FedSoc Forums

The Federalist Society
  • 4.5 (85)
  • POLITICS

*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. 19H AGO

    Is the FDA Trying to Ban Direct-to-Consumer Drug Ads?

    The Trump Administration has been exploring new ways to tighten requirements for direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs. In its recent budget proposal, the Food and Drug Administration is asking Congress for new powers to deem drugs misbranded if they lack "fair balance" or create a "misleading impression" about a drug's approved uses or efficacy. In recent months, FDA has sent letters to Novo Nordisk, Argenx, and Sobi concerning ads it termed false or misleading. While some argue that banning drug ads on TV and online will lower drug prices and address overprescription, critics point out these increased efforts may violate the First Amendment's protection of commercial speech. The Supreme Court held in 1976 that prescription drug advertisements are protected by the Constitution and it reaffirmed this principle again in 2011, underscoring that the government may not ban truthful, non-misleading ads. Is the FDA trying to regulate away ads that it can't outright ban? How do these efforts implicate patients and their access to healthcare information? Join a panel of experts as they explore the constitutional and policy questions raised by the FDA's crack down on direct-to-consumer drug ads. Featuring: Paul Avelar, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice Jeff Stier, Policy Advisor, Heartland Institute (Moderator) Dan Troy, Managing Director, Berkeley Research Group

    59 min

  2. 19H AGO

    Courthouse Steps Decision: First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Davenport

    In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, the New Jersey Attorney General, Matthew Platkin, issued a subpoena to a faith-based, pro-life, nonprofit, requiring that it turn over years of sensitive information, including the names and contact information of its donors. First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, which provides free medical services and is funded by private donations, refused to comply with the demand for donor information, alleging that the subpoena chilled its rights of association and speech. After federal courts dismissed the case as “unripe” and directed it to state court, the Third Circuit affirmed. On April 29, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that First Choice had demonstrated a present injury sufficient to establish Article III standing based on its First Amendment claims. Join us to discuss the ruling and its implications for donor privacy and constitutional protections. Featuring: Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law Casey Mattox, Vice President for Legal Strategy, Stand Together

    29 min

  3. 19H AGO

    Courthouse Steps Decision: Louisiana v. Callais

    In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's congressional map, holding that the state had unconstitutionally relied on race in drawing district lines. The state's first map following the 2020 census contained one majority-black district, but the state redrew the map after a district court suggested that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act required the state to create two majority-black districts. The redrawn map was itself challenged, however, as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6 - 3 decision ruling striking down the map. Louisiana had defended the map by arguing that it was required to consider race in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act, but the Court held that the VRA did not in fact require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district. Accordingly, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating the congressional map. Join us for a discussion of the decision and its implications going forward. Featuring: Bradley A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law Group Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

    33 min

  4. 5D AGO

    What Did the Founders Think of the President’s Pardon Power?

    In this Federalist Society America250 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.During the constitutional convention, Alexander Hamilton raised the idea of a presidential pardon power, borrowing from the British monarchy’s prerogative of mercy. Hamilton’s proposal ultimately resulted in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the president the authority to pardon individuals convicted of a federal crime.The first presidential pardon was exercised by George Washington in 1795, when he granted amnesty to individuals who participated in Pennsylvania’s Whiskey Rebellion. Since then, there have been more than 14,000 instances of presidential pardons. From Andrew Johnson’s pardon of Jefferson Davis to Gerald Ford’s preemptive pardon of Richard Nixon to more recent instances including Joe Biden’s preemptive pardon of Hunter Biden and Donald Trump’s January 6th pardons, presidents’ use – and sometimes purported abuse – of the power has been a controversial and fiercely debated executive authority throughout our nation’s history. Join our panel of experts as they explore the Founders’ views of the pardon power and place recent use in context with the founding generation. Featuring: Paul J. Larkin, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American Freedom Andrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute; Contributing Editor, National Review James Trusty, Member, Ifrah Law (Moderator) Jeffrey DeSousa, Florida Office of the Attorney General

