FedSoc Forums

The Federalist Society
  • 4,5 (84)
  • ПОЛИТИКА

*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 ДН.

    Suncor Energy v. Boulder County: Federalism, Judicial Power, and the Future of Climate Litigation

    In Suncor Energy, Inc., v. Commissioners of Boulder County, the Supreme Court will consider whether state courts may use tort law to impose what amounts to a nationwide climate regulatory regime—despite Congress’s central role in addressing interstate and international emissions. Colorado local governments sued several energy companies in state court, asserting nuisance, trespass, consumer protection, and conspiracy claims for harms allegedly caused by global greenhouse-gas emissions. Although framed as state-law tort actions, the lawsuits seek damages and remedies tied to worldwide energy production and cross-border emissions—issues that are inherently national and international in scope. The energy companies argue that these claims are displaced by federal law because they attempt to regulate interstate and international pollution, an area requiring uniform federal rules. Allowing 50 different state courts to impose varying standards for global emissions, they contend, would undermine constitutional structure, interfere with federal authority, and invite judicial policymaking on questions committed to Congress and the political branches. The Colorado Supreme Court rejected those arguments, permitting the case to proceed in state court. The U.S. Supreme Court has now granted review and added an important threshold question: whether it even has jurisdiction to hear the case at this interlocutory stage—raising additional concerns about the proper limits of judicial power under Article III. This webinar will examine whether state-law climate tort suits represent a legitimate exercise of state authority or an attempt to achieve sweeping national policy changes through strategic litigation rather than the democratic process. What does constitutional structure require when global environmental regulation collides with state common law? And what are the consequences for federalism if courts become venues for resolving inherently national policy disputes? Join us for a discussion of the constitutional stakes and what this case may mean for the future of climate litigation nationwide. Featuring: Jonathan Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law and William H. Cabell Research Professor, William & Mary Law School; Senior Fellow, Property and Environment Research Center O.H. Skinner, Executive Director, Alliance For Consumers Michael Williams, Solicitor General, West Virginia (Moderator) Annie Donaldson Talley, Partner, Luther Strange & Associates

    53 мин.

  2. -4 ДН.

    Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: United States v. Hemani

    On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in United States v. Hemani. This case explores whether a federal law that criminalizes possession of firearms by an individual who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" violates the Second Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held this law unconstitutional as applied to most drug users, determining it could only be applied consistent with the Second Amendment to "those presently impaired." Hemani is the latest in a series of challenges the courts have confronted since the Supreme Court announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that laws burdening firearms possession must comport with our nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will recap and analyze the oral argument at the Supreme Court. Featuring: Prof. F. Lee Francis, Associate Professor, Widener Law Commonwealth Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime (Moderator) John Ohlendorf, Partner, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC

    1 ч. 1 мин.

  3. -4 ДН.

    The End of ESG Collusion? A Conversation on the Vanguard Case

    This week, investment fund manager The Vanguard Group committed to ending its ESG-driven investment initiatives, ceasing any efforts to influence portfolio companies’ business strategies toward carbon-emissions reductions, enhancing disclosure of its proxy voting activities, and producing records related to its participation in climate-related organizations. The multi-state suit, led by Texas, asserted that Vanguard and other investment managers engaged in a coordinated effort to drive up the price of coal and misrepresented the nature of their funds to investors. In this landmark settlement agreement, Vanguard has agreed to make the strongest passivity commitments in the industry and empower investors with proxy voting. What are the implications of this settlement for future federal and state action against coordinated ESG-driven market manipulation? Join us for a timely discussion as experts unpack the details of the Vanguard settlement. Featuring: Will Hild, Executive Director, Consumers' Research Brent Webster, First Assistant Attorney General of Texas (Moderator) Paul N. Watkins, Partner, Fusion Law

    55 мин.

  4. 5 МАР.

    Safeguarding Vulnerable Populations Online

    Modern life is increasingly dependent on the internet, but with dependence comes vulnerability. Popular websites enable fraud, disinformation, and harassment. Although anyone on the internet can be at risk, particular age demographics, including children and the elderly, are exposed to threats ranging from social media risks to online harassment to much worse. Federal efforts to legislate solutions have met with mixed success. State governments have begun to address these questions on their own terms, with some enacting age verification laws and others bringing lawsuits against internet companies. How then should we think about public safety in the present internet ecosystem, particularly for vulnerable populations like children and the elderly? Is legislation desirable or even possible? And what does the future hold? Join our panelists, all advocates on the front lines, as they discuss these issues. Featuring: India McKinney, Director of Federal Affairs, Electronic Frontier Foundation Clare Morell, Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center Spence Purnell, Resident Senior Fellow, Technology and Innovation, R Street Institute Brandon J. Smith, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC (Moderator) Prof. Paul G. Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Utah College of Law

    1 ч.

