Cover image of Teleforum
(39)
News
Politics

Teleforum

Updated 2 months ago

News
Politics
Read more

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.

Read more

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.

iTunes Ratings

39 Ratings
Average Ratings
29
4
1
2
3

Quality of Audio

By Paul Bishop III - Mar 30 2020
Read more
What kind of potato was this recorded on?

The best law podcast out there

By 1Lsudokufan - May 14 2019
Read more
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.

iTunes Ratings

39 Ratings
Average Ratings
29
4
1
2
3

Quality of Audio

By Paul Bishop III - Mar 30 2020
Read more
What kind of potato was this recorded on?

The best law podcast out there

By 1Lsudokufan - May 14 2019
Read more
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.
Cover image of Teleforum

Teleforum

Latest release on Jul 31, 2020

Read more

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.

Rank #1: Courthouse Steps: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado CRC Decided

Podcast cover
Read more
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado CRC, one of the most highly publicized of the term, was decided 7-2 in favor of the petitioner.
The facts of the case are as follows: two men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, were planning their wedding and sought a wedding cake from Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Phillips told the men that he could not make them a cake, citing his religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Phillips was discriminating against the couple on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips was told to “cease and desist” such discrimination and was ordered to provide “remedial measures.” As a result, Phillips stopped offering custom cakes entirely.
The case deals with the balance of religious liberties and equality through anti-discriminatory laws. It also involves the Free Speech Clause, as Phillips considers his custom cakes art and himself an artist. Phillips and many others see the “cease and desist” as a form of compelled speech, since he would be legally obligated to create art with a message he does not support.
Dale Carpenter, Judge William Hawley Atwell Chair of Constitutional Law at the SMU Dedman School of Law and Kim Colby, Director at the Center for Law & Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society, will join us to discuss this important decision.
Featuring:
Prof. Dale A. Carpenter, Judge William Hawley Atwell Chair of Constitutional Law; Professor of Law, SMU Dedman School of Law
Kim Colby, Director at the Center for Law & Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Jun 06 2018

1hr 15mins

Play

Rank #2: Ethics CLE Teleforum 2018: New Issue in Legal Ethics, ABA Model Rule 8.4(g)

Podcast cover
Read more

Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group Teleforum
CLE not offered if Teleforum listened to after the event is concluded.

Written Materials are accessible through the link included on your ticket
The Federalist Society offers a unique opportunity to acquire one hour’s worth of ethics CLE credit.
Our visiting expert in legal and judicial ethics will discuss a recent regulatory development in the field, with the purpose of translating this development into practical wisdom about the likely impact on the practice of law in 2018 and beyond:
In August 2016, the American Bar Association approved Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g). The new provision provides that it is misconduct for an attorney to “engage in 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.” Comment [4] explains that “conduct related to the practice of law . . . includes representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and others while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law.”
The Model Rules are just that — models, that do not apply in any jurisdiction. Now the project goes to the states, as state courts consider whether to adopt Rule 8.4(g).
To date, seven states have rejected the rule: Arizona, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, South Carolina, and Tennessee have rejected the proposal. The Attorneys General of four states have concluded that adopting the rule would violate the First Amendment: Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Only Vermont has adopted the model rule in its entirety.
In this teleforum, Professor Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston will discuss the constitutional issues surounding Model Rule 8.4(g). Specifically, he will address how the Supreme Court’s recent decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018) calls into question the state bar’s ability to regulate attorney speech, and how it will affect attorneys in their practice of law throughout the next few years.
Professor Blackman will also give his insights on the rising relevance of social media in regards to the law, and what implications exist for practicing attorneys who use social media.
Featuring:

Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, Houston

Call begins at 1:55 p.m. Eastern Time.
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
Because we are offering CLE for this Teleforum, it is open to non-members as well. The Teleforum call-in number will be available with the CLE materials upon registration.
One hour of ethics CLE available in some jurisdictions pending approval*
$25 for CLE (Federalist Society members)$50 for CLE (non-Federalist Society members)
Charges apply ONLY to those seeking CLE credit.
Registration for CLE credit is required.Attendance must be verified during the presentation.No registration or fee is required if you are not seeking CLE credit.

*Please note CLE applications will be made in accordance with any states that are requested during registration up until the day of the Teleforum. CLE credit is not guaranteed, as the decision to accredit the course is made by each individual state bar, but all states that attorneys request will be applied to.
Additional CLE Instructions:

Please check your confirmation email for the link to the ticket, where there will be a drop box link to download all CLE Materials including the links for the online Certificate of Attendance, Evaluation Form, and the PDF Written Materials.
Call into the Teleforum number 1-888-752-3232 before 1:55 p.m. ET on Thursday, October 18.
A registration page link will be sent to you the afternoon of October 18. Please make sure to electronically sign in using this link at the beginning of the call, preferably within the first 5 minutes of the call.
Listen for the "Unique Program Codes" during the call and enter those codes on your Certificate of Attendance to verify your attendance.
Fill out your Certificate of Attendance and Evaluation Form that will be provided with your confirmation email, within 14 days of the conclusion of the program.

