FedSoc Forums

The Federalist Society
  • 0.0 (0)
  • POLÍTICA

*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 decisionA 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 sittingLitigation 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.

  1. HACE 4 H

    Litigation Update: Kloosterman v. Metropolitan Hospital

    Valerie Kloosterman, a devout Christian and third-generation healthcare professional, served her community as a Physician Assistant for 17 years. In 2021, University of Michigan Health introduced mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training that required participants to affirm statements Kloosterman believed conflicted with her religious convictions and medical judgment. After she requested a religious accommodation, hospital officials denied her request, criticized her beliefs, and ultimately terminated her employment. Kloosterman filed suit in federal court, asserting Title VII and constitutional claims. While the court allowed her core claims to move forward, it later granted the hospital’s motion to compel arbitration. Kloosterman appealed, and in August 2025, the Sixth Circuit sided with her, ruling that the hospital had defaulted on its arbitration rights after litigating for over a year. The court rejected what it called a “heads I win, tails you lose” strategy of reserving arbitration until after seeing how the case would unfold in court. Join Kevin Wynosky and Kayla Toney as they unpack the Sixth Circuit’s opinion and discuss its broader implications for employment law and religious accommodations. Featuring: Kevin Wynosky, Associate Counsel, Clement & Murphy (Moderator) Kayla Toney, Counsel, First Liberty Institute

    59 min

  2. HACE 3 DÍAS

    2025 Ron Rotunda Memorial Webinar

    Professor Ron Rotunda wrote seminal law books that are still used in law schools across the country and was the author of over 500 law review articles and other legal publications. These books and articles have been cited more than 2000 times by law reviews, by state and federal courts at every level, by the U.S. Supreme Court, and by foreign courts in Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America. He was also a member of the Federalist Society’s Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group. Each year, the Practice Group holds an annual FedSoc Forum in his honor to discuss pressing issues and trends in legal culture. Join us for the 2025 installment in that series, where the Honorable G. Barry Anderson will, in a discussion moderated by Professor Michael McGinniss, offer his insights about judicial independence and the rule of law, and the role of lawyers in supporting the rule of law. He will discuss how such support can be well demonstrated to clients when litigation does not turn out as they had hoped. He will also address systems of judicial selection and their impacts on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. Featuring: Hon. Barry Anderson, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court (ret.) (Moderator) Prof. Michael S. McGinniss, Professor of Law and J. Philip Johnson Faculty Fellow, University of North Dakota School of Law

    59 min

  3. HACE 5 DÍAS

    The Digital Services Act and Global Free Speech

    The European Union’s Digital Services Act applies to digital platforms and service providers offering services to users in the EU, regardless of where the company is based—including U.S. companies. EU officials contend the Digital Services Act is needed to protect democracy from misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech online. Regulators in Brussels promise it will create a safer digital space by holding platforms such as Google, Amazon, Meta, and X accountable for policing these categories. Service providers that fail to comply risk fines of up to 6% of global annual revenue, restricted access to the EU market, or suspension of operations. House Judiciary Republicans recently issued a report warning that European regulators could use the Digital Services Act to chill speech, suppress political dissent, and establish a global censorship regime. By contrast, House Judiciary Democrats argue the Digital Services Act includes procedural safeguards, judicial oversight of content moderation, and democratic accountability within the EU. Will the Act make Brussels the new “sheriff of the digital public square”? Could it export European hate speech laws—which have at times been used against individuals peacefully expressing their views—beyond Europe? And what steps can governments, companies, and citizens take to safeguard free expression online? Join the Federalist Society for a discussion with experts on the EU, the Digital Services Act, and freedom of expression as we consider whether the United States should support—or oppose—the Act. Featuring: Stéphane Bonichot, Partner, Briard Bonichot & Associés Dr. Adina Portaru, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom International Dr. John Rosenthal, Independent scholar and journalist Berin Szóka, President, TechFreedom Moderator: Prof. Maimon Schwarzschild, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law

    1 h y 3 min

  4. HACE 6 DÍAS

    Courthouse Steps Preview: Olivier v. City of Brandon

    Gabriel Olivier is an evangelical Christian who often shares his faith in public. In May 2021, when sharing his faith near an amphitheater in a public park in Brandon, Mississippi, the city’s chief of police confronted Olivier with a recently amended city ordinance requiring “protests” to occur in a designated area. Olivier repositioned himself but soon returned when the designated area proved remote and isolating. The city charged Olivier for violating the ordinance, and he pled nolo contendere and agreed to pay a fine. Olivier then challenged the ordinance under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, seeking an injunction prohibiting future enforcement of the law against his expressive activity. The district court barred Olivier’s request for injunctive relief, applying the preclusion doctrine from Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As a result, Olivier cannot challenge the ordinance, even though he alleges that it continues to restrict his speech and risks future penalties. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, splitting from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits and deepening a circuit split on whether Heck applies to noncustodial plaintiffs who cannot access habeas relief. The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc by one vote, over dissents arguing Olivier’s plea should not bar future constitutional protection. In July, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Featuring: Nathan Kellum, Senior Counsel, First Liberty Institute (Moderator) Tobias S. Loss-Eaton, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP

    53 min

  5. 16 SEP

    Litigation Update: Dinner Table Action v. Schneider

    In Dinner Table Action v. Schneider, pending in the First Circuit, Maine is appealing a permanent injunction barring the enforcement of a ballot initiative passed in 2024 that would have capped contributions for independent expenditures at $5,000. The initiative, formulated and supported by the anti-super PAC group, Equal Citizens, was designed to challenge the case that “created” super PACs, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, a unanimous en banc D.C. Circuit decision, which held that no limits can be placed on contributions for independent expenditures, and has since been reaffirmed by several federal circuit courts. If the First Circuit were to remove the injunction, it would create a circuit split, and open up the possibility of revisiting SpeechNow.org v. FEC.The Dinner Table Action District Court also ruled that mandatory disclosure of donors starting at $0 unconstitutionally burdens Free Speech by not affording any possibility for anonymous speech. As such, this case sits at an interesting intersection between free speech and election law. Join us for a litigation update where we will discuss the developments to date in this case, its potential impacts, and where it may be headed. Featuring: Charles Miller, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech (Moderator) Stephen R. Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC

    44 min

  6. 15 SEP

    Litigation Update: Miller v. McDonald

    All fifty states mandate certain vaccinations for schoolchildren. Forty-six of them allow religious exemptions. New York once did as well, maintaining such exemptions for more than half a century before eliminating them in 2019. Medical exemptions remain. Members of the Amish community now challenge New York’s policy, claiming that opposition to vaccines is integral to their “traditional way of life,” as recognized in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). The Petitioners include three Amish parents, one representing all Amish and Mennonites in New York, as well as three Amish schools—funded by and serving Amish communities on Amish land. In 2022, the state charged these schools with violating its vaccination law and levied $118,000 in penalties. The Petitioners defended themselves by filing a Section 1983 action in federal court, raising an as-applied challenge under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the case, and the Second Circuit affirmed under Employment Division v. Smith’s rational basis framework. The Petitioners are seeking Supreme Court review. Featuring: Robert M. Overing, Deputy Solicitor General, Alabama Office of the Attorney General (Moderator) Hon. Sean D. Jordan, Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

    52 min

  7. 12 SEP

    State-Level Remedies for the Housing Crisis

    Many areas of the country are beset by serious housing shortages. State-level regulatory policies such as exclusionary zoning and other restrictions on construction are, according to some analysts, major causes of the crisis. A variety of possible reforms have been enacted or proposed in various studies, including “YIMBY” (“Yes In My Backyard”) zoning deregulation, inclusionary zoning, rent control, and state constitutional litigation and amendment. Join us for this discussion on the merits or pitfalls of the range of possible state-level remedies for the housing crisis. Featuring: James Burling, Vice President of Legal Affairs, Pacific Legal Foundation Christopher Elmendorf, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law David Schleicher, Walter E. Meyer Professor of Property and Urban Law, Yale Law School (Moderator) Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

    1 h y 8 min

  8. 9 SEP

    Ethics CLE 2025: Recent Developments in Legal Ethics & Professional Responsibility

    In this CLE webinar, David Cunanan, John J. Park, and Phillip Sechler will discuss recent important developments in the realm of legal ethics and professional responsibility, including the recent adoption of changes to an Arizona rule restricting who can be a complainant for purposes of state bar ethics complaints, developments related to Rule 5.6(b) of the ABA Model Rules, and the expanding use (and misuse) of AI in the legal profession. CLE Info If you are not seeking CLE credit for participating in this webinar, you may register free of charge. Featuring: Hon. David Cunanan, Independent Bar Council, Arizona; Former Judge, Maricopa County Superior Court, Arizona John J. Park, Jr., General Counsel, Indigo Energy Philip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom (Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One Cost: No CLE - Free CLE (Member) - $25 CLE (Non-Member) - $50 To register, click the link at the top of the page.

    1 h y 1 min
Ver todo (1 k)

Acerca de

*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 decisionA 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 sittingLitigation 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.

Información

  • Creador
    The Federalist Society
  • Años de actividad
    2009 - 2025
  • Episodios
    1 k
  • Clasificación
    Apto
  • Copyright
    © Copyright The Federalist Society
  • Mostrar sitio web
    FedSoc Forums

Más de The Federalist Society

También te podría interesar