Rachel Augustine Potter writes for the Brookings Institution:
Regulatory politics, not usually the stuff of headlines, is suddenly above-the-fold news. In his first week, President Trump laid out an ambitious anti-regulatory goal of eliminating “75%–maybe more” of existing regulation. Last week he followed up on that pledge, signing an executive order adopting a “2 for 1” policy for new regulations and issuing another order to consider rolling back Dodd-Frank regulations.
However, despite this flurry of activity, it’s too soon to conclude that the regulatory state as we know it is in retreat.
The Federalist Society's Practice Group and Student Divisions and the American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA) are pleased to present a panel on the future of international and national law under freshly inaugurated President Trump. This panel featred a lively discussion between leading international lawyers the Hon. John Bellinger and Associate Dean and Professor Rosa Brooks about whether international law will matter to the new administration. The panel was be moderated by Professor David Stewart.
This panel was part of the conference on International Law in the Trump Era: Expectations, Hopes, and Fears held on January 23, 2017, at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC.
Panel: Will International Law Matter to the Trump Administration?
--Hon. John B. Bellinger, III, former Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State and the National Security Council
--Prof. Rosa Brooks, Associate Dean, Graduate Programs & Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
--Moderator: Prof. David Stewart, President, American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA)
On December 13, 2016, the Littler law firm sponsored a program entitled “The 2016 Presidential Election: What a Trump Administration Might Mean for Employers.” The program included a brief discussion of four “important labor and employment cases pending before the [U.S. Supreme] Court.” One of those cases is Serna v. Transport Workers Union of America, 654 Fed. Appx. 665 (5th Cir. July 11, 2016) (per curiam), petition for cert. docketed, No. 16-484 (U.S. Oct. 12, 2016), a case in which National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys represent the plaintiff airline employees who are compelled to pay union fees as a condition of their employment even though they have chosen not to join the union. The issues presented in Serna are:
(1) “[w]hether [Railway Employes’ Department v.] Hanson[, 351 U.S. 225 (1956)], and implicitly Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), should be overruled insofar as they uphold the constitutionality of compulsory union fees”; and
(2) “[w]hether requiring that employees affirmatively object to subsidizing constitutionally nonchargeable union speech, rather than requiring affirmative consent, violates the First Amendment.”
Serna gives the Court an opportunity to revisit the issues it ducked 4-4 in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Ass’n, 136 S. Ct. 1083 (per curiam), reh’g denied, 136 S. Ct. 2545 (2016), when Justice Antonin Scalia unexpectedly died after the Court had heard oral argument in the case. The Justices will consider the Serna petition at their conference on January 6, 2017.
Robert Driscoll has an outstanding post up at National Review Online titled “This is What a Trump Civil Rights Agenda Could Look Like.”
Like many libertarians and limited government conservatives, I had significant concerns about Trump’s temperament and fitness to lead. Nevertheless, Trump has been duly elected President, and all of us must hope that he governs wisely for the good of the country. With luck, he will surround himself with cool heads who will help him flesh out a pragmatic conservative governing agenda. Driscoll’s advice is very much in that vein. Nonetheless, I have some disagreements and a few thoughts of my own to add. [Read More]
A frequent complaint is that the Federal government pays more for similar products than do commercial enterprises. The election of Donald Trump could reset the clock for the Federal procurement changes that have arisen in the past 8 years and help bring down prices charged to Federal customers. Most prominently, Mr. Trump could begin by revising or rescinding the executive orders on which myriad new contractor obligations are based. Additionally, Mr. Trump could push for legislation to narrow the False Claims Act, resetting it to its original intent as a vehicle for punishing contractors who submit false claims for payment, rather than as a general-purpose fraud or contract compliance tool. Either of these efforts would decrease the cost to the Federal government relative to what commercial customers pay for similar goods. [Read More]