Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group Podcast
With a change in administration, businesses and consumers alike are searching the tea leaves for indications about how new policy setters will analyze market power, mergers and acquisitions. Will economic analysis play a greater or lesser role? Will the conventional distinctions between horizontal and vertical mergers persist? How will consumer interest be weighed? On the international front, is foreign countries’ use of competition laws to influence or judge American businesses on the rise and, if so, to what effect?
Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group Podcast
- Hon. Joshua D. Wright, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
A number of regulatory advocates assert that Title II of the Communications Act, enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, is the only way to protect net neutrality. Research by Roslyn Layton, PhD, who has studied net neutrality in 50 countries, suggests otherwise. Moreover, a layered model using existing antitrust and consumer protection laws enforced by the Federal Trade Commission, Department of Justice, and State Attorneys General may well provide more effective and less costly regulation. Alex Okuliar, formerly an advisor to FTC Commissioner (now Acting Chairman) Ohlhausen, interviewed Roslyn Layton about her research on these issues and the layered model of enforcement.
Regulatory Transparency Project's Fourth Branch Video Series
- Roslyn Layton, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
- Moderator: Alex Okuliar, Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLPAlexander Okuliar Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
July 14, 2017
Arguably, regulation has helped us achieve the American Dream. The benefits are numerous. But have regulations gone too far? The Regulatory Transparency Project’s Fourth Branch video series will explore this question. Administrative Law & Regulation and Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Podcast
The Fourth Branch video series is a product of the Regulatory Transparency Project. The RTP is a years-long endeavor designed to reach and to educate a broad audience. The purpose, in part, is to illustrate that regulatory excess is not a partisan issue but, a good government issue. We believe that such an approach can lead to both immediate changes and, more importantly, development of a healthy societal understanding of both regulatory benefits and costs. Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to subscribe to our newsletter updates, to view all of our content, and to connect with us on social media.
Regulations intended to address public health and environmental risks depend heavily on scientific information. Yet, they are often the subject of heated debate, involving accusations of “politicized science,” “advocacy science,” and “junk science.” Susan Dudley discussed her forthcoming paper with Marcus Peacock that explores the motivations and institutional incentives that have led to this acrimony. The paper illustrates the problem with a case study of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards issued under the Clean Air Act, and offers recommendations for improving how science is used to inform regulatory policy.
Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group Podcast
- Hon. Susan E. Dudley, Director, Regulatory Studies Center and Distinguished Professor of Practice, The George Washington University
This Teleforum explores the foundation for Chevron deference to agency statutory interpretation, and the implications of that foundation. In particular, it considers whether the Supreme Court’s justification of Chevron as deriving from an implicit delegation of interpretive primacy to an agency within the context of taking action with the force of law is justifiable. It also considers whether a better justification is the implicit constraint inherent in Article III of the Constitution that courts should avoid engaging in policy decisionmaking to the extent possible when performing their judicial functions. It goes on to consider the implications of these two different justifications for Chevron, potentially addressing the applicability of Chevron to actions that do not carry the force of law (i.e. Chevron’s step zero), Chevron’s major question exception, the appropriate judicial inquiry at step two of Chevron, and perhaps even the extent to which Congress can override the Chevron doctrine as a canon of statutory interpretation.
- Mark Seidenfeld, Patricia A. Dore Professor of Administrative Law, Florida State University College of Law