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:

COVID-19 Labor and Employment Teleforum Series #2 Aug 03, 2020

Show notes

Employers are increasingly being faced with difficult issues with respect to COVID-19, including challenging labor and employment issues. Various federal and state statutes present compliance issues for employers, particularly given the recent enactment of the First Families Act and the CARES Act at the federal level. Existing federal statutes such as the National Labor Relations Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act also present labor and employment law challenges for employers. This three-part teleforum series will review federal and state labor and employment issues and options for employers to consider. Federalist Society Labor and Employment Executive Committee members, Tammy McCutchen and G. Roger King will be the speakers for this teleforum series. Ms. McCutchen is a Shareholder with the Littler Mendelson law firm and former head of the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division. Mr. King is Senior Labor and Employment Counsel for the HR Policy Association and previously a Partner at the Jones Day law firm.
Featuring:
-- G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association
-- Tammy D. McCutchen, Principal, Littler Mendelson PC

The U.S. and the World Trade Organization (WTO): Predictions for What Comes Next – A Virtual Conversation with Stephen Vaughn Aug 03, 2020

Show notes

The World Trade Organization (WTO) was intended to be the principal forum for setting the rules of international trade and for the resolution of international trade disputes. The United States has expressed its concern with the WTO’s dispute settlement system and the Administration has blocked new appointments to the Appellate Body such that there are now insufficient judges necessary to hear new appeals. The situation does not appear likely to be resolved soon. Please join Stephen Vaughn, the former General Counsel to the United States Trade Representative and previous acting U.S. Trade Representative, for a conversations regarding the ongoing conflict, relevant issues, and thoughts regarding the future of the US and the WTO. The discussion will be moderated by Daniel Pickard.
Featuring:
-- Stephen Vaughn, Partner in the International Trade Team of King & Spalding, former General Counsel for the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and acting U.S. Trade Representative.
-- Moderator: Daniel Pickard, Partner in the International Trade practice and Co-Chair of the National Security practice, Wiley Rein LLP

The True Extent of Executive Power Jul 31, 2020

Show notes

In this Teleforum, two of the nation’s leading scholars of presidential power — and former office mates — debate whether Trump’s aggressive fight for presidential power goes beyond the Founders’ original designs. In his new book, Defender in Chief (St. Martin’s 2020), John Yoo argues that Trump — despite his populism — has become more often the defender rather than the opponent of the original Constitution. In The Living Presidency (Harvard 2020), Sai Prakash counters that Trump, like many modern Presidents, has violated the Constitution’s grant of executive power.
Featuring:
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; Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center; and Director, Public Law & Policy Program, UC Berkeley School of Law
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.

Arizona COVID Litigation: A Challenge to Executive Authority Jul 30, 2020

Show notes

This month, more than 50 bar owners across Arizona filed a special action challenging Governor Ducey's executive order (calling for a 'pause' in operations of bars and some other businesses) directly in the Arizona Supreme Court. The petitioners claim the Governor's order violates the nondelegation doctrine and the privileges or immunities clause in the Arizona constitution. The state supreme court has discretion whether to accept review and hear this case; we could learn the answer to that question as early as next week. Join the bar owners’ lawyer, ASU law professor Ilan Wurman, and AZ Court of Appeals Judge Jennifer Perkins, to discuss the case and its potential implications.
Featuring:
Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
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.

40 Years Later: NEPA Regulation Update Jul 28, 2020

Show notes

On July 16, 2020, the White House Council on Environmental Quality published the long-awaited revision to its regulation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as a final rule (85 Fed. Reg. 43304). NEPA requires agencies to study the environmental impacts of major actions that could significantly impact the environment. But does the new rule make the environmental review process significantly more synchronized and predictable? Does it address the Trump's administration's "One Federal Decision" policy? It clarifies key terms where the original 1978 regulation, and subsequent federal court decisions, have significantly expanded the burdens and litigation risks of the NEPA process, but will new provisions on exhaustion of objections during comment periods reduce litigation risk for agencies and uncertainties for project applicants and other stakeholders? Together with the Trump administration's other major infrastructure reform initiatives, will the new rule help pave the way for significant expansion and modernization of America's infrastructure? Mario Loyola, formerly associate director of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, was intimately involved in President Trump's infrastructure efforts, and will review some of the most significant changes of the new NEPA regulation.
Featuring:
-- Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Religious Liberty at the Supreme Court: The 2020 Term and Beyond Jul 28, 2020

Show notes

This summer, the Supreme Court decided several high-profile religious liberty cases. In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Court held that religious schools cannot be excluded from generally-available funding programs on the basis of their religious identity. In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, the Court upheld the Trump administration's exception to the contraception mandate, and in Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru, the Court affirmed that the First Amendment requires that religious schools enjoy significant autonomy in employment decisions, according to their religious missions.
Mark Rienzi of the Becket Fund joins us to discuss these cases, preview the Supreme Court's fall term, and analyze the future of religious liberty at the Supreme Court. Professor William Saunders from The Catholic University of America will moderate the conversation.
Featuring:
Mark Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School
William Saunders, Professor, The Catholic University of America; Director, Program in Human Rights, The Institute for Human Ecology
This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

