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:

Litigation Update: Vaccination Mandates Nov 22, 2021

Show notes

The ongoing, high-decibel, public debate over vaccine mandates has entered its litigation phase. Please join us for a conversation with one of the country’s leading vaccine and civil rights litigators, Aaron Siri of Siri|Glimstad. Mr. Siri will provide a litigation update and summarize the issues and strategic challenges facing litigators, their clients, and policy makers. Our host will be Robert Destro, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and Professor of Law at The Catholic University of America. Together, they will discuss the evidentiary and human rights issues facing lawyers who plan to challenge the public health regime.
Featuring:
Aaron Siri, Managing Partner, Siri Glimstad
Moderator: Robert Destro, Professor of Law, Catholic University of America
---
To receive a copy of the documents referenced during this webinar, please email pg@fed-soc.org with the subject line "Vaccination Mandate Documents."

Courthouse Steps Pre-Argument Webinar: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Nov 22, 2021

Show notes

On December 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, one of the most anticipated cases on the Court's docket in recent years, on the question of whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.
In defending its ban on abortions after 15-weeks gestation, Mississippi asks the Court to overrule Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, arguing that the cases were egregiously wrong because a right to abortion has no basis in the text, structure or history of the Constitution. Mississippi further argues that the various frameworks have proved hopelessly unworkable; that the cases have inflicted severe damage on democratic self-government, on the country, and on the understanding that the Supreme Court is a neutral arbiter of the law; that they have been overtaken by a better legal and factual understanding; that reliance interests do not support upholding Roe and that accordingly stare decisis principles counsel in favor of overruling them. Respondents argue that the viability standard is the central line that underpins these rulings, and that the Court's decision to retain it in Casey, in the face of repeated requests to abandon it both in the years leading up to Casey and in Casey itself, makes the bar for overruling it particularly high. They further note stare decisis's centrality to the rule of law and to public confidence in the courts. They add that the viability standard is well-grounded in the Constitution and that a right to abortion remains critical to women's equal participation in the workforce.
Our panel explored these and other arguments and considered whether overruling these decisions, maintaining the viability line in some form, or some other approach best serves the rule of law.
Featuring:
Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley
Prof. Sherif Girgis, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
Prof. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Richard Re, Joel B. Piassick Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. Mary Ziegler, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of Law
Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, formerly U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

A Seat at the Sitting - December 2021 Nov 22, 2021

Show notes

Join us for the third episode of the Federalist Society's Supreme Court Show: A Seat at the Sitting. Each month, a panel of constitutional experts will convene to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket and debrief oral arguments from the previous month. During the first two weeks of December, the Justices will hear ten oral arguments on cases including abortion, religious freedom, habeas, Chevron deference, and the Civil Rights Act.

Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation - Medicare (Nov 29)
Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller P.L.L.C. – compensatory damages under the Civil Rights Act for victims of discrimination/emotional distress (Nov. 30)
American Hospital Association v. Becerra – Chevron deference and preclusion, HHS (Nov. 30)
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization – abortion (Dec. 1)
Patel v. Garland – immigration, federal courts jurisdiction (Dec. 6)
Hughes v. Northwestern University – ERISA, breach of fiduciary duty (Dec. 6)
United States v. Taylor – Hobbs Act, criminal law, armed robbery (Dec. 7)
CVS Pharmacy Inc. v. Doe – disparate impact, discrimination, under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Dec. 7)
Carson v. Makin – religious freedom (Dec. 8)
Shinn v. Ramirez – habeas and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (Dec. 8)

Featuring:
-- Nicole Garnett, John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law, The University of Notre Dame Law School -- Ilya Shapiro, Vice President and Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
-- Mary Ziegler, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of Law
-- Brandon J. Moss, Partner, Wiley Rein
-- Moderator: Adam Liptak, The New York Times

Courthouse Steps Oral Argument Webinar: Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson and United States v. Texas Nov 05, 2021

Show notes

On November 1, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson on whether a state can insulate from federal-court review a law that may prohibit the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the public the authority to enforce that prohibition; and in United States v. Texas on the authority of the federal government to bring suit and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against a state, state court judges, and other states officials or all private parties to prohibit SB 8, a Texas abortion regulation, from being enforced.
A distinguished pair of scholars joined us to discuss the cases, their history, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.
Featuring:
Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Prof. Howard Wasserman, Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

A Seat at the Sitting Nov 02, 2021

Show notes

Join us for the second episode of the Federalist Society’s Supreme Court Show: A Seat at the Sitting. Each month, a panel of constitutional experts will convene to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket and debrief oral arguments from the previous month. During the first two weeks of November, the Justices will hear ten oral arguments on cases including the Second Amendment, free speech, abortion, and religious freedom.
The case names, issues, and dates of argument are listed below:
Whole Women's Health v. Jackson – Abortion – November 1
United States v. Texas (2021) - Abortion, Federal Jurisdiction - November 1
Houston Community College Sys. v. Wilson – First Amendment – November 2
Badgerow v. Walters – Arbitration – November 2
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen – Second Amendment – November 3
FBI v. Fazaga – National Security – November 8
Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M – Intellectual Property – November 8
United States v. Vaello Madero – Equal Protection challenge to Social Security – November 9
Ramirez v. Collier – Religious Freedom – November 9
Austin v. Reagan National Advertising - First Amendment – November 10
Featuring:
Hon. Beth A. Williams, Former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice
David H. Thompson, Managing Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC
Andrew J. Pincus, Partner, Mayer Brown
Jennifer Lichter, Deputy General Counsel, Catholic University of America
---
To register, click the link above.

