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:

Beyond Bruen: Exploring the Supreme Court's Second Amendment Jurisprudence Past, Present and Future Aug 17, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence continues to evolve. This past Term, the Court issued significant decisions in Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani, further defining the contours of the right to keep and bear arms in the wake of its landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. At the same time, the Court has signaled that its work in this area is far from complete. The Justices have agreed to hear a closely watched challenge to state prohibitions on AR-15-style rifles and other commonly owned firearms, setting the stage for what could become one of the most consequential Second Amendment decisions since Bruen. The upcoming Term also raises broader questions about how the Court will continue to shape Second Amendment doctrine and whether a more comprehensive framework for evaluating firearm regulations is beginning to emerge.Join us for a discussion with legal experts as they reflect on the Court's recent decisions, assess the state of Second Amendment jurisprudence after Bruen, and preview the major firearms cases awaiting the Court in the upcoming Term.Featuring:
Prof. Haley Proctor, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
Michael Williams, General Counsel, American Suppressor Association
(Moderator) Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American Freedom

Pardon Me: When Congressional Witnesses Plead the Fifth Aug 14, 2026

Show notes

Congressional committees frequently use their subpoena power to compel witnesses to appear before them and testify. But appearing before Congress does not necessarily mean answering every question. When may a witness invoke the Fifth Amendment? Does a presidential pardon eliminate the privilege against self-incrimination, and if so, to what extent? And what options remain available to Congress when a witness declines to testify?
These questions have taken on renewed significance following Dr. Anthony Fauci's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege in recent congressional testimony and the debate over the legal effect of the pardon he received from President Biden.
Join us as our panel examines the constitutional and statutory framework governing congressional testimony, including the privilege against self-incrimination, grants of immunity, presidential pardons, and contempt of Congress, as well as the practical considerations facing both investigators and witnesses.
Featuring:
John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law, Advancing American Freedom
Clark Neily, Senior Vice President for Legal Studies, Cato Institute
(Moderator) G. Zachary Terwilliger, Partner, Vinson & Elkins, and former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia

Euclid at 100: The Past, Present, and Future of Zoning in America Aug 13, 2026

Show notes

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., the landmark decision that paved the way for ubiquitous zoning and land-use regulation by local governments across America. Under Euclid, where the Court infamously analogized an apartment building in the midst of single-family houses to “a pig in a parlor,” cities and towns could permissibly divide and regulate land by its use under their police power as they saw fit, so long as the zoning rules were reasonably related to protecting public health, safety, welfare, or morals.
But even though the Court — just two years after Euclid in Nectow v. City of Cambridge — struck down a zoning ordinance because it failed to “bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare," local governments persisted in passing, and courts continued to routinely uphold, racially-discriminatory zoning laws under Euclid under the guise of protecting public welfare and economic well-being. Despite Euclid’s age and the dismantling of race-based zoning, Euclid remains the center of attention and debate, especially regarding whether zoning regulation unduly infringes upon private property rights, and therefore, demands higher and more thorough judicial scrutiny.
Join our panel of experts for a lively discussion reflecting on Euclid’s effects on land use and housing over the past century and what the future may hold.
Featuring:
Robert Thomas, Director of Property Rights Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation
Prof. Michael Allan Wolf, Richard E. Nelson Eminent Scholar Chair in Local Government Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law
(Moderator) Isaiah McKinney, Judicial Law Clerk, U.S. District Court

What Was the Founders' Design for National Security Beyond the Battlefield? Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.
In Federalist 23, Alexander Hamilton identified the common defense and the preservation of peace against external attacks as two of the principal purposes served by union. The Constitution that union adopted divides the power to declare war—vested in Congress—and the power to direct war—vested in the President as Commander in Chief. But what does it say about national security more broadly? The Founders were not without reservation about the risks of concentrating the means of defense, with James Madison warning the Constitutional Convention that a “standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.” It was also clear from the start, however, that functions like intelligence gathering belonged more naturally to the executive, whose institutional character supported the necessary secrecy and dispatch.
This webinar will explore how the Founders understood national security power beyond the battlefield, how closely subsequent practice tracked their design, and whether today’s allocation of powers serves both the nation's security and its liberty.
Featuring:
Dr. Alberto Coll, Director, Global Engagement; Vincent de Paul Professor of Law, DePaul University College of Law
Prof. Matthew Waxman, Liviu Librescu Professor of Law, Columbia School of Law
Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Senior Research Fellow, School of Civic Leadership, Civitas Institute, University of Texas at Austin; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
(Moderator) Molly Nixon, Senior Fellow in Executive Power, Cato Institute

A New Frontier in Climate Litigation: District of Columbia v. ExxonMobil Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

Can states and local governments use consumer protection laws to regulate national climate policy? District of Columbia v. ExxonMobil is one of a growing number of climate lawsuits seeking to hold energy companies liable for alleged misrepresentations about the effects of fossil fuels. The case presents important questions about federalism, the boundaries of state consumer protection laws, and whether courts or the political branches should resolve disputes over climate policy. Join us for a discussion on the case and the broader legal implications.
Featuring:
Prof. Jason Johnston, Blaine T. Phillips Distinguished Professor in Environmental Law, University of Virginia Law School
Beatrice (Bebe) Strnad, Consumer Protection Bureau Chief, Nebraska Attorney General's Office
(Moderator) Corinne Snow, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP

The CLARITY Act and Fed Master Accounts: Defining Crypto's Place in the U.S. Financial System Aug 04, 2026

