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. 7h ago

    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

  2. 2d ago

    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

  3. 3d ago

    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

  4. 3d ago

    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

  5. Aug 4

    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

  6. Jul 31

    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

  7. Jul 30

    Lindsey Graham and the Judiciary: A Senate Legacy

    Hon. Lindsey Graham (1955-2026) For more than two decades, Senator Lindsey Graham was a consequential voice on the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. He played a prominent role in some of the era’s most contentious judicial-confirmation battles, including the nominations of Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, and, as chairman during the 116th Congress, helped guide President Trump’s judicial nominees through the committee. Join us for a discussion reflecting on Senator Graham’s legacy, including his impact on the federal judiciary and the Senate’s advice-and-consent role. Introduction by Sheldon Gilbert, President and CEO, The Federalist Society Featuring: Hon. Andrew N. Ferguson, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission, Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Michael Fragoso, Partner, Torridon Law PLLC; Former Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Lee Holmes, Shareholder, D.C. Office Managing Shareholder; Former Staff Director and Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary Katherine Nikas, Senior Director, Microsoft; Former Staff Director and Chief Counsel, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Moderator) Hon. Julius N. Richardson, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

  8. Jul 29

    Trial by Jury or Administrative Adjudication: What Would the Founders Say?

    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 regarded trial by jury as an indispensable check on government power, and the Fifth and Seventh Amendments enshrined that guarantee. In recent decades, however, the proliferation of administrative adjudication has steadily displaced the jury from disputes between citizens and the state. While the Supreme Court's decision in SEC v. Jarkesy was a significant step toward restoring the constitutional baseline, much work remains. Lower courts continue to rely on Atlas Roofing Co. v. OSHA to uphold agency adjudication of claims that, at the Founding, would have been tried before a jury. Cases like the recently decided FCC v. AT&T and next term's Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC illustrate just how far modern practice has drifted from constitutional design.Thomas Jefferson identified the jury "as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Yet today, Americans routinely face penalties imposed by federal agencies, not juries of their peers. Join us for a Federalist Society America 250 panel discussion looking back to the Founding Era to ask: What has become of the right to a jury trial in actions brought by the federal government?Featuring: Robert E. Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice Prof. Renée Lerner, Donald Phillip Rothschild Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School (Moderator) Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

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