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 - March 2025 Mar 20, 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.
Louisiana v. Callais (March 24) - Election law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): (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.
Riley v. Bondi (March 24) - Immigration; Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.
Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or, alternatively, are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”
Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.
Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research (March 26) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.
Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (March 31) - First Amendment, Religion; Issue(s): Whether a state violates 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.
Rivers v. Guerrero (March 31) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) applies only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or to some second-in-time filings — depending on a prisoner’s success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization (April 1) - Due Process, Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (April 2) - Medicare; Issue(s): Whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider.
Featuring:
Allison Daniel, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Erielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman Vogel
Jennifer B. Dickey, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Elizabeth A. Kiernan, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
Morgan Ratner, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
(Moderator) Sarah Welch, Issues & Appeals Associate, Jones Day

Litigation Update: United States v. Peterson Mar 19, 2025

Show notes

In February 2025, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in United States v. Peterson, ruling that suppressors were not "firearms" and thus not subject to Second Amendment protection.
George Peterson was the proprietor of PDW Solutions, LLC, a firearm business that he operated in part out of his home. In summer of 2022, as part of an ongoing Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) investigation, a search warrant was executed at his home. Among the items discovered was an unregistered suppressor. Peterson was indicted for possession of the unregistered suppressor under the National Firearms Act (NFA). He filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the NFA's registration framework violated the Second Amendment and that the search by the ATF violated the Fourth Amendment so the evidence obtained thereby should be suppressed.
The district court in the Eastern District of Louisiana denied both motions. Peterson appealed and the Fifth Circuit heard argument on December 4, 2024. On February 6, 2025, it issued a decision affirming the lower courts denial.
Join us as we discuss this interesting case and its potential impact in the realm of firearms regulation.
Featuring:
Michael Williams, General Counsel, American Suppressor Association
(Moderator) Robert K. McBride, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister

Do Foreign States Deserve Due Process? “Minimum Contacts” and the Future of International Arbitration Mar 19, 2025

Show notes

Devas v. Antrix considers whether foreign governments are protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause in the context of international arbitrations. The Ninth Circuit held that Antrix, an Indian government-owned corporation, lacked sufficient “minimum contacts” to meet the Due Process Clause and therefore dismissed attempts by petitioner Devas to enforce an arbitration award from India. Devas, supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and leading scholars of international arbitration, is asking the Court to reverse arguing that U.S. courts need not consider due process protections for foreign states, and are authorized under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to enforce such awards even without a nexus to the United States.
While there are strong originalist and textualist arguments in favor of granting foreign states constitutional due process protections, the Court’s decision to grant such protections could undercut U.S. treaty obligations to enforce foreign arbitral awards and the broader international system for commercial arbitration. It could also affect other litigation against foreign states in U.S. courts, including lawsuits seeking to recover for state-sponsored terrorist attacks.
This panel will debate these questions and offer explanations of the ruling’s possible impacts.

Environmental Justice - Dead or Just Napping? Mar 18, 2025

Show notes

Environmental Justice - an effort to affirmatively address disproportionate pollution and environmental burdens borne by low-income and minority communities - grew from an Executive Order by President Clinton in 1994 through expanded efforts across the entire federal government with special emphasis at DOJ and the EPA in the Biden Administration. President Trump issued an Executive Order on his second day in office prohibiting "... all discriminatory and illegal preferences...," followed by a Memorandum by Attorney General Pam Bondi rescinding the Environmental Justice policies of prior administrations. What are the implications of this Administration’s cancelling of environmental justice writ large? What does this mean for environmental enforcement and infrastructure development in low-income and minority communities? Do its concepts still live on in the federal government and at state and local levels? Join us for a balanced discussion of these questions and more.
Featuring:
Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
Horace Cooper, Chairman, Project 21 National Advisory Board, National Center for Public Policy Research
John C. Cruden, Principal, Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.
Matt Tejada, Senior Vice President, Environmental Health, NRDC
Moderator: John S. Irving, Partner, Earth & Water Law
--
To register, click the link above.

Courthouse Steps Decision: City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency Mar 12, 2025

Show notes

City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency concerned whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.
On March 4, 2025, the Court held that the Clean Water Act does not authorize the EPA to include “end-result” provisions in wastewater discharge permits. Justice Samuel Alito authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court.
Featuring:
Jim Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation
--
To register, click the link above.

