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:

2023 Ron Rotunda Memorial Webinar: The State of the Legal Profession Oct 03, 2023

Show notes

The 2023 Ron Rotunda Memorial Webinar featured a conversation with Gregory Jacob and Prof. Josh Blackman discussing the current state of the legal culture and the future of the legal profession.
Professor Rotunda wrote seminal law books that are still used in law schools across the country and was the author of over 500 law review articles and other legal publications. These books and articles have been cited more than 2000 times by law reviews, by state and federal courts at every level, by the U.S. Supreme Court and by foreign courts in Europe, Africa, Asia and South America. He was also a member of the Federalist Society’s Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group holds an annual Teleforum in his honor.
Ron Rotunda was not only a renowned professor but also a mentor to many, including Prof. Josh Blackman, who wrote heartfelt remembrances about him on his blog here and in the Chapman Law Review here.
Featuring:
--Gregory Frederick Jacob, Parter, O’Melveny & Meyers LLP
--Moderator: Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston

Talks with Authors: Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience Oct 03, 2023

Show notes

Agreeing to Disagree: How the Establishment Clause Protects Religious Diversity and Freedom of Conscience investigates the questions that surround the correct interpretation of the Establishment Clause, breaking down the practical history of establishment and disestablishment in the United States of religion as law and argues that a Clause often seen as a defense against religion is valuable for promoting religious freedom and diversity in America. Prof. Michael McConnel, co-author of the book, and Prof. Vincent Munoz discussed these themes and the history of the Establishment Clause in the United States.
Featuring:
--Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School
--Dr. Vincent Phillip Munoz, Tocqueville Associate Professor Department of Political Science and Concurrent Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
--(Moderator) Adam Griffin, Constitutional Law Fellow, Pacific Legal

A Seat at the Sitting - October 2023 Oct 03, 2023

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.
Pulsifer v. United States (October 2) - Federal Criminal Law; Whether a defendant satisfies the criteria in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) as amended by the First Step Act of 2018 in order to qualify for the federal drug-sentencing “safety valve” provision so long as he does not have (a) more than four criminal history points, (b) a three-point offense, and (c) a two-point offense, or whether the defendant satisfies the criteria so long as he does not have (a), (b), or (c).
CFPB v. Community Financial Servs. Ass'n of America, Ltd. (October 3) - Constitutional Law, Appropriations; Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the statute providing funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 12 U.S.C. § 5497, violates the appropriations clause in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and in vacating a regulation promulgated at a time when the Bureau was receiving such funding.
Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer (October 4) - Constitutional Law, Americans with Disabilities Act; Whether a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act “tester” has Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she lacks any intention of visiting that place of public accommodation.
Murray v. UBS Securities LLC (October 10) - Labor Law, Sarbanes Oxley Act; Whether, following the burden-shifting framework that governs cases under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief, or whether the lack of “retaliatory intent” is part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof.
Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC (October 10) - Admiralty; Whether, under federal admiralty law, a choice-of-law clause in a maritime contract can be rendered unenforceable if enforcement is contrary to the “strong public policy” of the state whose law is displaced.
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (October 11) - Election Law; Whether the district court erred when it failed to apply the presumption of good faith and to holistically analyze South Carolina Congressional District 1 and the South Carolina General Assembly’s intent. Additionally, the court's handling of the alternative-map requirement, its treatment of the relationship between race and politics, the assessment of racial predominance in District 1, and the consideration of intentional discrimination are all under scrutiny.
Featuring:
Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC
Brian Johnson, Managing Director, Banking Supervision and Regulation Group, Patomak Global Partners
Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute
Moderator: Amanda Salz, Associate, Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP

US-India Relations: An Important but Ambiguous Partnership Oct 02, 2023

Show notes

In June, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi completed a highly-publicized visit to Washington that included a state dinner and an address to a joint meeting of Congress. This visit put a strengthened bilateral relationship on display—the United States and India have deepened cooperation on defense, public health, and economic matters in recent years. Yet, key differences continue to irritate relations, serving as obstacles to the closer partnership that some envision.
This program traced the trajectory of the US-Indian relationship, offering context to strides that've been made since the Cold War ended. With an eye to the future, this panel also evaluates possibilities for bilateral relations moving forward, examining areas of disagreement, and takes into consideration each country's strategic visions, priorities, and limitations.
Featuring:
--Sadanand Dhume, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
--[Moderator] Nitin Nainani, Student Liaison, International Law & National Security Practice Group

Lockstep or Step Alone: Considering Interpretations of the Federal Constitution When Interpreting State Constitutions Oct 02, 2023

