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:

The Case for RESTORE? Injunctions, Patents, and the Future of Innovation Jul 24, 2025

Show notes

Join the Federalist Society for a timely and compelling discussion on the RESTORE Act, legislation aimed at overturning the Supreme Court’s eBay v. MercExchange decision and reinstating the presumptive right to injunctions for patent holders. This panel brings together some of the top voices in intellectual property: former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu, Professors Adam Mossoff and Kristen Osenga, and Chris Storm, IP Legal Director at Uber (speaking in his personal capacity). The conversation will be moderated by Judge Ryan Holte of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
The webinar will explore how the RESTORE Act seeks to rebalance the patent system in favor of property rights. Whether you're a policymaker, practitioner, or academic, don’t miss this opportunity to hear from leading experts on one of the most consequential patent reform efforts in recent history.
Featuring:
Hon. Andrei Iancu, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Dean Kristen Osenga, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law
Chris Storm, IP Legal Director, Uber
Moderator: Judge Ryan T. Holte, U.S. Court of Federal Claims and Jurist-In-Residence Professor of Law, The University of Akron School of Law
--
To register, click the link above.

Litigation Update: Medicare Drug Pricing Negotiations Jul 17, 2025

Show notes

Join the Federalist Society for a webinar on the ongoing legal challenges to the Biden-era Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, a component of the Inflation Reduction Act. Ashley Parrish, Partner at King & Spalding, will provide an analysis of the multi-faceted litigation. He will explore how pharmaceutical companies are arguing that the program prevents accountability by granting the government "unlimited, unreviewable, unchecked rulemaking authority" over drug prices, and that it compels speech by forcing participation in agreements that imply voluntary negotiation. Mr. Parrish will also examine recent appellate court rulings and forecast the program's future, including its implications for the broader healthcare landscape.
Featuring:
Ashley C. Parrish, Partner, King & Spalding, LLP

Courthouse Steps Decision: Trump v. CASA, Inc. Jul 17, 2025

Show notes

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order effectively ending birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporary lawful residents in the United States and whose fathers are not lawful permanent residents at the time of the child’s birth. One day later, four states and three individuals challenged this order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, which three days later granted a universal temporary restraining order enjoining the government from implementing this order. Two weeks later, this became a nationwide injunction. Other similar nationwide injunctions have since been issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The government appealed all of these, and the Supreme Court took the case in order to decide the issue of whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions.
On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled in favor of the government, holding that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.” The Court granted the government’s applications for a partial stay of these injunctions, “but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.”
Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its decision, and future implications.
Featuring:
Ed Wenger, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC
Moderator: Elbert Lin, Chair, Issues & Appeals, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
--
To register, click the link above.

FCC Council on National Security Jul 15, 2025

Show notes

Early in his Chairmanship, Federal Communications Chair Chairman Brendan Carr established a new Council for National Security within the agency. The council aims to "leverage the full range of the Commission’s regulatory, investigatory, and enforcement authorities to protect American and counter foreign adversaries, particularly the threats posed by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Chinese Communist Party (CCP)." Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss the council and its implications for the telecommunications and national security spaces.
Featuring:
Adam Chan, Director, FCC Council on National Security
Moderator: Megan L. Brown, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

A Conversation on the Right: A Potential Solution to Title IX Regulatory Whiplash? Jul 15, 2025

Show notes

Title IX's guarantee against discrimination on the basis of sex in education has been the subject of intensely differing Executive Branch interpretations over the years. These disputes include fundamental disagreements over the meaning of the word "sex" as used in the law, the manner in which the law applies to sex-separated sports and private facilities, the role of Title IX coordinators in responding to sexual harassment, and the due process to which individuals are entitled in campus disciplinary proceedings.Join us for a discussion on the right about how the ever-changing enforcement of Title IX has affected students, families, educators, and institutions and a potential legislative solution to ever-changing interpretations of Title IX.Featuring:
Tyler W. Coward, Lead Counsel, Government Affairs, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education
Paul F. Zimmerman, Senior Counsel, Policy & Regulatory, Defense of Freedom Institute
(Moderator) Robert S. Eitel, Co-Founder and President, Defense of Freedom Institute

Should the Federal Government Rely on Competitive Markets to Price Electricity? Jul 15, 2025