Oct 25 2018

1hr 1min

Play

Rank #3: The Future of Chevron Deference

Podcast cover
Read more
Skepticism of the Chevron doctrine has risen in recent years, with some commentators calling for the Court to overturn or Congress to repeal Chevron. The addition to the Supreme Court of Justice Neil Gorsuch -- a Chevron skeptic -- prompted much speculation about Chevron's future. The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh -- another Chevron skeptic -- has only furthered that speculation. Our panel will discuss the future of the Chevron doctrine in light of these and other developments.
Featuring:
Professor Christopher Walker, Associate Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Adam White, Director, Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Research Fellow, Hoover Institution
Moderator: Professor Jennifer L . Mascott, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Oct 02 2018

1hr 1min

Play

Rank #4: Courthouse Steps: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado CRC

Podcast cover
Read more
On December 5th, The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado CRC. The case, one of the most highly publicized of the term, involves questions of religious liberty, expressive acts, and compelled speech.
Two men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, were planning their wedding and sought a wedding cake from Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Phillips told the men that he could not make them a cake, citing his religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Phillips was discriminating against the couple on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips was told to “cease and desist” such discrimination and was ordered to provide “remedial measures.” As a result, Phillips stopped offering custom cakes entirely.
The case deals with the balance of religious liberties and equality through anti-discriminatory laws. It also involves the Free Speech Clause, as Phillips considers his custom cakes art and himself an artist. Phillips and many others see the “cease and desist” as a form of compelled speech, since he would be legally obligated to create art with a message he does not support.
Kim Colby, Director at the Center for Law & Religious Freedom at the Christian Legal Society, will attend oral argument and join us to discuss her impressions.

Featuring:
Kim Colby, Director, Center for Law & Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Dec 05 2017

1hr 6mins

Play

Rank #5: Social Media Content Control

Podcast cover
Read more
In two recently filed lawsuits conservative organizations have complained that Google has restricted their access to readers. Gab, which provides its own site for conservative and alt right voices, complained when Google refused to include Gab’s app in its app store. Per Gab, Google’s true reason for this was to stymie Gab’s competition with Google’s business partner Twitter, violating the antitrust laws. Prager University complained that Google and YouTube unlawfully censored its educational videos by restricting their availability to younger viewers. Prager asserts that its videos are fully appropriate for younger viewers and that Google/YouTube’s real objection is to their admittedly conservative point of view. PragerU’s counsel, former California governor Pete Wilson, asserts that this “is speech discrimination plain and simple, censorship based entirely on unspecified ideological objection to the message or on the perceived identity and political viewpoint of the speaker” and thus violates both the First Amendment and California law.
At the same time Google and Facebook assert they are free to run their private businesses as they deem appropriate. They also face intensive pressure from American politicians and foreign governments to moderate their platforms. Facebook and Google were called before a committee of the House of Representatives, which assailed them for doing too little about “fake news” on their sites. In Germany, Facebook was recently compelled to remove a post critical of Islamic migrants.
This Teleforum will consider the obligations, if any, that American law, including the antitrust laws and the First Amendment, place on popular social media outlets. It will consider whether they can, or can be required to, restrict online content that some deem objectionable.

Featuring:

Prof. Thomas C. Arthur, L. Q. C. Lamar Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law

Prof. Eric Goldman, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law, Co-Director, High Tech Law Institute & Supervisor, Privacy Law Certificate
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Jan 22 2018

1hr 7mins

Play

Rank #6: The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America's Universities by Professor KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor

Podcast cover
Read more
In recent years, our nation’s college campuses have been portrayed as awash in a violent crime wave—and university leaders, professors, and students as indifferent to female sexual assault victims in their midst. In their recently published book, The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America's Universities, authors Professor KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor examine these assertions in detail. The book presents evidence to the contrary and argues that these claims do not have any bearing in reality. -- New York Law School Professor Nadine Strossen joined us to moderate an illuminating discussion with the authors. -- Featuring: Professor KC Johnson, Professor of History at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center and Stuart Taylor, Washington writer, lawyer, and National Journal contributing editor. Moderator: Professor Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, New York Law School.

