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:

Opioids: The Crisis in 2022 and Beyond Aug 10, 2022

Show notes

After years of tragic deaths and through a global pandemic, some experts contend that the opioid epidemic has only gotten worse.
Three noted voices in the field provide their thoughts and opinions on the opioid crisis, how it began, why it persists, and how it finally can be solved.
Featuring:
--Trevor Burrus, Research Fellow, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
--Joseph Grogan, Founder, Fire Arrow Consulting, and Former Director, United States Domestic Policy Council
--Paul Larkin, Senior Legal Research Fellow, the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
--Moderator: Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP and Former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi

Talks with Authors: Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words Aug 09, 2022

Show notes

Mark Paoletta and Michael Pack have co-edited a new book, Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words, which is a follow-on project of Michael Pack’s very successful 2020 documentary of the same name. In making the film, Pack interviewed Justice Thomas for 25 hours. Created Equal is a book-length interview taken from those 25 hours of interviews, where Justice Thomas discusses in an informal and moving way his remarkable life – from being born into abject poverty in 1948 in the segregated Deep South of Georgia to being a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. He talks about the challenges he faced and overcame, including his contentious confirmation battle in 1991. 95% of what is in the book did not appear in the film.
Co-editor Mark Paoletta joined us for a discussion of one of our most interesting justices. Mr. Paoletta served as a lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office in the George H.W. Bush administration and worked on the confirmation of Justice Thomas. He is a partner at Schaerr-Jaffe.
Featuring:
--Mark Paoletta, Partner, Schaerr-Jaffe

Courthouse Steps Decision: Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta Aug 09, 2022

Show notes

On June 29, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. The Court held that the federal government and the state have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.
Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.
Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.
Featuring:
David Casazza, Associate Attorney, Gibson Dunn
Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
Jason Manion, Associate Attorney, Gibson Dunn
Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig

The Future of Chevron Deference at the Supreme Court Aug 09, 2022

Show notes

The Supreme Court decided multiple administrative law cases this term, but in no majority opinion did the Court cite its landmark 1984 precedent Chevron v. NRDC. The lack of citation to Chevron raises an important question: Is the Court ignoring the Chevron doctrine (which provides for judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes)? Whatever the status of Chevron at the Supreme Court, lower courts continue to apply the doctrine. Scholars have lodged thoughtful critiques of Chevron's rule, but after October Term 2021, its continued vitality is unclear.
This panel analyzes what's next for Chevron, with a particular focus on what Chevron's conspicuous absence in the Court's opinions this term might mean for the doctrine's future.
Featuring:
--Prof. Thomas W. Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
--Yaakov M. Roth, Partner, Jones Day
--Moderator: Eli Nachmany, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

Courthouse Steps Decision: Biden v. Texas Aug 09, 2022

Show notes

On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Biden v. Texas.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Biden administration can end the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), an immigration enforcement program put in place under the Trump administration.
Under MPP (colloquially known as "Remain in Mexico"), many individuals seeking asylum in the United States after entering via the southern border were sent back to Mexico to await their court dates. Soon after taking office President Biden sought to end the program, but the administration was ordered to continue enforcing the Protocols by a federal district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Please join Professor Ilya Somin as he breaks down the ruling and its implications for immigration policy and administrative law.
Featuring:
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
---
To register, please click the link above

Courthouse Steps Decision Webinar: West Virginia v. EPA Aug 09, 2022

Show notes

On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. EPA. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that EPA exceeded its authority under Clean Air Act Section 111 when it issued the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which sought to control carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants by imposing limits based on a “system” of shifting power generation away from fossil fuels and towards renewable fuels at the grid-wide level. Although the Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in February 2016 before it could take effect, the Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA was the first time it pronounced on the Plan’s merits.
This case is a major development in administrative law. For the first time, a majority opinion of the Supreme Court used the phrase “major questions doctrine” to describe its methodology. The Court determined that the Clean Power Plan dealt with issues of such “economic and political significance” that it required a clear statement of Congressional intent to authorize this specific type of action. Because the CAA contains no such clear statement, the Clean Power Plan was unlawful.
Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, wrote a concurring opinion expanding on the “major questions doctrine” and its relationship to the constitutional principle of non-delegation. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, wrote a dissenting opinion arguing the Court improperly placed “major questions” at the beginning of its statutory analysis—instead of conducting a traditional Chevron-style textual inquiry and concluding with “major questions.” Further, the dissent states that Congress provided EPA with the authority to require “generation shifting” in the CAA’s use of broad language authorizing the Agency to identify a “system of emission reduction” to address air pollution.
Please join our legal experts to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.
Featuring:
David Fotouhi, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, former Acting General Counsel, EPA
Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law; former Deputy General Counsel, EPA.
Moderator: Garrett Kral, Associate Member of the Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group’s Executive Committee; former Special Advisor for Oversight, EPA.

