Cover image of Teleforum
(32)
News & Politics

Teleforum

Updated 10 days 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

32 Ratings
Average Ratings
23
4
0
2
3

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.

To be fair

By PodcastListener38 - Oct 25 2015
Read more
The person below should have read the next 9 words in the description: "all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers."

iTunes Ratings

32 Ratings
Average Ratings
23
4
0
2
3

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.

To be fair

By PodcastListener38 - Oct 25 2015
Read more
The person below should have read the next 9 words in the description: "all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers."
Cover image of Teleforum

Teleforum

Updated 10 days ago

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: 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
59 mins
Play

Rank #2: 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
58 mins
Play

Rank #3: 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
1 hour 15 mins
Play

Rank #4: Courthouse Steps Oral Argument: Gundy v. United States

Podcast cover
Read more
Since 1789, the Supreme Court has struck down only two laws on “nondelegation” grounds, both in 1935. Gundy v. United States will potentially be a third such ruling, depending on whether the Deputy Solicitor General can convince the justices to save the delegation of authority in the Sexual Offence Notification Act (SORNA). The particular provision of SORNA at issue, which directs the Attorney General to decide whether SORNA’s registration requirements apply to sexual offenders convicted before the Act’s passage, may allow the Court to issue a narrow or broad ruling, but any opinion applying the nondelegation doctrine is likely to be a landmark ruling. The case directly affects three of the Federalist Society’s practice groups, and the case indirectly affects almost every other area of federal law.
The nondelegation doctrine operates to prevent Congress from delegating the lawmaking power the people vested in it to another branch or any other entity, but what is the core lawmaking power that Congress cannot delegate? How broadly can Congress phrase its legislation, and how much can it delegate to the regulatory agencies to fill in? The courts’ role in enforcing the constitutional delegation line is even more hotly debated. No justice has disagreed that the nondelegation rule is essential to maintaining the constitutional Separation of Powers, but some have expressed concern in prior decades about a judicially manageable standard for the courts to apply. In recent years, the Court’s lax enforcement of its “intelligible principle” standard from 1928 has been criticized by Justice Thomas, then Judge Gorsuch and many other commentators. The Gundy case presents the Court with a range of options, including from amici who have asked the Court to provide teeth to its intelligible principle standard or to adopt a textually-based standard that would more fully restore the delegation doctrine. How far will the majority go to revive the nondelegation rule, and will concurring justices urge additional movement in the same direction? Or will the doctrine, now on life support, be further diminished?
Todd Gaziano is the counsel of record for Pacific Legal Foundation’s brief in Gundy supporting reversal of the decision below, and joins us to discuss the oral arguments.
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 09 2018
44 mins
Play

Rank #5: 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
57 mins
Play

Rank #6: Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Hawaii Decided

Podcast cover
Read more
Trump v. Hawaii is 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. On June 26, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 affirming the constitutionality of the order. Steve Giaier and Carl Esbeck join us to discuss the importance of this decision.
Featuring:
Prof. Carl H. Esbeck, R.B. Price Professor Emeritus of Law/ Isabelle Wade & Paul C. Ly, University of Missouri School of Law
Steven Giaier, General Counsel, House Committee on Homeland Security

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.
Jul 02 2018
58 mins
Play

Rank #7: 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
1 hour 1 min
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
50 mins
Play

Rank #9: Gundy v. United States: Revisiting the Nondelegation Doctrine, or Not?