Feb 03 2017

58mins

Play

Rank #7: Sanctuary Cities

Podcast cover
Read more
In 2015, 32-year old Kate Steinle was shot in San Francisco by an Illegal Immigrant. The immigrant was previously deported five times and had seven prior felony convictions. This incident, along with additional stories of criminal behavior by illegal aliens, drew national attention to the issue of sanctuary cities.The Center for Immigration Studies defines sanctuary cities as localities which, by statute or action, seek to shield information regarding illegal aliens from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Sanctuary counties, however, vastly outnumber sanctuary cities, and seven states have adopted statewide sanctuary policies. As of 2017, undocumented immigrants were estimated to number about 12.5 million, with the largest populations of such immigrants in California, Florida, New York, and Texas. Of the illegal immigrants arrested by ICE in 2017, 74% had criminal histories and 16% faced criminal charges. In light of the data, concerns arise that sanctuary cities, by withholding information from ICE, protect illegal aliens who are also dangerous criminals from deportation and thereby pose national security risks.
Furthermore, 8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits state and local governments or officials from inhibiting the flow of information regarding immigrants to ICE. Seeking to enforce §1373, President Trump in 2017 issued an executive order conditioning federal grants to states and municipalities upon cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Subsequent legal challenges brought by cities such as Chicago and Philadelphia have successfully blocked the order’s enforcement, citing the Constitution’s requirement that Congress must approve any new conditions on federal funding. State and local governments, however, have also launched their own anti-sanctuary initiatives. Tennessee, for instance, banned sanctuary cities in May of this year, following Texas, whose law mandating full local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement was upheld by the Fifth Circuit, and numerous municipalities in California have declared opposition to their state’s sanctuary policies. California’s sanctuary laws have also been challenged in a lawsuit brought by the United States, which claims that these laws violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Featuring:
William A. Stock, Partner, Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP
Christopher Hajek, Director of Litigation, Immigration Reform Law Institute
Moderator: Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Aug 03 2018

58mins

Play

Rank #8: Presidential Use of Emergency Power

Podcast cover
Read more
There has been much in the news lately concerning the President's use of emergency power to shift budgeted funds from one purpose to another, namely, construction of a barrier along the southern border of the U.S. Does the President have inherent constitutional authority to declare an emergency and move the funds? Has Congress otherwise given the President statutory authority to do so, and, if so, has that authority been granted constitutionally? These and other questions will be debated on our Teleforum conference call.
Featuring:
Professor John C. Yoo, Emanuel Heller Professor of Law and Director of the Korea Law Center, the California Constitution Center, and Public Law and Policy Program, University of California at Berkeley School of Law
David A. French, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute, and Senior Writer, National Review

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Feb 04 2019

50mins

Play

Rank #9: Preview: Trump v. Hawaii

Podcast cover
Read more
On April 25, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Trump v. Hawaii, the latest iteration of Hawaii’s challenge to President Trump’s Executive Order suspending immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the country by citizens of specific countries. While the original order banned entry of citizens from seven majority Muslim countries, it was superseded by the current order which affects citizens from other countries as well, such as Chad, North Korea and Venezuela. Ilya Somin and Josh Blackman will join us to preview the case.
Featuring:

Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, Houston
Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Apr 18 2018

59mins

Play

Rank #10: Courthouse Steps Decision: Weyerhaeuser v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service

Podcast cover
Read more
Edward Poitevent’s family has owned timber-rich land in Louisiana since Reconstruction. In the 1990s, Weyerhaeuser Company acquired a lease of the Poitevent property for its timber operations, and Weyerhaeuser also purchased a small piece of the land.
But, in 2012, under cover of the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated more than 1,500 acres of this property owned by the Poitevent family and Weyerhaeuser a “critical habitat” for the endangered dusky gopher frog. That designation jeopardized development plans for the property that had been in place for years. In the landowners’ view, the designation amounted to a de facto uncompensated taking of the property for the frog
Moreover, no one in the state of Louisiana had spotted the frog in 50 years, and the frog would not survive on the property if it was moved to Louisiana. The only place the frog is found today is nearly 70 miles away from the property—in Mississippi. By locking down land on behalf of a frog that doesn’t - and cannot - live there because of the conditions of the property, the federal government - by its own admission - took an estimated $34 million in economic activity away from the Poitevents and Weyerhaeuser.
On November 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled that the Fish & Wildlife Service must show that “critical habitat” for an endangered species must in fact be habitat for a species before it can be designated as such. Moreover, in an important administrative law decision, the Court also held that the agency’s decision not to exclude the Poitevent and Weyerhaeuser property from the designation - despite the severe economic impact of the designation to the land owners - was judicially reviewable under the APA. The case is now remanded to the Fifth Circuit for it to consider anew in light of the High Court’s unanimous decision.
Featuring:
Mark Miller, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Nov 30 2018

50mins

Play

Rank #11: The President's Impeachment

Podcast cover
Read more
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. As a part of their continuing conversation series, we are excited to host John Malcolm and John Yoo to discuss the vote, Trump’s letter, possible Senate trial rules, comparisons to the historic meaning of impeachment, 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

