrey A. Manne, James A. Speta, Daniel Lyons January 15, 2016

The FCC derives its legal authority almost entirely from statutes that predate the Internet--primarily from the 1934 Communications Act, which was designed for the regulation of a national telephone monopolist, and the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which was designed to incrementally deregulate the communications industry as the vestiges of that national monopoly gave way to competition. Over the past 20 years, the Internet has become the foundation of the communications industry, playing a role similar to that of the monopoly-provided telecommunications services that the FCC has traditionally regulated. There is unquestionably more competition today than there was in 1934, but perhaps not as much as was hoped in 1996.  The FCC’s Open Internet Order, in which the FCC brought Internet Service Providers within the regulatory framework initially created in 1934, presents a compelling example of an agency struggling to find a new role in a changed industry – struggling to imbue old statutes with broad grants of power to govern what the FCC, but perhaps not Congress, believes are issues properly within its ambit. In doing so, the Order thrusts the FCC into current debates about the scope of the administrative state, the potential revival of the major questions doctrine, and the potential demise of Chevron.  Framed by these issues, this debate will consider whether the FCC’s Open Internet Order fits within the agency’s statutory authority.

This debate took place during the 18th Annual Faculty Conference at the Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel in New York, NY on January 8, 2016.

Luncheon Debate: Resolved: The FCC does not have the legal authority to implement net neutrality
12:00 pm - 2:00 pm

  • Prof. Adam Candeub, Michigan State University School of Law
  • Prof. Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, Nebraska College of Law
  • Mr. Geoffrey Manne, International Center for Law and Economics
  • Prof. James Speta, Northwestern University School of Law
  • Moderator: Prof. Daniel Lyons, Boston College Law School

Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel
New York, NY

The New Chevron Skeptics - Event Audio/Video

18th Annual Faculty Conference
Blake D. Morant, Kellye Y. Testy, Lee Liberman Otis, Michael E. Herz, Jeffrey Pojanowski, Peter L. Strauss, Christopher J. Walker, John O. McGinnis January 15, 2016

When Chevron was first decided it was generally welcomed on the right side of the political spectrum as a principled method constraining judicial discretion and permitting the executive to exert policy control over the administrative state. But as the administrative state continues to grow, some now see Chevron as removing an important check on government power and an abdication of the judiciary’s authority to say what the law is. Some members of the Supreme Court are now open to reconsidering judicial deference to agency action, at least in certain areas, such as determining their own jurisdictions and interpreting their own regulations. The panel will consider the extent to which the new skepticism toward Chevron in particular and judicial deference to agencies in general is justified.

This panel took place during the 18th Annual Faculty Conference at the Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel in New York, NY on January 8, 2016.

Welcome
8:45 am

  • Dean Blake D. Morant, President, Association of American Law Schools & Dean and Robert Kramer Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School and 
  • Dean Kellye Y. Testy, President Elect, Association of American Law Schools & Toni Rembe Dean & Professor of Law, University of Washington School of Law
  • Introduction: Hon. Lee Liberman Otis, Senior Vice President & Faculty Division Director, The Federalist Society

Panel: The New Chevron Skeptics
8:45 am - 10:15 am

  • Prof. Michael Herz, Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
  • Prof. Jeffrey Pojanowski, University of Notre Dame Law School
  • Prof. Peter Strauss, Columbia Law School
  • Prof. Christopher Walker, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
  • Moderator: Prof. John McGinnis, Northwestern University School of Law

New York, NY
January 8, 2016

Case Study in Government Overreach?: The LabMD Case - Podcast

Litigation Practice Group Podcast
Reed D. Rubinstein December 22, 2015

On November 13, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission's Chief Administrative Law Judge, D. Michael Chappell, issued a 92 page opinion in the closely-watched LabMD data security case. In his opinion, the ALJ comprehensively disagreed with the FTC's factual claims and legal theories. Applying Section 5, he ruled that Complaint Counsel failed to prove a probability, or "likelihood," of harm, and that "Fundamental fairness" means Section 5(n) “requires proof of more than...hypothetical or theoretical harm...” Complaint Counsel has appealed and, according to statistics published by former Commissioner Joshua Wright, the Commission is likely to reverse. Reed D. Rubinstein, counsel to Cause of Action and a Partner at Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, spoke about the case and answered questions about its implications for data security regulation, Section 5 jurisprudence, and combating administrative agency overreach.

Featuring:

  • Reed D. Rubinstein, Of Counsel, Cause of Action, Partner, Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP