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.
60episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
From the Courthouse Steps: Wolford v. Lopez
2w ago00:31:35Tap to summarizeIn Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court held that Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the property owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. In a 6-3 decision, the majority reasoned that the restrictions fell within the plain text of the Second Amendment and that Hawaii’s proffered historical analogues did not support the constitutionality of its new default rule.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Wolford may mean for Second Amendment litigation.Featuring:Amy E. Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American FreedomJohn Ohlendorf, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC
Transcribe →From the Courthouse Steps: Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan
2w ago00:30:54Tap to summarizeIn Pung v. Isabella County, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected claims under the Takings Clause and Excessive Fines Clause that the Constitution required compensation based on the property’s fair-market value, holding instead that surplus auction proceeds are the proper measure when the tax sale is fairly conducted. The decision preserves traditional tax-sale systems while leaving room for future challenges to unfair foreclosure procedures.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision and its impact.Featuring:Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityDeborah J. La Fetra, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
Transcribe →Proclaiming Liberty with Tim Sandefur
2w ago00:59:33Tap to summarizeAs America celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Proclaiming Liberty by Timothy Sandefur revisits the revolutionary year of 1776 through the minds of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, two men whose words and ideas gave birth to modern liberty. Sandefur’s engaging narrative brings to life the “American mind” as those extraordinary Founders sought to express it—their arguments, ideals, and enduring beliefs in natural rights and self-government.Sweeping from the English Civil War and the writings of Locke and Montesquieu to the colonial battles over the Stamp and Townshend Acts and the battlefields of Massachusetts and Virginia, Sandefur’s narrative shows how the Declaration distilled centuries of debate about freedom, law, and human nature into one of history’s most enduring statements on justice. Blending biography, political thought, and legal history—from Sir Edward Coke and Edmund Burke to Tacitus and Frederick Douglass—Proclaiming Liberty traces the Declaration’s legacy through the abolitionist movement, the Civil War, and the modern age, documenting how its principles have continued to challenge tyranny, refute relativism, and inspire movements for justice.Join us for this discussion between Prof. Lee Strang and Timothy Sandefur as they reflect on the Declaration's intellectual pedigree and enduring relevance for all who love freedom.Featuring:Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater InstituteProf. Lee J. Strang, Executive Director, Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society, The Ohio State University
Transcribe →From the Courthouse Steps: United States v. Hemani
2w ago00:30:41Tap to summarizeIn United States v. Hemani, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of an indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). In a narrow, as-applied holding, the Court held that the government’s prosecution of a marijuana user for knowingly possessing a gun in his home while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Applying Bruen and Rahimi, the Court rejected the government’s analogy to historical “habitual drunkard” laws, concluding that those laws targeted different kinds of people, served different purposes, and operated in different ways.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Hemani may mean for history-and-tradition analysis and Second Amendment litigation.Featuring:Prof. F. Lee Francis, Associate Professor, Widener Law CommonwealthWilliam Bergstrom, Partner, Cooper & Kirk
Transcribe →Litigation Update: International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson
3w ago00:53:19Tap to summarizeIn International Partners for Ethical Care v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court has been asked to review a Washington law that delays notification and reunification of a runaway child with his or her parents if that child claims to be receiving or requests gender-affirming treatment. The lower courts found that a group of parents (including one with a child who had run away before) lacked standing to challenge this law. The parents' petition to the Supreme Court will go before the Justices at an upcoming conference. Join us for a litigation update about this case and its broader implications for standing doctrine particularly in the context of parental rights and gender transition. Featuring: --R. Shawn Gunnarson, Shareholder, Kirton McConkie --Prof. Derek Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School --(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Transcribe →From the Courthouse Steps: Exxon Mobil & Cisco Systems
3w ago00:45:58Tap to summarizeIn Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and that aiding-and-abetting liability exists under neither the ATS nor the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991. The decision limits the use of U.S. courts to pursue transnational human-rights claims absent clear congressional authorization.In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), the Court held that the Helms-Burton Act removes sovereign immunity for Cuban agencies and instrumentalities sued for trafficking in property confiscated by the Cuban government. Plaintiffs suing those entities under the Act, therefore, do not need to separately satisfy one of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s enumerated exceptions.Join us for a discussion of these decisions, their implications, and what they reveal about the Court’s approach to statutory interpretation and separation of powers. Featuring: Prof. Julian Ku, Faculty Director of International Programs and Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Hofstra University Molly Nixon, Senior Fellow in Executive Power, Cato Institute
