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:

FACE Act: Friend or Foe? Mar 16, 2026

Show notes

Is the FACE Act being enforced as Congress originally intended or has its selected application raised serious concerns about fairness, constitutional limits, and the protection of pro-life Americans?
The FACE Act has returned to the national spotlight following charges against former CNN anchor Don Lemon for interfering with the religious exercise of worshippers at a Minnesota church last month. Enacted in 1994, the law was intended to protect access to both reproductive health facilities and houses of worship by imposing criminal and civil penalties on those who intimidate, injure, or obstruct individuals seeking to enter them.
In recent years, however, questions have been raised about whether the statute has been enforced evenhandedly. The law has been used repeatedly to prosecute pro-life activists, while many pro-life pregnancy resource centers and churches that have faced vandalism, threats, and even firebombings have seen comparatively limited federal response. These concerns have fueled growing calls in Congress to repeal or reform the statute.
Join us for a timely discussion as a panel of experts examines the FACE Act’s statutory framework, its recent enforcement, and the constitutional and policy questions surrounding its future.
Featuring:
Matthew Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
Jeremy Dys, Senior Counsel, First Liberty
Erin Hawley, Supreme Court & Appellate Litigation Chair, Lex Politica; Of Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
(Moderator) Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together; Vice President, Legal and Judicial Strategy, Americans for Prosperity

Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: United States v. Hemani Mar 09, 2026

Show notes

On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in United States v. Hemani. This case explores whether a federal law that criminalizes possession of firearms by an individual who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" violates the Second Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held this law unconstitutional as applied to most drug users, determining it could only be applied consistent with the Second Amendment to "those presently impaired." Hemani is the latest in a series of challenges the courts have confronted since the Supreme Court announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that laws burdening firearms possession must comport with our nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will recap and analyze the oral argument at the Supreme Court.
Featuring:
Prof. F. Lee Francis, Associate Professor, Widener Law Commonwealth
Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime
(Moderator) John Ohlendorf, Partner, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC

Suncor Energy v. Boulder County: Federalism, Judicial Power, and the Future of Climate Litigation Mar 06, 2026

Show notes

In Suncor Energy, Inc., v. Commissioners of Boulder County, the Supreme Court will consider whether state courts may use tort law to impose what amounts to a nationwide climate regulatory regime—despite Congress’s central role in addressing interstate and international emissions.
Colorado local governments sued several energy companies in state court, asserting nuisance, trespass, consumer protection, and conspiracy claims for harms allegedly caused by global greenhouse-gas emissions. Although framed as state-law tort actions, the lawsuits seek damages and remedies tied to worldwide energy production and cross-border emissions—issues that are inherently national and international in scope.
The energy companies argue that these claims are displaced by federal law because they attempt to regulate interstate and international pollution, an area requiring uniform federal rules. Allowing 50 different state courts to impose varying standards for global emissions, they contend, would undermine constitutional structure, interfere with federal authority, and invite judicial policymaking on questions committed to Congress and the political branches.
The Colorado Supreme Court rejected those arguments, permitting the case to proceed in state court. The U.S. Supreme Court has now granted review and added an important threshold question: whether it even has jurisdiction to hear the case at this interlocutory stage—raising additional concerns about the proper limits of judicial power under Article III.
This webinar will examine whether state-law climate tort suits represent a legitimate exercise of state authority or an attempt to achieve sweeping national policy changes through strategic litigation rather than the democratic process. What does constitutional structure require when global environmental regulation collides with state common law? And what are the consequences for federalism if courts become venues for resolving inherently national policy disputes?
Join us for a discussion of the constitutional stakes and what this case may mean for the future of climate litigation nationwide.
Featuring:
Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law and William H. Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law School; Senior Fellow, Property and Environment Research Center
O.H. Skinner, Executive Director, Alliance For Consumers
Michael Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia
(Moderator) Annie Donaldson Talley, Partner, Luther Strange & Associates

Safeguarding Vulnerable Populations Online Mar 05, 2026

Show notes

Modern life is increasingly dependent on the internet, but with dependence comes vulnerability. Popular websites enable fraud, disinformation, and harassment. Although anyone on the internet can be at risk, particular age demographics, including children and the elderly, are exposed to threats ranging from social media risks to online harassment to much worse. Federal efforts to legislate solutions have met with mixed success. State governments have begun to address these questions on their own terms, with some enacting age verification laws and others bringing lawsuits against internet companies. How then should we think about public safety in the present internet ecosystem, particularly for vulnerable populations like children and the elderly? Is legislation desirable or even possible? And what does the future hold? Join our panelists, all advocates on the front lines, as they discuss these issues.
Featuring:
India McKinney, Director of Federal Affairs, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Clare Morell, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Spence Purnell, Resident Senior Fellow, Technology and Innovation, R Street Institute
Brandon J. Smith, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC
(Moderator) Prof. Paul G. Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Utah College of Law

What are the Challenges That Immigration Policy Poses for Businesses? Mar 02, 2026

