FedSoc Forums

The Federalist Society
  • 0.0 (0)
  • POLITICS
FedSoc Forums

*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. 2 DAYS AGO

    A Seat at the Sitting - February 2025

    Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Gutierrez v. Saenz (Feburary 24) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Courts; Issue(s): Whether Article III standing requires a particularized determination of whether a specific state official will redress the plaintiff’s injury by following a favorable declaratory judgment. Esteras v. U.S. (February 25) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether, even though Congress excluded 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)’s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release. Perttu v. Richards (February 25) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim. Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (February 26) - Labor & Employment Law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a majority-group plaintiff must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. (March 3) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, International Law; Issue(s): Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, (March 3) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)’s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint. Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (March 4) - International Law, Gun Crime; Issue(s): (1) Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the proximate cause of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico; and (2) whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked. Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas (March 4) - Administrative Law & Regulation; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Hobbs Act, which authorizes a “party aggrieved” by an agency’s “final order” to petition for review in a court of appeals, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency’s statutory authority; and (2) whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated. Featuring: Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP Jonathan A. Segal, Partner and Managing Principal, Duane Morris Institute Richard A. Simpson, Partner & Deputy General Counsel, Wiley Rein LLP Will Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation (Moderator) Austin Rogers, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee

    1h 19m

  2. 2 DAYS AGO

    Litigation Update: United Natural Foods v. NLRB

    This litigation update will discuss the United Natural Foods case, where a new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Acting General Counsel ordered the withdrawal of a Complaint issued against two unions, which occurred shortly after President Biden removed former General Counsel Peter Robb in January 2021. After the Supreme Court eliminated Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (Sup. Ct. 6/28/2024), the Supreme Court in United Natural Foods vacated a divided Fifth Circuit opinion (where the majority had afforded deference to the Board), resulting in a recent Fifth Circuit oral argument which occurred on February 3, 2025. United Natural Foods is represented by Morgan Lewis partner (and former NLRB Chairman) Philip Miscimarra, who – in this session – will discuss whether deference to the NLRB has been eliminated, how have courts resolved challenges to the removal of former General Counsel Peter Robb, and is the NLRB required to apply the federal rules of civil procedure, among other things. Featuring: Hon. Philip A. Miscimarra, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (Moderator) R. Pepper Crutcher, Jr., Partner, Balch & Bingham LLP

    56 min

  3. 3 DAYS AGO

    Is DEI on Its Way Out?

    Due to impending inclement weather this event has been converted to a webinar. Please feel free to join our live (virtual) audience on Wednesday, February 12th at 12:30 PM ET via the Zoom registration link or catch the discussion via livestream! Panel: David Bernstein Founder & CEO, Jewish Institute for Liberal Values Kimberly Hermann, Executive Director, Southeastern Legal Foundation Prof. Yascha Mounk, Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, Johns Hopkins University; Contributing Editor, The Atlantic; Senior Fellow, The Council on Foreign Relations Nicole Neily, President, Parents Defending Education (Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law --- Does DEI rise and fall due to cultural fads that tend to come and go, or is DEI mainly driven by substantive provisions of civil rights law that are much harder to unravel? Are DEI programs morphing from a primarily race-based focus to a gender and sex-based focus, or does their focus remain on race and ethnicity? This panel will discuss how DEI is impacting federal civil rights issues, consider federal, state, and local levels, and debate whether DEI has passed its high-water mark. Featuring: David Bernstein, Founder & CEO, Jewish Institute for Liberal Values Kimberly Hermann, Executive Director, Southeastern Legal Foundation Prof. Yascha Mounk, Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, Johns Hopkins University; Contributing Editor, The Atlantic; Senior Fellow, The Council on Foreign Relations Nicole Neily, President, Parents Defending Education (Moderator) Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

    1h 29m

  4. 14 FEB

    Litigation Update: Amazon, the NLRB, and “Captive Audience” Meetings

    Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act states an employer’s communication is not an unfair labor practice if it does not contain a threat of reprisal, force, or a promise of a benefit. Historically, this provision was understood to protect employers’ free speech rights to hold mandatory meetings with employees to express their views on unionization. However, in Amazon.com Services LLC, 373 NLRB No. 136 (Nov. 14, 2024), the National Labor Relations Board held that mandatory meetings where an employer expresses its views on unions violate the Act. The Board deemed such meetings unlawful, even if the views expressed during them do not independently constitute an unfair labor practice. Bill Messenger and Roger King will examine the history of Section 8(c), the Board’s interpretation of its scope, and the potential outcome of the Board’s decision on appeal to the 11th Circuit. Featuring: William L. Messenger, Vice President and Legal Director, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc. (Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association

