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: Louisiana v. Callais May 05, 2026

Show notes

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's congressional map, holding that the state had unconstitutionally relied on race in drawing district lines. The state's first map following the 2020 census contained one majority-black district, but the state redrew the map after a district court suggested that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act required the state to create two majority-black districts.
The redrawn map was itself challenged, however, as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6 - 3 decision ruling striking down the map. Louisiana had defended the map by arguing that it was required to consider race in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act, but the Court held that the VRA did not in fact require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district. Accordingly, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating the congressional map.
Join us for a discussion of the decision and its implications going forward.
Featuring:
Bradley A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law Group
Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

What Did the Founders Think of the President’s Pardon Power? Apr 30, 2026

Show notes

In this Federalist Society America250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.During the constitutional convention, Alexander Hamilton raised the idea of a presidential pardon power, borrowing from the British monarchy’s prerogative of mercy. Hamilton’s proposal ultimately resulted in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the president the authority to pardon individuals convicted of a federal crime.The first presidential pardon was exercised by George Washington in 1795, when he granted amnesty to individuals who participated in Pennsylvania’s Whiskey Rebellion. Since then, there have been more than 14,000 instances of presidential pardons. From Andrew Johnson’s pardon of Jefferson Davis to Gerald Ford’s preemptive pardon of Richard Nixon to more recent instances including Joe Biden’s preemptive pardon of Hunter Biden and Donald Trump’s January 6th pardons, presidents’ use – and sometimes purported abuse – of the power has been a controversial and fiercely debated executive authority throughout our nation’s history.
Join our panel of experts as they explore the Founders’ views of the pardon power and place recent use in context with the founding generation.
Featuring:
Paul J. Larkin, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American Freedom
Andrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute; Contributing Editor, National Review
James Trusty, Member, Ifrah Law
(Moderator) Jeffrey DeSousa, Florida Office of the Attorney General

From Chambers to the Front Page: Supreme Court Leaks and Judicial Integrity Apr 23, 2026

Show notes

What happens when confidential Supreme Court deliberations make their way into the press—most recently through a New York Times report based on leaked internal “shadow docket” materials?
Join the Federalist Society for a timely briefing examining the Times’ reporting on internal Court memos and emergency docket decision-making, and what such leaks mean for judicial independence, institutional norms, and public trust in the Court.
Featuring:
Carrie Campbell Severino, President, JCN
Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law and Faculty Co-Director for the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, Georgetown University Law Center
(Moderator) Annie Donaldson Talley, Partner, Luther Strange & Associates

A Seat at the Sitting - April 2026 Apr 16, 2026

Show notes

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission, (April 20) - Corporations & Securities; Issue(s): Whether the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm.
T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., (April 20) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Standing; Issue(s): Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents parties who lose in state courts from challenging injuries caused by state-court judgments, can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court.
Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.,(April 21) - Communications & Technology; Issue(s): Whether the Communications Act of 1934 provisions that govern the Federal Communications Commission’s assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III.
Bondi v. Lau, (April 22) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether, to remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident's last reentry into the United States.
Chatrie v. United States, (April 27) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
Monsanto Company v. Durnell, (April 27) - Energy & Environmental Law; Issue(s): Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, (April 28) - International Law & Human Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting; and (2) whether the Torture Victim Protection Act allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., (April 29) - Patent Law / Intellectual Property Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether, when a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a “generic version” and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) are enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use; and (2) whether a complaint states a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use.
Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, (April 29) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether the Trump administration can end the Temporary Protected Status program for Syrian and Haitian nationals.

Foreign Influence Operations and National Security Apr 15, 2026

Show notes

Foreign influence operations have become increasingly important in geopolitical competition and American national security. China is among the most active would-be influencers, with efforts to infiltrate decision-making in federal, state, and local governments, corporate America, Silicon Valley and Wall Street, within cultural and educational institutions, and most importantly, within the minds of Americans. A House Oversight Committee government-wide investigation showed that Chinese Communist Party influence operations even extended into federal agencies and the intelligence community — to the very people responsible for safeguarding American interests.
Israel has been another key target in recent years. Especially after 10/7, there has been an explosion of bias and misinformation, with foreign influencers stoking antisemitism in the U.S., especially among younger generations. Join us for a discussion that will explore the key actors behind these operations, their sources of funding, and their underlying motivations as well as the broader implications for U.S. national security.
Featuring:
Margaret Harker, Litigator and Former DOJ Attorney
Park MacDougald, Writer and Editor, Tablet Magazine
(Moderator) Vince Vitkowsky, Fellow, National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

The GENIUS Act in Practice: Key Questions for Stablecoin Regulation Apr 08, 2026

Show notes

The GENIUS Act of 2025 was a watershed moment in the legal framework for stablecoins, but now implementing regulations are due in July, and many key questions are far from settled. How will the regulation will be carried out, how will systemic risks be addressed, how big a role will banks play in stablecoins, what role will stablecoins assume in the broader payment system, how will yield-bearing arrangements using stablecoins be treated, who will bear the regulatory costs?
On March 31, 2026, the Federalist Society's Financial Services Practice Group will convene a panel of leading practitioners, regulators, and policy thinkers to examine these questions and the implementation landscape ahead.
Featuring:
Hon. Michael S. Barr, Member, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Hon. Summer Mersinger, Chief Executive Officer, Blockchain Association
Alex Pollock, Senior Fellow, Mises Institute
Greg Xethalis, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, Multicoin Capital
(Moderator) Gary Kalbaugh, Partner, Cahill Gordon & Reindel

