300 episodes

This series of podcasts features experts who analyze the latest developments in the legal and policy world. The podcasts are in the form of monologues, podcast debates or panel discussions and vary in length. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers. We hope these broadcasts, like all of our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange regarding important current legal issues.

Teleforum The Federalist Society

    • Politics

This series of podcasts features experts who analyze the latest developments in the legal and policy world. The podcasts are in the form of monologues, podcast debates or panel discussions and vary in length. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers. We hope these broadcasts, like all of our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange regarding important current legal issues.

    Litigation Update: FTC v Qualcomm

    Litigation Update: FTC v Qualcomm

    In January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology. Among other things, the FTC claimed that Qualcomm had maintained its market position by requiring chip customers to license their chips separately (known as the “no license, no chips” policy) and had refused to license its standard-essential patents (SEPs) to competitors.

    Judge Lucy Koh held a bench trial in January 2019 and issued a decision in favor of the FTC in May 2019. In a lengthy opinion, the court determined that Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy violated antitrust law and that Qualcomm had a separate antitrust duty to deal with its competitors. Judge Koh then issued an injunction that, among other things, prohibited Qualcomm from conditioning the supply of chips on a customer’s patent-license status and required Qualcomm to negotiate and make available licenses on FRAND terms.

    Qualcomm appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In August 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued an order partially staying Judge Koh’s injunction. According to the Ninth Circuit, “Qualcomm has shown, at a minimum, the presence of serious questions on the merits” of the district court’s opinion. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit needs to decide whether the district court’s “order and injunction represent a trailblazing application of the antitrust laws, or instead an improper excursion beyond the outer limits of the Sherman Act.”

    While these issues alone would be interesting, this case is even more intriguing because the Department of Justice (DOJ) has intervened in the case – in favor of Qualcomm. The DOJ filed an amicus brief in favor of the stay of injunction, as well as an amicus brief on the merits. The Ninth Circuit has also granted DOJ’s request for five minutes of oral argument time. Oral argument in the Ninth Circuit is set for February 13, 2020.

    This Litigation Update teleforum recaps the district court’s decision, discusses the arguments likely to be made on appeal, and explorse the bigger issues this case brings up for antitrust policy.

    Featuring:
    -- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law and Director, Planning and Publications, Center for Law, Economics, & Finance, George Washington University Law School
    -- Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law

    • 39 min
    The Whys and Hows of Commenting on Rules

    The Whys and Hows of Commenting on Rules

    Public notice and comment on rulemaking is a core requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act, and creates the administrative record on which any subsequent judicial review will be based. Yet many people (even people who take the trouble to vote) seem to think that commenting on rules is difficult or futile, and therefore don’t participate – even when they care about the outcome. This Teleforum will discuss the practical mechanics of tracking the development of rules and filing timely comments; in fact, timely filing is about the only legal requirement for getting comments onto the record. It will describe the sorts of comments that tend to be effective in persuading an agency, including comments made directly by affected small entities without professional representation. It will also explain the concept of a “Public Interest Comment” which argues, not on behalf of any particular party or cause (however worthy), but in favor of a balanced resolution of the conflicting considerations that an agency must take into account.

    Featuring:
    -- Prof. Susan Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center and Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington University
    -- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center
    -- Prof. Brian F. Mannix, Research Professor, Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington University

    • 40 min
    Fitzpatrick v. Frank: Should Conservatives Embrace Class Actions?

    Fitzpatrick v. Frank: Should Conservatives Embrace Class Actions?

    Professor Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School and Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness debate Professor Fitzpatrick’s provocative new book, The Conservative Case for Class Actions (University of Chicago Press).

    • 1 hr 5 min
    Litigation Update: The Government, Apple, and the Encryption Debate

    Litigation Update: The Government, Apple, and the Encryption Debate

    In 2016 the United States Department of Justice and Apple twice went to federal court over whether Apple could be required to assist the government in unlocking cell phones used by persons under investigation for criminal conduct. One case involved access to an iPhone used by one of the persons responsible for the mass shootings in San Bernardino, California. Another case involved an iPhone seized from a narcotics trafficking suspect in Brooklyn, New York. In both cases, however, the litigations were terminated as moot without final resolution when the government was able to access the iPhones in question without Apple’s assistance. Once again, however, the government and Apple are at odds — this time over access to iPhones used by a Saudi military trainee who in 2019 killed three sailors at a Navy base in Pensacola, Florida. What is the basis for compelling a third party to assist the government in its criminal investigations in accessing encrypted communications using its platforms? What are the key legal and policy issues at stake in this controversy? Joseph V. DeMarco of DeVore & DeMarco LLP, who filed amicus briefs in the 2016 litigations on behalf of various law enforcement organizations in support of the government, and who previously prosecuted cybercrime as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York, will explore these issues and offer perspectives on the implications of this crucial debate for national security as well as for criminal and civil litigations in state and federal court.

    Featuring:
    -- Joseph V. DeMarco, Partner, DeVore & DeMarco LLP

    • 34 min
    Litigation Update: City of Boise v. Martin

    Litigation Update: City of Boise v. Martin

    Last month, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in City of Boise v. Martin, a case out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case involved a challenge to Boise’s enforcement of its criminal law prohibiting public camping against the homeless. The Ninth Circuit held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits the enforcement of the law against the homeless when there are insufficient beds available in shelters. Although the Court denied review, the Ninth Circuit’s decision raises many important questions about many issues, including the effect on the homeless and surrounding communities, ways that law enforcement might react to their inability to enforce this law, and the potential constraints placed on the approximately 1600 municipalities in the Ninth Circuit—in particular San Francisco and Los Angeles, which have significant homeless populations—in their efforts to combat homelessness and the ills associated with it. Learn about this case's history, facts, unresolved questions, and legal implications moving forward.

    Featuring:
    -- Prof. Andrew Hessick, Judge John J. Parker Distinguished Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Strategy, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law
    -- Prof. Carissa Hessick, Anne Shea Ransdell and William Garland "Buck" Ransdell, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Faculty Development, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law
    -- Moderator: Hon. Eileen J. O'Connor, Law Office of Eileen J. O'Connor, PLLC

    • 45 min
    Removal or Acquittal? President Trump's Trial in the Senate

    Removal or Acquittal? President Trump's Trial in the Senate

    In December 2019, the United States House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald Trump. This is the third impeachment of a sitting U.S. President after Johnson and Clinton. John Malcolm and John Yoo discuss the ongoing Senate trial, the debate over witnesses, comparisons to previous Senate trials, and more.

    Featuring:
    -- John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
    -- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law

    • 59 min

Customer Reviews

PodcastListener38 ,

To be fair

The person below should have read the next 9 words in the description: "all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers."

1Lsudokufan ,

The best law podcast out there

It’s impressive how FedSoc cranks out these teleforums on a weekly basis, covering a wide variety of topics with an array of speakers. I can almost never jump on a phone for the actual calls so I appreciate these podcasts. Fantastic series.

VicStein ,

Right to work laws

The description states that the Federalist takes no sides on subjects so I turned to it for some unbiased facts on right to work laws. The people discussing the topic were clearly very biased and all I heard was the same old sales pitch any one else has. I will not be listening anymore.

Top Podcasts In Politics

Listeners Also Subscribed To

More by The Federalist Society