Show notes

Many state constitutional provisions are worded similarly to provisions of the federal Constitution. At times, this has led some to simply assume as binding or highly persuasive the interpretations of the latter on the former. But to what degree should interpretations of the United States Constitution inform a particular state’s interpretation of its own foundational document? We hosted a lively discussion of this important issue by a distinguished panel.
Featuring:
--Judge David R. Stras, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
--Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
--Associate Justice Sarah Hawkins Warren, Georgia Supreme Court
--Justice Clint Bolick, Arizona Supreme Court
--Moderator: Justice Sarah K. Campbell, Tennessee Supreme Court

Litigation Update: Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. Weber Sep 28, 2023

Show notes

Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. Weber is a challenge to California’s Assembly Bill 979 requiring racial, ethnic, and sexual orientation diversity on boards of public corporations located in California. The Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment is arguing that the Bill violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On May 15, 2023, the US District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled that the law is unconstitutional and enjoined its continued enforcement.
Additionally, California has a related statute that requires sex-based quotas for corporate boards. Both statutes are being concurrently challenged in multiple federal and state court cases. All of the federal cases – including the Alliance case – have been stayed by the Ninth Circuit. The state court cases are active and going forward.
This Litigation Update discussed the District Court’s decision in Alliance and reviewed the different cases, where they stand, and what might come next.
Featuring:
--Joshua P. Thompson, Director of Equality and Opportunity Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation

Litigation Update: Bates v. Pakseresht Sep 28, 2023

Show notes

In Bates v. Pakseresht, Oregon mother-of-5 Jessica Bates is challenging the Oregon Department of Human Services’ (OHDS) rules that require all potential adoptive families to affirm and support the sexual orientation, gender identity, and/ or gender expression of any potential children placed with them.
Ms. Bates asserts that OHDS’s rules violate the “Free Speech,” and “Freedom of Assembly” clauses of the First Amendment, and has sued in Federal Court to have the OHDS rules deemed unconstitutional.
Jonathan Scruggs, lead attorney representing Ms. Bates from the Alliance Defending Freedom, joined us to provide an update on this live litigation affecting free speech, freedom of religious practice, state regulations, and child safety.
Featuring:
--Jonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel, Vice President of Litigation Strategy & Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom
--(Moderator) Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

Religious Liberty and the Court - Looking Ahead to the Next Term Sep 19, 2023

Show notes

or the past few Supreme Court terms we have hosted Mark Rienzi, President of the Becket Fund and Professor of Law at Catholic University of America, for a discussion of Religious Liberty at the Court moderated by William Saunders, Professor and Co-director of the Center for Religious Liberty at Catholic University of America. This latest installment looked at the most recent term including the unanimous holding in Groff v. DeJoy and provide a preview of the October term.
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] Prof. William L. Saunders, Professor - Human Rights, Religious Liberty, Bioethics, Catholic University of America

Talks with Authors: Our Dear-Bought Liberty: Catholics and Religious Toleration in Early America Sep 15, 2023

Show notes

In his new book Our Dear-Bought Liberty: Catholics and Religious Toleration in Early America, Professor Michael D. Breidenbach investigates the way American Catholics fundamentally contributed to the conception of a separation between Church and State in the founding era, overcoming suspicions of loyalties to a foreign power with a conciliatory approach. In this installment in our “Talks with Authors” series, Prof. Breidenbach joined us to discuss his book and the story it tells in a conversation moderated by Prof. William Saunders.
Featuring:
--Prof. Michael D. Breidenbach, Associate Professor of History, Ave Maria University & Senior Affiliate for Legal Humanities, Program for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society, University of Pennsylvania
--(Moderator) Prof. William Saunders, Professor - Human Rights, Religious Liberty, Bioethics, Catholic University of America

Net Choices: Social Media, Content Moderation, and the First Amendment Sep 12, 2023

Show notes

In 2021, both Florida and Texas enacted legislation to limit how social media platforms could limit what users post. The Texas law, challenged in NetChoice v. Paxton found a sympathetic audience in the Fifth Circuit, but the Eleventh Circuit was much more skeptical of the Florida law’s constitutionality in NetChoice v. Moody. In January 2023, the Supreme Court requested the Biden Administration to weigh in on the constitutionality of these laws. The NetChoice duel is likely to be on the calendar for the Court in this next term, with a decision in 2024.
This webinar gathered a panel of experts to discuss the appeals courts vivid differences in approach to issues arising from social media content moderation. The panel will also consider changes in the legal landscape since these petitions were filed, including whether recent Court decisions related to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act have bearing on the issues raised by NetChoice.
Featuring:
--Ryan Baasch, Chief of the Consumer Protection Division, Texas Office of the Attorney General
--Allison R. Hayward, Independent Analyst
--Jess Miers, Legal Advocacy Counsel, Chamber of Progress
--Moderator: Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity
---

Related Podcasts