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 2 h

    Exploring the Landscape of Military Law and Best Practices for JAGs

    Military 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. Navy Mark Majors, Deputy General Counsel, National Guard Bureau Prof. 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

  2. hace 7 h

    What Would the Founders Think of the War in Iran?

    In 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 University Prof. 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)

  3. hace 4 d

    Government Speech and the First Amendment: Does the Government’s Own Expression Have Limits?

    The 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

  4. hace 4 d

    Friendly Fire: Cy Pres, Consent Decrees, and Trump v. IRS

    Controversy 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 Group Zhonette M. Brown, General Counsel, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance Abhishek Kambli, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC (Moderator) John Shu, Attorney and Legal Commentator

  5. hace 6 d

    Litigation Update: Minnesota Telecom Alliance v. FCC

    The 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 University Jennifer 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

  6. 17 jul

    Accreditation of Higher Education: A Primer

    Unlike 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 Institute Jonathan Helwink, Principal, Helwink Legal Group, PLLC Adam Kissel, Visiting Lecturer in Formal Organizations, Trinity College (Moderator) Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Senior Legal Fellow, Defending Education

  7. 16 jul

    From the Courthouse Steps: National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission

    In 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

  8. 15 jul

    The National Popular Vote Compact: An End Run Around the Electoral College?

    This 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 Project Michael Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia [Moderator] Hon. Allen J. Dickerson, Partner, BakerHostetler; Former Chairman, Federal Election Commission

Ver todo (1 mil)

Información

*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.

Ficha técnica

  • Creado por
    The Federalist Society
  • Años en activo
    2009 - 2026
  • Episodios
    1 mil
  • Clasificación
    Apto
  • Derechos de autor
    © Copyright The Federalist Society
  • Sitio web del podcast
    FedSoc Forums

Más de The Federalist Society

Quizá también te guste