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:

Proxy Plumbing - A Primer for the Coming Policy Debate Jun 18, 2025

Show notes

The SEC has periodically examined the ecosystem governing public company shareholder communications and voting—the “proxy plumbing ecosystem”—and it is expected that the SEC will again review this area under soon-to-be SEC Chairman Paul Atkins’ leadership. This panel will focus on how the proxy ecosystem works, the organizations that control and maintain the “plumbing” and the roles each participant plays in assuring that shareholders can get their votes executed.
Consider this a primer so that when the debate occurs you can follow it, and why some will vociferously seek to maintain the status quo while others will with equal force seek to disrupt it.
Featuring:
Lawrence Conover, Vice President, Special Advisor for Proxy & Corporate Actions, Broadridge
Hon. Troy Paredes, Founder, Paredes Strategies LLC
Matthew Thornton, Deputy General Counsel, Investment Company Institute
Moderator: Joanne Medero, Former Managing Director, BlackRock Inc.
--
To register, click the link above.

Antitrust in the College Sports Arena Jun 18, 2025

Show notes

In 2020, several collegiate athletes filed suit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) arguing that by both denying athletes compensation and preventing them from pursuing third-party deals using their names, images, or likenesses (NIL) for profit, the NCAA was violating antitrust laws. After several years of discussion, there has still not been an official settlement reached, though one including back pay, revenue sharing, and a change in NIL rights has been proposed. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its possible outcomes, and its implications for collegiate sports and the issue of sports antitrust writ large.
Featuring:
Prof. Jodi Balsam, Professor of Clinical Law, Brooklyn Law School
Erik Clark, Ohio Deputy Attorney General for Major Litigation, Ohio Attorney General's Office
Rakesh Kilaru, Partner, Wilkinson Stekloff LLP
Moderator: Kaitlyn Barry, Associate, Baker McKenzie
--
To register, click the link above.

Checks and Balances: Deregulation Based on Supreme Court Rulings Jun 12, 2025

Show notes

Among the points emphasized by the second Trump administration has been a major push for deregulation. President Trump has directed that there must be ten deregulatory actions for every one regulatory one, and put forward Presidential Memoranda and Executive Orders to that end. As some have noted, however, such deregulation can take significant time due to factors like the requirements for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Interestingly, an April Presidential Memorandum seems to contemplate that potential hurdle for executive actions directing repeal of regulations contrary to ten specific recent Supreme Court decisions, including without notice and comment “where appropriate.”
This panel will seek to discuss the potential impact of this presidential memorandum, when deregulation may happen, incurring a need for notice & comment, and what the Judicial Branch might ultimately determine about the Executive Branch’s efforts to enforce their precedents in this manner.
Featuring:
John Lewis, Deputy Legal Director, Governing for Impact
Jonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute
(Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director

Regulatory Reform for 5G Deployment: Infrastructure and Policy Perspectives Jun 11, 2025

Show notes

The ubiquitous deployment of both wireless and wireline technology is critical to 5G and other next generation services. However, lengthy permitting processes, as well as burdensome NEPA and NHPA requirements, continue to slow infrastructure builds. As the Trump Administration continues to prioritize streamlining rules and regulations, as well as promoting access to reliable, affordable broadband internet, all eyes are on the FCC, NTIA, and the Hill to see what may come next. This webinar features Paul Beaudry, Vice President of Regulatory and Government Affairs for Cogeco, Tony Clark, Executive Director of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and former Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Caroline Van Wie, Vice President of Federal Regulatory at AT&T. Danielle Thumann, Senior Counsel to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, will moderate and participate in the discussion.