Podcast cover
Read more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Gundy v. United States disappointed some observers who were hoping that the Court would use the case to reinvigorate the nondelegation doctrine. Instead, the Court upheld the federal government’s authority under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), a 2006 law requiring sex offenders to register with authorities in the state where they reside. A plurality of the Court held that the statute contains enough of an “intelligible principle” to guide the Attorney General’s decision-making regarding the statute’s application to past offenders to pass muster under the nondelegation doctrine. It also decided that the statute was explicit enough in specifying its retroactive application to pre-SORNA offenders. Justice Alito joined the Court’s four liberals, concurring in the judgment only. He reasoned that “it would be freakish to single out the provision at issue here for special treatment” different from the Court’s approach since 1935. And he could not “say that the statute lacks a discernable standard that is adequate under” that prevailing approach. However, he also stated that he would be willing to join a Court majority in reconsidering that approach in a future case. No such majority existed here, perhaps in part because Justice Kavanaugh did not participate in the case.
This teleforum will examine the Court’s decision in Gundy, dissect the various viewpoints that the justices presented, and explore questions such as:

Will the 4-1-3 decision here leave the status quo intact or embolden lower courts to identify more nondelegation problems?
Why didn’t the Court order new oral argument in the case with Justice Kavanaugh participating this time?
Will Congress view this outcome as an invitation to delegate more decisions about the scope of the criminal law to the Attorney General?
Do Justice Alito’s concurrence and the strong dissent from Justice Gorsuch (joined by The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas) signal that the nondelegation doctrine will soon be revived?

Featuring:
Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

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.
Jun 26 2019
35 mins
Play

Rank #10: 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
53 mins
Play

Rank #11: Compulsory Evictions and Crime-Free Housing: Crime Prevention or Collective Punishment?

Podcast cover
Read more
Fifteen years ago, the Supreme Court upheld "one-strike" policies that allowed public-housing authorities to evict entire families if one member of the household committed a crime. Since then, municipalities across the country have increasingly adopted similar policies in their regulation of private landlords: encouraging or even requiring landlords to evict tenants if any member of their family--or even an overnight guest--commits a crime anywhere at all. The Institute for Justice has challenged one such law in Granite City, Illinois, where city authorities are trying to compel a local landlord to evict Jessica and Kenny Wylie (and their children) based on a crime committed by a since-departed friend of their teenage son. Jessica and Kenny want to stay, and their landlord wants them to stay, but city officials say they have to go. IJ Senior Attorney Robert McNamara will discuss the case and more broadly the constitutional, property-rights, and criminal-justice issues surrounding so-called "crime-free housing" laws.
Featuring:
Robert McNamara, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

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.
Aug 08 2019
43 mins
Play

Rank #12: The JCPOA Withdrawal

Podcast cover
Read more
In 2015, the United States, along with China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, reached a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran. The terms of the deal called for Iran to take various steps to ensure its nuclear capacity would be exclusively peaceful. Aspects of Iran’s nuclear development program were subject to restrictions for varying lengths of time between 10 and 15 years. In exchange for Iran agreeing to these terms, Iran received relief from U.S., EU, and UN nuclear-related sanctions. Supporters of the JCPOA argued this pushed Iran from the brink of possessing a nuclear weapon and it opened the door for engaging Iran in a more constructive way than in the past. Critics of the deal, including President Trump, contended the time limits were insufficient and the deal failed to address issues such as Iran’s ballistic missile program, its sponsorship of terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and its malign influence in the Middle East. In May 2018, President Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA. Our experts will discuss the consequences of this decision as it relates to the role of the U.S. in international agreements and treaties, the impact of the sanctions regime, and what we can expect going forward.
Featuring:
David S. Cohen, Partner, WilmerHale
Lester Munson, Principal, Government Affairs, BGR Group
Moderator: Matthew Heiman, Visiting Fellow, National Security Institute, 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.
Jul 10 2018
59 mins
Play

Rank #13: Judicial Deference Determined: Kisor v. Wilkie

Podcast cover
Read more
This morning the Supreme Court decided the much-anticipated Kisor v. Wilkie case. The Court had 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 had cast doubt on the soundness of the Seminole Rock/Auer deference doctrine in recent years, and many observers have predicted that the doctrine’s days are numbered.
Karen Harned and Stephen Vaden will join us today to discuss that morning’s highly-fractured decision in Kisor and its potential implications -- including 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)).
Featuring:
Karen Harned, Executive Director, NFIB Small Business Legal Center
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.
Jul 03 2019
57 mins
Play