Dec 20 2019

1hr 1min

Play

Rank #12: Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Kisor v. Wilkie

Podcast cover
Read more
On the morning of March 27, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Kisor v. Wilkie. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Kisor to decide whether to overrule Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), and Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). Seminole Rock and Auer are often cited for the proposition that when an administrative agency promulgates a regulation and the regulation is ambiguous, a reviewing court must give “controlling weight” to the agency’s interpretation of the regulation unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or is inconsistent with the regulation. A number of the Court’s members have cast doubt on the soundness of the Seminole Rock/Auer deference doctrine in recent years. Many observers believe that the doctrine’s days are numbered.
Importantly, the United States filed a merits brief in Kisor that forcefully criticized Auer/Seminole Rock deference, yet argued that the Court should not overrule Auer and Seminole Rock “in their entirety.” The brief foreshadows what will likely be a memorable oral argument, featuring Paul Hughes of Mayer Brown LLP and Solicitor General Noel Francisco. Hughes represents James Kisor, the Vietnam War veteran who is the petitioner in the case. Kisor is challenging a decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that denied Kisor’s request for retroactive disability benefits connected to his wartime service. Francisco will be defending the VA’s decision.
Karen Harned, Andrew Varcoe, and moderator Stephen Vaden will join us on the afternoon of March 27 to discuss that morning’s oral argument in Kisor and its potential implications -- including the implications, if any, for the Chevron deference doctrine that applies to agency interpretations of statutory provisions (set forth in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)). Harned and Varcoe will have attended the oral argument that morning and will be sharing their observations about it.
Featuring:
Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal Center
Andrew Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates
Moderator: Stephen Vaden, General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Mar 28 2019

51mins

Play

Rank #13: Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College

Podcast cover
Read more
On April 4, 2017, the Seventh Circuit handed down a divided en banc opinion in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, opening a circuit split on how to interpret Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin[.]" In Hively, the Seventh Circuit became the first Court of Appeals to hold that sex discrimination encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation. It held that plaintiff Kimberly Hively could pursue a claim against her former employer, Ivy Tech Community College, for her firing, which she claimed was motivated by her sexual orientation. In doing so, the court opened a split with the Eleventh Circuit, which had held just a few months earlier that employer decisions based on sexual orientation were not discrimination prohibited by Title VII. In addition to paving the way for a potential Supreme Court case to resolve the issue, the Seventh Circuit's decision includes an array of opinions demonstrating different methods of statutory interpretation. -- Featuring: Kenneth A. Klukowski, General Counsel, American Civil Rights Union and Prof. Anthony Michael Kreis, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law.

Jun 02 2017

57mins

Play

Rank #14: Courthouse Steps Decision: McCoy v. Louisiana

Podcast cover
Read more

May 17 2018

31mins

Play

Rank #15: The Right to Bear Arms

Podcast cover
Read more
Does the Second Amendment “right of the people” to “bear arms” protect an individual right to carry handguns outside of the home for lawful purposes, or may government officials decide who has a “good reason” to do so? After Heller held that the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms guarantees a right to keep handguns in the home and McDonald incorporated that fundamental constitutional right against the states, the circuit courts have split over whether discretionary “may issue” carry licensing regimes are permissible. How might the Supreme Court resolve the current New York City case regarding transport of handguns outside of the home, and what are the potential implications for the hotly-debated question whether the right to carry applies generally to the law-abiding public? And in the wake of the Coronavirus shutdowns, should gun shops be considered “necessary businesses,” so that citizens who so choose may acquire a gun to protect their families?

Featuring:
-- Stephen Halbrook, author of The Founders’ Second Amendment and Senior Fellow, Independent Institute
-- Moderator: Mark Smith, Presidential Scholar and Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy, The King’s College in New York City

Apr 08 2020

1hr

Play

Rank #16: The Limits of Political Redistricting: Gill v. Whitford

Podcast cover
Read more
Partisan disputes over the drawing of legislative districts are as old as the Republic itself. In recent years, these disputes have not been limited to the political realm. Ever since the Supreme Court's 1986 opinion in Davis v. Bandemer, litigants have raised challenges in federal courts over partisan gerrymandering. But lower courts have lacked guidance from the Supreme Court and struggled to identify the appropriate standards and evidence to use. In October, the Supreme Court heard Gill v. Whitford, an appeal of a lower court finding that Wisconsin's redistricting of its state legislature was an impermissible partisan gerrymander. What standards should courts apply when determining whether a partisan gerrymander is impermissible? What evidence should courts rely upon? Should courts even consider such challenges at all or leave the matter to the political process?
Featuring:
Prof. Nicholas Stephanopoulos, Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School
Mr. Kevin St. John, Partner, Bell Giftos St. John LLC

Oct 10 2017

59mins

Play

Rank #17: 20 State Lawsuit Challenging Obamacare's Constitutionality

Podcast cover
Read more
Recently, 20 States, led by Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas and Attorney General Brad Schimel of Wisconsin, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare based upon Chief Justice John Robert's reasoning in NFIB. The Chief Justice had reasoned that Obamacare's individual mandate is only constitutional because it can be read together with a related tax penalty provision as a single tax. In the recent tax reform law, Congress eliminated the tax penalty, but left the individual mandate in place. Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General of Wisconsin, explains the States' argument that this change in law renders the individual mandate unconstitutional under the Chief Justice's reasoning and that other portions of the law are inseverable from the mandate. Professor Jonathan Adler explains why he is skeptical of the state AGs' claims and identify potential obstacles to this suit's success.
Featuring:
Prof. Jonathan Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General for the State of Wisconsin
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Mar 26 2018

59mins

Play

Rank #18: Disparate Impact in School Discipline

Podcast cover
Read more
The Obama administration was aggressive in its use of the “disparate impact” approach to civil-rights enforcement, which holds that policies that have a different statistical result for various demographic groups are illegally discriminatory even if they are neutral by their terms, in their intent, and in their application. One example is in the school discipline area, where the administration’s Department of Education sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to state and local education officials, warning that this approach would be vigorously applied in K-12 schools receiving federal money and thus subject to the nondiscrimination provisions of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Critics claim that this has resulted in students not being disciplined who should be, with the resulting disruption meaning that many students — and disproportionately poor and minority students — now have worse learning environments and that some teachers are being put at physical risk. Proponents of the policy claim it is necessary to protect the disciplined.