    55 min

  5. APR 23

    From Chambers to the Front Page: Supreme Court Leaks and Judicial Integrity

    What happens when confidential Supreme Court deliberations make their way into the press—most recently through a New York Times report based on leaked internal “shadow docket” materials? Join the Federalist Society for a timely briefing examining the Times’ reporting on internal Court memos and emergency docket decision-making, and what such leaks mean for judicial independence, institutional norms, and public trust in the Court. Featuring: Carrie Campbell Severino, President, JCN Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Professor of Law and Faculty Co-Director for the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, Georgetown University Law Center (Moderator) Annie Donaldson Talley, Partner, Luther Strange & Associates

    47 min

  6. APR 22

    A Seat at the Sitting - April 2026

    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. Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission, (April 20) - Corporations & Securities; Issue(s): Whether the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm. T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., (April 20) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Standing; Issue(s): Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents parties who lose in state courts from challenging injuries caused by state-court judgments, can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court. Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.,(April 21) - Communications & Technology; Issue(s): Whether the Communications Act of 1934 provisions that govern the Federal Communications Commission’s assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III. Bondi v. Lau, (April 22) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether, to remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident's last reentry into the United States. Chatrie v. United States, (April 27) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): Whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. Monsanto Company v. Durnell, (April 27) - Energy & Environmental Law; Issue(s): Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning. Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I, (April 28) - International Law & Human Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting; and (2) whether the Torture Victim Protection Act allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., (April 29) - Patent Law / Intellectual Property Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether, when a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a “generic version” and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) are enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use; and (2) whether a complaint states a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use. Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot, (April 29) - Immigration Law; Issue(s): Whether the Trump administration can end the Temporary Protected Status program for Syrian and Haitian nationals.

    1h 19m

  7. APR 15

    Foreign Influence Operations and National Security

    Foreign influence operations have become increasingly important in geopolitical competition and American national security. China is among the most active would-be influencers, with efforts to infiltrate decision-making in federal, state, and local governments, corporate America, Silicon Valley and Wall Street, within cultural and educational institutions, and most importantly, within the minds of Americans. A House Oversight Committee government-wide investigation showed that Chinese Communist Party influence operations even extended into federal agencies and the intelligence community — to the very people responsible for safeguarding American interests. Israel has been another key target in recent years. Especially after 10/7, there has been an explosion of bias and misinformation, with foreign influencers stoking antisemitism in the U.S., especially among younger generations. Join us for a discussion that will explore the key actors behind these operations, their sources of funding, and their underlying motivations as well as the broader implications for U.S. national security. Featuring: Margaret Harker, Litigator and Former DOJ Attorney Park MacDougald, Writer and Editor, Tablet Magazine (Moderator) Vince Vitkowsky, Fellow, National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

    1 hr

  8. APR 8

    The GENIUS Act in Practice: Key Questions for Stablecoin Regulation

    The GENIUS Act of 2025 was a watershed moment in the legal framework for stablecoins, but now implementing regulations are due in July, and many key questions are far from settled. How will the regulation will be carried out, how will systemic risks be addressed, how big a role will banks play in stablecoins, what role will stablecoins assume in the broader payment system, how will yield-bearing arrangements using stablecoins be treated, who will bear the regulatory costs? On March 31, 2026, the Federalist Society's Financial Services Practice Group will convene a panel of leading practitioners, regulators, and policy thinkers to examine these questions and the implementation landscape ahead. Featuring: Hon. Michael S. Barr, Member, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Hon. Summer Mersinger, Chief Executive Officer, Blockchain Association Alex Pollock, Senior Fellow, Mises Institute Greg Xethalis, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, Multicoin Capital (Moderator) Gary Kalbaugh, Partner, Cahill Gordon & Reindel

    1h 2m
See All (1K)

4.5
out of 5
85 Ratings

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 - 2026
  • Episodes
    1K
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Copyright The Federalist Society
  • Show Website
    FedSoc Forums

More From The Federalist Society

You Might Also Like