Rank #14: Courthouse Steps: NIFLA v. Becerra Decided

Podcast cover
Read more
NIFLA is a religiously-affiliated pro-life pregnancy clinic that sought to enjoin the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency (FACT) Act on constitutional grounds. The Act requires licensed clinics to provide information on publicly funded reproductive health services, including contraception and abortion, and unlicensed clinics to inform patients of their license status. NIFLA claims the Act violates its First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. The District Court denied an injunction, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision. On June 26, the Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that NIFLA is likely to succeed on their claim that the FACT Act violates the First Amendment.
Featuring:
Prof. Michael Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion & Director of the Eleanor H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
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 28 2018
43 mins
Play

Rank #15: Litigation Update: Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)

Podcast cover
Read more
The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) prohibits religious advertisements on Metro buses, including the Archdiocese’s “Find the Perfect Gift” Christmas advertising campaign. Does this no-religious-speech policy violate the First Amendment’s speech and religion clauses, as well as also violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? The Archdiocese has filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to invalidate WMATA’s no-religious-speech policy.
Featuring:
Megan M. Wold, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis

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.
Aug 08 2019
33 mins
Play

Rank #16: Antitrust in the Modern Era

Podcast cover
Read more
With a change in administration, businesses and consumers alike are searching the tea leaves for indications about how new policy setters will analyze market power, mergers and acquisitions. Will economic analysis play a greater or lesser role? Will the conventional distinctions between horizontal and vertical mergers persist? How will consumer interest be weighed? On the international front, is foreign countries’ use of competition laws to influence or judge American businesses on the rise and, if so, to what effect? -- Featuring: Hon. Joshua D. Wright, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University.
Jul 24 2017
54 mins
Play

Rank #17: 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
51 mins
Play

Rank #18: Roundup Weedkiller Litigation

Podcast cover
Read more
In a series of recent decisions, both federal and state courts have allowed the admission of scientific evidence alleging that Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller is associated with lymphoma. These courts have allowed these cases to proceed, despite the fact that the EPA and other authorities have concluded that there is no established link between such products and cancer. Juries have imposed multi-million dollar verdicts and the company faces large-scale litigation involving thousands of claims. Please join David Bernstein, the George Mason University Foundation Professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School for a discussion of these decisions.
Featuring:
Prof. David Bernstein, George Mason University Foundation Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School
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.
May 17 2019
39 mins
Play

Rank #19: Travel Moratorium Executive Order

Podcast cover
Read more
On January 21, President Trump signed an executive order “Protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” The order suspended immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the country by citizens of seven majority Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days. It also suspended refugee admission into the United States for 120 days, and barred entry of Syrian refugees until further notice. The stated order’s purpose was to “ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.” -- The Washington State Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the order in District Court citing harm to Seattle residents. Judge James Robart in the Western District of Washington issued a restraining order on February 3 halting President Trump’s executive order nationwide. The Department of Justice appealed the restraining order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected the Justice Department’s appeal for an emergency stay. -- David Bier of CATO and Andrew C. McCarthy of National Review, who have both written on the topic (see their pieces here and here respectively), joined activist Shireen Qudosi, Director of Muslim Matters with America Matters, to discuss the legality of the executive order in the second episode of our Executive Orders Teleforum Series. -- Featuring: Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute; David J. Bier, Immigration Policy Analyst, Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; and Shireen Qudosi, Director of Muslim Matters, America Matters.
Mar 01 2017
1 hour 6 mins
Play

Rank #20: Special Prosecutors in the U.S.

Podcast cover
Read more
On May 13, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Steve Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society and Professor of Law at Northwestern School of Law, discussing the legality of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Prof. Calabresi will join us to discuss his thoughts on the ongoing investigation.
Featuring:
Prof. Steven G. Calabresi, Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law

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.
May 25 2018
1 hour 3 mins
Play

Similar Podcasts