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:

From the Courthouse Steps: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. Jul 10, 2026

Show notes

In the consolidated cases Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the Supreme Court held that neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states or schools from determining sports eligibility based on biological sex. Join us for a Courthouse Steps webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what it may mean for Title IX, equal protection doctrine, school athletics, and future litigation over sex-based classifications.
Featuring:
Rachel N. Morrison, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Senior Legal Fellow, Defending Education

From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Barbara Jul 09, 2026

Show notes

In Trump v. Barbara, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the United States, even if their parents are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country, as they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision and the separate opinions.
Featuring:
Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law
Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Professor, University of Minnesota Law School

From the Courthouse Steps: Wolford v. Lopez Jul 08, 2026

Show notes

In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court held that Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. In a 6-3 decision, the majority reasoned that the restrictions fell within the plain text of the Second Amendment and that Hawaii’s proffered historical analogues did not support the constitutionality of its new default rule.
Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Wolford may mean for Second Amendment litigation.
Featuring:
Amy E. Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American Freedom
John Ohlendorf, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC

From the Courthouse Steps: Watson v. Republican National Committee Jul 08, 2026

Show notes

In Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots that are postmarked by election day but received up to five business days later. Although those statutes set the day for the “election,” the majority read "election" to mean the expression of the electorate’s choice, which occurs when voting is complete, not when ballots are received.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Watson may mean for absentee voting, state election rules, and future election-law litigation.
Featuring:
Chad Ennis, Vice President, Honest Elections Project
Edward D. Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett Greim LLC

From the Courthouse Steps: Mullin v. Doe Jul 06, 2026

Show notes

In Mullin v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Trump administration, reversing lower-court orders that had halted the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Syrian and Haitian nationals. The Court held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional challenges to DHS’s TPS termination decisions. It also concluded that the Haitian plaintiffs’ equal-protection claim was unlikely to succeed, reasoning that the administration’s across-the-board opposition to TPS as previously implemented supplied a strong race-neutral explanation for the termination.
Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and the case's potential impact.
Featuring:
Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General
James Rogers, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Foundation

From the Courthouse Steps: Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan Jul 02, 2026

Show notes

In Pung v. Isabella County, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected claims under the Takings Clause and Excessive Fines Clause that the Constitution required compensation based on the property’s fair-market value, holding instead that surplus auction proceeds are the proper measure when the tax sale is fairly conducted. The decision preserves traditional tax-sale systems while leaving room for future challenges to unfair foreclosure procedures.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision and its impact.
Featuring:
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Deborah J. La Fetra, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Proclaiming Liberty with Tim Sandefur Jul 01, 2026

Show notes

As America celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Proclaiming Liberty by Timothy Sandefur revisits the revolutionary year of 1776 through the minds of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, two men whose words and ideas gave birth to modern liberty. Sandefur’s engaging narrative brings to life the “American mind” as those extraordinary Founders sought to express it—their arguments, ideals, and enduring beliefs in natural rights and self-government.Sweeping from the English Civil War and the writings of Locke and Montesquieu to the colonial battles over the Stamp and Townshend Acts and the battlefields of Massachusetts and Virginia, Sandefur’s narrative shows how the Declaration distilled centuries of debate about freedom, law, and human nature into one of history’s most enduring statements on justice. Blending biography, political thought, and legal history—from Sir Edward Coke and Edmund Burke to Tacitus and Frederick Douglass—Proclaiming Liberty traces the Declaration’s legacy through the abolitionist movement, the Civil War, and the modern age, documenting how its principles have continued to challenge tyranny, refute relativism, and inspire movements for justice.Join us for this discussion between Prof. Lee Strang and Timothy Sandefur as they reflect on the Declaration's intellectual pedigree and enduring relevance for all who love freedom.
Featuring:
Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater Institute
Prof. Lee J. Strang, Executive Director, Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society, The Ohio State University

From the Courthouse Steps: United States v. Hemani Jun 29, 2026

Show notes

In United States v. Hemani, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of an indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). In a narrow, as-applied holding, the Court held that the government’s prosecution of a marijuana user for knowingly possessing a gun in his home while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Applying Bruen and Rahimi, the Court rejected the government’s analogy to historical “habitual drunkard” laws, concluding that those laws targeted different kinds of people, served different purposes, and operated in different ways.
Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Hemani may mean for history-and-tradition analysis and Second Amendment litigation.
Featuring:
Prof. F. Lee Francis, Associate Professor, Widener Law Commonwealth
William Bergstrom, Partner, Cooper & Kirk

Litigation Update: International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson Jun 24, 2026

Show notes

In International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court has been asked to review a Washington law that delays notification and reunification of a runaway child with his or her parents if that child claims to be receiving or requests gender-affirming treatment. The lower courts found that a group of parents (including one with a child who had run away before) lacked standing to challenge this law. The parents' petition to the Supreme Court will go before the Justices at an upcoming conference. Join us for a litigation update about this case and its broader implications for standing doctrine particularly in the context of parental rights and gender transition.
Featuring:
--R. Shawn Gunnarson, Shareholder, Kirton McConkie
--Prof. Derek Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School
--(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law

From the Courthouse Steps: Exxon Mobil & Cisco Systems Jun 24, 2026

Show notes

In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and that aiding-and-abetting liability exists under neither the ATS nor the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991. The decision limits the use of U.S. courts to pursue transnational human-rights claims absent clear congressional authorization.In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), the Court held that the Helms-Burton Act removes sovereign immunity for Cuban agencies and instrumentalities sued for trafficking in property confiscated by the Cuban government. Plaintiffs suing those entities under the Act, therefore, do not need to separately satisfy one of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s enumerated exceptions.Join us for a discussion of these decisions, their implications, and what they reveal about the Court’s approach to statutory interpretation and separation of powers.
Featuring:
Prof. Julian Ku, Faculty Director of International Programs and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Hofstra University
Molly Nixon, Senior Fellow in Executive Power, Cato Institute

Related Podcasts