The Committee for Justice | Regulatory Reform

Regulatory Reform: Combating Agency Overreach and Judicial Deference

RSS Feed

May 21, 2020

It should not be a point of contention to say that the FCC is the agency of jurisdiction in commercial spectrum policy, but it appears to have become one. Federal law (and more than two decades of federal practice) makes clear the process by which federal agencies work with the FCC to construct a uniform, coherent federal policy. When those processes are not followed, as the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee ​recently observed​, the interests of the United States suffer and our international leadership on spectrum matters is compromised. In the case of the Ligado Networks license modification, the FCC meticulously followed these processes. The FCC fully consulted with relevant federal agencies at each stage of the process, and proceeded in a careful, deliberate, and open manner, properly balancing competing interests and protecting critical GPS operations.

May 14, 2020

Robert Bork’s consumer welfare paradigm, which has heavily influenced the evolution of antitrust analysis and enforcement over the past 42 years, is under attack. Critics from both parties assert not only that antitrust has been unable to keep up with developments in the high tech, finance, and communications industries, but also that competition law should be weaponized and used as a tool to address broader concerns such as privacy, inequality, and political viewpoint discrimination. In response, the DOJ and FTC have launched investigations into Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Twitter and Google. Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee has launched its own investigation into these companies and are also reviewing whether changes are necessary to existing antitrust laws. It is critical to understand the arguments at the core of the antitrust debate and what is motivating recent proposals. Will Robert Bork’s “consumer welfare” standard survive?

May 12, 2020

Virtual Panel Discussion: 

New Title IX Rules for Sexual Assault & Harassment

On May 6, the U.S. Department of Education released new Title IX regulations governing how schools handle students' accusations of sexual assault and harassment. The regulations are intended to ensure that every accusation of sexual misconduct is taken seriously while also guaranteeing due process and a presumption of innocence for the accused. Supporters of the new rules point out that due process has been lacking on many campuses since the Obama Administration's issuance of Title IX guidance in 2011. Critics of the rules, including Joe Biden and many other Democrats, say they will make it harder for accusers to obtain justice. Our panelists will discuss the merits of the new regulations as well as the inevitable lawsuits challenging them.

Featuring:

Jennifer C. Braceras

Director of the Independent Women's Law Center at the Independent Women's Forum

Nicole Neily

President of Speech First

Stuart Taylor, Jr.

Author and...

May 12, 2020

Robert Bork’s consumer welfare paradigm, which has heavily influenced the evolution of antitrust analysis and enforcement over the past 42 years, is under attack. Critics from both parties assert not only that antitrust has been unable to keep up with developments in the high tech, finance, and communications industries, but also that competition law should be weaponized and used as a tool to address broader concerns such as privacy, inequality, and political viewpoint discrimination. In response, the DOJ and FTC have launched investigations into Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Twitter and Google. Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee has launched its own investigation into these companies and are also reviewing whether changes are necessary to existing antitrust laws. It is critical to understand the arguments at the core of the antitrust debate and what is motivating recent proposals. Will Robert Bork’s “consumer welfare” standard survive? Featuring: Hon. Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Hon. Joshu...

In the wake of Tara Reade's allegation that former Vice President Joe Biden sexually assaulted her when he was a senator in 1993 – an allegation that Biden strongly denies – he and his supporters have finally got it right when it comes to assessing claims of sexual assault.

May 11, 2020

On May 6, the U.S. Department of Education released new Title IX regulations governing how schools handle students' accusations of sexual assault and harassment. The regulations are intended to ensure that every accusation of sexual misconduct is taken seriously while also guaranteeing due process and a presumption of innocence for the accused. Supporters of the new rules point out that due process has been lacking on many campuses since the Obama Administration's issuance of Title IX guidance in 2011. Critics of the rules, including Joe Biden and many other Democrats, say they will make it harder for accusers to obtain justice. Our panelists will discuss the merits of the new regulations as well as the inevitable lawsuits challenging them.

