MENU

President

News

Immigration and the Separation of Powers by Margaret D. Stock

President nominates Neomi Rao to head OIRA

Susan E. Dudley April 12, 2017
SHARE:      

President Trump on Friday reinforced how serious he is about reforming the regulatory state by nominating administrative law professor and Federalist Society member Neomi Rao to head the Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). The next OIRA Administrator, or “Regulatory Czar,” will oversee President Trump’s order that agencies eliminate two regulations for every new one, among other things. This will require principled and pragmatic leadership, and Rao, a respected legal scholar with experience in all three branches of government, has the experience, intellect, and character needed for the job.

The Wall Street Journal has more of my analysis of the nomination.

News

Teleforum Preview: Regulatory Crimes: Clay v. U.S. Oral Argument by John J. Park, Jr.

Why Trump can’t undo the regulatory state so easily

Timothy Courtney February 09, 2017
SHARE:      

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.[1]

However, despite this flurry of activity, it’s too soon to conclude that the regulatory state as we know it is in retreat.

Read the full article from Brookings. 

News

scales and world flags

[PANEL]: Will International Law Matter to the Trump Administration?

Timothy Courtney February 09, 2017
SHARE:      

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)

;

News

What a Trump Administration Might Mean for Employers

December 16, 2016
SHARE:      

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.