FedSoc Forums - TopPodcast.com

View Top 200 Chart

Back to Rankings Page

FedSoc Forums — Business
FedSoc Forums

*This series was formerly known as Teleforums.

FedSoc Forums is a virtual discussion series dedicated to providing expert analysis and intellectual commentary on today’s most pressing legal and policy issues. Produced by The Federalist Society’s Practice Groups, FedSoc Forum strives to create balanced conversations in various formats, such as monologues, debates, or panel discussions. In addition to regular episodes, FedSoc Forum features special content covering specific topics in the legal world, such as:

Courthouse Steps: A series of rapid response discussions breaking down all the latest SCOTUS cases after oral argument or final decision

A Seat at the Sitting: A monthly series that runs during the Court’s term featuring a panel of constitutional experts discussing the Supreme Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting

Litigation Update: A series that provides the latest updates in important ongoing cases from all levels of government

The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Latest Episodes:

FTC v. Meta: Requiem for the “War on Tech”? Dec 11, 2025

Show notes

What does the district court’s recent decision in FTC v. Meta portend for the future of the technology sector, free expression, and modern antitrust enforcement? After years of litigation, Judge James Boasberg concluded that the FTC had not established that Meta possesses monopoly power in the relevant social-media market, foreclosing the agency’s bid to unwind Meta’s long-standing acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.
The ruling has prompted vigorous commentary, including renewed debate over the proper role of courts in reviewing ambitious agency theories of market power and competitive harm.
Join our panel, featuring former FTC officials and veterans of the Trump Administration, for a timely discussion of the opinion, the critiques, and what this moment may signal for the trajectory of federal competition policy.
Featuring:
Jennifer Huddleston, Senior Fellow, Technology Policy, Cato Institute
Bilal Sayyed, Counsel, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
Daniel Suhr, President, Center for American Rights
(Moderator) Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment Dec 11, 2025

Show notes

In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the Supreme Court is set to determine whether an internet service provider can be held liable—and deemed to have acted willfully—for copyright infringement based solely on its knowledge of user misconduct and its failure to terminate those users’ access. Sony Music and a group of music publishers sued Cox, alleging that its subscribers illegally downloaded copyrighted works through Cox’s network.
The Supreme Court will review a 4th Circuit ruling holding that an internet service provider could be liable for vast copyright damages because it took insufficient steps to disconnect IP addresses accused of downloading copyrighted material. Oral argument is set for December 1.
Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how this oral argument went before the Court.
Featuring:
Devlin Hartline, Senior Fellow, Forum for Intellectual Property, Hudson Institute
(Moderator) Prof. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law

Which Path for Patent Challenges? The USPTO's "One-Challenge" NPRM for Inter Partes Review Dec 03, 2025

Show notes

Join us for a timely webinar examining the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Revision to Rules of Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,” which proposes significant changes to how inter partes review (IPR) petitions are instituted. This session will present arguments from both sides while covering how the proposed rules aim to curb serial and duplicative challenges, shift institution discretion, and bolster patentholder certainty, while also covering concerns about limiting access to review and adverse impacts on operating companies. With the official public comment deadline extended to December 2, 2025, this webinar aims to provide informative insight before the comment window closes. Don’t miss this chance to hear competing views on one of the most consequential patent-policy debates of the year.
Featuring:
Hon. Andrei Iancu, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
David Jones, Executive Director, High Tech Inventors Alliance
Joseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP, LLC
Brian O'Shaughnessy, Partner, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
(Moderator) Robert Rando, Partner, Patrick Doerr

A Seat at the Sitting - December 2025 Nov 26, 2025

Show notes

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi (December 1) - Immigration; Issue(s): Whether a federal court of appeals must defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals' judgment that a given set of undisputed facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe enough to constitute "persecution" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entm't (December 1) - Copyright Infringement; Issue(s): (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in holding that a service provider can be held liable for "materially contributing" to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it; and (2) whether the 4th Circuit erred in holding that mere knowledge of another"s direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin (December 2) - First Amendment; Issue(s): Whether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court.
Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi (December 3) - Civil Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether this court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking purely prospective relief where the plaintiff has been punished before under the law challenged as unconstitutional; and (2) whether Heck v. Humphrey bars Section 1983 claims by plaintiffs even where they never had access to federal habeas relief.
Trump v. Slaughter (Independent Agencies) (December 8) - Presidential Removal Powers; Administrative Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States should be overruled. (2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (December 9) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. " 109.37.
Hamm v. Smith (December 10) - Capital Punishment; Issue(s): Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim.
FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. (December 10) - Financial Services; Securities; Issue(s): Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act creates an implied private right of action.
Featuring:
David W. Casazza, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher LLP
Boyd Garriott, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Director, Center for Individual Rights
Prof. Michael T. Morley, Sheila M. McDevitt Professor of Law & Faculty Director of the Election Law Center, Florida State University College of Law
Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
Prof. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law
(Moderator) Jill Jacobson, Litigation Associate, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

Discussing Attempts to Address Federal Overcriminalization Nov 25, 2025

Show notes

A recent executive order entitled “Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations” and two congressional proposals: the Count the Crimes to Cut Act and the Mens Rea Reform Act (also known as the default-mens-rea proposal), all have highlighted long-standing discussions on federal overcriminalization. These initiatives were spotlighted during the May 7, 2025 hearing of the House Judiciary Committee. Join us for a panel discussion that will consider whether these reforms can meaningfully address the problem of a sprawling federal criminal code—one that may, in some areas, lack clarity and undermine individual liberty by exposing the public to ill-defined or overly broad criminal liability.
Featuring:
John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Shana O’Toole, Founder & President, Due Process Institute
Prof. Kenneth W. Simons, Chancellor’s Professor of Law, UC Irvine School of Law
(Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime

