1,000 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

    • News
    • 4.6 • 62 Ratings

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.

    Talks with Authors: Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words

    Talks with Authors: Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words

    Mark Paoletta and Michael Pack have co-edited a new book, Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words, which is a follow-on project of Michael Pack’s very successful 2020 documentary of the same name. In making the film, Pack interviewed Justice Thomas for 25 hours. Created Equal is a book-length interview taken from those 25 hours of interviews, where Justice Thomas discusses in an informal and moving way his remarkable life – from being born into abject poverty in 1948 in the segregated Deep South of Georgia to being a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. He talks about the challenges he faced and overcame, including his contentious confirmation battle in 1991. 95% of what is in the book did not appear in the film.

    Co-editor Mark Paoletta joined us for a discussion of one of our most interesting justices. Mr. Paoletta served as a lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office in the George H.W. Bush administration and worked on the confirmation of Justice Thomas. He is a partner at Schaerr-Jaffe.

    Featuring:
    -- Mark Paoletta, Partner, Schaerr-Jaffe

    • 53 min
    Courthouse Steps Decision: Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta

    Courthouse Steps Decision: Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta

    On June 29, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. The Court held that the federal government and the state have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.

    Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.

    Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.

    Featuring:

    -- David Casazza, Associate Attorney, Gibson Dunn
    -- Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
    -- Jason Manion, Associate Attorney, Gibson Dunn
    -- Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig

    • 57 min
    The Future of Chevron Deference at the Supreme Court

    The Future of Chevron Deference at the Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court decided multiple administrative law cases this term, but in no majority opinion did the Court cite its landmark 1984 precedent Chevron v. NRDC. The lack of citation to Chevron raises an important question: Is the Court ignoring the Chevron doctrine (which provides for judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes)? Whatever the status of Chevron at the Supreme Court, lower courts continue to apply the doctrine. Scholars have lodged thoughtful critiques of Chevron's rule, but after October Term 2021, its continued vitality is unclear.


    This panel analyzes what's next for Chevron, with a particular focus on what Chevron's conspicuous absence in the Court's opinions this term might mean for the doctrine's future.

    Featuring:


    Prof. Thomas W. Merrill, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
    Yaakov M. Roth, Partner, Jones Day
    Moderator: Eli Nachmany, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

    • 57 min
    Courthouse Steps Decision: Biden v. Texas

    Courthouse Steps Decision: Biden v. Texas

    On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Biden v. Texas.

    In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Biden administration can end the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), an immigration enforcement program put in place under the Trump administration.

    Under MPP (colloquially known as "Remain in Mexico"), many individuals seeking asylum in the United States after entering via the southern border were sent back to Mexico to await their court dates. Soon after taking office President Biden sought to end the program, but the administration was ordered to continue enforcing the Protocols by a federal district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Please join Professor Ilya Somin as he breaks down the ruling and its implications for immigration policy and administrative law.

    Featuring:

    -- Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

    • 32 min
    Courthouse Steps Decision Webinar: West Virginia v. EPA

    Courthouse Steps Decision Webinar: West Virginia v. EPA

    On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. EPA. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that EPA exceeded its authority under Clean Air Act Section 111 when it issued the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which sought to control carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants by imposing limits based on a “system” of shifting power generation away from fossil fuels and towards renewable fuels at the grid-wide level. Although the Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in February 2016 before it could take effect, the Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA was the first time it pronounced on the Plan’s merits.

    This case is a major development in administrative law. For the first time, a majority opinion of the Supreme Court used the phrase “major questions doctrine” to describe its methodology. The Court determined that the Clean Power Plan dealt with issues of such “economic and political significance” that it required a clear statement of Congressional intent to authorize this specific type of action. Because the CAA contains no such clear statement, the Clean Power Plan was unlawful.

    Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, wrote a concurring opinion expanding on the “major questions doctrine” and its relationship to the constitutional principle of non-delegation. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, wrote a dissenting opinion arguing the Court improperly placed “major questions” at the beginning of its statutory analysis—instead of conducting a traditional Chevron-style textual inquiry and concluding with “major questions.” Further, the dissent states that Congress provided EPA with the authority to require “generation shifting” in the CAA’s use of broad language authorizing the Agency to identify a “system of emission reduction” to address air pollution.

    Please join our legal experts to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.

    Featuring:

    -- David Fotouhi, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, former Acting General Counsel, EPA

    -- Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law; former Deputy General Counsel, EPA.

    -- Moderator: Garrett Kral, Associate Member of the Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group’s Executive Committee; former Special Advisor for Oversight, EPA.

    • 1 hr 2 min
    The Future of Homemade Firearms: The Legal and Political Implications of ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F

    The Future of Homemade Firearms: The Legal and Political Implications of ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F

    Americans have been privately manufacturing and assembling firearms since before this country’s founding. Now, thanks to the prevalence of commercially available firearm parts, “buy, build, shoot” kits, and 3D printers, it is easier than ever to build a gun in the comfort of one’s own home, which bypasses many of the statutory and regulatory regimes that govern buying a fully built firearm from a gun store.
    To some, this represents a loophole in America’s gun laws. Others see this as a modern innovation in the tradition of home gun building that has always existed in America.
    The Biden Administration shares the former view. On April 11, 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland signed ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F. Among other measures, this rule changes the ATF’s definition of “firearm frame or receiver” found in the Gun Control Act of 1968, greatly expanding the list of what is considered a firearm by the agency, and therefore what can be strictly regulated under existing federal law. Furthermore, both houses of Congress currently have bills before them designed to increase the regulation of homemade firearms, and to ban certain types of these so-called “ghost guns”.
    In this timely webinar, our experts will cover the ATF’s Final Rule, set to go into effect on August 24, 2022, and will discuss the legal and political implications surrounding homemade firearms and the regulation thereof.

    Featuring:
    Matthew Larosiere, Director of Legal Policy at Firearms Policy Coalition
    Dru Stevenson, Wayne Fisher Research Professor, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
    Moderator: Ryan Lacey, Assistant Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
    ---
    To register, cick the link above

    • 1 hr

Customer Reviews

4.6 out of 5
62 Ratings

62 Ratings

Leea1776 ,

GREAT...But Covid quality

Amazing content. We need to address the quality of the audio. Thank you for producing these. Amazing content!

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.

Paul Bishop III ,

Quality of Audio

What kind of potato was this recorded on?

You Might Also Like

The Federalist Society
The Federalist Society
Will Baude, Dan Epps
Akhil Reed Amar
Hoover Institution
National Review

More by The Federalist Society

The Federalist Society
The Federalist Society
The Federalist Society
The Federalist Society
The Federalist Society