Podcast
FedSoc Forums
Hosted by The Federalist Society · EN
*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:
The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
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.
80episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
Criminal Law & Procedure at the Supreme Court—A Recap of OT25
1w ago00:59:25Tap to summarizeThis term, several important questions of criminal law and procedure reached the Supreme Court, ranging from digital privacy and criminal venue to appeal waivers and capital sentencing.In Chatrie v. United States, the Court held that law enforcement conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it obtains a person’s cell-phone location history from a company through a geofence warrant.In Abouammo v. United States, the Court unanimously held that a defendant charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 with falsifying a document to obstruct a federal investigation must be tried in the district where the alleged falsification occurred, not in a different district where the investigation was based.In Hamm v. Smith, the Court dismissed as improvidently granted a capital case concerning whether and how courts may consider multiple IQ scores when evaluating a claim that a defendant is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution under the Eighth Amendment.And in Hunter v. United States, the Court held that appeal waivers are generally enforceable but recognized a “miscarriage of justice” exception for egregious sentencing errors that would bring the judicial system into disrepute.Join us for a webinar breaking down these decisions, the separate opinions, and what they may mean for the criminal justice system.Featuring:Matthew Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato InstituteKent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation(Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime
Transcribe →Lindsey Graham and the Judiciary: A Senate Legacy
1w ago00:54:05Tap to summarizeHon. Lindsey Graham (1955-2026) For more than two decades, Senator Lindsey Graham was a consequential voice on the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. He played a prominent role in some of the era’s most contentious judicial-confirmation battles, including the nominations of Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, and, as chairman during the 116th Congress, helped guide President Trump’s judicial nominees through the committee.Join us for a discussion reflecting on Senator Graham’s legacy, including his impact on the federal judiciary and the Senate’s advice-and-consent role.Introduction by Sheldon Gilbert, President and CEO, The Federalist SocietyFeaturing:Hon. Andrew N. Ferguson, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission, Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the JudiciaryMichael Fragoso, Partner, Torridon Law PLLC; Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Lee Holmes, Shareholder, D.C. Office Managing Shareholder; Former Staff Director and Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the JudiciaryKatherine Nikas, Senior Director, Microsoft; Former Staff Director and Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary(Moderator) Hon. Julius N. Richardson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Transcribe →Trial by Jury or Administrative Adjudication: What Would the Founders Say?
1w ago01:00:35Tap to summarizeIn this Federalist Society America 250 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.The Founders regarded trial by jury as an indispensable check on government power, and the Fifth and Seventh Amendments enshrined that guarantee. In recent decades, however, the proliferation of administrative adjudication has steadily displaced the jury from disputes between citizens and the state. While the Supreme Court's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy was a significant step toward restoring the constitutional baseline, much work remains. Lower courts continue to rely on Atlas Roofing Co. v. OSHA to uphold agency adjudication of claims that, at the Founding, would have been tried before a jury. Cases like the recently decided FCC v. AT&T and next term's Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC illustrate just how far modern practice has drifted from constitutional design.Thomas Jefferson identified the jury "as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Yet today, Americans routinely face penalties imposed by federal agencies, not juries of their peers. Join us for a Federalist Society America 250 panel discussion looking back to the Founding Era to ask: What has become of the right to a jury trial in actions brought by the federal government?Featuring:Robert E. Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for JusticeProf. Renée Lerner, Donald Phillip Rothschild Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law SchoolProf. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Transcribe →Parental Rights from the Founding to Present Day
1w ago00:59:10Tap to summarizeParental rights have long occupied an important place in American law and political thought. While the Supreme Court today generally recognizes parental rights as fundamental, the constitutional foundations of those rights remain the subject of significant debate. Modern doctrine, reflected in cases such as Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Troxel v. Granville, and more recent disputes involving parental authority over children’s education and upbringing, largely rests on substantive due process—a doctrine that itself remains controversial.This webinar will explore parental rights from their roots in natural law and the political thought of the American Founding through their development in modern constitutional jurisprudence. What did the Founders understand the parent-child relationship to entail, and how did earlier natural-law traditions shape those views? How did parental rights come to be recognized as fundamental within American constitutional law? And looking forward, what is the strongest constitutional foundation for protecting parental rights? Should substantive due process remain the primary vehicle, or are there alternative constitutional grounds that may provide a more secure basis for these protections?Featuring:Michael P. Farris, General Counsel, NRBProf. Martin Guggenheim, Fiorello LaGuardia Professor of Clinical Law Emeritus, New York University School of LawProf. Melissa Moschella, Professor of the Practice, Philosophy, McGrath Institute for Church Life, University of Notre DameAnthony Sanders, Director, Center for Judicial Engagement, Institute for Justice(Moderator) Gene C. Schaerr, Partner, Schaerr Jaffe LLP CLEThis event has been approved for1.00 Total CLE HoursIn order to receive CLE credit for this webinar, attendees must attend the Zoom Webinar and have access to the chat box. This event's accreditation is highly predicated upon interactivity and verification measures that are only available via the webinar.If you join via audio, calling in, SIP, or H.323, you will not be eligible to receive CLE Credit.State Approval Status CLE Materials Questions? Check out our CLE FAQ page.
