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:

Chevron Under Review: Courthouse Steps Preview: Loper Bright & Relentless Jan 10, 2024

Show notes

Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This “Chevron Deference” has been a topic of great debate, with many calling for it to be overturned, while others argue it is a vital part of how Courts address the complexity of law and agency actions. Experts on both sides argue it has implications on the role of judges, judicial independence, separation of powers, stare decisis, governmental accountability, and the rule of law.
In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court will be asked whether that precedent should be overturned. Join us as a panel of experts give a preview of these two important cases in a discussion of what the Chevron doctrine has done, how these cases may affect it and the body of precedent surrounding it, and what they may mean moving forward.
Featuring:
Prof. John Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Philip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; CEO, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Prof. Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
(Moderator) Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge, United States Court of International Trade

A Seat at the Sitting - January 2024 Jan 08, 2024

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.
Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre (January 8) - Civil Rights, National Security; Whether a lawsuit alleging that the plaintiff was wrongly placed on the “No Fly List” can go forward when the government has removed the plaintiff from the list and promised not to put him back on the list “based on the currently available information.”
Campos-Chaves v. Garland (January 8) - Immigration; Whether the federal government provided adequate notice of an immigration proceeding, allowing the immigration court to enter a deportation order when the non-citizen does not appear.
U.S. Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC (January 9) - Bankruptcy; In the wake of the court’s 2022 decision holding unconstitutional a federal law imposing higher fees on bankruptcy filers in 48 states, what should the remedy for that constitutional violation be?
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California (January 9) - Property Rights; Property-rights challenge by California landowner to nearly $24,000 in development fees levied by the county as a condition for receiving a permit to build a manufactured home.
Smith v. Arizona (January 10) - Sixth Amendment, Criminal Law & Procedure; Whether the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a defendant the right to confront the witnesses against him, allows prosecutors to use expert testimony about evidence – here, a report prepared by a different crime lab analyst who no longer worked at the lab and did not testify at trial – that was not itself admitted into evidence, on the grounds that the testifying expert was simply offering his own opinion and that the defendant could have subpoenaed the original analyst.
Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. (January 16) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Whether the failure to make a disclosure required by Item 303 of Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S-K, which requires a company to disclose known trends or uncertainties that are likely to have a material impact on its financial position, can support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits deception in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, even if there has not been an otherwise-misleading statement.
Devillier v. Texas (January 16) - Property Rights, Takings; Whether property owners can seek compensation under the Constitution for “taking” of their property by the state, if the state has not specifically given them a right to sue.
Relentless v. Department of Commerce (January 17) - Administrative Law, Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether to overrule or limit the court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (January 17) - Administrative Law, Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether to overrule or limit the court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
Featuring:
Eric B. Boettcher, Partner, Wright Close & Barger
Allyson Newton Ho, Partner and Co-Chair, Constitutional and Appellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Hon. Grover Joseph Rees, III, Former General Counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization, Former United States Ambassador to East Timor
Mark L. Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Moderator: Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP

Ethics CLE 2023: Recent Developments in Legal Ethics & Professional Responsibility Dec 29, 2023

Show notes

CLE credit for this event is available at On-Demand CLE.
In this CLE webinar, Judge Jennifer Perkins of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge Margaret Downie, and Greenberg Traurig shareholder Andy Halaby discussed the following areas of legal ethics and professional responsibility:
Using artificial intelligence for preparation of legal documents: some ethical implications and the development of guidelines and best practices.
Insights into when unprofessional conduct becomes unethical conduct and how supervisory attorneys (and others) can help younger lawyers avoid some common ethical pitfalls.
Ethical and other issues facing compliance lawyers under Arizona’s Alternative Business Structure (ABS) law and some takeaways from Arizona’s experience three years into this experiment.
Brief overview of the ABA’s amendment to Model Rule 1.16.
Featuring:
Hon. Margaret H. Downie, Presiding Disciplinary Judge, Arizona Supreme Court
Andrew F. Halaby, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig
Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
CLE Cost:
$25/Member
$50/Non-Member
CLE Info
To register for CLE credit, click the link at the top of the page.

Litigation Update: Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser Dec 13, 2023

Show notes

In Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, a Colorado faith-based healthcare provider is challenging a recent Colorado law banning a treatment commonly known as abortion pill reversal on the grounds it forced them to violate their religious beliefs. The law, passed in April 2023, makes it illegal for healthcare professionals to offer progesterone (a naturally occurring hormone crucial to a healthy pregnancy) to women who have taken mifepristone as part one in a two-step abortion pill regimen but who subsequently want to maintain their pregnancy. The law imposes significant fines and jeopardizes the medical licenses of those who provide or advertise using progesterone to reverse the effects of an abortion pill.
Bella Health, founded by Catholic mother and daughter nurse practitioners Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett, which has traditionally offered this route of care for women as a part of its life-affirming OB-GYN practice, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado for an injunction to stop the law from going into effect. A limited injunction was issued in late April, pending reports by the state's Medical, Nursing, and Pharmacy licensing boards. The last of those regulations were issued in September. The next day, Bella again asked the Court for injunctive relief. In an order issued on October 21, 2023, the district court preliminarily enjoined Colorado from enforcing the law, and the case remains live.
Join us for a litigation update on this case and what its implications may be, featuring Prof. Mark Rienzi who is President of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which is representing Bella Health in this case.
Featuring:
Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School
(Moderator) Ms. Amanda Salz, Associate, Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP

