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.
81episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
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 →From the Courthouse Steps: National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission
3w ago00:31:56Tap to summarizeIn National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Federal Election Campaign Act’s limits on political parties’ coordinated expenditures with their candidates violate the First Amendment. In overruling Colorado II, the majority emphasized that party-candidate coordination forms the “essence of our Nation’s party system of government.”Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the dissent, and what National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission may mean for campaign-finance law and political parties.Featuring:Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech Mathura Sridharan, Solicitor General, Ohio
Transcribe →The National Popular Vote Compact: An End Run Around the Electoral College?
3w ago00:46:50Tap to summarizeThis spring, Virginia joined eighteen other states and DC in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement among participating jurisdictions to award their presidential electors to the winner of the national popular vote once they collectively hold 270 electoral votes. Virginia's thirteen electoral votes bring the compact to 222, leaving it 48 short of the threshold at which it would take effect. Is participation in the compact a legitimate exercise of state power under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, or does it require congressional consent under the Compact Clause or even a constitutional amendment under Article V? Join us for a discussion of Virginia’s entry, the constitutional arguments on both sides, and what the compact could mean for the future of the Electoral College.Featuring: Chad Ennis, Vice President, Honest Elections ProjectMichael Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia[Moderator] Hon. Allen J. Dickerson, Partner, BakerHostetler; Former Chairman, Federal Election Commission
Transcribe →From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook
4w ago00:43:27Tap to summarizeIn Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) statutory for-cause removal protection violates the separation of powers, overruling Humphrey's Executor. The Court reasoned that subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Thus, because the FTC exercises executive power, its Commissioners must be removable by the President at will.Yet in Trump v. Cook, the Court, 5-4, denied the government’s request to stay an injunction blocking the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The Court held that a president’s asserted “for cause” statutory basis for removing a Federal Reserve governor is judicially reviewable and that Cook was entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before removal. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts reasoned that the statute was enacted against the backdrop of the common law, and that any definition of “cause” in this context must reflect the Federal Reserve’s unique historical status and role.Join us for a webinar breaking down both decisions, the separate opinions, and what they may mean for presidential removal power, independent agencies, the Federal Reserve, and the future of the administrative state.Featuring:Erin M. Hawley, Supreme Court & Appellate Litigation Chair, Lex Politica; Of Counsel, Alliance Defending FreedomAdam White, Laurence H. Silberman Chair in Constitutional Governance and Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State
Transcribe →Litigation Finance: Access to Justice, Lawfare, and Foreign Influence
4w ago00:55:04Tap to summarizeThird-party litigation funding has grown into a major part of modern civil litigation. Supporters argue it expands access to justice and helps under-resourced plaintiffs challenge powerful defendants. Critics argue it can distort litigation incentives, empower foreign or opaque funders, and undermine attorney-client control of litigation. As state legislatures and Congress consider restrictions and disclosure requirements, how should policymakers balance transparency, donor privacy, access to courts, national security, and attorney ethics? Is third-party litigation funding a threat to the integrity of the civil justice system that conservatives should rein in, or a market mechanism that conservatives should protect as a counterweight to institutional lawfare? Can the foreign-adversary money problem be severed from the broader regulatory question? Join us for a discussion of these and other issues surrounding the financing of litigation. Featuring:Oramel H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For ConsumersGene P. Hamilton, President, America First Legal FoundationPhil Goldberg, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP[Moderator] Jim Wedeking, Counsel, Boyden Gray PLLC
Transcribe →From the Courthouse Steps: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.
4w ago00:32:01Tap to summarizeIn the consolidated cases Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the Supreme Court held that neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states or schools from determining sports eligibility based on biological sex. Join us for a Courthouse Steps webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what it may mean for Title IX, equal protection doctrine, school athletics, and future litigation over sex-based classifications.Featuring:Rachel N. Morrison, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy CenterSarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Senior Legal Fellow, Defending Education
Transcribe →From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Barbara
Jul 900:45:42Tap to summarizeIn Trump v. Barbara, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the United States, even if their parents are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country, as they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision and the separate opinions.Featuring:Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of LawEric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney GeneralProf. Ilan Wurman, Professor, University of Minnesota Law School
Transcribe →From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Barbara
Jul 900:45:42Tap to summarizeIn Trump v. Barbara, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the United States, even if their parents are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country, as they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision and the separate opinions. Featuring: Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law Eric Wessan, Solicitor General, Iowa Office of the Attorney General Prof. Ilan Wurman, Professor, University of Minnesota Law School
Transcribe →From the Courthouse Steps: Wolford v. Lopez
Jul 800:31:36Tap 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: Watson v. Republican National Committee
Jul 800:29:58Tap to summarizeIn Watson v. Republican National Committee, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots that are postmarked by election day but received up to five business days later. Although those statutes set the day for the “election,” the majority read "election" to mean the expression of the electorate’s choice, which occurs when voting is complete, not when ballots are received.Join us for a webinar breaking down the decision, the separate opinions, and what Watson may mean for absentee voting, state election rules, and future election-law litigation.Featuring:Chad Ennis, Vice President, Honest Elections ProjectEdward D. Greim, Partner, Graves Garrett Greim LLC
Transcribe →