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:

Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic Apr 10, 2025

Show notes

In July of 2018, Governor Henry McMaster of South Carolina issued an executive order to terminate the inclusion of Planned Parenthood in the Medicaid program. The Department of Health and Human Services then informed Planned Parenthood that they were no longer qualified to provide services to Medicaid beneficiaries, which prompted lawsuits both from Planned Parenthood and beneficiaries seeking to enforce their right to “free-choice-of-provider,” included in a 1967 Medicaid provision. This case, argued on April 2, asks whether this provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. Join this Courthouse Steps webinar as we discuss this case and the oral arguments presented in court.
Featuring:
Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General
Moderator: Ryan Bangert, Senior Vice President, Strategic Initiatives & Special Counsel to the President, Alliance Defending Freedom
--
To register, click the link above.

Litigation Update: Henderson and Parents Defending Education Apr 08, 2025

Show notes

How much control can public schools exercise over the speech of their students and staff on divisive issues such as anti-racism and using preferred pronouns? Two en banc cases out of the Sixth Circuit and Eighth Circuit are poised to answer that question soon.
In Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, the Eighth Circuit will decide whether a school district’s “equity training” violated the First Amendment by requiring employees to give the school’s preferred answer to questions about ideologically charged issues such as anti-racism and white privilege. The panel held that the plaintiffs lack standing because the district never punished or threatened to punish anyone for remaining silent or expressing dissenting views. The Eighth Circuit granted rehearing en banc and heard argument on January 15, 2025.
In Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, the Sixth Circuit will decide whether a school district’s anti-harassment policies violate the First Amendment when it prohibits students from using biological pronouns to refer to someone who prefers otherwise. Answering that question requires the court to tackle thorny issues about the evidence required to justify a speech regulation under Tinker and whether Tinker allows schools to engage in viewpoint discrimination. The panel rejected the plaintiffs’ claims on the merits, and the Sixth Circuit reheard the case en banc on March 19, 2025.
Featuring:
Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech
(Moderator) Edward D. Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett Greim LLC

Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission Apr 08, 2025

Show notes

On March 31, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission.
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. Catholic Charities appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in December 2024.
Does a state violate the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior?
Featuring:
Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberties
(Moderator) Hon. Ryan D. Nelson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Louisiana v. Callais Apr 01, 2025

Show notes

Louisiana's congressional districts, which it redrew following the 2020 census, currently sit in a state of legal uncertainty.The map initially only had one majority-black district. However, following a 2022 case called Robinson v. Ardoin (later Laundry), which held that it violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Louisiana re-drew the map to include two majority-black congressional districts.In January 2024, a different set of plaintiffs sued alleging the new map violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. A 2-1 panel agreed the new map violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and enjoined the new map. Given the timing, the case briefly went up to the Supreme Court which granted an emergency application for stay, citing Purcell v. Gonzalez. That allowed the 2022 map to be used for the 2024 elections.Now the case is before the Supreme Court again, this time with a range of issues for the court to address including: (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.
Featuring:
Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

Courthouse Steps Decision: Delligatti v. United States Apr 01, 2025

Show notes

Delligatti v. United States concerned whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.
Known by some as the "non-violent murder case" Delligatti ties into a larger conversation on the way "violent"/"use-of-force" crimes are defined categorically rather than on a solely case-by-case basis.
Oral argument was heard by the Supreme Court in early November 2024, and on March 21, 2025, a 7-2 Court affirmed the ruling of the Second Circuit below against Delligatti.
Join us for a discussion of this decision and its possible ramifications.
Featuring:
Matthew P. Cavedon, Robert Pool Fellow in Law and Religion, Emory University School of Law

The Roots, Applications, and Trajectory of the Church Autonomy Doctrine Apr 01, 2025

Show notes

The First Amendment’s Religion Clauses guarantee religious entities the freedom to make certain internal governance decisions without State interference. Supreme Court cases like Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral (1952), Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich (1976), Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC (2012), and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020) have affirmed that this constitutional protection bars civil courts from intruding into some religious matters involving faith, doctrine, and church governance. However, lower courts differ in some respects on how to understand and apply the “church autonomy doctrine.” The panel will explore the roots of the church autonomy doctrine, its recent applications, and its implications and trajectory.
Featuring:
Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Prof. Leslie C. Griffin, William S. Boyd Professor of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law
Alex J. Luchenitser, Associate Vice President & Associate Legal Director, Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Branton J. Nestor, Associate, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
(Moderator) Amanda Salz, Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research Mar 27, 2025

