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 • 61 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: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

    Courthouse Steps Decision: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

    On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. In a 6-3 decision, the Court struck down New York’s handgun licensing law that required New Yorkers to demonstrate a “proper cause” in order to be granted a license to carry a pistol or revolver in public. The petitioners, Brandon Koch and Robert Nash, were denied licenses to carry a firearm in public after listing their generalized interest in self-defense as the reason for seeking the license. New York denied their license application because a generalized interest in self-defense failed to satisfy the state’s proper cause requirement. Both men sued, claiming that New York had violated their Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights in doing so. A district court dismissed their claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.
    Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in the first major case on firearms regulation that the Court has considered in over a decade.
    Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for the future of firearm regulation in America.

    Featuring:
    Prof. Mark W. Smith, Visiting Fellow in Pharmaceutical Public Policy and Law in the Department of Pharmacology, University of Oxford; Presidential Scholar and Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy, The King’s College; Distinguished Scholar and Senior Fellow of Law and Public Policy, Ave Maria School of Law
    ---
    To register, please click the link above

    • 33 min
    Crypto Wars: Balancing Privacy versus National Security

    Crypto Wars: Balancing Privacy versus National Security

    Senior officials in the Administration have expressed concern about cryptocurrencies being used for criminal activity and undermining the dollar as the global reserve currency. These concerns have been heightened with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, evasion of sanctions including North Korean sanctions, cyberattacks, and ransomware. Others contend that blockchain transactions are easier to trace than physical cash, and that the Administration’s concerns are exaggerated and could stifle innovation. China has banned cryptocurrencies and developed its own central bank digital currency (CBDC). It appears that the digital yuan will be used by the Chinese government for surveillance purposes to closely monitor personal transactions and behavior. A number of other regimes, including Canada, have used the banking and monetary system to silence dissidents. Some say that dissidents and citizens in countries that have unstable fiat currencies have turned to bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to escape the national currency and protect their rights; other say cryptocurrencies are used by criminals and terrorists.
    This very timely panel will discuss whether the US can develop policies on digital assets that both protect freedom and privacy and maintain our safety from bad actors, and what the trade-offs with the dollar’s international role might be.
    Featuring:
    Hon. Mick Mulvaney, Co-Chair, Actum LLC; Former Director, Office of Management and Budget
    Hon. Kathy Kraninger, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Solidus Labs; Former Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
    Michele Korver, Head of Regulatory, a16z Crypto
    Norbert Michel, Vice President and Director, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, Cato Institute
    Moderator: Dina Ellis Rochkind, Counsel, Government Affairs and Strategy, Paul Hastings

    • 59 min
    Due Process Protections in Agency Enforcement Actions

    Due Process Protections in Agency Enforcement Actions

    In February of 2019, then General Counsel of the Department of Transportation (DOT), Steven Bradbury, issued a memo later dubbed the "Bradbury Memo" that addressed concerns about civil enforcement abuse at the agency. Parts of the memo were subsequently made into binding DOT rules. DOT asserted that these rules were designed to protect the due process rights of those who were the subject of DOT enforcement actions, including a requirement that the agency disclose all exculpatory evidence to those targeted by civil enforcement and the prohibition of “fishing expedition” investigations without sufficient evidence to support a violation.

    On April 2, 2021, DOT rescinded these rules without the opportunity for public comment. Thereafter Polyweave Packaging inc., a company that had been issued a civil penalty order by DOT over alleged regulatory violations, filed suit against DOT claiming the agency violated its due process rights by revoking the Bradbury Memo rules.

    The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky ruled in favor of DOT, the case has been appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and oral arguments were on May 5, 2022.

    Please join this litigation update of Polyweave Packaging v. Buttigieg as our experts discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for administrative rulemaking and due process.

    Featuring:

    --Hon. Steven Bradbury, Attorney; Former General Counsel, Department of Transportation

    --Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

    --Moderator: Hon. Beth Williams, Board Member, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; former Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice

    • 1 hr
    Due Process Protections in Agency Enforcement Actions

    Due Process Protections in Agency Enforcement Actions

    In February of 2019, then General Counsel of the Department of Transportation (DOT), Steven Bradbury, issued a memo later dubbed the "Bradbury Memo" that addressed concerns about civil enforcement abuse at the agency. Parts of the memo were subsequently made into binding DOT rules. DOT asserted that these rules were designed to protect the due process rights of those who were the subject of DOT enforcement actions, including a requirement that the agency disclose all exculpatory evidence to those targeted by civil enforcement and the prohibition of “fishing expedition” investigations without sufficient evidence to support a violation.
    On April 2, 2021, DOT rescinded these rules without the opportunity for public comment. Thereafter Polyweave Packaging inc., a company that had been issued a civil penalty order by DOT over alleged regulatory violations, filed suit against DOT claiming the agency violated its due process rights by revoking the Bradbury Memo rules.
    The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky ruled in favor of DOT, the case has been appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and oral arguments were on May 5, 2022.
    Please join this litigation update of Polyweave Packaging v. Buttigieg as our experts discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications for administrative rulemaking and due process.
    Featuring:
    Hon. Steven Bradbury, Attorney; Former General Counsel, Department of Transportation
    Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
    Moderator: Hon. Beth Williams, Board Member, U.S. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; former Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
    ---
    To register, click the link above

    • 59 min
    Issue Update: Critical Race Theory Legislation Across the States

    Issue Update: Critical Race Theory Legislation Across the States

    This webinar will explore issues raised by the raft of state and federal initiatives on Critical Race Theory and related topics. Issues will include the scope of state authority over the content of education, with special attention to differences between K-12 and public universities. Varying features of state-level CRT bills will be discussed, as well as the characterization of their content from supporters and detractors.

    On the state level, state education standards, "book banning", and legislation pertaining to curriculum transparency, “action civics,” and “diversity statements” will be discussed. Moves to control educational content at the federal level through grantmaking will also be covered.

    Featuring:
    --Stanley Kurtz, Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

    • 1 hr 1 min
    The Future of Universal Service After the Infrastructure Act

    The Future of Universal Service After the Infrastructure Act

    On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act which commits approximately $65 billion towards broadband expansion. Wisely, Section 60104(c) of the Act directs the Federal Communications Commission to submit to Congress “a report on the options of the Commission for improving its effectiveness in achieving the universal service goals for broadband in light of this Act” within 270 days of enactment. Congress also invited the Commission to make “recommendations … on further actions the Commission and Congress could take to improve the ability of the Commission to achieve the universal service goals for broadband.” Last December, the FCC launched a Notice of Inquiry to begin this process. Please join us for a teleforum with industry experts to discuss the legal, economic and policy implications of this important proceeding.
    Featuring:
    Patrick Halley, SVP, Policy & Advocacy and General Counsel, USTelecom
    Alexander Minard, Vice President & State Legislative Counsel, NCTA
    Angie Kronenberg, Chief Advocate and General Counsel, INCOMPAS
    Dr. George S. Ford, Chief Economist, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies
    Moderator: Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies

    • 59 min

Customer Reviews

4.6 out of 5
61 Ratings

61 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?

Top Podcasts In News

The New York Times
The Daily Wire
NPR
Crooked Media
The Daily Wire
Serial Productions

You Might Also Like

The Federalist Society
The Hoover Institution
Will Baude, Dan Epps
The Heritage Foundation
The Federalist Society
Oyez

More by The Federalist Society

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