International Criminal Justice Jul 27, 2020

Show notes

In May, French authorities arrested Felicien Kabuga after a 26-year manhunt for his alleged role in the Rwandan genocide. Kabuga was indicted before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda on seven counts of genocide, conspiracy, and related crimes for importing and supplying thousands of machetes to the militias that led the killing spree, as well as for broadcasting propaganda urging mass slaughter. A quarter-century later, what will prosecutors be trying to show the court? What difficulties are they likely to encounter introducing evidence that old? What is it like to hunt for a fugitive for decades, and what does Kabuga's capture tell us in retrospect about how he was able to run for so long? Please join the Honorable Hassan Jallow, Eli Rosenbaum, and Arthur Traldi for an engaging conversation about the apprehension of one of the world's most wanted fugitives, and the case against him. The discussion will be moderated by Adam Pearlman.
Featuring:
-- The Honorable Hassan Bubacar Jallow, Chief Justice of The Gambia, former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
-- Eli Rosenbaum, Director, Human Rights Enforcement Policy and Strategy, Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section, U.S. Department of Justice
-- Arthur Traldi, former war crimes prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and ICTR
-- Moderator: Adam R. Pearlman, Managing Director, Lexpat Global Services

Federalization of Elections Jul 23, 2020

Show notes

The United States, a constitutional republic, employs a decentralized election regulation system with decision making authority over policies and procedures spread among local, state and federal authorities. The Constitution provides some authority to Congress over elections but state and local authorities oversee the conduct and details of elections. For example, the U.S. Constitution sets out an “election day”: the first Tuesday after November 1. Because the Constitution proscribes terms for federal offices, i.e. four years for the President, six years for Senators and two years for Representatives, federal elections are required at least every two years.
Our system leaves the details of the election administration to the individual states. Those details include the specifics of election day rules such as the time for opening and closing polling places, absentee ballot procedures (including emergency absentee balloting), early voting, registering to vote, and the regulation and prosecution of election irregularities and election crimes. Accordingly, election procedures can vary widely from state to state and even, in some cases, within a state if local jurisdictions develop their own idiosyncratic policies and procedures.
This panel will discuss the roles played by federal, state and local governments in elections as defined by the U.S. Constitutions, whether and how those roles have evolved in recent decades, and whether and how those roles could change in certain circumstances, including the COVID-19 era.
Featuring:
-- Mr. Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP
-- Hon. Matthew S. Petersen, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC

Police Unions, Practically Speaking Jul 23, 2020

Show notes

In the current scholarship surrounding law enforcement issues, there are two diverging sides in which some advocate for major reform and others advocate for a continuation of the status quo across major police departments in the United States. Standing in the middle of this debate is a substantial player: police unions. The push for major reform in police departments sometimes collides with powerful police unions, who argue that Qualified Immunity and other policies that protect police officers should be maintained. Like many other unions in other fields, police unions often will fight to defend its members through advocacy of certain reforms, while opposing or ignoring other reforms. Catherine Fisk and L. Song Richardson argued in a law review article that police unions in several cities “have challenged police chiefs brought in to enact reforms that they consider threatening to officer safety or economic interests, or that they believe weaken public safety.” They claim union-negotiated procedural rights for police officers sometimes make reform more difficult. Many advocate that these rights for police officers must be continued due to the high demand for police officers and their willingness to put their lives on the line. Moving forward in the debate surrounding police reform, a multitude of perspectives will have to be considered in order to bring about any piece of major reform, if needed at all, to ensure that police departments do not face shortages, collective bargaining standoffs, and other labor issues.
Featuring:
-- Larry H. James, Managing Partner, Crabbe, Brown & James LLP
-- Prof. Daniel DiSalvo, Professor and Chair of Political Science, The City College of New York

Courthouse Steps Decision: United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. Jul 23, 2020

Show notes

On June 30, the Supreme Court released its decision in United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.. In an 8-1 decision, the Court upheld the ruling of the lower court, which found that “Booking.com” is not a generic term and is thus eligible for trademark protection. Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion of the Court; in that opinion, Justice Ginsburg first noted that a website styled “generic.com” does not qualify for federal trademark protection if the term has meaning to consumers, but because “Booking.com” does not necessarily signify to consumers an online hotel reservation service, it is therefore not a generic term and qualifies for protection. Justice Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion, and Justice Breyer dissented. Our expert will discuss the decision and its implications.
Featuring:
Mr. Zvi Rosen, Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University School of Law
This call is open to the public, please dial 888-752-3232 at 2:00 p.m. ET to access the call.

Related Podcasts