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:

Infrastructure, Broadband, and the New Administration May 25, 2021

Show notes

In March 2021, the Biden Administration unveiled its infrastructure plan, known as the American Jobs Act. An important part of the plan is technology, and a focus point is improving the nation's broadband network. A panel of experts joins us to discuss the plan and its implications.
Featuring:
Prof. Christopher Yoo, University of Pennsylvania Law School
Tony Clark, Senior Advisor, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP
Kate O’Connor, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Moderator: Hon. David Redl, Founder and CEO, Salt Point Strategies LLC and Senior Fellow, Silicon Flatirons
* * * * *
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: CIC Services LLC v. Internal Revenue Service May 25, 2021

Show notes

On May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Services, a case involving the Anti-Injunction Act and tax penalties. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for the Court and Justices Sotomayor and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions.
Joining us to discuss the decision and its implications are several experts in the field.
Featuring:
Susan C. Morse, Angus G. Wynne, Sr. Professor in Civil Jurisprudence, University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
Moderator: Robert T. Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale; Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University Law Center
* * * * *
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 Conversation with Commissioner Brian D. Quintenz of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission May 25, 2021

Show notes

In March 2021, a futures exchange, ErisX, voluntarily withdrew an application with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC," the main derivatives regulator) to list a futures contract tied to events in NFL games such as point spread and total points. It had become clear that the CFTC was going to reject it as a "prohibited event contract." The issue likely would have faded away except that one of the CFTC's five commissioners, Brian Quintenz, released a statement "blowing the whistle" on the non-public agency process and questioning the CFTC's authority. Join Commissioner Quintenz for a discussion.
Featuring:
-- Hon. Brian D. Quintenz, Commissioner, Commodity Futures Trading Commission
-- Moderator: Gary Kalbaugh, Special Professor of Law, Maurice A. Dean 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 Teleforum: Edwards v. Vannoy May 24, 2021

Show notes

Due to technical difficulties, this teleforum has been rescheduled for Friday, May 21 at 1:30 PM ET.
On May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Edwards v. Vannoy, which focused on whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana applied retroactively to cases on federal collateral review. By a vote of 6-3, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is affirmed. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor. Kent Scheidegger joins us to discuss this decision and its implications.
Featuring:
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Courthouse Steps Decision Teleforum: BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore May 24, 2021

Show notes

Nearly two dozen lawsuits against energy manufacturers seeking state tort damages over climate change have been filed in state courts. The defendants removed the cases to federal courts because the subject matter of the litigation involves exclusively federal issues, namely national energy policy over the worldwide uses of fossil fuels.
On May 17, 2021, The Supreme Court released its decision in one of the cases, BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. By a vote of 7-1, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was vacated and the case remanded. Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion was joined by all other members of the Court except Justice Sotomayor, who dissented, and Justice Alito, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Phil Goldberg and Karen Harned join us to discuss this decision and its implications.
Featuring:
-- Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project (MAP), a project of The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and Washington D.C. Office Managing Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP
-- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center

Courthouse Steps Decision Teleforum: Caniglia v. Strom May 19, 2021

Show notes

On May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court released its decision in Caniglia v. Strom, which focused on whether the community-caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extended to the home. By a vote of 9-0, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is vacated and the case remanded. Although Justice Thomas's opinion for the Court was unanimous, The Chief Justice filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Breyer. Justices Alito and Kavanaugh also filed concurring opinions. Our two experts join us to offer commentary on this decision.
Featuring:
Matt Cavedon, Criminal Defense Attorney, Gainesville, GA
Robert Frommer, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Litigation Update: Brown v. Becerra May 18, 2021

Show notes

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a moratorium on evictions nationwide on September 4, 2020 and coupled the moratorium with federal criminal penalties for those landlords who seek relief from state courts. In the first case filed against the moratorium, the New Civil Liberties Alliance took on the representation of several housing providers, including Rick Brown, and the National Apartment Association. In Brown v. Becerra, NCLA challenged the CDC’s moratorium on both statutory and U.S. Constitutional grounds in the Northern District of Georgia. A preliminary injunction in the case is now on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit with oral argument scheduled for May 14, 2021.
Joining us to discuss the Brown v. Becerra argument and the status of the case to date is NCLA attorney Caleb Kruckenberg.
Featuring:
-- Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
-- Moderator: Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

Courthouse Steps Decision Teleforum: Jones v. Mississippi May 12, 2021

Show notes

On April 22, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Jones v. Mississippi. By a vote of 6-3, the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Mississippi was affirmed. The case concerns a Mississippi statute that allows imposition of a life without parole sentence, and a defendant who was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offense. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan. Marc Levin joins us to discuss the decision and its implications.
Featuring:
Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Litigation Update: Wisconsin Equal Protection and Race Based Scholarships May 11, 2021

Show notes

A biracial Wisconsin couple—Konkanok Rabieba and Richard Freihoefer—is suing the state of Wisconsin over its Minority Grant Program: a state scholarship program which awards education grants to certain minorities but not to others or to whites. Although the plaintiffs’ son is half Thai, he is ineligible to apply for the Program because applications are only accepted from persons who are black, Hispanic, American Indian, or “admitted to the United States after December 31, 1975, and who either is a former citizen of Laos, Vietnam or Cambodia or whose ancestor was or is a citizen of Laos, Vietnam or Cambodia.” Rabieba and Freihoefer allege that administration of the program on this basis unconstitutionally discriminates against non-minorities and minorities not included in the program's defined class on the basis of race and national origin in violation of the Wisconsin state constitution.
Featuring:
-- Rick M. Esenberg, Founder, President, and General Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty

Litigation Update: Johnson & Johnson v. Ingham May 07, 2021

Show notes

Johnson & Johnson v. Ingham is a pending petition before the U.S. Supreme Court. It involves many important legal issues, specifically: (1) whether a court must assess if consolidating multiple plaintiffs for a single trial violates Due Process, or whether it can presume that jury instructions always cure both jury confusion and prejudice to the defendant; (2) whether a punitive-damages award violates Due Process when it far exceeds a substantial compensatory-damages award, and whether the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages for jointly and severally liable defendants is calculated by assuming that each defendant will pay the entire compensatory award; and (3) whether the “arise out of or relate to” requirement for specific personal jurisdiction can be met by merely showing a “link” in the chain of causation, as the Court of Appeals of Missouri held, or whether a heightened showing of relatedness is required, as the Ford Motor Company in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court has argued.
Attorney John Reeves, who filed an amicus brief for petitioners on behalf of the Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers, will discuss the case and its implications.
Featuring:
-- John Reeves, Founder and Member, Reeves Law LLC

Related Podcasts