Transcribe →Public Lands at the Founding
3w ago00:53:26Tap 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.From the Articles of Confederation's earliest days, the states disagreed about how to handle the budding nation’s westernmost territories. At the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, the Framers partially addressed these issues by providing the Property Clause in Article IV, Section 3. This granted Congress the “Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States[.]” Since then, the United States has acquired and retained hundreds of millions of acres of land, leaving large swaths of it unappropriated and in the hands of unelected federal administrators. Though the Supreme Court has interpreted Article I’s Necessary and Proper Clause to allow the federal government to hold property while furthering its enumerated powers, experts disagree over whether federal agencies violate the vertical separation of power by holding land within a state’s borders and exerting vast delegated powers over it. Join our panel of the foremost scholars and litigators of public lands as they explore the text, history, and purpose of the Property Clause, and whether the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article IV, Section 3 has wreaked havoc on the Constitution’s otherwise narrow allowance for federal control of public lands.Featuring:Ethan Blevins, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal FoundationTony Francois, Partner, Briscoe Prows Kao Ivester & Bazel LLPProf. Richard Samuelson, Associate Professor of Government, Hillsdale College, Washington, D.C. Campus(Moderator) Hon. Ryan T. Holte, Judge, United States Court of Federal Claims; Distinguished Jurist-in-Residence Professor of Law, The University of Akron School of Law
Transcribe →What Was the Founders' Design for Intellectual Property?
4w ago00:51:52Tap 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.Innovation is at the heart of the American economy, fueled by a patent system that represented a deliberate radical break from the British model. Under English practice, the Crown granted patents as royal favors, monopolies awarded at the sovereign's pleasure, with no requirement of genuine novelty or utility. The Framers rejected this. They believed that intellectual property rights should both reward ingenuity and advance society. By drawing Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 almost verbatim from the South Carolina Constitution, they tied the grant of patents to the mandate to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."This system democratized invention, where anyone could apply for a patent, and set the stage for centuries of American innovative dominance. The U.S. model has largely been adopted globally.As we approach the Semiquincentennial, join our panel to explore the inventive spirit unleashed after the Founding. How did the Constitution break with British common law? Why did the Framers embed IP rights in the Constitution itself rather than the Bill of Rights? What does it mean that the provision passed without recorded controversy? And how healthy are those rights today?Featuring:Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. David S. Olson, Associate Professor, Boston College Law SchoolProf. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law(Moderator) Hon. John D. Love, Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
Transcribe →How Did State Constitutions Shape the American Founding?
4w ago00:57:15Tap 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.State constitutions were not afterthoughts to the Founding—they were the proving grounds that shaped and informed the United States Constitution. As America celebrates its 250th anniversary, this webinar will explore how these early charters both inspired our national framework and continue to operate as vital, independent safeguards of individual liberty. Discover why state constitutions remain essential pillars of federalism—protecting freedom not just in theory, but in practice.Featuring:Hon. Nels S.D. Peterson, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of GeorgiaTimothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater InstituteHon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit(Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
Transcribe →What Can State and Federal Regulators Do to Control the Cost and Maintain the Reliability of Our Electric Service?
4w ago01:02:48Tap to summarizeAfter two decades of flat demand, US electricity demand is experiencing rapid growth. Demand is expected to increase 25% by 2030 and 78% by 2050, pushing up electricity prices as suppliers scramble to fund and construct massive amounts of new infrastructure. Average residential bills increased by nearly 30% from 2021 to 2025 and are expected to continue going up, adding to the inflation concerns of consumers. At the same time, public officials are issuing increasingly urgent warnings about growing risks to the reliability of the U.S. electric power system. Our nation’s technological progress, prosperity, and well-being depend on ever-expanding supplies of reliable and affordable electric power to meet rapidly growing demand from proliferating data centers and the expansion of other power-hungry enterprises. The causes that have inflated the price of electricity and threatened the reliability of electric service must be identified correctly and dealt with effectively. How have certain policy developments, including the deregulation movement, the expansion of federal regulation, and the push for decarbonization, affected the price of electricity and the reliability of electric service? Going forward, what changes in federal and state regulation would produce the greatest positive impact on the price of electricity and the reliability of electric service?Join us for a discussion of electric regulation covering these and other important questions featuring experts with decades of relevant experience. Featuring:Mark Curtis Christie, Founding Director of the Center for Energy Law and Policy, William & Mary Law School; Former Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Former Chairman, Virginia State Corporation CommissionBernard L. McNamee, Former Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(Moderator) J. Kennerly Davis, Former Deputy Attorney General for Virginia
Transcribe →