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 Oral Argument Teleforum: Lange v. California Mar 09, 2021

Show notes

In Lange v. California, defendant Arthur Lange challenges the application of the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment in California state court arguing exigent circumstances should apply only in genuine emergencies – not where the police are in hot pursuit following a misdemeanor traffic violation. Lange argues the evidence supporting his DUI arrest and conviction should be thrown out because it surfaced only after the police followed Lange into his garage following his commission of misdemeanor traffic offenses. California upheld Lange’s conviction favoring a case by case approach to applying the exigent circumstances exception to pursuit following probable cause of a misdemeanor. Other states have adopted a blanket ban on misdemeanors providing the exigent circumstances necessary to justify a warrantless search.
In granting certiorari, the Supreme Court will address the split among the states and consider whether pursuit following probable cause of a misdemeanor always qualifies as an exigent circumstance allowing warrantless entry. Oral argument is scheduled for February 24, 2021.
Panelists Larry James, Managing Partner at Crabbe Browne & James LLP and General Counsel of the National Fraternal Order of Police, Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, and Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute, will join us to discuss.
Featuring:
Larry James, Managing Partner at Crabbe Browne & James LLP and General Counsel of the National Fraternal Order of Police
Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute
Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute
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 Oral Argument Teleforum: Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee Mar 05, 2021

Show notes

In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and the consolidated case of Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee, the Supreme Court will address issues raised under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fifteenth Amendment. Under Section 2, which restates and expands the protections of the Fifteenth Amendment, "no voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice or procedure” may be imposed in a manner that is intentionally discriminatory or has a disparate impact on a racial or language minority.
In this case, the DNC challenged two of Arizona’s voting procedures: discarding out-of-precinct provisional votes where the ballot itself was filled out properly and disallowing third parties to collect and deliver completed vote-by-mail ballots. The DNC argued the provisional ballot rule has a disparate impact on African American, Native American, and Hispanic citizens and the ban on third party delivery was enacted with discriminatory intent. On appeal, the Arizona Republican Party challenges the Ninth Circuit’s finding of discriminatory intent and argues that race neutral and generally applicable voting laws which offer all citizens an equal opportunity to vote do not violate Section 2. Although Arizona won at the District Court level and a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, the Ninth Circuit reheard en banc and reversed, finding the District Court clearly erred.
Featuring:
-- Professor Derek Muller, Professor of Law at the University of Iowa College of Law

Courthouse Steps Oral Argument Teleforum: Carr v. Saul Mar 05, 2021

Show notes

On March 3, 2021, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Carr v. Saul. This case involves important constitutional questions of appointments and officer status. Specifically, the case deals with the question of whether a claimant seeking disability benefits under the Social Security Act forfeits an Appointments Clause challenge to the appointment of an administrative law judge by failing to present that challenge during administrative proceedings.
Profs. Jennifer Mascott and Richard Pierce, distinguished experts in the field of administrative law, join us to discuss the case, review oral arguments, and discuss implications, and offer their thoughts on related constitutional questions.
Featuring:
Prof. Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Prof. Richard Pierce, Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School
---
This call is open to the public and press. Dial 888-752-3232 to be connected.

Courthouse Steps Oral Argument Webinar: United States v. Arthrex Inc. Mar 03, 2021

Show notes

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in United States v. Arthrex Inc. on March 1, 2021. This case is an important one for the office of patent judges. At issue in the case is whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, administrative patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are principal officers, requiring presidential appointment and Senate confirmation, or are "inferior officers." Also at issue is whether if they are principal officers, the lower court properly cured any Appointments Clause defects in the current statutory scheme.
Profs. Greg Dolin and Dmitry Karshtedt join us review oral arguments, discuss the case, and offer their divergent views on the merits in a discussion moderated by Prof. Kristen Osenga.
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
---
This video Teleforum call is open to the public and press. Register above.

Law and Corporate Social Responsibility Mar 02, 2021

Show notes

On February 25, 2021, The Federalist Society's Practice Groups and In-House Counsel Working Group hosted a lively panel on Law and Corporate Social Responsibility. With the start of the 2021 proxy season, the period when many public companies hold their annual shareholder meetings and consider proxy proposals, it seems timely to revisit the discussion around Milton Friedman’s essay, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.” Fifty years ago he published his view that the responsibility of business is “to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game” and it has been debated by economists, scholars, shareholders, and CEOs since that time.
Featuring:
-- Hon. Myron T. Steele, Partner, Potter Anderson Corroon; former Chief Justice, Delaware Supreme Court
-- Hon. Elad L. Roisman, Commissioner and formerly Acting Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
-- Moderator: Hon. Paul S. Atkins, CEO, Patomak Global Partners; former Commissioner, U.S. Securities and Exchange 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.

