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:

A Seat at the Sitting - April 2025 Apr 23, 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.
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (April 21) - Appointments Clause; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision.
Parrish v. United States (April 21) - Federal Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch (April 22) - Taxes; Issue(s): Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.
Mahmoud v. Taylor (April 22) - Religious Liberties, Education Law, Parental Rights; Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.
Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA (April 23) - Standing, Redressibility; Issue(s): (1) 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.
Soto v. United States (April 28) - Financial Procedure; Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim “involving … retired pay” under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?
A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 (April 28) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.
Martin v. U.S. (April 29) - Supremacy Clause, Torts; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Constitution’s supremacy clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law; and 2) whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (April 29) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.
Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond (April 30) Establishment Clause, Education Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires.
Featuring:
Thomas A. Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law School
Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending Education
Tim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan Institute
Prof. Gregory Sisk, Pio Cardinal Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law, Professor and Co-director of the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Francesca Ugolini, Former Chief, DOJ Tax Division, Appellate Section
(Moderator) Elle Rogers, General Counsel, United States Senator Jim Banks

Litigation Transparency Act of 2025: Patents, Policy, and Legal Ethics Apr 22, 2025

Show notes

Prompted by the reintroduction of federal Litigation Transparency Act legislation, this panel will address a variety of issues raised by litigation funding with a special focus on patent litigation. Panelists will provide an overview of the Act and consider likely reactions from various constituencies, giving possible policy arguments for and against litigation funding disclosure. The panel will also consider constitutional and practical dimensions of funding disclosure, and the possible ethical issues raised by litigation funding.
Featuring:
Dean Kristen Osenga, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law
Courtney Quish, Managing Director, Intellectual Property Finance Group at Fortress Investment Group
Jonathan Stroud, General Counsel, Unified Patents
Paul Taylor, Visiting Fellow, National Security Institute at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School
Moderator: Kacie Donovan, Associate, Greenberg Traurig
--
To register, click the link above.

Who is the Prosecutor Here?: Rule 48(a) and the Michael Flynn, January 6, and Eric Adams Cases Apr 22, 2025

Show notes

The Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) reads, “The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant's consent.” This rule has recently been used by the Justice Department in cases like the Mayor Eric Adams case and January 6th cases. In both instances, judges have questioned the reasons for the dismissal and revealed unsolved conflict between permissive and restrictive views of the judge's role, both to explore executive decisions of the prosecution and whether to dismiss indictments with or without prejudice to their later renewal. This panel will discuss the rule and its recent uses, along with questions regarding the government’s motivation to dismiss such cases and just how far judicial review can and ought to go when approving the dismissals.
Featuring:
Prof. Paul Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Utah College of Law
Andrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review
William Shipley, Attorney, Law Offices of William L. Shipley & Associates
Moderator: Hon. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding
--
To resgister, click the link above.

Courthouse Steps Decision: Bondi v. VanDerStok Apr 17, 2025

Show notes

Bondi v. VanDerStok concerned whether the ATF's 2022 update to its regulations under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which articulated that federal law requirements that apply to the manufacture and sale of standard firearms also apply to "ghost guns" --readily convertible weapons parts or receiver kits-- exceeds the mandate of the same. The ATF argued it simply clarified what had already been true in response to the notable rise in the use of ghost guns. The challengers, including two individual gun owners and a gun advocacy organization, alleged the updated regulations exceeded the statutory authority granted to the ATF and brought a facial challenge. The Court heard oral argument on October 8, 2024.
On March 26, 2025, a 7-2 Court ruled the ATF's rule is not facially inconsistent with the GCA.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we will break down and analyze this decision and what its potential effects might be.
Featuring:
Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation
--
Note: this program has been rescheduled from its original time on 04/10/25, and will now be hosted on 04/11/25 at 12pm ET.

Tracking and Ending Religious Discrimination Apr 17, 2025

Show notes

A new project sponsored by a coalition of organizations seeks to track the various ways that federal and state programs discriminate against religious participants in a range of funding programs despite a series of Supreme Court cases holding such discriminatory treatment unconstitutional. The Religious Discrimination Tracker is a project of the EPIC Coalition (a multi-faith coalition that focuses on education), the Teach Coalition, the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Clinic, and the Notre Dame Educational Law Project. The site seeks to identify ways to ensure equal access to funding by religious participants, particularly in education. In this webinar, Professor Nicole Stelle Garnett (Notre Dame Law) will discuss this new project and expand on her argument in a November 2024 Wall Street Journal op-ed that a range of federal programs "reflect[] an outdated understanding of the First Amendment that assumes the Constitution requires the exclusion of religious expression from public life and programs."
Featuring:
Prof. Nicole Stelle Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law and Associate Dean for External Engagement, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Michael A. Helfand, Brenden Mann Foundation Chair in Law and Religion and Co-Director of the Nootbaar Institute for Law, Pepperdine Caruso School of Law
(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