Jason Riley of the Manhattan Institute has recently written on this topic in his Wall Street Journal column, and Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity has worked on this issue for the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project. Both experts will join us to discuss this important topic.

Featuring:
Roger B. Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
Jason Riley, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Columnist, The Wall Street Journal; Author: False Black Power?

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Dec 26 2017

1hr 2mins

Play

Rank #19: UPDATE: Release of the Nunes Memorandum

Podcast cover
Read more
On Friday, February 2, President Trump agreed to release a memo written by the House Intelligence Committee about FBI surveillance activity of the members of the Trump campaign that occurred before the President took office. Those opposed to the release of the Nunes Memo, named for the Representative whose aids drafted the memo, argue that the release goes against intelligence protocol and is being utilized by Republicans to distract from the investigation in Russian interference in the 2016 election. Proponents of the release argue that it should be public to show the American people the actions of the FBI preceding the election. David Rivkin joins us to discuss the memo release and its possible effects.
Featuring:
David B. Rivkin Jr., Constitutional Lawyer and Former White House Counsel

Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Feb 02 2018

1hr 1min

Play

Rank #20: Courthouse Steps: Murr v. Wisconsin Decided

Podcast cover
Read more
On June 23, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Murr v. Wisconsin. This is a regulatory takings case which addressed the question: should two legally distinct but commonly owned contiguous parcels be combined, as described in Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, for takings analysis purposes? -- In 1960 and 1963, the Murrs purchased two adjacent lots in St. Croix County, Wisconsin, each over an acre in size. In 1994 and 1995, the parents transferred the parcels to their children. These lots became nonconforming due to various setbacks imposed in the 1970s, but a grandfathering provision would have allowed independent and separate uses – but only if the lots were not owned by the same individuals. Seven years later, the children wanted to sell one of the two original lots and were denied permission to do so by the St. Croix County Board of Adjustment. The Murrs sued the state and county and claimed the county’s actions resulted in an uncompensated taking of their property. The trial court granted summary judgement to the state and county and the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin affirmed. -- James Burling, Vice President of Litigation at the Pacific Legal Foundation, joined us to discuss this interesting case and offer his thoughts following the decision. -- Featuring: James S. Burling, Vice President of Litigation, Pacific Legal Foundation.

Jun 28 2017

53mins

Play

The True Extent of Executive Power

Podcast cover
Read more
In this Teleforum, two of the nation’s leading scholars of presidential power — and former office mates — debate whether Trump’s aggressive fight for presidential power goes beyond the Founders’ original designs. In his new book, Defender in Chief (St. Martin’s 2020), John Yoo argues that Trump — despite his populism — has become more often the defender rather than the opponent of the original Constitution. In The Living Presidency (Harvard 2020), Sai Prakash counters that Trump, like many modern Presidents, has violated the Constitution’s grant of executive power.

Featuring:

Prof. Saikrishna B. Prakash, James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Paul G. Mahoney Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law; Co-Faculty Director, Korea Law Center; and Director, Public Law & Policy Program, UC Berkeley School of Law
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Jul 31 2020

1hr 2mins

Play

Arizona COVID Litigation: A Challenge to Executive Authority

Podcast cover
Read more
This month, more than 50 bar owners across Arizona filed a special action challenging Governor Ducey's executive order (calling for a 'pause' in operations of bars and some other businesses) directly in the Arizona Supreme Court. The petitioners claim the Governor's order violates the nondelegation doctrine and the privileges or immunities clause in the Arizona constitution. The state supreme court has discretion whether to accept review and hear this case; we could learn the answer to that question as early as next week. Join the bar owners’ lawyer, ASU law professor Ilan Wurman, and AZ Court of Appeals Judge Jennifer Perkins, to discuss the case and its potential implications.  

Featuring: 
-- Prof. Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
-- Moderator: Hon. Jennifer Perkins, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One

Jul 30 2020

52mins

Play

40 Years Later: NEPA Regulation Update

Podcast cover
Read more
On July 16, 2020, the White House Council on Environmental Quality published the long-awaited revision to its regulation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as a final rule (85 Fed. Reg. 43304). NEPA requires agencies to study the environmental impacts of major actions that could significantly impact the environment. But does the new rule make the environmental review process significantly more synchronized and predictable? Does it address the Trump's administration's "One Federal Decision" policy? It clarifies key terms where the original 1978 regulation, and subsequent federal court decisions, have significantly expanded the burdens and litigation risks of the NEPA process, but will new provisions on exhaustion of objections during comment periods reduce litigation risk for agencies and uncertainties for project applicants and other stakeholders? Together with the Trump administration's other major infrastructure reform initiatives, will the new rule help pave the way for significant expansion and modernization of America's infrastructure? Mario Loyola, formerly associate director of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, was intimately involved in President Trump's infrastructure efforts, and will review some of the most significant changes of the new NEPA regulation.  

