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:

Consumers' Research v. FCC and the Legality of the Universal Service Fund Contribution Regime Jul 27, 2022

Show notes

With billions of dollars allocated to broadband funding in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the future of the FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) is a hotly debated topic. Now, with multiple lawsuits challenging the very legality of the USF contribution system, as well as new guidance from the Supreme Court on the limits of federal agencies’ power, the future of the Fund hangs in the balance. Join industry experts to discuss the issues raised in Consumers’ Research v. FCC and where the lawsuits stand in the aftermath of West Virginia v. EPA.
Featuring:
Robert Frieden, Emeritus Professor of Telecommunications and Law, Penn State University
Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow and Director, Center for the Economics of the Internet, Hudson Institute
Michael Romano, Sr. VP of Industry Affairs and Business Development, NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association
Moderator: Arielle Roth, Legislative Counsel, U.S. Senator Roy Blunt

Are IRS Defenses Crumbling? Jul 27, 2022

Show notes

The continuous stream of regulations and other guidance the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) must publish to inform the public how it is going to implement, administer, and enforce the frequent, numerous, and complicated changes to the tax laws, along with the high dollar stakes involved, create constant opportunities and incentives to challenge the IRS.
Some contend that the IRS’s ability to defend itself against these challenges seems to be vanishing as one after another the IRS has lost a string of recent challenges to its guidance. A recent blog post summarizes some of these defeats.
Our speakers will discuss them in more detail, along with what they might portend for how the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department issue future guidance. Another direction to watch is at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue: will Congress begin to do a better job drafting laws and providing instructions and guidance about how they are to be implemented, administered, and enforced?
Featuring:
--Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
--Gilbert Rothenberg, Adjunct Professor of Law, American University's Washington College of Law and the University of Pennsylvania's Carey Law School
--Interlocutor: Robert Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale; Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law
--Moderator: Eileen O'Connor, Founder, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor PLLC

Liar, Liar: False Statements and the Freedom of Speech Jul 27, 2022

Show notes

What can the government do to counter "disinformation" or other statements that it believes to be false? The Supreme Court famously protected some false defamatory statements in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and extended that holding, in United States v. Alvarez, that the First Amendment prevented the government from punishing a speaker from falsely claiming to have won military honors. Yet other false statements, such as fraud and perjury, may be punished, and recently the question of the government's power to limit false speech has assumed more prominence.
In response to the Capitol attack of January 6, 2021 and President Trump's claims that the 2020 election was stolen, the governor of Washington State proposed a law punishing false speech that was likely to lead to violence. Elsewhere controversies surrounding the truth of COVID-related information have arisen and the Biden Administration's Department of Homeland Security had planned to create a board to counter disinformation. Amid free-speech outcries, the proposal was set aside, but the Administration remains focused on combating disinformation. This program will feature panelists with contrasting views of the government's authority in this field and whether efforts to limit false speech represent a threat to First Amendment values.
Featuring:
--Harmeet K. Dhillon, Founding Partner, Dhillon Law Group Inc.
--Catherine Ross, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
--Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
--Moderator: Hon. Donald Palmer, Commissioner, U.S. Election Assistance Commission

A Discussion on Dobbs Jul 11, 2022

Show notes

Please join the Federalist Society's Practice Groups for a virtual event on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court decided this case in a 6-3 decision. The Court reversed and remanded the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey are overruled; and that the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.
Please join our team of legal experts to discuss the significance of this case.
Featuring:
--Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Shato Professor of Law, University of California - Berkeley; former law clerk, Justice John Paul Stevens
--Carrie Severino, President, Judicial Crisis Network; former law clerk, Justice Clarence Thomas
--Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, former Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
--Host: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society

Private Sector Diversity Programs: Perks and Pitfalls Jul 07, 2022

Show notes

It is growing practice within the business community to engage in diversity initiatives in hiring, promotion, and outside contracting. A network of interrelated state and federal laws and regulations including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and enforced by the EEOC outlaw discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, and national origin. But it may not be clear what the law permits when it comes to discrimination on the basis of race.
Should preferences for race or sex be unlawful in the context of hiring, promotions, professional opportunities or contracting?
How should diversity and inclusion officers navigate legal precedent in this area? Is diversity training helpful in the existing legal environment? Does functionally eliminating diversity training via government action benefit the public or create new pitfalls?
Featuring:
Theodore M. Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Civil Rights, Uniersity of North Carolina School of Law
Jonathan Berry, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates
Moderator: Hon. Paul B. Matey, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
---
To register, please click the link above.