    57 min

  5. 5 FEB

    Litigation Update: Mid Vermont Christian School v. Saunders

    From the Olympics to San Jose State, each month we hear of new controversies where biological men are competing in women’s sports. Most of those situations relate to college, international, or public school competitions. But how do policies that permit transgender athlete participation impact private religious schools, both now and in the future? How do such schools’ sincerely-held religious beliefs about these issues change what state actors can and can’t do? In Mid Vermont Christian School v. Saunders, the Vermont Principals Association (VPA), a state-sponsored sports league, removed Mid Vermont from its athletic association because the school forfeited a girls’ playoff basketball game against another team with a male athlete who identified as female. The Christian school declined to play the game because of its religious beliefs about sex, yet the VPA imposed this punishment while still allowing forfeits for secular reasons. Although the VPA has historically prohibited boys from playing on girls’ sports teams “to protect opportunities for girl athletes,” it recently adopted policies that allow males who identify as female to participate in girls’ sports and demanded Mid Vermont’s girls’ teams play against teams with male athletes or not play at all. Mid Vermont and some of its families sued in response. In June 2024, a federal district court applied rational-basis review and denied Mid Vermont’s motion for preliminary injunction. The case is currently pending at the Second Circuit, where the court will resolve whether, while the case proceeds below, Mid Vermont will be allowed to rejoin the state athletic association it competed in for close to 30 years. Join us for a discussion of this case, the religious liberty issues implicated, and the larger consequences state nondiscrimination laws may have on religious schools going forward. Featuring: David A. Cortman, Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation, Alliance Defending Freedom (Moderator) Eric W. Treene, Senior Counsel, Storzer and Associates; Adjunct Professor at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law

    56 min

  6. 5 FEB

    What's Next for Birthright Citizenship?

    On his first day in office, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled Protecting The Meaning And Value of American Citizenship which moves to end birthright citizenship practice which guarantees that U.S.-born children are citizens regardless of their parents’ status. The next day, attorneys general from 22 states sued to block the Executive Order by asserting that the President is attempting to eliminate "a well-established and longstanding Constitutional principle" by executive fiat. Join this expert panel for a discussion of this important and timely topic. Featuring: Amy E. Swearer, Senior Legal Policy Analyst, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution (Moderator) Prof. Kurt T. Lash, E. Claiborne Robins Distinguished Chair in Law, University of Richmond School of Law

    1h 1m

  7. 4 FEB

    Remedies in Presidential Removal Cases: A Shifting Landscape

    The Supreme Court's decision in Collins v. Yellen represented a paradigm shift. Now, in cases involving claims that an agency official is unconstitutionally insulated from removal by the President, litigants can face an uphill climb to obtain meaningful relief. This state of affairs arguably has a serious impact on the incentive to bring these kinds of lawsuits going forward. This webinar will discuss the future of presidential removal power litigation in light of Collins, as well as related questions about the Court's understanding of the presidential removal power more generally and how private litigants can continue to bring these claims within the framework of Collins. Featuring: Prof. David Froomkin, Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Houston Law Center Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP (Moderator) Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, The University of Michigan Law School

    58 min

  8. 4 FEB

    Searching for the Right Remedy in U.S. v. Google

    In August 2024, a federal district court held that Google possesses monopolistic power over “general search” and “general search text advertising,” which Google illegally maintained through exclusive agreements. The DOJ has suggested a range of possible remedies, including possible divestitures, while Google counters that the suggested remedies are “wildly interventionist” and could harm American consumers. A remedies trial will take place this year. This FedSoc Forum will discuss the decision, the remedies trial, and its future implications for other large companies, particularly within the tech sphere. Featuring: Thomas DeMatteo, General Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee Geoffrey A. Manne, President & Founder, International Center for Law and Economics Anant Raut, Public Advisor, National Institute of Standards and Technology Moderator: Asheesh Agarwal, Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- To register, click the link above.

    1 hr
See All (1K)

About

*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.

Information

  • Creator
    The Federalist Society
  • Years Active
    2009 - 2025
  • Episodes
    1K
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Copyright The Federalist Society
  • Show Website
    FedSoc Forums

More From The Federalist Society

You Might Also Like

To listen to explicit episodes, sign in.

Stay up to date with this show

Sign in or sign up to follow shows, save episodes and get the latest updates.
Select a country or region

Africa, Middle East, and India

Asia Pacific

Europe

Latin America and the Caribbean

The United States and Canada