Transcribe →Exploring the Landscape of Military Law and Best Practices for JAGs
1w ago01:01:32Tap to summarizeMilitary law encompasses a wide range of legal disciplines, including criminal law, national security, government contracts, administrative and regulatory law, and more.Join an experienced panel of current and former Judge Advocates for a practical discussion of the work JAGs perform, the application and accession process, and the long-term trajectory of military legal careers. The panel will compare opportunities across the Active Duty, Reserve, and National Guard components and offer practical guidance for building a successful career as a JAG.Featuring:Stephanie Fisher, Senior Appellate Counsel, U.S. NavyMark Majors, Deputy General Counsel, National Guard BureauProf. Michael A. Newton, Director, International Legal Studies Program, Vanderbilt Law School(Moderator) Jesse Burbank, Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense Related Reading by a Panelist: Charging War Crimes: Policy & Prognosis from a Military Perspective
Transcribe →What Would the Founders Think of the War in Iran?
1w ago00:53:31Tap to summarizeIn this Federalist Society America 250 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.The Founders drew their understanding of international law — known at the time as the law of nations — from 18th Century classical texts. Hamilton, Madison, Jay, Jefferson, and others all studied the edition of Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations, released on the eve of the American Revolution. Its precepts were analyzed in The Federalist Papers, debated in the Constitutional Convention, and resulted in a few basic principles. First, along with the Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, all Treaties made under the authority of the United States "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." Second, the Define and Punish Clause gives Congress the power to define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations.” The Founders viewed the right of self-defense as a fundamental, inherent natural right of nations. They recognized the right of preemptive use of force in anticipatory self defense. This right had an expansive interpretation, allowing actions against credible threats without awaiting an actual first strike. There was room for argument on how “imminent” the threat must be. Current international law on this issue consists of the UN Charter and contemporary understandings and interpretations of customary international law. This Forum will bring together two foremost scholars, each expert in both the Founders’ understanding and the current understanding of international law, for a conversation about the historic and contemporary interpretations of the propriety of our current war against Iran and related matters.Featuring:Prof. Martin S. Flaherty, Charles and Marie Robertson Visiting Professor, School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton UniversityProf. Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor Emeritus of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University(Moderator) Dr. Sohan Dasgupta, Assistant Secretary for Trade and Economic Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (former) | Political Head, Millennium Challenge Corporation (former) | Managing Director, Berkeley Research Group (BRG)
Transcribe →Government Speech and the First Amendment: Does the Government’s Own Expression Have Limits?
