MENU

Administrative Law & Regulation

Subscribe in a reader

Subcommittees

  • Constitutional Structure
  • Energy
  • FDA
  • Federal Regulatory Reform
  • Judicial Review
  • State Regulatory Reform
  • Tax

2017 National Lawyers Convention

Administrative Agencies and the Regulatory State
November 16, 2017

The 2017 National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 16 through Saturday, November 18 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. The topic of this year's convention is: Administrative Agencies and the Regulatory State. More information will be posted soon!

Supreme Court Preview: What Is in Store for October Term 2017?

Co-Sponsored by the Faculty Division and the Practice Groups
Jan Crawford, Kyle Duncan, Samuel Estreicher, Orin S. Kerr, Andrew J. Pincus, Carrie Severino September 27, 2017

This event is being live-streamed.

October 2nd will mark the first day of oral arguments for the 2017 Supreme Court term. The Court's docket already includes major cases involving Federal Courts, redistricting, the First Amendment, election law, business law, class actions, international and immigration issues, alien tort statutes, and the Fourth Amendment.

The full list of cases granted thus far for the upcoming term can be viewed on SCOTUSblog here. The panelists will also discuss the current composition and the future of the Court.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Samuel Estreicher, New York University School of Law
  • Prof. Orin Kerr, George Washington University Law School
  • Kyle Duncan, Schaerr Duncan, LLP
  • Carrie Severino, Judicial Crisis Network
  • Andrew Pincus, Mayer Brown, LLP
  • Moderator: Ms. Jan Crawford, CBS News

Benefit-Cost Analysis and the Courts - Podcast

Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group Podcast
Emily Hammond, Eugene Scalia August 16, 2017

This call highlighted recent trends in how the courts have considered benefit-cost analysis when reviewing regulations under various statutes. Our experts examined the pros and cons of greater judicial review of regulatory analysis and the effect of judicial review on agency behavior. Professor Emily Hammond, Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School, and Eugene Scalia, Partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,  joined us to discuss these important topics.  

Featuring:

  • Emily Hammond, Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
  • Eugene Scalia, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Occupational Licensing, Antitrust, and Innovation - Event Audio/Video

Regulatory Transparency Project
Maureen K. Ohlhausen, James Cooper, Sarah Oxenham Allen, Koren W. Wong-Ervin, Lisa Kimmel August 14, 2017

Every state has laws or regulations that require individuals seeking to offer a certain service to the public first to obtain approval from the state before they may operate in the state. Recent years have seen a significant proliferation of such laws, with less than 5% of jobs in the American economy requiring a license in the 1950’s to between 25-30% today. Although licensing in some occupations may benefit the public by reducing information asymmetry and/or ensuring a minimum quality level for a particular service, the significant growth in the number of occupations governed by some form of licensing requirements poses a potential threat to competition and consumer welfare. Our panel of experts will discuss these important issues.

This event took place at Crowell & Moring in Washington, DC, on August 9, 2017.

Featuring:

  • Hon. Maureen Ohlhausen, Acting Chair of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission
  • James Cooper, Associate Professor, Scalia Law School at George Mason University
  • Sarah Oxenham Allen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia
  • Moderator: Koren W. Wong-Ervin, Director, Global Antitrust Institute, Scalia Law School at George Mason University
  • Moderator: Lisa Kimmel, Senior Counsel, Crowell & Moring LLP

Benefit-Cost Analysis and the Courts

Administrative Law & Regulation Practice Group Teleforum
Emily Hammond, Eugene Scalia August 11, 2017

This call will highlight recent trends in how the courts have considered benefit-cost analysis when reviewing regulations under various statutes. Our experts will also examine the pros and cons of greater judicial review of regulatory analysis and the effect of judicial review on agency behavior. Join us to hear Professor Emily Hammond, Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School, and Eugene Scalia, Partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, discuss these important topics.  

Featuring:

  • Emily Hammond, Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
  • Eugene Scalia, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

2017 Annual Supreme Court Round Up - Event Audio/Video

Washington, DC Lawyers Chapter
Miguel Estrada, Douglas R. Cox July 28, 2017

On July 13, 2017, Miguel Estrada of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP delivered the Annual Supreme Court Round Up at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

Featuring:

  • Mr. Miguel Estrada, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
  • Introduction: Mr. Douglas R. Cox, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP

National Press Club
Washington, DC

Regulation & the American Dream

Regulatory Transparency Project's Fourth Branch Video Series
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.

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.

Improving the Use of Science in Regulation - Podcast

Administrative Law & Regulation and Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Podcast
Susan E. Dudley July 06, 2017

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.

Featuring: 

  • Hon. Susan E. Dudley, Director, Regulatory Studies Center and Distinguished Professor of Practice, The George Washington University

Improving the Use of Science in Regulation

Administrative Law & Regulation and Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Teleforum
Susan E. Dudley June 29, 2017

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 will discuss 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.

Featuring: 

  • Hon. Susan E. Dudley, Director, Regulatory Studies Center and Distinguished Professor of Practice, The George Washington University

Immigration Moratorium in the Supreme Court

International & National Security Law Practice Group
Josh Blackman, David B. Rivkin Jr., Ilya Somin June 26, 2017

Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and stay applications were granted in part. The case is based on the January 21 Executive Order No. 13780, “Protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” The order suspended immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the country by citizens of seven majority Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days. It also suspended refugee admission into the United States for 120 days, and barred entry of Syrian refugees until further notice. The stated order’s purpose was to “ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.”

The Washington State Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the order in District Court citing harm to Seattle residents. Judge James Robart in the Western District of Washington issued a restraining order on February 3 halting President Trump’s executive order nationwide. The Department of Justice appealed the restraining order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected the Justice Department’s appeal for an emergency stay.

Join us for a great discussion on what the Supreme Court’s actions mean for the current application of the EO and a preview of the case before the Court. 

Featuring:

  • Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, Houston
  • David B. Rivkin Jr., Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP

  • Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University