The Weaponization of DOJ? Apr 16, 2025

Show notes

High-profile politically adjacent actions (including prosecutions, pardons, & dismissals) from both the current and past administrations have inspired increasing concern over the potential weaponization of the U.S. Department of Justice. This concern has led to recent executive actions in this area --President Trump issued an Executive Order on the first day back in office on "Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government," and AG Bondi has created a task force aimed at "Restoring the Integrity and Credibility" of the DOJ.
These actions prompt the question: has the DOJ actually been weaponized, and if so, in what ways? What is the role of the DOJ in the criminal justice process, and what responsibility does it have as a part of the executive branch to represent the will of the president? Have the actions of both the past administrations in bringing cases against political opponents, seeking to dismiss charges from potential allies, and shielding friends and family from potential prosecution been a mis-use of the Department of Justice, or appropriate uses of executive discretion?
This panel will discuss these questions and more.
Featuring:
Brendan Ballou, Former Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
John F. Lauro, Principal, Lauro & Singer
(Moderator) Stephen J. Demanovich, Special Counsel, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
--
This event is the second of four webinars centering on the theme Theories of Presidential Power, previewing the Thirteenth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference, which will be held on May 7, 2025.
Please note: this event has been rescheduled from its original time on 04/16 and will now be hosted 04/21 at 11am ET.

Courthouse Steps Decision: FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, L.L.C. Apr 15, 2025

Show notes

Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the FDA must approve new tobacco products. Wages and White Lion Investments (dba Trion Distribution) and Vapetasia manufacture and sell flavored nicotine-containing liquids for use in refillable e-cigarette systems. They applied for FDA approval in 2020; about ten months later, the FDA announced new requirements for approval and, based on those requirements, denied the applications citing the deficiency. The manufacturers challenged the denial and the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, found the FDA's actions were arbitrary and capricious. SCOTUS heard oral argument on Monday, December 2, 2024.
On April 2, 2025, the Court issued a decision vacating the Fifth Circuit in a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Alito. Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision panel discussion, where a group of experts will discuss this important case and its potential effects not just for regulated parties but in the broader administrative law space.
Featuring:
Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Prof. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
(Moderator) Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP

Agency Independence and Accountability to the Executive Apr 10, 2025

Show notes

President Trump’s February 18 “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” Executive Order directs independent regulatory agencies to submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President. This joint webinar, sponsored by the Administrative Law and the Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Groups, will discuss the real-world implications of this order for independent agencies, including the Federal Communications Committee and the Federal Trade Commission.
Featuring:
J. Howard Beales, III, Professor Emeritus of Strategic Management and Public Policy, School of Business, The George Washington University
Hon. Susan E. Dudley, Founder, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, The George Washington University
Thomas M. Johnson, Jr. Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
Prof. Adam White, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State
Moderator: Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
--
To register, click the link above.

Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Oklahoma v. EPA and EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC Apr 10, 2025

Show notes

On March 25th, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument to resolve two circuit splits arising under the Clean Air Act (CAA) provision regarding judicial venue: EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. (23-1229), and Oklahoma v. EPA (23-1067). The outcome of these cases will hinge on the Court’s interpretation of the CAA’s unique venue provision, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1).
The CAA states that challenges to “nationally applicable” actions may be filed only in the D.C. Circuit. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). Conversely, challenges to CAA actions that are “locally or regionally applicable” may generally be filed only in the appropriate circuit court for the region. Id. But there is an exception: actions that are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” must be filed in the D.C. Circuit “if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.” Id.
What is the meaning and scope of this exception? How far may EPA go in picking where to litigate its final actions? And what does this mean for denials of State Implementation Plans (SIPs), small oil refineries seeking Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) exemptions, and other EPA actions affecting the regulated community? Tune in as Jimmy Conde and Garrett Kral offer their initial impressions following oral argument.
Featuring:
James Conde, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Moderator: Garrett Kral, Administrative and Environmental Law Attorney
To register, click the link above.

The California Wildfires and America’s Housing Challenges Apr 10, 2025

Show notes

How California’s state and local governments act in the wake of the devastating wildfires will be a harbinger of whether America can deal with its housing issues. California’s housing crisis was dire before the Southern California wildfires were sparked. As Jim Burling has recounted in his new book, Nowhere to Live, half of the nation’s homeless population lives in California. And between 2020 and 2023, California’s homeless population increased by 5.8 percent.
Some argue that this housing crisis has only been exacerbated by errant government policies like exclusionary zoning and restrictive permitting conditions because these stifle the production of affordable housing. Others contend, however, that these restrictions are necessary not only to promote the orderly development of California’s land, but also to help prevent and avoid destruction done by wildfires and other natural disasters.
Now, after so much property has been razed to the ground, how are California’s state and local governments addressing the needs of displaced landowners? What effect will Gov. Newsom’s emergency orders suspending the California Coastal Act’s requirements have on rebuilding? Will the California Coastal Commission comply with the Governor’s directives and how will it respond to rebuilding efforts? What implications will California’s response to the fires have on housing going forward?
Join a panel of expert scholars, Jennifer Hernandez, Ilya Somin, and Nolan Gray, who will address these questions and much more.
Speakers:
Nolan Gray, Senior Director of Legislation and Research, California YIMBY
Jennifer Hernandez, Partner, Holland & Knight
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Moderator: Stephen Davis, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation

Related Podcasts