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:

Draft SEP Policy Statement Mar 15, 2022

Show notes

Before the Supreme Court this term is the question of whether all pre-viability bans on abortion are unconstitutional. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, the Court must address this question in light of its previous holdings in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Shortly after oral argument in December 2021, law professor Richard Re encouraged the Court to adopt a gradualist approach, making room for the possibility that the justices could uphold both Mississippi's prohibition on abortions before 15-weeks gestation and its prior precedents in Roe and Casey. Law professor Eric Claeys has written a forthcoming article for the Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy in which he takes a deep dive into the abortion precedents, concluding that the Court must either reaffirm or overturn those prior rulings.
These two distinguished scholars join us to discuss the argument, the stakes, and more.
Featuring:
--Prof. Eric Claeys, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
--Prof. Richard Re, Joel B. Piassick Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
---
This Zoom webinar is open to public registration at the link above.

Courthouse Steps Decision Webinar: Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center Mar 11, 2022

Show notes

On March 3, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center. Writing for the 8-1 majority, Justice Samuel Alito explained how the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in denying the Kentucky attorney general’s motion to intervene on the commonwealth’s behalf in litigation concerning Kentucky House Bill 454, related to the rights of the unborn. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Breyer joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.
Our expert will cover the case, the ruling, and its implications.
Featuring:
--Philip D. Williamson, Partner, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
---
This Zoom event is open to public registration at the link above.

Litigation Update: Wooden v. United States Mar 10, 2022

Show notes

Join us for a webinar featuring Vikrant Reddy to discuss the Supreme Court decision in Wooden v. United States.
Speaker:
Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute

Litigation Update: In re: LTL Management Mar 10, 2022

Show notes

In October 2021, LTL Management LLC (LTL), a newly created and separate subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (J&J) that was established to hold and manage claims in the cosmetic talc litigation, filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. J&J also entered into a funding agreement with LTL that assures that LTL will have the same, if not greater, ability to satisfy talc claims once the parties reach a plan of reorganization. J&J submits that the Chapter 11 restructuring is the only means by which LTL and its affiliates can reach a swift and equitable resolution for current and future claimants. Opposition argues the case does not serve a valid restructuring purpose, suggesting J&J filed it in bad faith. On February 25, the bankruptcy court in New Jersey sided with LTL and denied claimants’ motion to dismiss. The claimants have indicated they will appeal the ruling.
A divisional merger is a state-law transaction where a business entity divides itself into two new entities. It is similar in substance to other state-law transactions that result in the emergence of new legal entities. Controversy has arisen when—following the divisional merger—one of the new entities initiates Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, as LTL did.
Professor Tony Casey of the University of Chicago Law School will address the interplay of divisional mergers and Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the context of the J&J litigation and LTL bankruptcy. He will review the purpose of Chapter 11 in preserving economic and social value, explain how a divisional merger can further that purpose in the mass tort context, and discuss how existing law protects against the potential for abuse.
Featuring:
--Prof. Anthony Casey, Deputy Dean, Donald M. Ephraim Professor of Law and Economics, ---Faculty Director, The Center on Law and Finance, University of Chicago Law School
---
This Zoom event is open to public registration at the link above.

Opioid Litigations and Public Nuisance: Updates From California, Oklahoma, and Ohio Mar 09, 2022

Show notes

On February 25, 2022, Johnson & Johnson, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health, Inc., and Amerisourcebergen Corp. announced that they had agreed to finalize a reported $26 billion settlement to resolve approximately 3,000 lawsuits from state and local governments regarding the opioid abuse crisis. The private plaintiffs’ trial firms representing the counties and municipalities filed the first lawsuit in California in 2014. The proposed settlement allocates approximately $2.3 billion for the plaintiffs' attorneys’ fees and costs. The most controversial legal issue was whether the defendants’ marketing created a “public nuisance.”
The companies continue to face claims in Alabama, Washington, West Virginia and Oklahoma, where in November 2021 the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the state’s public nuisance statute did not extend to the manufacturing, marketing, and selling of prescription opioids.
On November 23, 2021, an Ohio federal jury found CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart pharmacies liable for recklessly distributing opioids in Lake and Trumbull counties in Ohio. Rite Aid and Giant Eagle settled in 2021. U.S. District Court Judge Dan Polster is scheduled to decide damages this spring.
Please join us on Tuesday, March 8, 2022, at 2:00pm EST/11:00am PST, as John Shu, who has been following the national litigations, will hold a Zoom webinar to update us on the litigations in California, Oklahoma, and Ohio, and discuss their legal and strategic issues.
Featuring:
--John Shu, Professor, Attorney, and Legal Commentator

