FedSoc Forums

The Federalist Society
  • 0,0 (0)
  • Politiek

*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. 3 uur geleden

    Beyond Bruen: Exploring the Supreme Court's Second Amendment Jurisprudence Past, Present and Future

    The Supreme Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence continues to evolve. This past Term, the Court issued significant decisions in Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani, further defining the contours of the right to keep and bear arms in the wake of its landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. At the same time, the Court has signaled that its work in this area is far from complete. The Justices have agreed to hear a closely watched challenge to state prohibitions on AR-15-style rifles and other commonly owned firearms, setting the stage for what could become one of the most consequential Second Amendment decisions since Bruen. The upcoming Term also raises broader questions about how the Court will continue to shape Second Amendment doctrine and whether a more comprehensive framework for evaluating firearm regulations is beginning to emerge.Join us for a discussion with legal experts as they reflect on the Court's recent decisions, assess the state of Second Amendment jurisprudence after Bruen, and preview the major firearms cases awaiting the Court in the upcoming Term.Featuring: Prof. Haley Proctor, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School Michael Williams, General Counsel, American Suppressor Association (Moderator) Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American Freedom

  2. 3 uur geleden

    Beyond Bruen: Exploring the Supreme Court's Second Amendment Jurisprudence Past, Present and Future

    The Supreme Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence continues to evolve. This past Term, the Court issued significant decisions in Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani, further defining the contours of the right to keep and bear arms in the wake of its landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. At the same time, the Court has signaled that its work in this area is far from complete. The Justices have agreed to hear a closely watched challenge to state prohibitions on AR-15-style rifles and other commonly owned firearms, setting the stage for what could become one of the most consequential Second Amendment decisions since Bruen. The upcoming Term also raises broader questions about how the Court will continue to shape Second Amendment doctrine and whether a more comprehensive framework for evaluating firearm regulations is beginning to emerge.Join us for a discussion with legal experts as they reflect on the Court's recent decisions, assess the state of Second Amendment jurisprudence after Bruen, and preview the major firearms cases awaiting the Court in the upcoming Term.Featuring: Prof. Haley Proctor, Associate Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School Michael Williams, General Counsel, American Suppressor Association (Moderator) Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American Freedom

  3. 3 dgn geleden

    Pardon Me: When Congressional Witnesses Plead the Fifth

    Congressional committees frequently use their subpoena power to compel witnesses to appear before them and testify. But appearing before Congress does not necessarily mean answering every question. When may a witness invoke the Fifth Amendment? Does a presidential pardon eliminate the privilege against self-incrimination, and if so, to what extent? And what options remain available to Congress when a witness declines to testify? These questions have taken on renewed significance following Dr. Anthony Fauci's invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege in recent congressional testimony and the debate over the legal effect of the pardon he received from President Biden. Join us as our panel examines the constitutional and statutory framework governing congressional testimony, including the privilege against self-incrimination, grants of immunity, presidential pardons, and contempt of Congress, as well as the practical considerations facing both investigators and witnesses. Featuring: John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law, Advancing American Freedom Clark Neily, Senior Vice President for Legal Studies, Cato Institute (Moderator) G. Zachary Terwilliger, Partner, Vinson & Elkins, and former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia

  4. 5 dgn geleden

    What Was the Founders' Design for National Security Beyond the Battlefield?