May 11, 2020

How data privacy laws should be enforced remains a key flashpoint in the debates over potential data privacy legislation. Some argue that data protection laws will need a private right of action to have the teeth necessary to prevent consumer harm. What might the consequences of allowing litigation in this area be? What are the implications of the recent storm of litigation in state courts and in the 9th Circuit? And will we see many lawsuits coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic? Our panelists will give an update on recent data privacy litigation and discuss broader trends and implications for privacy law.

May 3, 2020

How data privacy laws should be enforced remains a key flashpoint in the debates over potential data privacy legislation. Some argue that data protection laws will need a private right of action to have the teeth necessary to prevent consumer harm. What might the consequences of allowing litigation in this area be? What are the implications of the recent storm of litigation in state courts and in the 9th Circuit? And will we see many lawsuits coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic? Our panelists will give an update on recent data privacy litigation and discuss broader trends and implications for privacy law.

April 29, 2020

As leaders of groups representing millions of consumers, taxpayers, and entrepreneurs, we sympathize with businesses struggling due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and support policies to bring them regulatory and tax relief. We object, however, to policy actions proposed in the name of “relief” that benefit some businesses by massively raising costs on other businesses and consumers.

April 27, 2020

In this virtual panel, legal and policy experts share their views of the court’s opinion, agency deference, and what is next in the net neutrality debate and in the courts.

April 21, 2020

Last year, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in Mozilla v. Federal Communications Commission in which the court largely upheld the Commission’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order that reversed the Obama Administration’s 2015 decision to apply common carrier regulation to the Internet. While the court upheld the bulk of the agency’s actions as reasonable under the Supreme Court’s rulings in Chevron and Brand X , the Court also remanded three discrete issues for further consideration by the Commission: 1.) public safety; 2.) pole attachments; and 3.) the Lifeline program. These comments seek to address the implications of reclassification and of the Commission’s light-touch regulatory approach for public safety.

Fauci's numbers are grim but they're comparable to the 1957 pandemic caused by the novel and highly contagious H2N2 virus and the 1968 Hong Kong flu pandemic, which produced U.S. death tolls equivalent to 220,000 and 165,000 respectively after scaling up for our 2020 population. A decade ago, more than 60 million Americans were infected with the H1N1 virus, a novel strain for which there was no vaccine. And just two years ago, more than 60,000 Americans died during a bad flu season that few of us remember because there were no headlines about the 250,000 new cases per day nor the sad truism of "mounting death tolls."

March 17, 2020

The reauthorization comes at a time of heightened scrutiny, given the recent Department of Justice Inspector General report addressing the FBI’s use of FISA while investigating the 2016 presidential election and a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review order expressing “serious concerns about the accuracy and completeness” of the FBI’s FISA applications in that case.

March 15, 2020

The Committee for Justice filed comments with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding the draft memorandum to federal agencies, “Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications.” The aim of our comments is to assist the executive branch in creating policies that will continue and advance America's leadership in artificial intelligence technology and innovation while also promoting America's values. Specifically, our comments address two of the "Principles for the Stewardship of AI Applications" discussed in the draft memo: 1) fairness and non-discrimination, and 2) disclosure and transparency.

March 14, 2020

On March 15, 2020, certain authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will expire absent renewal by Congress. The authorities set to expire fall into three categories: 1) the business records provision (often referred to as Section 215) that allows for collection of call detail records, among other things; 2) roving wiretaps; and 3) the lone wolf provision. On March 11, the House passed a compromise bill that the Senate will soon consider. However, several Republican Senators have already urged President Trump to veto the reauthorization bill, should it pass both chambers.

Please reload

Contact Us

1629 K St. NW
Suite #300
Washington, DC 20006 
 
Phone:  (202) 270-7748
Email: contact@committeeforjustice.org

Support Our Mission

We are only able to accomplish our mission through your generous support.
Please consider making a donation today. 

Follow Us Online 

Copyright (c) 2019 by The Committee for Justice