Book Review: Unborn Human Life and Fundamental Rights: Leading Constitutional Cases under Scrutiny Mar 08, 2022

Show notes

In Unborn Human Life and Fundamental Rights: Leading Constitutional Cases under Scrutiny (Peter Lang, 2019), editors William L. Saunders and Pilar Zambrano have collected a series of essays covering over 10 different nations and jurisdictions and addressing human rights and the role of judiciaries at home and abroad in protecting those rights. Concluding reflections are offered by legal philosopher John Finnis.
Professor Gerard Bradley will discuss his contribution to the volume, as well as the relevant and current issues both here and around the world.
Featuring:
Prof. Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Moderator: Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University
---
This Zoom event is open to public registration.

The Future of the Supreme Court Mar 07, 2022

Show notes

Please join the Practice Groups for a timely webinar on how the upcoming Supreme Court nominee might shape law in the future. Prof. Dan Epps and Ethan Davis will consider the nominee's influence on criminal law, while Prof. William Marshall and Roger Severino will analyze possible effects on civil rights law.
Featuring:
--Prof. Dan Epps, Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis
--Ethan Davis, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding
--Prof. William Marshall, Kenan Professor of Law, University of North Carolina
--Roger Severino, Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center
--Moderator: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society

Switchbacks at the DOJ: the Sessions, Brand, and Garland Memos Mar 07, 2022

Show notes

During President Biden’s first year in office, Attorney General Merrick Garland rescinded two key memos that were part of the Trump Administration’s stated regulatory reform agenda: the Sessions Memo, which prohibited Department of Justice (DOJ) components from issuing “guidance documents” that effectively bound the public without undergoing notice-and-comment rulemaking, and the Brand Memo, which prohibited the Department from using noncompliance with DOJ's or other agencies' nonbinding guidance documents as a basis for affirmative civil enforcement actions. Calling the procedures laid out in the Sessions and Brand memos “overly restrictive,” Attorney General Garland replaced these memos with the Garland memo, which largely makes it easier for the Department to issue guidance and to rely on its own or other agencies' guidance documents in enforcement actions.
What will be the impacts and effects of the Garland memo? Is this a sea change in favor of regulation by guidance, or a recognition by DOJ that guidance documents do not have the force of law? How have regulated entities responded? Acting Associate Attorney General (2017-2019) Jesse Panuccio and Assistant U.S. Attorney (2011-2019) Christopher Sabis will discuss these issues, moderated by Assistant Attorney General (2017-2020) Beth Williams.
Featuring:
--Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
--Christopher Sabis, Member, Sherrard Roe Voigt Harbison
--Moderator: Hon. Beth A. Williams, Board Member, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice
---
To register, click the link above.

March 2022 Virtual DC Lunch with Ed Whelan Mar 03, 2022

Show notes

Join us virtually on Tuesday, March 1 to hear our speakers discuss the Supreme Court nomination.
Featuring:
--Edward Whelan, Distinguished Senior Fellow and Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies, Ethics and Public Policy Center
--Moderator: Steven A. Engel, Partner, Dechert LLP, former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice

Litigation Update: Thomas Jefferson High Litigation Mar 02, 2022

Show notes

Last year, Thomas Jefferson High School (TJ), ranked #1 in the nation for academic excellence, changed its admission policy discarding a merit-based entrance exam in favor of a “holistic evaluation” to determine admission. The school stated the change was made in the name of making the student body more demographically representative. Many concerned parents disagreed, contending that the modification was intended to change the racial makeup of the student body—specifically to exclude some Asian Americans in favor of more whites, blacks, and other racial groups.
Litigation followed. The Coalition for TJ—comprised of approximately 5,000 concerned parents, residents of Fairfax County, and parents of eighth-graders who would be impacted by the admission policy change—sued the Fairfax County School Board and Superintendent Scott Brabrand alleging that the new policy was adopted with racially discriminatory intent in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Last Friday, February 25, a District Court granted summary judgment for the Coalition for TJ. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent cert grant in the pair of Students for Fair Admission's cases—Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admission v. UNC Chapel Hill—the Thomas Jefferson litigation is rapidly gaining national attention.
Nicki Neily, President of Parents Defending Education, joined us for a litigation update on the summary judgment decision and its implications.
Featuring:
Nicki Neily, President of Parents Defending Education
---
To register, click the link above.

Related Podcasts