The FTC in the Current Administration: Buckle Your Seatbelts Nov 02, 2021

Show notes

The last few months have seen significant changes at the Federal Trade Commission. The new FTC has set an ambitious agenda that revives the agency, propelling it in directions we haven’t previously seen. The FTC is poised to engage in wide-ranging antitrust and consumer protection investigations, issue industry-wide rules, and blend antitrust and consumer missions for a better outcome.
Featuring:
Adam Cella, Attorney Advisor, Office of Hon. Christine Wilson, Federal Trade Commission
Debbie Feinstein, Partner and Chair, Global Antitrust, Arnold & Porter
Jessica Rich, Of Counsel, Kelley Drye; former Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission
Moderator: Svetlana Gans, former Chief of Staff, Federal Trade Commission
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

China Fully Engaged in Latin America: What Is the U.S. Plan? Oct 26, 2021

Show notes

China’s Belt and Road Initiative’s (BRI) global ambitions have involved more than seventy countries. For the United States, these BRI developments and independent influence operations in South America raise security and strategy concerns. In the region south of Mexico and related seas, China is reportedly participating in more than two dozen deep-water port expansion and building projects. The PRC’s deepening relationship with Panama’s government has raised alarm, but China is also engaging with Bolivia, Argentina, Cuba, and Venezuela. China’s People’s Liberation Army operates a space station from the south of Argentina. Is China exporting digital authoritarianism through surveillance architecture, as seen most recently with the Fatherland Identity Card in Venezuela? Are there long-term implications for the ability of Latin American countries to make autonomous sovereign decisions, and for longevity of U.S. relationships in the region?
Featuring:
-- Dr. Evan Ellis, Latin America Research Professor, U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute
-- Ryan Berg, Senior Fellow, Americas Program; Head of the Future of Venezuela Initiative, Center for Strategic and International Studies
-- Erick A. Brimen, CEO & Chairman of the Board, Honduras Próspera
-- Moderator: Julian Ku, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Faculty Director of International Programs, and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University

Discussion: The OCR's Investigation of State Mask Mandate Bans Oct 21, 2021

Show notes

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has launched an investigation into the legality of state bans forbidding schools from imposing mask mandates on their students. OCR indicated two major bases for potential illegality: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which prohibit discrimination against students on the basis of a disability and guarantee students with disabilities access to a public education.
Opponents of the mask mandate bans argue that students with disabilities cannot access public education if other students and staff are not required to be masked. Proponents of the bans argue that parents should not be deprived of the right to make health decisions for their children. Other arguments concern the proper scope and limits on federal involvement in school matters.
Featuring:
Prof. Robert Dinerstein, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law
Sarah Perry, Legal Fellow, Heritage Foundation, Edwin Meese Center
Moderator: Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

What is the Right Way Forward on Clemency Reform? Oct 19, 2021

Show notes

The Biden administration has announced it is considering clemency for convicted drug offenders among the approximately 4,000 prisoners released early from federal prison due to the pandemic, who are subject to being returned when the national emergency declaration expires. Some argue this does not go far enough, noting the administration has not proposed structural changes to a process they describe as marred by delays and political favoritism in administrations of both parties. Among the key questions are how to balance expectations for finality among prosecutors, victims, and the public with the benefits of second chances earned after an objective review. Also, this discussion will explore whether the clemency process should be partly or fully moved out of DOJ.
Featuring:
Rachel Barkow, Vice Dean and Charles Seligson Professor of Law; Faculty Director, Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, NYU School of Law
Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Senior Legal Research Fellow, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Institute for Constitutional Government, The Heritage Foundation
Moderator: Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel at the Council on Criminal Justice; Senior Advisor to Right on Crime, Texas Public Policy Foundation

The DOJ, Domestic Terrorism, and School Boards Oct 19, 2021

Show notes

Widespread concern over continued covid-19 related measures and the implementation of critical race theory in public school curricula has prompted many people to speak out at school board meetings in recent months. On September 29, 2021, the National School Boards Association submitted a letter to President Joe Biden requesting federal assistance in responding to alleged "acts of violence affecting interstate commerce because of threats to their [NSBA's] districts, families, and personal safety" which in the NSBA’s opinion "could be the equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate speech." Last week, President Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memorandum directing the Department of Justice to investigate and partner with local law enforcement to address a "disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence."
Featuring:
-- Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, Former United States Attorney General

Related Podcasts