Show notes

Immigration policy has significant impacts on businesses, and the debate over wise immigration policy includes many economic and political considerations. This panel will discuss the most significant challenges that immigration policy poses for businesses, including the future of H-1B visas and I-9 enforcement.
Featuring:
Simon Hankinson, Senior Research Fellow, Border Security and Immigration Center, The Heritage Foundation
James Rogers, Senior Counsel, America First Legal
Patrick Shen, Vice President, Immigration Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Chris L. Thomas, Partner, Holland & Hart
(Moderator) Randel K. Johnson, Immigration Academic Fellow, Cornell Law School

The End of ESG Collusion? A Conversation on the Vanguard Case Feb 27, 2026

Show notes

This week, investment fund manager The Vanguard Group committed to ending its ESG-driven investment initiatives, ceasing any efforts to influence portfolio companies’ business strategies toward carbon-emissions reductions, enhancing disclosure of its proxy voting activities, and producing records related to its participation in climate-related organizations. The multi-state suit, led by Texas, asserted that Vanguard and other investment managers engaged in a coordinated effort to drive up the price of coal and misrepresented the nature of their funds to investors. In this landmark settlement agreement, Vanguard has agreed to make the strongest passivity commitments in the industry and empower investors with proxy voting. What are the implications of this settlement for future federal and state action against coordinated ESG-driven market manipulation? Join us for a timely discussion as experts unpack the details of the Vanguard settlement.
Featuring:
Will Hild, Executive Director, Consumers' Research
Brent Webster, First Assistant Attorney General of Texas
(Moderator) Paul N. Watkins, Partner, Fusion Law

The FTC's 2026 Consumer Protection Priorities Feb 25, 2026

Show notes

What are the FTC’s 2026 priorities in the areas of consumer protection, privacy, and artificial intelligence? This panel will discuss FTC's enforcement, policymaking, and rulemaking priorities and how they may differ from those in the Biden Administration. The panel is happy to take questions from the audience in advance of the webinar. Please send any questions to matthew.sawtelle@fed-soc.org by February 12th.
Featuring:
Brian Berggren, Acting Associate Director, Division of Enforcement, Federal Trade Commission
Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School
(Moderator) Asheesh Agarwal, Antitrust Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce

A Seat at the Sitting - February 2026 Feb 19, 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.
Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, (February 23) - International Law, LIBERTAD Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act must prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim, or instead that the defendant trafficked in property that the plaintiff would have continued to own at the time of trafficking in a counterfactual world "as if there had been no expropriation.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (February 23) - International Law, FISA; Issue(s): Whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, or whether parties proceeding under that act must also satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (February 24) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether district courts have the authority to excuse the 30-day procedural time limit for removal in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan (February 25) - Property Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property’s fair market value; and (2) whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but sold for a fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed.
United States v. Hemani (March 2) - 2nd Amendment, Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.
Hunter v. United States (March 3) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; and (2) whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object.
Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (March 4) - Labor and Employment Law; Issue(s): Whether a federal statute, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), preempts a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver.
Featuring:
Jay R. Carson, Senior Litigator, The Buckeye Institute
Jeffrey S. Hobday, Assistant Attorney General, Opinions Unit, Ohio Attorney General’s Office
Mary E. Miller, Partner, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP
Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation
Jordan Von Bokern, Senior Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center
(Moderator) Sam Gedge, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

Birthright Citizenship in Context: Law, History, and Contemporary Debate Feb 19, 2026

Show notes

As debates over birthright citizenship intensify in legal and public spheres, this webinar will explore the constitutional, historical, and jurisprudential foundations of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Drawing on their recent scholarship in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, our panelists will examine how original meaning, common-law antecedents, and modern legal arguments intersect in today’s birthright citizenship controversy.
Featuring:
Prof. Keith Whittington, David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School
(Moderator) Hon. Steven Menashi, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
(Introducer) Sean-Michael Pigeon, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

Who is Liable in Detransition Cases? Feb 18, 2026

Show notes

In the first medical malpractice verdict of its kind, a New York jury awarded $2 million to a detransitioner who sued the clinicians responsible for performing a double mastectomy when she was 16 years old. The case marks a historic legal development and signals the emergence of a new frontier in medical malpractice litigation. At its core are difficult and consequential questions about standards of care, informed consent, particularly for minors undergoing irreversible medical interventions, and the extent to which existing malpractice frameworks are equipped to address these medical practices.
This webinar will examine the legal significance of this landmark verdict and situate it within a growing group of detransitioner claims nationwide. Panelists will explore how courts may analyze allegations of inadequate screening, deficient consent processes, and departures from accepted professional standards. The discussion will also consider how these cases may shape future malpractice doctrine and affect risk exposure for physicians and healthcare systems.
Beyond individual liability, the program will address the role of hospitals and medical institutions in establishing and enforcing these controversial treatments. To what extent can healthcare systems be held responsible for systemic failures in oversight, documentation, or patient evaluation?
Featuring:
Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel and Vice President at Alliance Defending Freedom
Mark Trammell, General Counsel, Center for American Liberty
(Moderator) Sarah Perry, Vice President and Legal Fellow, Defending Education
(Special Introduction) Mary Margaret Olohan, Author of DeTrans: True Stories of Escaping The Gender Ideology Cult; White House Correspondent, The Daily Wire

Related Podcasts