Courthouse Steps Decision: Chiles v. Salazar Apr 02, 2026

Show notes

Chiles v. Salazar addressed whether a Colorado law prohibiting “conversion therapy” violates the First Amendment. The case arose from a challenge to a Colorado law that limited what licensed therapists could say about gender and sexuality when counseling gay and transgender clients. Kaley Chiles, a professional counselor, argued that the law infringed her First Amendment right to free speech. On March 31, the Supreme Court issued an 8-1 decision in Chiles’s favor, holding that the law, as applied to her talk therapy, amounts to viewpoint-based regulation of speech. The Court also found that the lower courts failed to apply the rigorous level of scrutiny required by the First Amendment.
Join us for a discussion on this decision and its implications for the future.
Featuring:
Paul Avelar, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law and Faculty Co-Director for the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, Georgetown University Law Center
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal Strategy, Stand Together; Senior Advisor, Americans for Prosperity

Combating Antisemitism on College Campuses: A Look at the Trump Administration's Civil Rights Enforcement Efforts One Year In Mar 31, 2026

Show notes

In March 2025, the U.S. Department of Education began investigating dozens of colleges - including Harvard and Columbia - for possible violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act for their alleged failure to protect Jewish students from harassment and discrimination on campus. The administration threatened to withhold federal funding and many colleges struck deals to preserve their funding. Critics charged the administration with heavy-handed enforcement tactics that burdened academic freedom and free speech on campus. Join our panel of experts as they explore how these enforcement efforts have played out after one year and what we may expect in the future.
Featuring:
Prof. David D. Cole, Hon. George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy, Georgetown Law School
Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP
Dr. Chris Schorr, Director of the Higher Education Reform Initiative, America First Policy Institute
Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute
(Moderator) Andrew Grossman, Partner, BakerHostetler LLP

The Return of the Monroe Doctrine? Venezuela, Ecuador, and American Foreign Policy Mar 24, 2026

Show notes

Nearly two centuries after President James Monroe announced a landmark foreign-policy principle in his 1823 address to Congress, the Monroe Doctrine continues to resonate and prompt debate in U.S. strategic thinking toward Latin America. Originally articulated to warn European powers against new colonial ventures in the Western Hemisphere and to assert a sphere of influence rooted in American security interests, the Doctrine helped define the United States’ role in the hemisphere throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Over time, it has been extended, reinterpreted, and invoked in a series of diplomatic and military contexts — from the Venezuelan boundary dispute under President Grover Cleveland to various interventions throughout Central America and the Caribbean.
Recently, the Monroe Doctrine has reemerged at the center of discussion following U.S. operations in Venezuela earlier this year and more recently in Ecuador. Conversations debating whether these actions signal a return to an assertive interpretation of the Doctrine are taking place with questions about what implications this holds for the nature of U.S. power in the Americas.
Featuring:
Prof. John C. Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law and Class of 1941 Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel Heller Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Public Law & Policy Program, University of California at Berkeley
(Moderator) Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor Emeritus of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

A Seat at the Sitting - March 2026 Mar 18, 2026

Show notes

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.
Watson v. Republican National Committee, (March 23) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether the federal election-day statutes, 2 U.S.C. § 7, 2 U.S.C. § 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 1, preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.
Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., (March 24) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel can be invoked to bar a plaintiff who fails to disclose a civil claim in bankruptcy filings from pursuing that claim simply because there is a potential motive for nondisclosure, regardless of whether there is evidence that the plaintiff in fact acted in bad faith.
Noem v. Al Otro Lado, (March 24) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.–Mexico border “arrives in the United States” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., which provides that an alien who “arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration officer.
Flower Foods, Inc. v. Brock, (March 25) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether workers who deliver locally goods that travel in interstate commerce — but who do not transport the goods across borders nor interact with vehicles that cross borders — are “transportation workers” “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” for purposes of the exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.
Abouammo v. United States, (March 30) - Proper Venue, Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether venue is proper in a district where no offense conduct took place, so long as the statute’s intent element “contemplates” effects that could occur there.
Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, (March 30) - Jurisdiction; Issue(s): Whether a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintains jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking.
Pitchford v. Cain, (March 31) - Criminal Appellate Litigation; Issue(s): Whether, under the standards set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably determined that petitioner waived his right to rebut the prosecutor's asserted race-neutral reasons for exercising peremptory strikes against four black jurors.
Trump v. Barbara, (April 1) - Birthright Citizenship, Fourteenth Amendment; Whether Executive Order No. 14,160 complies on its face with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and with 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which codifies that clause.
Featuring:
Lisa L. Dixon, Executive Director, Center for Election Confidence
Hon. Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP
Zac Morgan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation
Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General
(Moderator) Oliver Dunford, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Related Podcasts