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.

    Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Wire and Federal Program Fraud: A ‘Bridgegate’ Too Far?

    Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Wire and Federal Program Fraud: A ‘Bridgegate’ Too Far?

    Bridget Anne Kelly and William Baroni were convicted of wire fraud, federal program fraud and conspiracy for orchestrating lane closures on the George Washington Bridge in September, 2013, as an elaborate punishment to the mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey for refusing to endorse Governor Chris Christie for re-election. In Bridget Anne Kelly v. United States, the latest in a series of political corruption cases to reach the Supreme Court, the justices will consider whether these acts can amount to defrauding the government. Steve Klein, a partner at Barr & Klein PLLC and a member of the Free Speech & Election Law Executive Committee, discusses the implications of the case and give his thoughts on oral argument.

    Featuring:
    -- Mr. Steve Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC

    • 20 min
    Mass Tort Deals: Backroom Bargaining in Multidistrict Litigation?

    Mass Tort Deals: Backroom Bargaining in Multidistrict Litigation?

    Multidistrict litigation has been the subject of much controversy in recent years. Defendants lament the pressure to settle claims that they believe frequently lack merit and the inefficiencies of modern multidistrict litigation. In her recent book, Mass Tort Deals: Backroom Bargaining in Multidistrict Litigation, Professor Elizabeth Chamblee Burch marshals a wide array of empirical data to suggest that a systematic lack of checks and balances may disadvantage plaintiffs in multidistrict litigation as well. Rather than faithfully representing them, she asserts that plaintiffs’ lawyers may sell them out in backroom settlements that compensate lawyers handsomely, pay plaintiffs little, and deny them the justice they seek. Please join Professor Elizabeth Chamblee Burch and Douglas Smith for a discussion of this important book.

    Featuring:
    -- Prof. Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, Fuller E. Callaway Chair of Law, University of Georgia School of Law and author of Mass Tort Deals: Backroom Bargaining in Multidistrict Litigation (Cambridge University Press 2019)
    -- Douglas Smith, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP

    • 37 min
    Is Another Brand of Judicial Deference on the Chopping Block?

    Is Another Brand of Judicial Deference on the Chopping Block?

    This teleforum will focus on the sundry problems with so-called "Brand X deference," whose name derives from the 2005 Supreme Court decision in National Cable & Telecom. Assoc. v. Brand X Internet Services. The judicial deference holding in the case was that federal agencies may issue new regulations that supersede previous interpretations of the relevant statute made by federal courts of appeals (unless that prior federal-court interpretation purported to be the only permissible interpretation of the statute). Hence, even if a federal circuit court of appeals has previously interpreted a statute, if an agency with jurisdiction subsequently issues a new regulation interpreting that statute differently, the federal court in a future case must defer (i.e., give Chevron deference) to the agency’s new interpretation of the statute.

    This month the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether or not to take up a case that could do for Brand X deference what Kisor v. Wilkie did for Auer deference. That is, the Court could radically reduce the scope of Brand X’s application and/or clarify that Brand X deference only applies when a prior federal court did not use traditional tools of statutory analysis in interpreting the statutory provision at issue. Or, the Court could go even further and do away with Brand X deference altogether, as then-Judge Gorsuch called for when he was serving on the Tenth Circuit.

    Join us for this timely discussion of Baldwin v. U.S. (cert pending).

    Featuring:
    -- Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director & General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
    -- Moderator: Robert T. Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale

    • 51 min
    The Race to 5G and the World Radio Conference

    The Race to 5G and the World Radio Conference

    Heard about the “Race to 5G”? Wonder who are the U.S.’ leading rivals, and when and where the “race” is happening? This teleforum will provide answers and cover how outcomes from the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) affect the United States’ spectrum goals and priorities, including Wi-Fi, innovative satellite services, science research, and weather forecasting. Join us for this timely and important discussion with Ambassador Grace Koh, who led the U.S. Delegation to the recently concluded World Radiocommunication Conference, to examine how WRC outcomes position the U.S. in the Race to 5G. Tom Sullivan and Doug Kinkoph will also participate in this discussion, moderated by Patricia Paoletta (Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP).

    Featuring:
    -- Doug Kinkoph, Associate Administrator, Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications, performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce
    -- Amb. Grace Koh, U.S. Representative and Head of Delegation to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) World Radiocommunication Conference 2019
    -- Thomas Sullivan, Chief, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
    -- Moderator: Patricia Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP

    • 51 min
    Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Holguin-Hernandez v. U.S.

    Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Holguin-Hernandez v. U.S.

    At issue in the case of Holguin-Hernandez v. United States is whether a formal objection after pronouncement of sentence is necessary to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of a defendant’s sentence. Daniel Guarnera joined us to discuss the case as presented at oral argument before the Supreme Court on December 10, 2019.

    Featuring:
    -- Daniel Guarnera, Associate, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick

    • 22 min
    Courthouse Steps Oral Argument Teleforum: Hernandez v. Mesa

    Courthouse Steps Oral Argument Teleforum: Hernandez v. Mesa

    The case of Hernandez v. Mesa arises from a 2010 confrontation on the U.S.-Mexican border in which U.S. Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa shot and killed Sergio Hernandez, a teenage Mexican national. Although the FBI apparently cleared Mesa of wrongdoing, and Hernandez was not standing on American soil at the time he was shot, the Hernandez family filed suit against Mesa and the federal government based on the Supreme Court's decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, which held that a federal agent can be found liable in damages under the Fourth Amendment for committing an unconstitutional search and seizure.

    The central issue now before the Supreme Court is whether the Hernandez family can recover damages in a Bivens action for the killing of their son in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments when there is no other available remedy under federal law. Peter Thomson joined us to discuss the oral argument and offered predictions on the outcome of the case as well as its greater implications.

    Featuring:
    -- Peter M. Thomson, Special Counsel, Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann LLC

    • 40 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