2w ago01:00:02Tap to summarizeThe government-speech doctrine generally permits the government to select and promote its own messages without being subject to First Amendment scrutiny. But does that principle have limits? What about when public funds, facilities, or employees are used to convey partisan messages or selectively promote particular viewpoints?Join us for a discussion on whether and to what extent the First Amendment constrains the government’s own speech. Featuring: Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP Prof. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA School of Law [Moderator] Hon. Susanna Dokupil, Justice, Texas First Court of Appeals
Transcribe →Friendly Fire: Cy Pres, Consent Decrees, and Trump v. IRS
2w ago01:01:06Tap to summarizeControversy has swirled for years over litigation in which a plaintiff sues a friendly government defendant, and the case concludes with a favorable settlement. Critics argue that this practice creates a non-adversarial process that allows aligned litigants and agencies to shape policy and reward political allies outside the normal rulemaking and appropriations procedures. Defenders respond that these settlements generally resolve legitimate claims while conserving judicial resources and taxpayer dollars. The debate intensified during the Obama administration as the practice proliferated, particularly in environmental consent decrees.The controversy received renewed attention after the district court’s July 13 ruling in Trump v. IRS, concerning the settlement of President Trump's lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. The court concluded that the parties were never genuinely adverse and that there was therefore no Article III case or controversy. Its order went further, however. Reasoning that the suit was brought for an improper purpose, the court imposed sanctions on the plaintiffs and their counsel and directed that the order be transmitted to the bar authorities of senior DOJ officials.Join us for a discussion of Trump v. IRS, and the broader legal and policy concerns surrounding sue-and-settle litigation.Featuring:Anne Austin, Senior Advisor, Burke Law GroupZhonette M. Brown, General Counsel, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceAbhishek Kambli, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC(Moderator) John Shu, Attorney and Legal Commentator
Transcribe →Litigation Update: Minnesota Telecom Alliance v. FCC
2w ago00:53:50Tap to summarizeThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently vacated the Federal Communications Commission’s 2023 Digital Discrimination Order, finding the commission exceeded its statutory authority.The dispute centered on the FCC’s implementation of Section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which directs the commission to prevent “digital discrimination of access” in broadband deployment and service. In carrying out this statutory mandate, the FCC adopted a disparate-impact framework, under which broadband providers and other entities that impact broadband could face liability for policies or practices that disproportionately affect certain communities without regard to discriminatory intent. The Eighth Circuit concluded that Section 60506 does not authorize the FCC’s disparate-impact regime or regulation of entities other than broadband providers.Join us for a litigation update on the decision and its implications for broadband deployment, digital equity initiatives, FCC authority, and future efforts to address alleged discrimination in access to broadband service.Featuring:Dr. Christopher Ali, Pioneers Chair in Telecommunications, Penn State UniversityJennifer B. Dickey, Vice President and Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Daniel H. Kahn, Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP[Moderator] Matthew Furlow, Counsel, U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Transcribe →Accreditation of Higher Education: A Primer
3w ago01:00:18Tap to summarizeUnlike most nations, the United States eschews centralized control over its system of higher education in favor of a more decentralized “regulatory triad” of accreditation agencies, state licensing authorities, and certification by the U.S. Department of Education to participate in federal student aid programs. To qualify for federal student loans and grants, colleges and universities must be institutionally accredited by an Education Department-recognized accrediting agency. As gatekeepers of federal financial aid, accreditors have great sway over their institutions. President Trump issued an executive order on "Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education," and the Education Department recently commenced negotiated rulemaking on new accreditation regulations and intends to publish a final rule by November 1, 2026.But what is the purpose of accreditation, and how much power do accreditors hold? What is the connection to federal funding, and how are determinations of "academic quality" made? Do the current accreditation processes and recognized agencies meet their aims? What is the role of the Department’s National Advisory Committee for Institutional Quality and Integrity in this process? What can the public expect to see in the Department’s new accreditation regulations? To what extent, if at all, can the Department use its recognition authority over accreditors effectively to address such topics as campus free speech, academic freedom, DEI, and other controversial issues? Join us for a discussion on the nuts and bolts of accreditation and what the current process means for the state of higher education in America today.Featuring:Robert S. Eitel, Co-Founder and President, Defense of Freedom InstituteJonathan Helwink, Principal, Helwink Legal Group, PLLCAdam Kissel, Visiting Lecturer in Formal Organizations, Trinity College(Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Senior Legal Fellow, Defending Education
Transcribe →