Litigation Update: Lange v. Houston County Nov 24, 2025

Show notes

Anna Lange, an employee with the Houston County Sheriff’s Office, sought “male-to-female sex change surgery.” The county’s employer-provided health insurance policy covered some treatments for gender dysphoria, but it excluded drugs, services, and supplies for a “sex-change” (among other categories). Lange sued, claiming the policy discriminated based on sex and transgender status in violation of Title VII. The district court, affirmed by an Eleventh Circuit panel, held that the policy facially violated Title VII under Bostock v. Clayton County. On rehearing en banc, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that the county’s policy, which drew a line between which treatments it covers, “is not facial discrimination based on protected status.”
Lange v. Houston County, decided on September 9, 2025, is one of the first circuit court decisions to apply the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which held that Tennessee’s law prohibiting healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to transition a minor's gender did not discriminate based on sex or transgender status in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Join Christopher Mills and Rachel Morrison for a discussion of Lange, its application of Skrmetti and Bostock, and its implications for Title VII and insurance coverage.
Featuring:
Christopher E. Mills, Principal, Spero Law LLC
(Moderator) Rachel N. Morrison, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Talks with Authors: Born Equal: Remaking America's Constitution, 1840–1920 Nov 20, 2025

Show notes

In Born Equal: Remaking America’s Constitution, 1840–1920, Prof. Akhil Reed Amar traces the arc of American constitutional debate from the post-Founding era to the Progressive Era, focusing especially on America’s fundamental question raised originally by our Declaration of Independence: what does it mean to say that all men and women are “created equal”? To explore this question and the broader themes of his book, he will be interviewed by AEI senior fellow Adam White.
Featuring:
Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale Law School
(Moderator) Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Director, Scalia Law’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State

SAP, Motorola, and the Future of PTAB Reform Oct 31, 2025

Show notes

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), created under the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011, has long been a source of debate. The Supreme Court has reviewed several of its procedures, and Congress has introduced PTAB reform bills in every session since 2017.
A core PTAB function is deciding Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions that challenge patent validity. Under new PTO leadership, IPR institution rates have sharply declined, prompting complaints from companies like SAP America and Motorola, which claim they were unfairly harmed by the shift and that the PTO has not provided adequate legal justification. PTO Director John Squires has defended the new direction, announcing he will personally decide all preliminary IPR institutions—a task previously handled by three-judge panels. The PTO has also proposed rules requiring petitioners to waive future prior art challenges to qualify for IPR institution.
This webinar will examine the SAP and Motorola petitions, Director Squires’s policy memo, and their implications for PTAB reform, the AIA framework, and the constitutional foundations of U.S. patent law.
Featuring:
Arthur Gollwitzer, Partner, Jackson Walker LLP
Jamie Simpson, Chief Policy Officer and Counsel, The Council for Innovation Promotion
Robert Taylor, Founder and Owner, RPT Legal Strategies PC
[Moderator] Philip Nelson, Partner, Knobbe Martens

Law Firm Discrimination Investigations Oct 31, 2025

Show notes

While President Trump’s Executive Orders directed at individual law firms drew immediate attention, the administration’s broader enforcement of nondiscrimination employment law in the legal industry has gone comparatively unanalyzed. In March, Acting EEOC Chairman Andrea Lucas wrote letters to 20 large law firms requesting information on their employment practices (at least four of those firms subsequently settled with the Commission). In May, Americans for Equal Opportunity filed an EEOC charge challenging the legality of allegedly discriminatory programs administered by Sponsors for Educational Opportunity and its 44 law-firm partners. These processes are necessarily opaque, leaving the status of EEOC investigations (other than those publicly settled) unclear. As the EEOC appears to continue investigating these varying sets of programs and allegations, we pause to consider the merits of these matters.
Featuring:
Jonathan A. Segal, Partner, Duane Morris LLP; Managing Principal, Duane Morris Institute
Alison Somin, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Dan Morenoff, Executive Director & Secretary, American Civil Rights Project; Adjunct Fellow, Manhattan Institute

A Seat at the Sitting - November 2025 Oct 30, 2025

Show notes

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.
Rico v. U.S. (November 3) - Fugitive-Tolling; Issue(s): Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.
Hencely v. Fluor Corporation (November 4) - Federal Tort Claims Act;Issue(s): Whether Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. should be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders.
The Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist (November 4) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal.
Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited v. Burton (November 5) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (November 5) - Tariffs, IEEPA; Issue (s): Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs.
The GEO Group v. Menocal (November 10) - Sovereign Immunity; Issue(s): Whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety (November 10) - Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
Rutherford v. U.S. (November 12) - First Step Act; Issue(s): Whether a district court may consider disparities created by the First Step Act’s prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Fernandez v. U.S. (November 12) - Compassionate Release; Issue(s): Whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) can include reasons that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Featuring:
Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Zac Morgan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation
Prof. Jacob Schuman, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law
Prof. Erica Zunkel, Director of Clinical and Experiential Learning, Clinical Professor of Law, & Director of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Clinic, University of Chicago Law School
(Moderator) Logan Spena, Legal Counsel, Center for Free Speech, Alliance Defending Freedom

Related Podcasts