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:

Ukraine's National Bar: Reform, Renewal, and Independence Jan 30, 2023

Show notes

In an abrupt shift away from decades of tradition, Ukraine’s current National Bar arose from the adoption of a new model in 2013. The “Law On the Bar and Practice of Law” emerged amid recurring east-west tensions and pressures for domestic reform. This legislation produced an all-Ukrainian, non-governmental, non-profit organization that promotes adjudicatory reform. It has been recognized by the International Bar Association and the European Council of Bars and Law Societies.
In this podcast, Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy, Vice President of the Ukrainian National Bar Association has a conversation led by George Bogden regarding the origin of this independent body.
Featuring:
--Dr. Valentyn Gvozdiy, Vice President, Ukrainian National Bar Association
--Moderator: Dr. George Bogden, George F. Kennan Fellow, Kennan Institute, and Olin Fellow, Columbia Law School.

Clean Water Act – Forward to the Past? Jan 27, 2023

Show notes

The federal Clean Water Act regulates discharges to “navigable waters,” which the Act defines as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” For decades the Environmental Protection Agency interpreted “waters of the US” very broadly through regulations, but in the past 20 years the agency lost two Supreme Court cases that have required amendments to the regulations. With a third significant decision pending from the Court in Sackett v. EPA, the agency just released the fourth major revision to the regulations defining “navigable waters” in the last eight years. This panel discussed what is old and what is new in the Biden Administration’s bid to finally capture what “waters of the US” means, and what impact the Sackett decision may have when it comes down.
Featuring:
--Kevin Minoli, Partner, Alston & Bird
--[Moderator] Tony Francois, Partner, Briscoe Ivester & Bazel

Is Cy Pres Defensible? Jan 25, 2023

Show notes

Cy pres is the practice of awarding class-action settlement funds to third-party organizations when distribution of settlement funds directly to class members is considered impractical. Champions of cy pres awards – which can amount to tens of millions of dollars – claim that the practice directly aids the causes in question. They also note its convenience and the importance of deterrence. Cy pres critics contend that such awards lead to conflicts of interest, the failure of class attorneys to prioritize class recovery, and First Amendment concerns over the compelled support of political beneficiaries.
By a 6-5 vote, the Eighth Circuit recently declined en banc review of an opinion affirming approval of a Monsanto settlement that paid $16 million to cy pres while leaving 98% of the class uncompensated. The Second Circuit affirmed approval of a settlement with Navient that paid the class of student debtors nothing with all settlement proceeds going to a few nonprofits affiliated with the teachers' union funding the class action. Both courts rejected objectors' First Amendment and Rule 23 arguments, and both cases are now the subject of cert petitions.
Ted Frank, who argued Frank v. Gaos and is counsel of record in St. John v. Jones and Yeatman v. Hyland, and Brian Fitzpatrick, author of The Conservative Case for Class Actions, will debate the pros, cons, and legality of cy pres and discuss possible Supreme Court review.
Featuring:
--Theodore "Ted" Frank, Director of Litigation & Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute
--Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law School

Litigation Update: United States v. Moore-Bush Jan 20, 2023

Show notes

In 2017, ATF agents placed a surveillance camera on a pole across the street from Daphne Moore’s home in Massachusetts. They suspected Moore’s daughter of dealing drugs and guns.
They watched the house for eight months until they obtained enough evidence to get a warrant. The warrant led to a prosecution. Moore and her daughter moved to suppress the evidence. The district court granted this motion but the First Circuit later reversed.
Now, Moore and her daughter are asking the Supreme Court to decide “[w]hether long-term police use of a surveillance camera targeted at a person’s home and curtilage is a Fourth Amendment search.” A nearly identical certiorari petition arose from the Seventh Circuit a year ago but was denied. The Federalist Society covered that petition on a previous teleforum featuring a debate about whether the word “search” in the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted in accord with the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test or in accord with the word’s plain meaning.
In this program, Institute for Justice Senior Attorney, Robert Frommer, provides a litigation update on this interesting Fourth Amendment question and the petition before the Court. The Institute for Justice filed an amicus brief urging the court to grant the petition for certiorari.
Featuring:
--Robert Frommer, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
--Moderator: Adam Griffin, Law Clerk, US District Courts

Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States Jan 18, 2023

Show notes

On January 17, 2023, the US Supreme Court heard oral argument in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States.
Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. (“Halkbank”) was indicted by a grand jury in 2019, and charged with involvement in a scheme to launder billions of dollars worth of proceeds from Iranian oil and natural gas, which was in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran at the time.
Halkbank, is majority-owned by the government of Turkey and moved to dismiss this indictment, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction. Halkbank contended that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the fact that the government of Turkey had a majority of its ownership made it immune to criminal prosecution in U.S. federal court. In relying on FSIA, Halkbank asserted that exceptions in FSIA apply only to civil cases, and that even if such exceptions applied in criminal cases, Halkbank Would still be immune under common law standards.
The U.S. District Court rejected the argument put forward by Halkbank, and the Second Circuit affirmed. This Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of whether US district courts may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and in light of FSIA.
This program, held on January 18, 2023 broke down and analyzed the oral argument.
Featuring:
--Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP

Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Jan 10, 2023

Show notes

The U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to clarify when and under what circumstances federal labor law preempts state tort claims for strike-related misconduct. Next week, it will hear oral arguments in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 174, a case involving the intentional destruction of an employer’s property. The employer, Glacier Northwest, manufactures ready-mix concrete. Ready-mix concrete hardens quickly and must be poured on the same day it’s mixed. In August 2017, a union representing Glacier’s employees called a sudden strike. The union allegedly timed the strike so that concrete would be left to harden in Glacier’s trucks. Predictably, the concrete was ruined, and Glacier sued the union for damages. But state courts rejected the suit. They held that the suit was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because (a) the union’s conduct was arguably protected by federal law, and (b) the conduct fell outside an existing exception for intentional-tort claims because it involved no violence or “outrageous conduct.”On January 10, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on both of those conclusions. The central issue for the Court is whether the NLRA preempts intentional tort claims except when they’re accompanied by violence or outrageous conduct. The union argues that the state courts got it right: violence or outrageous conduct is necessary. Glacier, on the other hand, argues that violence or outrageous conduct has never been required. In fact, the Supreme Court itself has long recognized that intentional property destruction is unprotected and falls outside the NLRA’s preemptive reach.Regardless of who wins that argument, the resulting decision will likely clarify the scope of NLRA preemption. And potentially, it will offer guidance on the bounds of acceptable strike-related conduct.Join Alex MacDonald the afternoon of the oral arguments to stay informed on one of the most important cases currently before the Supreme Court. The webinar will be held on January 10 at 4:00 PM ET. Sign up today to reserve your spot.
Featuring:
--Alex MacDonald, Director, Future of Work and Labor Law, Instacart

A Seat at the Sitting - January 2023 Jan 04, 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 episode are included below.

In re Grand Jury (Jan. 9) - Professional Responsibility; whether a communication involving both legal and non-legal advice is protected by attorney client privilege when obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the purposes behind the communication.
The Ohio Adjutant General’s Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority (Jan. 9) - Labor Law; whether the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which empowers the Federal Labor Relations Authority to regulate the labor practices of federal agencies only, empower it to regulate the labor practices of state militias.
Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Jan. 10) - Labor Law; Whether the National Labor Relations Act impliedly preempts a state tort claim against a union for intentionally destroying an employer's property in the course of a labor dispute.
Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. (Jan. 11) - Federalism; whether the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act’s general grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts over claims against the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico and claims otherwise arising under PROMESA abrogate the Board’s sovereign immunity with respect to all federal and territorial claims.
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (Jan. 17) - Immigration; whether the court of appeals correctly determined that 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1) prevented the court from reviewing petitioner's claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals engaged in impermissible factfinding because petitioner had not exhausted that claim through a motion to reconsider.

Featuring:
--William Hodes, Professor Emeritus of Law, Indiana University; Co-Author, The Law of Lawyering
--Tessa E. Shurr, Litigation Associate, The Fairness Center
--Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law
--Moderator: Anna St. John, President and General Counsel, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute

Whither “Neo-Brandeisian” Antitrust Enforcement: A Candid Conversation with Jonathan Kanter Dec 20, 2022

Show notes

The Biden administration has made aggressive antitrust enforcement a priority, and appointed Jonathan Kanter to be the nation’s chief antitrust law enforcer as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Though Kanter’s background is in big law, he is a leading advocate of the neo-Brandeisian school of antitrust that seeks to expand the scope and importance of antitrust. His aggressive agenda has yet to be fully revealed; however, the courts do not appear sympathetic and have handed the Division a series of defeats in recently-litigated merger challenges.
At this luncheon event, Rick Rule, the head of the Antitrust Division under President Reagan (and a former partner of Kanter), probed Kanter on what he is hoping to achieve during his tenure and how he is going to deal with the skepticism of the courts.
Featuring:
- Hon. Jonathan S. Kanter, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
- Moderator: Hon. Charles "Rick" Rule, Partner, Rule Garza Howley LLP

Talks with Authors: An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know Dec 16, 2022

Show notes

Professors Randy Barnett and Josh Blackman will discuss the most important Supreme Court cases of all time, as featured in their new book, An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know. Plus, they will debut a new video series, including previews of Dobbs and Bruen.
Featuring:
Prof. Randy Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
---
To register, please click the link above.

Litigation Update: Volokh et al v. James Dec 15, 2022

Show notes

In early December, Prof. Eugene Volokh, Rumble Canada, and Locals Technology filed a complaint in federal court against New York Attorney General Letitia James, seeking to stop a new New York state law from taking effect. The suit challenges a recently enacted section of New York’s General Business Law, “Social media networks; hateful conduct prohibited.”
The new law originated, in part, as a response to a 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo that left 10 dead as the result of what is alleged to be a racially motivated crime. The law aims to restrict "hateful" speech on social media platforms and requires social media networks to “provide and maintain a clear and easily accessible mechanism for individual users to report incidents of hateful conduct.” Additionally, the networks must establish and publish a policy outlining how they will “respond [sic] and address the reports of incidents of hateful conduct on their platform.”
The State of New York has asserted that hate speech moderation of this sort can be a useful tool in preventing hate crimes. Plaintiffs are represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and argue that the law violates the First Amendment and forces social media networks to police their users. They further submit that enforcement of the law requires a subjective determination of what constitutes “hateful conduct,” thereby instituting viewpoint discrimination and chilling constitutionally protected speech.
Please join us for this Litigation Update from Prof. Eugene Volokh.
Featuring:
Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law; Founder, The Volokh Conspiracy
---
To register, click the link above.

Related Podcasts