Litigation Update: Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition Mar 11, 2025

Show notes

Over the past couple of weeks, there have been several developments in the litigation surrounding the Trump Adminsitration’s directives pausing disbursements of foreign development assistance funds.
On February 25, 2025, a D.C. District judge ordered the Administration to issue a portion of the payments that it had previously sought to pause by the next day (that is, by 11:59 p.m. on February 26). The Trump Administration appealed to the Supreme Court requesting an administrative stay, which the Chief Justice granted on a temporary basis as the application was referred to the full Court. On March 5, 2025, a 5-4 Court vacated the stay granted by the Chief Justice, leaving in place the February 25 order (though it noted the deadline stated therein had passed and the lower court needed to give clarity as to the requirements that still remained for the Government) and the initial February 13 temporary restraining order which initially enjoined the Administration from enforcing its earlier directives to pause all aid payments.
Join us for a litigation update on this case as we discuss the various orders, the move by the Court to vacate the stay, and what may happen next.
Featuring:
Erin M. Hawley, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Center for Life & Regulatory Practice, Alliance Defending Freedom
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Distinguished Visiting Scholar, School of Civic Leadership, University of Texas at Austin; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

Litigation Update: Wilcox v. Trump Mar 06, 2025

Show notes

In late January, President Donald Trump fired Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board. The termination was controversial because Member Wilcox, like all Board members, was arguably protected from removal by the National Labor Relations Act. The Act says that a Board member may be removed only for “malfeasance” or “neglect of duty.” It also requires the member to be given “notice and a hearing.” In firing Member Wilcox, the President cited no malfeasance or neglect; nor did he give her a hearing. Instead, he argued that regardless of the Act’s language, he could remove her under his inherent authority as head of the executive branch.
Member Wilcox responded by suing for reinstatement. A federal district court will hear arguments in the case on March 5. Join us that afternoon as Alex MacDonald, co-chair of Littler Mendelson’s Workplace Policy Institute, breaks down the case.
Featuring:
Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.

Litigation Update: Figliola v. The School Board of the City of Harrisonburg Mar 06, 2025

Show notes

The Harrisonburg City school board enacted a policy that required school staff to affirm the board’s view on gender identity including when it conflicted with the staff’s own religious beliefs. Upon any child’s request, the school district policy required staff to immediately begin using opposite-sex pronouns and forbid staff from sharing the information with parents. Middle-school teacher, Deb Figliola challenged the board’s policy as violations of the Virginia Constitution’s Free Speech Clause and the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act. After arguments before the Rockingham County Circuit Court, the school district agreed to provide a religious accommodation to Figliola and other teachers. Join ADF Senior Counsel Kate Anderson, director of the ADF Center for Parental Rights, who represented Ms. Figliola and Sarah Parshall Perry of the Heritage Foundation as they break down the case.
Featuring:
Kate Anderson, Senior Counsel, Director of Center for Parental Rights, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese Center, The Heritage Foundation

You’re Fired! Trump, Tenure Protection, and the Future of Humphrey’s Executor Mar 06, 2025

Show notes

The recent flurry of firings in the federal government has sparked new questions surrounding the president’s removal power and its limits. Several lawsuits have now been filed over precisely these questions. These suits could bring an old case back to the forefront—Humphrey's Executor v. United States—in which the Supreme Court ruled that the president cannot constitutionally remove an FTC Commissioner without "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office," as ordered in the FTC Act. Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris has recently advised the Committee on the Judiciary that these “for-cause removal provisions [...] are unconstitutional and that the Department [of Justice] will no longer defend their constitutionality.”
Will this ruling stand, and should it? Is it true that, as the Court reasoned in 1935, the Constitution does not confer an "illimitable power of removal" on the President? Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss these questions and more.
Featuring:
Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director, Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Dr. Dan Epstein, Assistant Professor of Law, St. Thomas University College of Law
Prof. Victoria Nourse, Ralph V. Whitworth Professor in Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Will Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation
Moderator: Elizabeth Slattery, Director of Constitutional Scholarship, Pacific Legal Foundation
--
To register, click the link above.

Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services Mar 05, 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 Circut 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.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to answer the question of whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim, a majority-group plaintiff must show background circumstances to support the suspicion that the employer discriminates against the majority group. Oral argument is scheduled for February 26th.
Featuring:
Nicholas Barry, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation
(Moderator) William E. Trachman, General Counsel, Mountain States Legal Foundation

Related Podcasts