Should a Felony Be a Barrier to Voting Behind Bars and Beyond? Dec 13, 2023

Show notes

With campaign season in full swing, a high-stakes legal and policy battle is intensifying over whether those in prison, on probation and parole, or simply with a past felony record should be eligible to vote. In January 2024, a rare Fifth Circuit en banc hearing will consider Mississippi’s felony disenfranchisement law that was struck down by a divided three-judge panel. Plaintiffs in such cases claim violations of equal protection and cruel and unusual punishment, raising the questions of how the original meaning of such provisions should apply today and whether this is a political question that should be left by judges to the elected branches of government to determine. Also, in Texas and Florida, prosecutions against those who voted despite a disqualifying criminal record implicate the question of mens rea. Join us as we consider varied perspectives on this issue that brings to the fore conflicting conceptions of the purpose of punishment, the impact of our nation’s history on the present, and the very meaning of citizenship and democracy.
Featuring:
Jeff Jacoby, Columnist, Boston Globe
Nicole Porter, Senior Director of Advocacy, The Sentencing Project
(Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice

Conservatives Talk Presidential Power: Examining the Latest on Impeachment and Immunities Dec 11, 2023

Show notes

John Malcolm and John Yoo continued their discussion of presidential power as they examined the latest updates on former President Donald Trump's civil and criminal cases, presidential immunities, and the expected House impeachment vote.

Litigation Update: Mahmoud v. McKnight Dec 11, 2023

Show notes

In Fall 2022 the Montgomery County Board of Education (MCBOE) revised its literature/ language arts curriculum for Pre-K to eighth grade to include new books centered around LGBTQIA+ issues, including pride parades, gender transitioning, same-sex marriage, and pronoun preferences. Although this concerned some parents, initially parents were notified when the books were being read and could opt their children out of those lessons. However, in March 2023 the MCBOE issued a statement alerting parents that they would no longer be notified when these books were being taught and requests to opt-out would not be honored.
In light of this new statement, a coalition of parents of elementary school children in Montgomery County from a variety of faiths, including Islam, Catholicism, and Orthodox Christianity, brought suit in the U.S. District Court for Maryland. They argued that the MCBOE's refusal to alert parents when potentially objectional books on sex education & related topics were being taught and to deny them the option to opt their children out of such education was violative of their free-speech, free-exercise, and substantive-due-process rights under the U.S. Constitution and under Maryland law. The parents sought a preliminary injunction against the MCBOE. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland heard oral argument on August 9, 2023. Soon after it ruled against the parents, who appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument at the 4th Circuit is set to occur on December 5.
Please join us for a Litigation Update on Mahmoud v. McKnight with Eric Baxter, who is VP & Senior Counsel at Becket and is representing the plaintiffs in this case, as he gives a breakdown of this important case concerning religious liberty, free speech, education policy, and parental rights.
Featuring:
Eric Baxter, Vice President & Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty
(Moderator) Emilie Kao, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Advocacy Strategy, Alliance Defending Freedom

Litigation Update: Rogers v. HHS & Maddonna v. HHS Dec 11, 2023

Show notes

Miracle Hill Ministries is one of nearly two dozen private entities with which the state of South Carolina contracts to help serve the thousands of children in its foster care system. Miracle Hill has been operating for over 80 years and, as a faith-based ministry, it chooses to partner only with potential foster parents who affirm its doctrinal statement—a choice that, under regulations issued at the end of the Obama administration, would have precluded it from receiving federal funds that otherwise are available to private foster care entities. In 2019, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster learned of the situation and worked with the federal Department of Health and Human Services to obtain a waiver that allowed Miracle Hill to continue its foster care service in a way that was consistent with its religious commitments. That waiver was rescinded in 2023 by the Biden administration.
Two recent cases, both of which were filed while the 2019 waiver was in place, challenged the constitutionality of the waiver and, more broadly, challenged the constitutionality of the State’s licensure of and contracting with Miracle Hill, alleging it constituted an unlawful establishment of religion and allowed publicly funded discrimination on the basis of religion. One of the cases (Rogers v. HHS et al.) was brought by a same-sex couple who identified as members of the Unitarian Universalist Church. The other case (Maddonna v. HHS et al.) was brought by a prospective foster mother who claimed to be Roman Catholic but who argued she could not affirm Miracle Hill’s Christian doctrinal statement. In both cases, the plaintiffs contended Miracle Hill should be ineligible to receive the government funding traditionally provided by HHS and the State of South Carolina to licensed private foster-care agencies. Summary judgment in favor of the defendants was granted in both Rogers v. HHS and Maddonna v. HHS earlier this year.
Join us as litigating attorney Miles Coleman, who represented Governor Henry McMaster and the Director of the S.C. Dept. of Social Services, provides a litigation update on these two cases concerning child welfare, a religious non-profit foster care ministry, and religion in the public square.
Featuring:
Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
(Moderator) Daniel Blomberg, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Litigation Update: Young v. Colorado Department of Corrections Dec 05, 2023

Show notes

Former Colorado Corrections Sergeant Josh Young is suing the Colorado Department of Corrections alleging that mandatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training subjected him to hostile work environment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Young is being represented by General Counsel of Mountain States Legal Foundation, Will Trachman. Will recently argued the case at the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and will join us to discuss the case, the oral argument, and more.

A Fireside Chat with Former FTC Chairs Tim Muris and Maureen Ohlhausen Dec 01, 2023

Show notes

The current FTC has criticized prior Commission positions, stating they are making a sharp departure from the decades-long approach they inherited. Almost three years into the current administration, how have these efforts fared? Has the FTC actually adopted a different standard in place of the consumer welfare standard and does it accurately reflect the law, as they claim? How durable will their efforts to implement changes likely be? This fireside chat led by former FTC Chief of Staff Svetlana Gans answered these and other important questions.

Related Podcasts