Show notes

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is authorized by Congress to regulate interstate and international communications and, as part of that, to maintain a universal service fund that requires telecommunications carriers to contribute quarterly based on their revenues. In order to calculate these contribution amounts, the FCC contracts the help of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC).
The constitutionality of these delegations of power—to the FCC by Congress and to USAC by the FCC—are now being challenged in court by Consumers’ Research. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case’s oral argument, delivered on March 26, 2025.
Featuring:
Prof. Chad Squitieri, Assistant Professor of Law, Catholic University of America
Moderator: Adam Griffin, Separation of Powers Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
--
To register, click the link above.

Unleashing American Energy at CEQ Mar 25, 2025

Show notes

On his first day back in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14154 (Unleashing American Energy). Among numerous other objectives, this broad Executive Order directs the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to “expedite and simplify the permitting process” by providing guidance on the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and rescinding CEQ’s NEPA regulations.
Less than four weeks later, CEQ issued a Memorandum for Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies on how to conform their NEPA practices to the President’s Executive Order and other factors. Less than a week after that, CEQ published an interim final rule removing its NEPA regulations. Among the potential intended impacts of these actions is more expeditious federal government reviews of environmental permits.
Even before these Executive Actions, courts had expressed concern over CEQ’s NEPA regulations. In November 2024, the D.C. Circuit held the CEQ regulations to be ultra vires. Marin Audubon v. FAA, 121 F.4th 902 (D.C. Cir. 2024)). In February 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota followed suit. Iowa v CEQ, No. 1:24-cv-00089-DMT-CRH, 2025 WL 598928 (D.N.D. Feb. 3, 2025).
Join attorneys Mario Loyola and Ted Boling as they discuss these important developments in environmental law.
Featuring:
Ted Boling, Partner, Perkins Coie LLP
Mario Loyola, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Policy and Regulation, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment, The Heritage Foundation
(Moderator) Garrett Kral, Administrative and Environmental Law Attorney

Disinformation in Broadcasting and the Public Interest Standard Mar 25, 2025

Show notes

The Communications Act of 1934 requires that licensees operate consistent with the “public interest convenience and necessity.” Broadcast licenses, held by broadcast TV and radio stations as trustees of the public’s airwaves, must use the broadcast medium to serve the public interest and their local communities. In recent years, concerns have been raised about how broadcasters are fulfilling these obligations, particularly regarding the nature of their news programming. Complaints have been filed at the FCC against all of the major broadcast networks raising concerns about the quality and reliability of their coverage. Our panel will examine these issues, the role of government in policing broadcasters and the First Amendment protections afforded to broadcasters’ speech.
Featuring:
Bob Corn-Revere, Chief Counsel, FIRE
David Gibber, Executive Vice President/Chief Legal Officer, Sinclair Broadcast Group
Daniel Suhr, President, Center for American Rights
Moderator: Patricia J. Paoletta, Partner, HWG LLP

Can the Federal Government Ban At-Home Distilling? Mar 24, 2025

Show notes

After the U.S. Supreme Court in Morrison v. Olson (1988) and U.S. v. Lopez (1995) held two federal statutes were unconstitutional as those statutes were beyond the power of Congress to enact, some claimed it was the dawn of a new federalism revolution. However, such challenges to federal power did not seem to continue.
Now, a new case McNutt v. DOJ, once again directly challenges whether a federal statute is beyond Congress’s power to enact. This time, the challenge is to the federal ban on at-home distilling. This case raises substantial issues concerning the scope of Congress’s power and how much decision-making authority the Constitution left for states to decide.
This FedSoc Forum will provide an update on what has occurred so far and discuss the important issues raised by this case.
Featuring:
Thomas Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
Michael Pepson, Regulatory Counsel, Americans for Prosperity Foundation
Eric J. Segall, Ashe Family Chair Professor of Law, Georgia State University College of Law
Moderator: Theodore Cooperstein, Appellate Counsel, Theodore Cooperstein PLLC
--
To register, click the link above.

Related Podcasts