  5. 2 МАР.

    What are the Challenges That Immigration Policy Poses for Businesses?

    Immigration policy has significant impacts on businesses, and the debate over wise immigration policy includes many economic and political considerations. This panel will discuss the most significant challenges that immigration policy poses for businesses, including the future of H-1B visas and I-9 enforcement. Featuring: Simon Hankinson, Senior Research Fellow, Border Security and Immigration Center, The Heritage Foundation James Rogers, Senior Counsel, America First Legal Patrick Shen, Vice President, Immigration Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Chris L. Thomas, Partner, Holland & Hart (Moderator) Randel K. Johnson, Immigration Academic Fellow, Cornell Law School

    54 мин.

  6. 25 ФЕВР.

    The FTC's 2026 Consumer Protection Priorities

    What are the FTC’s 2026 priorities in the areas of consumer protection, privacy, and artificial intelligence? This panel will discuss FTC's enforcement, policymaking, and rulemaking priorities and how they may differ from those in the Biden Administration. The panel is happy to take questions from the audience in advance of the webinar. Please send any questions to matthew.sawtelle@fed-soc.org by February 12th. Featuring: Brian Berggren, Acting Associate Director, Division of Enforcement, Federal Trade Commission Svetlana Gans, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School (Moderator) Asheesh Agarwal, Antitrust Consultant, American Edge Project and U.S. Chamber of Commerce

    1 ч. 4 мин.

  7. 24 ФЕВР.

    Birthright Citizenship in Context: Law, History, and Contemporary Debate

    As debates over birthright citizenship intensify in legal and public spheres, this webinar will explore the constitutional, historical, and jurisprudential foundations of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Drawing on their recent scholarship in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, our panelists will examine how original meaning, common-law antecedents, and modern legal arguments intersect in today’s birthright citizenship controversy. Featuring: Prof. Keith Whittington, David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law School Prof. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School (Moderator) Hon. Steven Menashi, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (Introducer) Sean-Michael Pigeon, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

    56 мин.

  8. 18 ФЕВР.

    Who is Liable in Detransition Cases?

    In the first medical malpractice verdict of its kind, a New York jury awarded $2 million to a detransitioner who sued the clinicians responsible for performing a double mastectomy when she was 16 years old. The case marks a historic legal development and signals the emergence of a new frontier in medical malpractice litigation. At its core are difficult and consequential questions about standards of care, informed consent, particularly for minors undergoing irreversible medical interventions, and the extent to which existing malpractice frameworks are equipped to address these medical practices. This webinar will examine the legal significance of this landmark verdict and situate it within a growing group of detransitioner claims nationwide. Panelists will explore how courts may analyze allegations of inadequate screening, deficient consent processes, and departures from accepted professional standards. The discussion will also consider how these cases may shape future malpractice doctrine and affect risk exposure for physicians and healthcare systems. Beyond individual liability, the program will address the role of hospitals and medical institutions in establishing and enforcing these controversial treatments. To what extent can healthcare systems be held responsible for systemic failures in oversight, documentation, or patient evaluation? Featuring: Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel and Vice President at Alliance Defending Freedom Mark Trammell, General Counsel, Center for American Liberty (Moderator) Sarah Perry, Vice President and Legal Fellow, Defending Education (Special Introduction) Mary Margaret Olohan, Author of DeTrans: True Stories of Escaping The Gender Ideology Cult; White House Correspondent, The Daily Wire

    53 мин.
См. все (1 тыс.)

4,5
из 5
Оценок: 84

Об этом подкасте

*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.

Информация

  • Автор
    The Federalist Society
  • Годы выхода
    2009 - 2026
  • Выпуски
    1 тыс.
  • Ограничения
    Без ненормативной лексики
  • Авторские права
    © Copyright The Federalist Society
  • Сайт подкаста
    FedSoc Forums

Еще от провайдера «The Federalist Society»

Вам может также понравиться