Featuring:
-- Mario Loyola, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Jul 28 2020

58mins

Play

Religious Liberty at the Supreme Court: The 2020 Term and Beyond

Podcast cover
Read more
This summer, the Supreme Court decided several high-profile religious liberty cases. In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Court held that religious schools cannot be excluded from generally-available funding programs on the basis of their religious identity. In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, the Court upheld the Trump administration's exception to the contraception mandate, and in Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru, the Court affirmed that the First Amendment requires that religious schools enjoy significant autonomy in employment decisions, according to their religious missions. 

Mark Rienzi of the Becket Fund joins us to discuss these cases, preview the Supreme Court's fall term, and analyze the future of religious liberty at the Supreme Court. Professor William Saunders from The Catholic University of America will moderate the conversation.

Featuring:
-- Mark Rienzi, President, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty, Catholic University; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School
-- William Saunders, Professor, The Catholic University of America; Director, Program in Human Rights, The Institute for Humane Ecology

Jul 28 2020

57mins

Play

International Criminal Justice

Podcast cover
Read more
In May, French authorities arrested Felicien Kabuga after a 26-year manhunt for his alleged role in the Rwandan genocide. Kabuga was indicted before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda on seven counts of genocide, conspiracy, and related crimes for importing and supplying thousands of machetes to the militias that led the killing spree, as well as for broadcasting propaganda urging mass slaughter. A quarter-century later, what will prosecutors be trying to show the court? What difficulties are they likely to encounter introducing evidence that old? What is it like to hunt for a fugitive for decades, and what does Kabuga's capture tell us in retrospect about how he was able to run for so long? Please join the Honorable Hassan Jallow, Eli Rosenbaum, and Arthur Traldi for an engaging conversation about the apprehension of one of the world's most wanted fugitives, and the case against him. The discussion will be moderated by Adam Pearlman.

Featuring:

The Honorable Hassan Bubacar Jallow, Chief Justice of The Gambia, former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)

Eli Rosenbaum, Director, Human Rights Enforcement Policy and Strategy, Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section, U.S. Department of Justice

Arthur Traldi, former war crimes prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and ICTR

Moderator: Adam R. Pearlman, Managing Director, Lexpat Global Services
This call is open to the public - please dial 888-752-3232 to access the call.

Jul 27 2020

58mins

Play

Courthouse Steps Decision: United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.

Podcast cover
Read more
On June 30, the Supreme Court released its decision in United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.. In an 8-1 decision, the Court upheld the ruling of the lower court, which found that “Booking.com” is not a generic term and is thus eligible for trademark protection. Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion of the Court; in that opinion, Justice Ginsburg first noted that a website styled “generic.com” does not qualify for federal trademark protection if the term has meaning to consumers, but because “Booking.com” does not necessarily signify to consumers an online hotel reservation service, it is therefore not a generic term and qualifies for protection. Justice Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion, and Justice Breyer dissented. Our expert will discuss the decision and its implications.  

Featuring:
-- Mr. Zvi Rosen, Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington University School of Law

Jul 23 2020

35mins

Play

Federalization of Elections

Podcast cover
Read more
The United States, a constitutional republic, employs a decentralized election regulation system with decision making authority over policies and procedures spread among local, state and federal authorities.  The Constitution provides some authority to Congress over elections but state and local authorities oversee the conduct and details of elections.  For example, the U.S. Constitution sets out an “election day”: the first Tuesday after November 1.  Because the Constitution proscribes terms for federal offices, i.e. four years for the President, six years for Senators and two years for Representatives, federal elections are required at least every two years.  

Our system leaves the details of the election administration to the individual states.  Those details include the specifics of election day rules such as the time for opening and closing polling places, absentee ballot procedures (including emergency absentee balloting), early voting, registering to vote, and the regulation and prosecution of election irregularities and election crimes.  Accordingly, election procedures can vary widely from state to state and even, in some cases, within a state if local jurisdictions develop their own idiosyncratic policies and procedures.  

This panel will discuss the roles played by federal, state and local governments in elections as defined by the U.S. Constitutions, whether and how those roles have evolved in recent decades, and whether and how those roles could change in certain circumstances, including the COVID-19 era. 