    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. In Federalist 23, Alexander Hamilton identified the common defense and the preservation of peace against external attacks as two of the principal purposes served by union. The Constitution that union adopted divides the power to declare war—vested in Congress—and the power to direct war—vested in the President as Commander in Chief. But what does it say about national security more broadly? The Founders were not without reservation about the risks of concentrating the means of defense, with James Madison warning the Constitutional Convention that a “standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.” It was also clear from the start, however, that functions like intelligence gathering belonged more naturally to the executive, whose institutional character supported the necessary secrecy and dispatch. This webinar will explore how the Founders understood national security power beyond the battlefield, how closely subsequent practice tracked their design, and whether today’s allocation of powers serves both the nation's security and its liberty. Featuring: Dr. Alberto Coll, Director, Global Engagement; Vincent de Paul Professor of Law, DePaul University College of Law Prof. Matthew Waxman, Liviu Librescu Professor of Law, Columbia School of Law Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Senior Research Fellow, School of Civic Leadership, Civitas Institute, University of Texas at Austin; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute (Moderator) Molly Nixon, Senior Fellow in Executive Power, Cato Institute

  5. 5 dgn geleden

    A New Frontier in Climate Litigation: District of Columbia v. ExxonMobil

    Can states and local governments use consumer protection laws to regulate national climate policy? District of Columbia v. ExxonMobil is one of a growing number of climate lawsuits seeking to hold energy companies liable for alleged misrepresentations about the effects of fossil fuels. The case presents important questions about federalism, the boundaries of state consumer protection laws, and whether courts or the political branches should resolve disputes over climate policy. Join us for a discussion on the case and the broader legal implications. Featuring: Prof. Jason Johnston, Blaine T. Phillips Distinguished Professor in Environmental Law, University of Virginia Law School Beatrice (Bebe) Strnad, Consumer Protection Bureau Chief, Nebraska Attorney General's Office (Moderator) Corinne Snow, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP

  6. 5 dgn geleden

    A New Frontier in Climate Litigation: District of Columbia v. ExxonMobil

    Can states and local governments use consumer protection laws to regulate national climate policy? District of Columbia v. ExxonMobil is one of a growing number of climate lawsuits seeking to hold energy companies liable for alleged misrepresentations about the effects of fossil fuels. The case presents important questions about federalism, the boundaries of state consumer protection laws, and whether courts or the political branches should resolve disputes over climate policy. Join us for a discussion on the case and the broader legal implications. Featuring: Prof. Jason Johnston, Blaine T. Phillips Distinguished Professor in Environmental Law, University of Virginia Law School Beatrice (Bebe) Strnad, Consumer Protection Bureau Chief, Nebraska Attorney General's Office (Moderator) Corinne Snow, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP

  7. 4 aug

    The CLARITY Act and Fed Master Accounts: Defining Crypto's Place in the U.S. Financial System

    Join us for a timely discussion on two developments shaping the future of digital assets in the United States. We will examine the CLARITY Act and its effort to establish clear rules for whether digital assets fall under SEC or CFTC oversight, as well as the ongoing dispute over Federal Reserve master accounts for crypto-focused banking institutions.Together, these issues highlight a central question: will digital asset firms gain both regulatory clarity and meaningful access to the nation’s financial infrastructure? The webinar will explore how the interaction between market-structure legislation and banking access could influence stablecoins, institutional adoption, and the broader integration of crypto into traditional finance. Opening Remarks: Hon. Cynthia Lummis, U.S. Senate, Wyoming Featuring: Paige Paridon, Executive Vice President and Co-Head of Regulatory Affairs, Bank Policy Institute Alex Pollock, Senior Fellow, Mises Institute Corey Then, Deputy General Counsel of Regulatory Strategy and Global Policy, Circle Prof. David Zaring, Elizabeth F. Putzel Professor and Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics, The Wharton School, The University of Pennsylvania (Moderator) J.C. Boggs, Partner, King & Spalding

  8. 31 jul

    Criminal Law & Procedure at the Supreme Court—A Recap of OT25

    This 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 Institute Kent 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

Bekijk alles (1K)

Info

*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.

Informatie

  • Maker
    The Federalist Society
  • Jaren actief
    2009 - 2026
  • Afleveringen
    1K
  • Beoordeling
    Veilig
  • Copyright
    © Copyright The Federalist Society
  • Website van aflevering
    FedSoc Forums

Meer van The Federalist Society

Suggesties voor jou