Show notes

Over the past decade, electricity prices for consumers have risen by more than 22% on average. At the same time, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)—the international body responsible for setting reliability and security standards for the North American power grid—has issued increasingly urgent warnings about the growing risks to the U.S. electric power system's reliability.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), an independent agency established by Congress, plays a central role in this space. Under the Federal Power Act, FERC oversees the interstate transmission and wholesale sale of electricity and is responsible for reviewing, approving, and enforcing NERC’s reliability standards.
Nearly 30 years ago, FERC fundamentally changed how it regulates the electric power industry. Did those changes contribute to the growing risks to the future reliability of the U.S. electric power system we now face? Or have they helped prevent even greater problems? Most importantly, what should federal electric regulation look like going forward?
Join us for a dynamic and in-depth conversation with two seasoned experts as they explore these critical questions about the future of electricity regulation in the United States.
Featuring:
John Kennerly Davis, Jr., Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General of Virginia
Ari Peskoe, Director, Electricity Law Initiative, Harvard Law School
(Moderator) Robert T. Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale; Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law

AI Training vs. Copyright Law: Updates from the Copyright Office and the Courts Jul 09, 2025

Show notes

Whether AI training and generation is a fair use under copyright law puts two important American business sectors in opposition, and each looks to the various branches of the federal government for answers. Fundamentally, essentially all training of AI models involves copying of copyrighted materials, and many outputs from AI systems also may be substantially similar to copyrighted material and thus infringing if they are not fair uses.
On May 9, 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office released a pre-publication version of the third and final part of its report on Copyright and AI, focused on Generative AI Training. The report concludes that some is fair use but some is not, and urges that existing efforts to engage in licensing of copyrighted content continue. Meanwhile, over forty cases on the issue are ongoing in the United States alone, with cases ongoing in another eight nations as well. The District Court in Delaware has ruled that at least one such case was not a fair use, and further rulings are expected soon from around the country. Meanwhile the White House has indicated an interest in AI policy and may have its own prerogatives.
Leading experts will discuss the issue and answer questions on this fast-moving and important issue.
Featuring:
Meredith Rose, Senior Policy Counsel, Public Knowledge
Regan Smith, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, News/Media Alliance
Moderator: Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law

Courthouse Steps Decision: Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton Jul 09, 2025

Show notes

Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton concerned Texas Law H.B. 1181, and what precedent should apply in considering its impact on free speech. Passed in 2023, the law requires commercial entities, including social media platforms, "that knowingly and intentionally publish or distribute material on an Internet website... more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors" to age-gate their content, and to verify the age of their users, ensuring they are 18 years of age or older.
Soon after the law passed, plaintiffs sued, claiming the law violated their right to free speech. Drawing on a line of cases including Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004), they argued that since the law impacted constitutionally protected speech, strict scrutiny should be applied and the TX law failed that test. The Fifth Circuit denied that argument, instead applying a rational basis test, drawing from the precedent of Ginsburg v. New York (1968).
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to answer the question of whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech, and heard oral argument on January 15, 2025.
On June 27, 2025, a 6-3 Court issued its decision, holding that the correct answer was to apply intermediate scrutiny, and that the Texas law survived intermediate scrutiny because it only incidentally burdened adults' protected speech.
Join us for a Courthouse steps decision program where we will break down and analyze the decision, opinions, and what the potential impacts may be.
Featuring:
Darpana Sheth Nunziata, General Counsel, Center for Individual Rights

20 Years Later: Kelo v. City of New London Jul 08, 2025

Show notes

In June of 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London that the local government did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Public Use Clause when it condemned private residential lots and transferred them to commercial developers to promote local economic development as part of a comprehensive municipal development plan. Kelo was certainly a landmark decision and, twenty years later, its impact is still felt and merits further consideration. Join our panel as it discusses Kelo’s legacy, the nature of “public use,” and the judiciary’s current and future relationship with eminent domain.
Featuring:
Prof. Peter Byrne, John Hampton Baumgartner, Jr. Professor of Real Property Law; Faculty Director, Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Program; Faculty Director, Georgetown Climate Resource Center, Georgetown Law Center
Wesley W. Horton, Of Counsel, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP
Tim Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater Institute
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Prof. Eric Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
--
To register, click the link above.

Courthouse Steps Decision: Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency Jul 08, 2025

Show notes

In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew California’s previously-granted waiver to implement its Advanced Clean Car Program. This program had been in effect since 2013 and required that car companies reduce carbon dioxide emissions and produce fleets that are at least 15% electric vehicles. The waiver was withdrawn due to a lack of “compelling and extraordinary conditions” and because California could not show a direct connection between greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.
In 2022, however, the EPA reinstated the waiver. This prompted legal challenges from fuel producers (among others) who argued that California did not meet the requirements to justify these state-specific standards. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the fuel producers' statutory claim based on a determination that they did not prove that their injuries would be redressed by a decision in their favor.
This Supreme Court case presented the question whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties. On June 20, the Court ruled 7-2 in favor of standing. Join this FedSoc Forum to hear more about the case and this decision, authored by Justice Kavanaugh.
Featuring:
Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP
Moderator: Jeff Beelaert, Partner, Givens Pursley LLP
--
To register, click the link above.

Related Podcasts