Does the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Have Authority To Regulate the Climate? Jul 07, 2022

Show notes

The Biden administration has pledged to meet what it calls “the accelerating threat of climate change” with a wide-ranging campaign to discourage the production and use of fossil fuels in order to control the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases said to be the principal cause of global warming. The White House has directed regulatory agencies and departments across the executive branch to “tackle the climate crisis.” The administration has set a goal to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector by 2035.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is an independent regulatory agency whose enabling statutes include the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act. FERC’s statutory responsibilities include regulation of the transmission and wholesale sale of electricity in interstate commerce, and authorization of proposals for the construction and operation of interstate natural gas pipelines and storage facilities.
Doing its part to tackle the climate crisis, FERC has proposed a new policy that will greatly expand the scope of the climate-related environmental impact analysis required for proposed natural gas projects. Traditionally, such analysis has been limited to an evaluation of the emissions that would result directly from the construction and operation of the proposed project. Going forward, FERC is proposing that such analysis will also evaluate the emissions that would result indirectly from the upstream production and downstream use of the natural gas to be handled by the proposed project.
In other policy statements having to do with the electric sector, FERC has announced that it will consider proposals from entities it regulates to add into wholesale electricity prices any charges that are levied by state regulators on greenhouse gases emitted by the power plants producing the electricity.
Does FERC have the legal authority to implement these new climate-related policies and, by doing that, dramatically expand the scope of its regulatory activities? Join us for a probing, wide-ranging discussion of the statutes and case law that provide the answer to this vitally important question.
Featuring:
--Bernard L. McNamee, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP; Former Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
--J. Kennerly Davis, Senior Attorney, Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia

State Constitutions and Individual Liberty: State or Federal Government as Primary Custodian of Individual Rights? Jul 05, 2022

Show notes

Join us for a discussion between David A. Carrillo, Christina Sandefur, and Robert F. Williams moderated by Braden Boucek on Thursday, June 23 at 4:00 PM ET / 1:00 PM PT.
The panelists will address the different purposes and rights guarantees within state constitutions and the federal constitution. What are the federalism implications of an increased focus on state constitutional rights, if that's really the trend? What does the map of states look like if some federal liberties roll back, and does the distribution depend on which rights roll back or expand. These topics and more will be explored by this excellent panel of knowledgeable state constitutional law experts.
Featuring:
David A. Carrillo, Lecturer in Residence and Executive Director, California Constitution Center, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater Institute
Robert F. Williams, Distinguished Professor of Law and Director, Center for State Constitutional Studies, Rutgers University of School of Law
[Moderator] Braden Boucek, Director of Litigation, Southeastern Legal Foundation
Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The Use of Race in the Biden-Harris Administration, and Legal Challenges to Race-Based Policymaking Jul 05, 2022

Show notes

Since taking office in January 2021, the Biden Administration and its Executive Branch agencies have embraced the use of race in federal programs. From COVID-19 relief to other federal subsidies, the Biden Administration has purported to advance equity by specifically advancing race-based policy-making. Daniel Lennington from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty will discuss these efforts, as well as the many legal challenges against them, including those in which he and WILL are involved.

Are We Still One People? Do We Hold These Truths? Jul 05, 2022

Show notes

Much has been written, published and broadcast about a Divided America—especially now, with the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
Political divisions, often bitter, however, have existed since the Founding. But how can we know whether the so-called Divided America is something new, something traditional that has become more noticeable due to the ease of spreading information, or maybe a combination of the two?
Join us for a special webinar presentation from Dr. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University.
Featuring:
--Dr. John S. Baker, Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University
--Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society

Courthouse Steps Decision Webinar: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Jul 05, 2022

Show notes

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey are overruled; and that the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.
Featuring:
--Allyson Ho, Partner and Co-Chair, Constitutional and Appellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
--Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Societyy

Related Podcasts