Undue Delay or Due Process? Does the Due Process Clause Require a Prompt Post-Seizure Hearing When the Government Seizes an Individual’s Pro Mar 02, 2021

Show notes

The Institute for Justice (IJ) has filed a petition for certiorari in Serrano v. CPB, asking the Court: “When the government seizes a vehicle for civil forfeiture, does due process require a prompt post-seizure hearing to test the legality of the seizure and continued detention of the vehicle pending the final forfeiture trial?” As Gerardo Serrano was driving his Ford F-250 truck across the U.S.-Mexico border, CBP agents searched the vehicle and found five .380 caliber bullets and one .380 caliber magazine in the center console. Gerardo explained that he had a valid concealed carry permit in his home state of Kentucky; he had simply forgotten the bullets and magazine were in the truck. CBP seized Gerardo’s truck for civil forfeiture on the ground that he had attempted to export “munitions of war.” Gerardo asked CBP for a hearing before a judge, but CBP held his truck for over two years without a hearing.
Our expert panelists disagree on many of the principal issues of the case: Was Mr. Serrano entitled to a hearing promptly after his vehicle was seized? Is the current forfeiture hearing process and timeline consistent with due process and originalism? Will the Court take this case and what should they decide? On the call to discuss these fascinating questions and more is IJ attorney, Rob Johnson, Mr. Serrano’s lead attorney, and two of the leading experts on civil-asset forfeiture in the country today, Stef Cassella and David Smith.
Featuring:
-- Stef Cassella, CEO, Asset Forfeiture Law, LLC
-- Robert Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
-- David Smith, David B. Smith, PLLC
-- Moderator: Adam Griffin, Constitutional Law Fellow, Institute for Justice

Fireside Chat with Bilal Sayyed, former FTC Director, Office of Policy Planning Feb 24, 2021

Show notes

The Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group and Regulatory Transparency Project was pleased to host this fireside discussion between Mr. Bilal Sayyed, most-recently Director of the Federal Trade Commission's Office of Policy Planning, and Svetlana Gans, Vice President and Associate General Counsel at NCTA and former chief of staff at the FTC. They discussed the current state of the FTC, challenges facing the agency, and the path ahead in the new administration.
Featuring:
--Bilal Sayyed, Senior Adjunct Fellow, TechFreedom; formerly Director, Federal Trade Commission Office of Policy Planning
--Moderator: Svetlana Gans, Vice President & Associate General Counsel, NCTA

China's Treatment of Turkic Muslims Feb 24, 2021

Show notes

The Federalist Society hosts Prof. Beth Van Schaack and Mr. John Bellinger for a discussion about the current treatment of Turkic Muslim civilians by the People's Republic of China ("PRC"), under a policy that the PRC describes as a counter-terrorism campaign but that others have described as a genocide. Prof. Van Schaack is the Acting Director of the International Human Rights Clinic at Stanford Law School, and previously served as the Deputy to the Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues in the Office of Global Criminal Justice of the U.S. Department of State. Mr. Bellinger is a partner at Arnold & Porter, and previously served as Legal Adviser to the Department of State, as Senior Associate Counsel to the President, and as Legal Adviser to the National Security Council.
Featuring:
-- John B. Bellinger, III, Partner, Arnold & Porter
-- Prof. Beth Van Schaack, Leah Kaplan Visiting Professor in Human Rights, Stanford Law School

The Telecommunications Act at 25 Years: A Panel Discussion Feb 19, 2021

Show notes

On February 8, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996, the most significant revision of the Communications Act since its enactment in 1934. In the 1996 Act’s preamble, Congress declared the statute’s purpose “to promote competition and reduce regulation.” And the conference report accompanying the law stated it was intended “to provide for a pro-competitive, deregulatory national policy framework.” At the signing ceremony, President Clinton’s rhetoric was soaring: “With the stroke of a pen, our laws will catch up with our future.”
Now, a quarter century after the Telecom Act’s passage, we can celebrate the 25th anniversary and acknowledge the achievement, while – with the benefit of hindsight – also taking a critical look at what the 1996 Act actually accomplished and whether it needs updating. This program will address these fundamental questions: (1) what did the 1996 Act get right; (2) what did it get wrong; and (3) should it now be updated or substantially rewritten, and if so, in what way? The Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group is pleased to host a distinguished panel to address these questions.
Free State Foundation President Randolph May, a former FCC Associate General Counsel with over four decades of experience in the communications law and policy field, will moderate a discussion among experts: Harold Furthgott-Roth, a former FCC commissioner who served as a principal House Commerce Committee staff member working on the 1996 Act; Michelle Connolly, Professor of the Practice in the Economics Department at Duke University who twice served as Chief Economist at the FCC; and Chris Lewis, President and CEO of Public Knowledge who has served as Deputy Director of the FCC’s Office of Legislative Affairs.
Featuring:
-- Michelle Connolly, Professor of the Practice, Duke University; former Chief Economist, Federal Communications Commission
-- Chris Lewis, President & CEO, Public Knowledge; former Deputy Director, FCC Office of Legislative Affairs
-- Hon. Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow and Director, Center for the Economics of the Internet, Hudson Institute; former FCC Commissioner
-- Moderator: Randolph May, President, Free State Foundation; Executive Committee Member, Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group

The Injunction Presumption: Revisiting eBay v. MercExchange Feb 08, 2021

Show notes

The Federalist Society's Intellectual Property Practice Group is pleased to host this panel discussion on the elimination of the injunction presumption by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in eBay v. MercExchange (2006), and what impact this decision has had on the patent system, especially with respect to the concepts of “efficient infringement,” patent-owner leverage (or lack thereof) and the innovation economy. Our distinguished panelists will offer diverse perspectives on these issues and more.
Featuring:
-- Mr. David Jones, Executive Director, High Tech Inventors Alliance
-- Hon. Paul R. Michel, former Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
-- Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Senior Scholar, Hudson Institute
-- Moderator: Mr. Robert J. Rando, Partner, Taylor English Duma LLP; Executive Committee Member, Federalist Society Intellectual Property Practice Group

Related Podcasts