Featuring:
-- Mr. Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP
-- Hon. Matthew S. Petersen, Partner, Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC

Jul 23 2020

1hr

Play

Police Unions, Practically Speaking

Podcast cover
Read more
In the current scholarship surrounding law enforcement issues, there are two diverging sides in which some advocate for major reform and others advocate for a continuation of the status quo across major police departments in the United States. Standing in the middle of this debate is a substantial player: police unions. The push for major reform in police departments sometimes collides with powerful police unions, who argue that Qualified Immunity and other policies that protect police officers should be maintained. Like many other unions in other fields, police unions often will fight to defend its members through advocacy of certain reforms, while opposing or ignoring other reforms. Catherine Fisk and L. Song Richardson argued in a law review article that police unions in several cities “have challenged police chiefs brought in to enact reforms that they consider threatening to officer safety or economic interests, or that they believe weaken public safety.” They claim union-negotiated procedural rights for police officers sometimes make reform more difficult. Many advocate that these rights for police officers must be continued due to the high demand for police officers and their willingness to put their lives on the line. Moving forward in the debate surrounding police reform, a multitude of perspectives will have to be considered in order to bring about any piece of major reform, if needed at all, to ensure that police departments do not face shortages, collective bargaining standoffs, and other labor issues.

Featuring:

Larry H. James, Managing Partner, Crabbe, Brown & James LLP

Prof. Daniel DiSalvo, Professor and Chair of Political Science, The City College of New York
Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Jul 23 2020

57mins

Play

New Labor Department Rule: Taking on ESG Investment Risk to American Retirement Security

Podcast cover
Read more
A sustained effort by activist investors to align corporate policy and investing with a progressive policy agenda could be shortchanging the retirement savings of millions of Americans. Data shows that investments tied to perceived environmental, social, and governance principles, or ESG, generally offer lower yields than the S&P 500 benchmark, but activists are pushing to use trillions of dollars in pension and retirement plans to discriminate against various industries. The trend could have profound implications for public and private pensions programs and other retirement savings plans. ESG investing might also pose a challenge to the fiduciary responsibility of asset management professionals to act in the best financials interests of the people they serve, a bedrock concept in financial planning.

The U.S. Department of Labor is preparing to ensure ESG investing does not undermine protections enshrined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). A proposed rule would codify in law that asset managers must uphold their fiduciary responsibility when considering ESG investment decisions. The rule states: “It is unlawful for a fiduciary to sacrifice return or accept additional risk to promote a public policy, political, or any other nonpecuniary goal.” A comment period ends on July 30.

At this teleforum George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School Professor JW Verret will discuss the Labor Department’s proposed rules and the implications for retirement security. Verret serves on the Investor Advisory Committee of the Securities and Exchange Commission, where he advises the Chairman of the SEC on legal and policy reform.

Featuring:
-- Prof. J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Jul 20 2020

48mins

Play

Innovation in Diagnostics and Patent Subject Matter Eligibility

Podcast cover
Read more
This teleforum will focus on patent subject matter eligibility issues highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly as they relate to patentability of medical diagnostic tests. The panel will provide a brief review of Section 101 case law, particularly the recent line of subject matter eligibility cases from the Supreme Court stemming from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, and will analyze the impact of these Supreme Court cases on innovation and investment in medical diagnostic technology. The panel will comment on the lessons to be learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, and provide recommendations for administrative and legislative actions that would assure the continuation of US leadership in medical diagnostics.

Featuring:
-- Prof. Paul R. Gugliuzza, Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law
-- Hon. David J. Kappos, Partner, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP
-- Prof. David O. Taylor, Robert G. Storey Distinguished Faculty Fellow, Associate Professor of Law, Co-Director, Tsai Center for Law, Science and Innovation
-- Moderator: Mr. Andrew F. Halaby, Partner, Snell & Wilmer

Jul 20 2020

58mins

Play

COVID-19 Labor and Employment Teleforum Series #1

Podcast cover
Read more
Employers are increasingly being faced with difficult issues with respect to COVID-19, including challenging labor and employment issues. Various federal and state statutes present compliance issues for employers, particularly given the recent enactment of the First Families Act and the CARES Act at the federal level. Existing federal statutes such as the National Labor Relations Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act also present labor and employment law challenges for employers. This three-part teleforum series will review federal and state labor and employment issues and options for employers to consider. Federalist Society Labor and Employment Executive Committee member, G. Roger King will be the speaker for this first teleforum. Mr. King is Senior Labor and Employment Counsel for the HR Policy Association and previously a Partner at the Jones Day law firm.

Featuring:
-- G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association

Jul 20 2020

53mins

Play

Courthouse Steps Decision: Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam

Podcast cover
Read more
On June 25, Justice Alito, writing for a five justice majority of the Supreme Court, issued the opinion in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, which is the Court's first Suspension Clause case in over a decade. The decision not only has implications for the way Suspension Clause questions will be decided in the future, but also for the immigration context in particular, given that the case involved the ability of an unlawful alien to access habeas proceedings upon his detention. The implications of the decision and its effect going forward will be the focus of this teleforum.

Featuring:
-- O.H. Skinner, Arizona Solicitor General

Jul 17 2020

32mins

Play

COVID-19 Business Closures, Firearms Dealers, and the Second Amendment

Podcast cover
Read more
As the United States faces the spread of COVID-19, officials in many jurisdictions have ordered the closure of "non-essential" or "non-life-sustaining" businesses. These shut-down orders have differed, including in their treatment of gun dealers, with officials in several jurisdictions ordering gun dealers to cease operations. Do these closures unduly burden the public's ability to acquire firearms for self-defense during an emergency, raising serious questions under the Second Amendment? What about heightened background-check requirements that operate in tandem with gun store closures as a categorical bar to firearm purchases? In addition, some officials have made public statements suggesting hostility toward the firearms trade, and some closure orders appear to single out gun-related businesses for disfavored treatment, leaving open, for example, marijuana dispensaries and liquor stores.