Litigation Update: Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole Council v. Livia Tossici -Bolt Jun 11, 2025

Show notes

In April, Dr. Livia Tossici-Bolt was criminally convicted in a British court for offering consensual conversation in an abortion facility “buffer zone” in Bournemouth, England. The court found that she violated a Public Spaces Protection Order that prohibits “engaging in an act of approval or disapproval with regard to abortion services,” despite holding a sign that simply read: “Here to talk if you want." The U.S. State Department issued a statement of concern about her case and the decline of freedom of expression in the United Kingdom. Dr. Tossici-Bolt's conviction is the latest in a string of cases targeting thought and peaceful speech. In October 2024, the same court convicted Adam Smith-Connor for silent prayer in a "buffer zone.” U.S. Vice President JD Vance highlighted his case at the Munich Security Conference.
Featuring:
Paul Coleman, Executive Director, ADF International
Moderator: Prof. Maimon Schwarzschild, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law

Fireside Chat with Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison Jun 11, 2025

Show notes

Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison served as the U.S. Ambassador to NATO from 2017-2021. From 1993-2013, she represented Texas in the U.S. Senate. Join us for a conversation about her life and career.
Featuring:
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO; Former U.S. Senator, Texas
Moderator: Nitin Nainani, Judicial Law Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Digital Assets Market Structure Reform Jun 11, 2025

Show notes

Reforming the regulation of digital assets is a pressing issue across Congress, the Administration, the SEC, and the CFTC, profoundly impacting the expanding digital assets industry. Join the Federalist Society for a timely webinar delving into the complexities of digital assets market structure reform. Patrick Daugherty, who leads a prominent digital assets practice and teaches the subject at leading law schools, will moderate a distinguished panel of experts. The discussion will feature Miles Jennings, Head of Policy & General Counsel at a16z Crypto; Lee Schneider, General Counsel of Ava Labs; Justin Wales, Head of Legal for the Americas at Crypto.com; and Steve Lofchie, a Wall Street lawyer and author of the authoritative Lofchie’s Guide to Broker-Dealer Regulation.

Emerging Issues in the Use of Generative AI: Ethics, Sanctions, and Beyond Jun 11, 2025

Show notes

The idea of Artificial Intelligence has long presented potential challenges in the legal realm, and as AI tools become more broadly available and widely used, those potential hurdles are becoming ever more salient for lawyers in their day-to-day operations. Questions abound, from what potential risks of bias and error may exist in using an AI tool, to the challenges related to professional responsibility as traditionally understood, to the risks large language learning models pose to client confidentiality. Some contend that AI is a must-use, as it opens the door to faster, more efficient legal research that could equip lawyers to serve their clients more effectively. Others reject the use of AI, arguing that the risks of use and the work required to check the output it gives exceed its potential benefit.
Join us for a FedSoc Forum exploring the ethical and legal implications of artificial intelligence in the practice of law.
Featuring:
Laurin H. Mills, Member, Werther & Mills, LLC
Philip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA School of Law; Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Courthouse Steps Decision: Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission Jun 10, 2025

Show notes

Wisconsin’s unemployment insurance program provides financial assistance to those who have lost their job through no fault of their own. Under state law, certain nonprofit organizations can opt out of the program, including those operated primarily for religious purposes. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior—a religious ministry that serves people with disabilities, the elderly, and the impoverished—requested an exemption from the state’s program so that it could enroll in the Wisconsin Bishops’ Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP), which provides the same level of unemployment benefits.
Last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities could not receive an exemption because its charitable work was not “typical” religious activity. The court said that Catholic Charities could only qualify for an exemption if, for example, it limited its hiring to Catholics and tried to convert those it served.
On June 5th, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling, holding it was a violation of the First Amendment to withhold a tax exemption on the grounds that they were not “operated primarily for religious purposes” because the organization did not proselytize or limit services to only fellow Catholics.
Join us for an expert analysis of the decision and its implications.
Featuring:
Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberties
(Moderator) Prof. Michael P. Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion and Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

Courthouse Steps Decision: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services Jun 10, 2025

Show notes

Marlean Ames, a straight woman, was denied promotion and later demoted in her role at the Ohio Department of Youth Services by her lesbian supervisor. The position she sought and her former position were then given to a lesbian woman and a gay man, respectively. This prompted Ames to file suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that she was unlawfully discriminated against based on her sexual orientation because she is heterosexual. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court in holding that, because Ames was part of the majority group, she had the additional requirement of demonstrating the "background circumstances" that the employer discriminates against majority group members.
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously vacated and remanded, holding that “the Sixth Circuit’s ‘background circumstances’ rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.”
Join us for an expert analysis of this decision and its implications.
Featuring:
Nicholas Barry, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation
(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

Related Podcasts