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:

Courthouse Steps Decision Webinar: Lange v. California Jun 29, 2021

Show notes

The Supreme Court issued its decision in Lange v. California on June 23, 2021. Lange was pulled over by a California policeman for misdemeanor driving violations. Instead of stopping when the police officer initiated the stop, Lange drove home and fled into his garage. The officer followed him into his garage—without a warrant—and arrested him for drunk driving. Lange moved to suppress the evidence of his intoxication recovered after the police officer entered his garage. California state courts ruled against Lange, the California Supreme Court denied review, and Lange appealed the Fourth Amendment issue to the Supreme Court.
The Court held that the hot pursuit exigency exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment is not a categorical exception where a police officer has probable cause to believe the suspect committed a misdemeanor. The 1976 decision in United States v. Santana cited by amici does not create a categorical flight exception. Instead, determining whether hot pursuit of a misdemeanant allows for a warrantless entry requires case by case analysis.
Featuring:
Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
Larry H. James, Managing Partner, Crabbe Brown & James LLP
Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Recent Evolution (or Revolution?) in Federal Trademark and Unfair Competition Law Jun 29, 2021

Show notes

Recent rulings from the United States Supreme Court and regional circuit courts have shed new light on what have long been understood to be settled—if not always clear—principles in arenas such as protectability of product configurations, colors and even generally used commercial terms. The panel reviewed these developments, as well as recent changes of significance in the law of both injunctive and monetary remedies for trademark infringement.
Featuring:
-- Stephen Baird, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig LLP
-- Antoinette Tease, Founder, Antoinette M. Tease PLLC
-- Moderator: Andrew Halaby, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig LLP
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Courthouse Steps Decision Teleforum: Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid Jun 29, 2021

Show notes

The Supreme Court issued its decision in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid today, June 23, 2021, holding 6-3 that a California regulation allowing California union organizers entry onto the private property of California growers constituted an uncompensated per se physical taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Ninth Circuit’s decision upholding the regulation was reversed and the case was remanded.
Featuring:
Wen Fa, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
---
Dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

Courthouse Steps Decision Webinar: United States v. Arthrex Jun 24, 2021

Show notes

On June 21, 2021, the US Supreme Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice Roberts explained that the patent judge's unreviewable authority is incompatible with his appointment as an inferior officer.
Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined Parts I and II of the opinion, and Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined Part III of the opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined as to Parts I and II.
Featuring:
Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
Prof. Dmitry Karshtedt, Associate Professor of Law, The George Washington Law School
Moderator: Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School 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.

Courthouse Steps Decision Webinar: California v. Texas Jun 24, 2021

Show notes

On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided California v. Texas. Writing for the 7-2 majority, Justice Stephen Breyer explained that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Affordable Care Act's minimum essential coverage provision. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined.
Two experts join us to discuss the ruling and offer their differing views on the important constitutional issues involved, including standing and severability.
Featuring:
Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
---
This Zoom webinar is open to public registration at the link above.

McGirt: One Year Later Jun 24, 2021

Show notes

As the 2020 term concluded, the US Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Muskogee Creek Reservation in Oklahoma was never disestablished by Congress. This has led to Oklahoma courts declaring that reservations for the Chickasaw, Cherokee, Choctaw and Seminole Nation reservations continue to exist as well, creating unanswered questions about state and tribal authority in much of the eastern half of the state.
The webinar explorde some of the litigation that has arisen after the ruling in McGirt, discussions between the state and the nations, and congressional discussions that have occurred in the past year.
Featuring:
Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, GreenbergTraurig
Ryan Leonard, Special Counsel for Native American Affairs to Gov. Stitt
Moderator: Eric Grant, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice
* * * * *
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 Policy and the Pacific Trade Pact Jun 24, 2021

Show notes

President Trump declined to join the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership but many of China’s neighbors (with others) joined that trade agreement. Would U.S. accession now encourage Asian nations to resist Chinese expansionism? Can the agreement be renegotiated to satisfy U.S. objections? Can the Biden administration find supportive majorities in Congress to approve U.S. participation in a big new trade deal? An Asian affairs specialist (Michael Auslin, Hoover Institution), a trade law specialist (Jeffrey Gerrish, Skadden Arps) and nd a close observer of China policy and congressional currents (Nova Daly, Wiley Rein) will discuss the prospects, moderated by Jeremy Rabkin (George Mason University).
Featuring:
-- Dr. Michael R. Auslin, Payson J. Treat Distinguished Research Fellow in Contemporary Asia, Hoover Institution
-- Jeffrey Gerrish, Partner, CFIUS and Foreign Investment Reviews; National Security; International Trade, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates
-- Nova J. Daly, Senior Public Policy Advisor, Wiley Rein LLP
-- Moderator: Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Courthouse Steps Decision Teleforum: Sanchez v. Mayorkas Jun 24, 2021

Show notes

The Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Sanchez v. Mayorkas on June 7, 2021.
Jose Santos Sanchez, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States illegally in 1997. Four years later, he applied for and was granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) then in 2014, Sanchez applied for Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services denied Sanchez’ LPR application, finding him ineligible based on his illegal entry—so Sanchez sued in District Court. The court sided with Sanchez, holding that the grant of TPS automatically made Sanchez eligible for LPR consideration.
On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed, finding Sanchez ineligible for LPR, based on his illegal entry, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The Court found that eligibility for LPR status under 8 U.S.C. Section 1255 requires “admission” defined as “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.” As a result, Sanchez’ illegal entry made him ineligible for LPR.
Featuring:
Hon. Grover Joseph Rees, III, retired United States Ambassador to East Timor, General Counsel of the US Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1991 through 1993
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Talks with Authors: What Are the Extent and Limits of Executive Power? Jun 22, 2021

Show notes

Three of the nation's leading scholars on constitutional law and executive power — Michael McConnell, Sai Prakash, and John Yoo — join us to discuss the true extent of executive power, and their new books on the subject.
The most recent book, The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power under the Constitution by Prof. McConnell, was reviewed in the pages of the Federalist Society Review by John Yoo. Before that, Profs. Prakash and Yoo joined the Federalist Society's Teleforum to debate the Constitution's grant of presidential power and whether (or to what extent) President Trump upheld that grant. The discussion continues with the new voice of former federal judge and distinguished originalist scholar Michael McConnell.
Featuring:
-- Prof. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
-- Prof. Saikrishna B. Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution
-- Moderator: Dean A. Reuter, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

Courthouse Steps Decision Webinar: Fulton v. City of Philadelphia Jun 22, 2021

Show notes

On June 17, 2021, the US Supreme Court unanimously decided Fulton v. City of Philadelphia for petitioners. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court in an opinion joined by Justices Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, explained that the city violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause when it refused to contract with Catholic Social Services for foster-care services unless CSS agreed to certify same-sex couples as foster parents.
Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Kavanaugh joined and Justice Breyer joined as to all but the first paragraph. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined.
Featuring:
Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Related Podcasts