As jurisdictions continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, many are poised to issue similar business closure orders and will face the decision whether those closures should apply to gun-related businesses. This teleforum call will address the potential Second Amendment implications of these exercises of emergency executive power.

Featuring:
-- Prof. Josh Blackman, Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
-- Mr. Deepak Gupta, Founding Principal, Gupta Wessler PLLC

Jul 17 2020

55mins

Play

Prosecuting Dictators: The Indictment of Nicolas Maduro

Podcast cover
Read more
The U.S. Department of Justice recently announced indictments of Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro and several of his regime allies for drug trafficking and money laundering. This Teleforum will address the unique legal and political challenges involved in prosecuting a foreign dictator and will feature former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Roger F. Noriega, and Professor Manuel A. Gomez, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Global Engagement at Florida International University.  

Featuring: 
-- Professor Manuel A. Gomez, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Global Engagement at Florida International University
-- Hon. Roger F. Noriega, Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, and former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs
-- Moderator: Harout Jack Samra, Associate, DLA Piper

Jul 17 2020

1hr

Play

Courthouse Steps Decision: McGirt v. Oklahoma

Podcast cover
Read more
On July 9, the Supreme Court released its decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma. By a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals was reversed. Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The Chief Justice dissented, joined by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, and by Justice Thomas except as to footnote 9. Justice Thomas also filed a dissent. Our group of experts joins us to discuss the decisions and implications moving forward.

Featuring:
-- A.J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP
-- Andy Lester, Partner, Spencer Fane LLP
-- Prof. Taiawagi “Tai” Helton, W. DeVier Pierson Professor of Law, University of Oklahoma College of Law

Jul 15 2020

58mins

Play

Capital Conversations: Michael R. Pompeo, U.S. Secretary of State

Podcast cover
Read more

Jul 14 2020

27mins

Play

The Problems of Preservation: How Much Evidence is Too Much?

Podcast cover
Read more
In today’s digital age, businesses create seemingly infinite quantities of data. And when the mere prospect of litigation looms, current rules require businesses to assume significant costs to store and maintain any data that might be relevant to that litigation. This seemingly boundless duty to preserve, unmoored from our legal traditions, all but abandons the common law of discovery.

At common law, the duty attached only upon the filing of a suit (or when filing was imminent), and generally required only that parties not destroy evidence directly related to litigation. But today’s duty casts aside these originalist common-law pillars—the duty not only attaches earlier, but is broader in scope. What’s more, recent judge-made preservation obligations make obtaining spoliation sanctions far easier by removing the common-law requirement that the spoliator acted in bad faith. Such a broad duty and simple path to sanctions has led, predictably, to over-preservation, placing significant burdens on corporate litigants.

This teleforum dives into this topic, and will discuss whether courts have strayed too far from the historical common law, changing the traditional balance and equity in discovery.

Featuring:
-- Michael Buschbacher, Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
-- Suzanne H. Clark, Discovery Counsel, eDiscovery CoCounsel, pllc
-- Robert Keeling, Partner, Sidley Austin LLP

Jul 13 2020

55mins

Play

Courthouse Steps Decision: Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Vance

Podcast cover
Read more
May grand juries or congressional oversight committees obtain the personal tax records and other financial information about the President, even from third parties? This is the question presented in Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Vance, two cases decided today by the Supreme Court, and discussed in today’s Courthouse Steps Teleforum call.

Devin Watkins of the Competitive Enterprise Institute will join us to discuss the results in these cases and the implications on separation of powers and the future of the presidency.

Featuring:
-- Mr. Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Jul 13 2020

44mins

Play

Courthouse Steps Decision: Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania

Podcast cover
Read more
In Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, the justices upheld in a 7-2 ruling a federal rule exempting employers with religious or moral objections from providing contraceptive coverage to their employees under the Affordable Care Act. Eric Kniffin joins us to discuss the decision and its implications.

Featuring:
-- Eric N. Kniffin, Partner, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

Jul 10 2020

49mins

Play

Courthouse Steps Decision: Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru

Podcast cover
Read more
In today's decision in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (together with St. James School v. Biel), the justices decided, by a vote of 7-2, that the judgments of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit are reversed and the cases remanded. Justice Alito's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Breyer, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas also filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Ginsburg. Daniel Blomberg joins us to discuss this decision and its implications.

Featuring:
-- Daniel Blomberg, Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Jul 10 2020

49mins

Play

iTunes Ratings

39 Ratings
Average Ratings
29
4
1
2
3

Quality of Audio

By Paul Bishop III - Mar 30 2020
Read more
What kind of potato was this recorded on?

The best law podcast out there

By 1Lsudokufan - May 14 2019
Read more
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.