The Future of Homemade Firearms: The Legal and Political Implications of ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F Jul 28, 2022

Show notes

Americans have been privately manufacturing and assembling firearms since before this country’s founding. Now, thanks to the prevalence of commercially available firearm parts, “buy, build, shoot” kits, and 3D printers, it is easier than ever to build a gun in the comfort of one’s own home, which bypasses many of the statutory and regulatory regimes that govern buying a fully built firearm from a gun store.
To some, this represents a loophole in America’s gun laws. Others see this as a modern innovation in the tradition of home gun building that has always existed in America.
The Biden Administration shares the former view. On April 11, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland signed ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F. Among other measures, this rule changes the ATF’s definition of “firearm frame or receiver” found in the Gun Control Act of 1968, greatly expanding the list of what is considered a firearm by the agency, and therefore what can be strictly regulated under existing federal law. Furthermore, both houses of Congress currently have bills before them designed to increase the regulation of homemade firearms, and to ban certain types of these so-called “ghost guns”.
In this timely webinar, our experts will cover the ATF’s Final Rule, set to go into effect on August 24, 2022, and will discuss the legal and political implications surrounding homemade firearms and the regulation thereof.
Featuring:
--Matthew Larosiere, Director of Legal Policy at Firearms Policy Coalition
--Dru Stevenson, Wayne Fisher Research Professor, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
--Moderator: Ryan Lacey, Assistant Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Litigation Update: State Legislatures, State Courts, and Federal Elections Jul 28, 2022

Show notes

Who decides the rules for federal elections? The Constitution generally assigns that power to the “Legislature” of each state, but state courts are playing an increasing role. Recent elections have witnessed an increase in decisions applying broad provisions of state constitutions to override election laws and congressional maps adopted by legislators.
That is what happened in Moore v. Harper, which the Supreme Court will hear in its upcoming term. Recently North Carolina gained a House seat, and its legislature adopted a new district map. The state’s supreme court deemed that map a partisan gerrymander and substituted in its place the court’s own map. That result, it concluded, was required by four separate parts of the state constitution, including clauses protecting the “freedom of speech” and guaranteeing “free” elections. Although the Supreme Court denied an emergency request to block that ruling for the 2022 election, it agreed to take the case to answer the broader question of state-court authority over the laws governing federal elections.
Supporters of legislature primacy—often called the “independent state legislature” doctrine—say that a decision enforcing the doctrine will cut back on election-litigation gamesmanship, end the disruption of last-minute rule changes, and put primary responsibility back in the hands of democratically accountable legislators. Opponents, however, say that a decision for the state would threaten voting rights and democracy itself. Their Exhibit A: the Trump campaign’s failed strategy to convince state legislatures to overrule voters in the 2020 presidential election.
This webinar will provide an overview of the legal debate, background on the Moore case, and discussion of the key issues and controversies that the Court will confront.
Featuring:
Andrew M. Grossman, partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP, co-leader of the firm’s Appellate and Major Motions practice, and Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute
---
To register, click the link above

Is the EEOC misusing the Freedom of Information Act to penalize employers that adopt mandatory employment arbitration programs? Jul 28, 2022

Show notes

The EEOC is denying employers’ FOIA requests for the EEOC’s charge investigation files when resulting employment claims are proceeding in arbitration rather than litigation. Our panel will discuss whether the EEOC’s justifications for denying such FOIA requests are consistent with FOIA and other governing federal statutes. We will consider a number of related issues. What is the EEOC’s basis for treating litigation and arbitration differently in responding to employers’ FOIA requests? How long has the EEOC been making this distinction between litigation and arbitration? In light of the increasing prevalence of employment arbitration, should employers challenge the EEOC’s FOIA practices and, if so, how?
Featuring:
--Janet Dhillon, Commissioner, EEOC
--Eric Dreiband, Partner, Jones Day
--Moderator: Christopher C. Murray, Shareholder, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart

A Response to: Ten Years On: The America Invents Act and the role of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in resolving patent disputes Jul 28, 2022

Show notes

Join us on July 27 to hear three experts give a response to our April 26th event on The America Invents Act and the role of Patent Trial and Appeal Board in resolving patent disputes.
Featuring:
--Prof. Thomas D. Grant, Senior Research Fellow (Wolfson College); Fellow (Lauterpacht Centre for International Law), Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge
--Prof. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law and Director, Planning and Publications, Center for Law, Economics, & Finance, George Washington University Law School
--Moderator: Hon. Paul Michel, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (ret.)

Related Podcasts