Show notes

Join us for a timely discussion on two developments shaping the future of digital assets in the United States. We will examine the CLARITY Act and its effort to establish clear rules for whether digital assets fall under SEC or CFTC oversight, as well as the ongoing dispute over Federal Reserve master accounts for crypto-focused banking institutions.Together, these issues highlight a central question: will digital asset firms gain both regulatory clarity and meaningful access to the nation’s financial infrastructure? The webinar will explore how the interaction between market-structure legislation and banking access could influence stablecoins, institutional adoption, and the broader integration of crypto into traditional finance.
Opening Remarks:
Hon. Cynthia Lummis, U.S. Senate, Wyoming
Featuring:
Paige Paridon, Executive Vice President and Co-Head of Regulatory Affairs, Bank Policy Institute
Alex Pollock, Senior Fellow, Mises Institute
Corey Then, Deputy General Counsel of Regulatory Strategy and Global Policy, Circle
Prof. David Zaring, Elizabeth F. Putzel Professor and Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics, The Wharton School, The University of Pennsylvania
(Moderator) J.C. Boggs, Partner, King & Spalding

Criminal Law & Procedure at the Supreme Court—A Recap of OT25 Jul 31, 2026

Show notes

This term, several important questions of criminal law and procedure reached the Supreme Court, ranging from digital privacy and criminal venue to appeal waivers and capital sentencing.
In Chatrie v. United States, the Court held that law enforcement conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it obtains a person’s cell-phone location history from a company through a geofence warrant.
In Abouammo v. United States, the Court unanimously held that a defendant charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 with falsifying a document to obstruct a federal investigation must be tried in the district where the alleged falsification occurred, not in a different district where the investigation was based.
In Hamm v. Smith, the Court dismissed as improvidently granted a capital case concerning whether and how courts may consider multiple IQ scores when evaluating a claim that a defendant is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution under the Eighth Amendment.
And in Hunter v. United States, the Court held that appeal waivers are generally enforceable but recognized a “miscarriage of justice” exception for egregious sentencing errors that would bring the judicial system into disrepute.
Join us for a webinar breaking down these decisions, the separate opinions, and what they may mean for the criminal justice system.
Featuring:
Matthew Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
(Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime

Lindsey Graham and the Judiciary: A Senate Legacy Jul 30, 2026

Show notes

Hon. Lindsey Graham (1955-2026)
For more than two decades, Senator Lindsey Graham was a consequential voice on the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. He played a prominent role in some of the era’s most contentious judicial-confirmation battles, including the nominations of Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, and, as chairman during the 116th Congress, helped guide President Trump’s judicial nominees through the committee.
Join us for a discussion reflecting on Senator Graham’s legacy, including his impact on the federal judiciary and the Senate’s advice-and-consent role.
Introduction by Sheldon Gilbert, President and CEO, The Federalist Society
Featuring:
Hon. Andrew N. Ferguson, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission, Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Michael Fragoso, Partner, Torridon Law PLLC; Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Lee Holmes, Shareholder, D.C. Office Managing Shareholder; Former Staff Director and Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Katherine Nikas, Senior Director, Microsoft; Former Staff Director and Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
(Moderator) Hon. Julius N. Richardson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Trial by Jury or Administrative Adjudication: What Would the Founders Say? Jul 29, 2026

Show notes

In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.The Founders regarded trial by jury as an indispensable check on government power, and the Fifth and Seventh Amendments enshrined that guarantee. In recent decades, however, the proliferation of administrative adjudication has steadily displaced the jury from disputes between citizens and the state. While the Supreme Court's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy was a significant step toward restoring the constitutional baseline, much work remains. Lower courts continue to rely on Atlas Roofing Co. v. OSHA to uphold agency adjudication of claims that, at the Founding, would have been tried before a jury. Cases like the recently decided FCC v. AT&T and next term's Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC illustrate just how far modern practice has drifted from constitutional design.Thomas Jefferson identified the jury "as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Yet today, Americans routinely face penalties imposed by federal agencies, not juries of their peers. Join us for a Federalist Society America 250 panel discussion looking back to the Founding Era to ask: What has become of the right to a jury trial in actions brought by the federal government?Featuring:
Robert E. Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Prof. Renée Lerner, Donald Phillip Rothschild Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

What Would the Founders Think of the War in Iran? Jul 28, 2026

Show notes

In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.The Founders drew their understanding of international law — known at the time as the law of nations — from 18th Century classical texts. Hamilton, Madison, Jay, Jefferson, and others all studied the edition of Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations, released on the eve of the American Revolution. Its precepts were analyzed in The Federalist Papers, debated in the Constitutional Convention, and resulted in a few basic principles. First, along with the Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, all Treaties made under the authority of the United States "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." Second, the Define and Punish Clause gives Congress the power to define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations.” The Founders viewed the right of self-defense as a fundamental, inherent natural right of nations. They recognized the right of preemptive use of force in anticipatory self defense. This right had an expansive interpretation, allowing actions against credible threats without awaiting an actual first strike. There was room for argument on how “imminent” the threat must be. Current international law on this issue consists of the UN Charter and contemporary understandings and interpretations of customary international law. This Forum will bring together two foremost scholars, each expert in both the Founders’ understanding and the current understanding of international law, for a conversation about the historic and contemporary interpretations of the propriety of our current war against Iran and related matters.
Featuring:
Prof. Martin S. Flaherty, Charles and Marie Robertson Visiting Professor, School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University
Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor Emeritus of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
(Moderator) Dr. Sohan Dasgupta, Assistant Secretary for Trade and Economic Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (former) | Political Head, Millennium Challenge Corporation (former) | Managing Director, Berkeley Research Group (BRG)

Related Podcasts