828 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
    • 4.5 • 48 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.

    Courthouse Steps Decision Teleforum: Facebook v. Duguid

    Courthouse Steps Decision Teleforum: Facebook v. Duguid

    On April 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Facebook in Facebook v. Duguid. Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained that a device must have the capacity to store or produce a telephone number using a number generator. Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

    Telecommunications law experts Scott Delacourt and Daniel Lyons discuss the ruling and implications.

    Featuring:
    -- Scott D. Delacourt, Partner, Wiley
    -- Prof. Daniel Lyons, Professor of Law, Boston College School of Law
    -- Moderator: Danielle Thumann, Attorney Advisor, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr

    • 53 min
    Courthouse Steps Decision Webinar: FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project

    Courthouse Steps Decision Webinar: FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project

    On April 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project. Writing for the unanimous court, Justice Kavanaugh explained that the FCC's 2017 decision to modify its media-ownership rules was not arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    The distinguished panel that joined us to discuss oral arguments is returning to discuss the ruling and its implications.

    Featuring:
    -- Ms. Jane E. Mago, Consultant in Media Policy and Law; former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission
    -- Hon. Michael O'Rielly, Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute; former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
    -- Mr. Christopher J. Wright, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis; former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission
    -- Moderator: Mr. Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies; Executive Committee Member, Federalist Society's Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group

    • 55 min
    A Discussion of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g)

    A Discussion of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g)

    American Bar Association Model Rule 8.4(g) defines professional misconduct in relevant part as “conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” Because the 8.4(g) professional misconduct definition is broad and applies to a wide swath of undefined activity, the model rule has prompted spirited debate in light of the serious competing interests implicated.

    Join us for a discussion of contrasting views from Professor Josh Blackman and Mr. Robert Weiner.

    Featuring:
    -- Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
    -- Robert Weiner, Partner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
    -- Moderator: Kim Colby, Director of the Center of Law and Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society

    • 58 min
    Courthouse Steps Decision Teleforum: Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court

    Courthouse Steps Decision Teleforum: Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court

    On Thursday, March 25, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court and the consolidated case of Ford Motor Company v. Bandemer. The case turned on specific personal jurisdiction, the type of contacts required by the Fourteenth Amendment to satisfy Due Process, and the Court’s precedent in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, which sets the standards required for an out-of-state defendant to be constitutionally called into a foreign state court.

    In this case, two plaintiffs sued Ford alleging product liability causes of action resulting from death and serious injury that occurred during accidents allegedly caused by product defects. Markkaya Gullett died and Adam Bandamer was seriously injured. The pair of wrongful death and serious bodily injury product liability claims were brought separately in the states where the death and the injury respectively took place: Montana and Minnesota.

    Ford Motor Co., as an out of state defendant incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Michigan, argued in both cases that insufficient contacts connected Ford to the two forum states so neither the Montana nor the Michigan state court could constitutionally exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Ford. Both state court cases were heard by their state Supreme Courts and both times, the Supreme Courts ruled against Ford holding Ford was properly subject to personal jurisdiction in their state judicial system.

    Ford appealed both state Supreme Court decisions on the constitutional Due Process question. In an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Ford holding that Ford’s contacts with both forum states were sufficiently extensive and connected to the subject matter of each suit that an exercise of personal jurisdiction could satisfy Due Process and was reasonable and fair in line with International Shoe.

    Featuring:
    -- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center
    -- Jaime A. Santos, Partner, Goodwin Procter LLP

    • 49 min
    Nation-State Cybercrime: Perspectives on the Problem and Response with Two Former DOJ National Security Officials

    Nation-State Cybercrime: Perspectives on the Problem and Response with Two Former DOJ National Security Officials

    Recent cyber attacks by the Russian and Chinese governments involving SolarWinds and Microsoft exposed cyber-related vulnerabilities in the supply chains of many large and small companies that rely on SolarWinds and Microsoft for their internal security and IT services, which also experienced security breaches as a result of these attacks. Two former DOJ National Security officials from the Obama and Trump administrations will discuss the impact of these attacks, possible criminal and non-criminal responses, and pros and cons of each approach.

    Featuring:
    -- Kellen Dwyer, Adjunct Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division
    -- Alex Iftimie, Partner and Co-Chair, Global Risk & Crisis Management Practice, Morrison & Foerster LLP, former Deputy Chief of Staff and Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division
    -- Moderator: Brian Lichter, Senior Director - Legal, Global Investigations & Cybersecurity Counsel, Cognizant Technology Solutions

    • 55 min
    Courthouse Steps Decision Teleforum: Brownback v. King

    Courthouse Steps Decision Teleforum: Brownback v. King

    In Brownback v. King, the Court addressed the Federal Tort Claims Act, (FTCA) which waives Federal sovereign immunity to allow plaintiffs to sue the United States for certain torts committed by Federal employees. The FTCA includes a judgment bar which precludes a plaintiff from suing a federal employee on a cause of action arising from the same subject matter as his FTCA claim.

    Following a violent encounter with two undercover FBI agents, King sued alleging an FTCA cause of action and an implied Bivens claim. The District Court dismissed both claims. Then the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding the District Court’s dismissal of King’s FTCA claims did not invoke the FTCA judgment bar because it had not reached the merits so King’s Bivens claim should be able to go forward.

    In a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court reversed the Sixth Circuit holding the District Court’s decision reached the merits and implicated the FTCA judgment bar.

    Featuring:
    -- Roman Martinez, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP
    -- Patrick Jaicomo, Attorney, Institute for Justice

    • 32 min

Customer Reviews

4.5 out of 5
48 Ratings

48 Ratings

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."

Leea1776 ,

GREAT...But Covid quality

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

Paul Bishop III ,

Quality of Audio

What kind of potato was this recorded on?

Top Podcasts In Politics

Listeners Also Subscribed To

More by The Federalist Society