Log in

goodpods headphones icon

To access all our features

Open the Goodpods app
Close icon
headphones
FedSoc Forums

FedSoc Forums

The Federalist Society

*This series was formerly known as Teleforums.
FedSoc Forums is a virtual discussion series dedicated to providing expert analysis and intellectual commentary on today’s most pressing legal and policy issues. Produced by The Federalist Society’s Practice Groups, FedSoc Forum strives to create balanced conversations in various formats, such as monologues, debates, or panel discussions. In addition to regular episodes, FedSoc Forum features special content covering specific topics in the legal world, such as:
  • Courthouse Steps: A series of rapid response discussions breaking down all the latest SCOTUS cases after oral argument or final decision
  • A Seat at the Sitting: A monthly series that runs during the Court’s term featuring a panel of constitutional experts discussing the Supreme Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting
  • Litigation Update: A series that provides the latest updates in important ongoing cases from all levels of government

The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
Share icon

All episodes

Best episodes

Top 10 FedSoc Forums Episodes

Goodpods has curated a list of the 10 best FedSoc Forums episodes, ranked by the number of listens and likes each episode have garnered from our listeners. If you are listening to FedSoc Forums for the first time, there's no better place to start than with one of these standout episodes. If you are a fan of the show, vote for your favorite FedSoc Forums episode by adding your comments to the episode page.

FedSoc Forums - Artificial Intelligence and Bias
play

05/06/21 • 55 min

It is hard to find a discussion of artificial intelligence these days that does not include concerns about Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems' potential bias against racial minorities and other identity groups. Facial recognition, lending, and bail determinations are just a few of the domains in which this issue arises. Laws are being proposed and even enacted to address these concerns. But is this problem properly understood? If it's real, do we need new laws beyond those anti-discrimination laws that already govern human decision makers, hiring exams, and the like?
Unlike some humans, AI models don't have malevolent biases or an intention to discriminate. Are they superior to human decision-making in that sense? Nonetheless, it is well established that AI systems can have a disparate impact on various identity groups. Because AI learns by detecting correlations and other patterns in a real world dataset, are disparate impacts inevitable, short of requiring AI systems to produce proportionate results? Would prohibiting certain kinds of correlations degrade the accuracy of AI models? For example, in a bail determination system, would an AI model which learns that men are more likely to be repeat offenders produce less accurate results if it were prohibited from taking gender into account?
Featuring:
-- Stewart Baker, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP
-- Nicholas Weaver, Researcher, International Computer Science Institute and Lecturer, UC Berkeley
-- Moderator: Curt Levey, President, Committee for Justice
bookmark
plus icon
share episode
The Federalist Society will host a one hour Teleforum to discuss the recent Supreme Court decision in Samsung v. Apple--a rare Supreme Court design patent case regarding the shape of the face and grid of icons in Apple's iPhones. Trevor Copeland of Brinks Gilson & Lione, Austin and Art Gollwitzer of Michael Best, Chicago will engage over the specific statutory and policy issues in the decision. Prof. Ryan Holte of SIU School of Law will moderate. -- Featuring: Mr. Trevor Copeland, Shareholder, Brinks Gilson & Lione and Mr. Art Gollwitzer, Partner, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP. Moderator: Prof. Ryan Holte, Assistant Professor of Law, SIU School of Law.
bookmark
plus icon
share episode
On April 17, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities. Between July 2007 and January 2008, Lehman Brothers raised over $31 billion through debt offerings. California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the largest pension fund in the country, purchased millions of dollars of these securities. CalPERS sued Lehman Brothers in 2011, and their case was merged with another retirement fund’s putative class action suit against Lehman Brothers and transferred to a New York district court. Later that year, the other parties settled, but CalPERS decided to pursue its claims individually. The district court dismissed for untimely filing, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. -- The question before the Supreme Court was whether the filing of a putative class action serves, under the American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah rule, to satisfy the three-year time limitation in Section 13 of the Securities Act with respect to the claims of putative class members. On Monday, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals dismissal of the lawsuit. Mark Chenoweth of the Washington Legal Foundation joined us to discuss the decision and its significance. -- Featuring: Mark Chenoweth, General Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation.
bookmark
plus icon
share episode
FedSoc Forums - Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
play

01/25/18 • 53 min

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced on Nov. 29 that the Department of Justice Foreign Corrupt Practices Act “Pilot Program,” which was introduced in 2016, will be made permanent. The program establishes a presumption of a declination of prosecution if a corporation timely and voluntarily discloses alleged corrupt conduct, fully cooperates with the Department of Justice, engages in timely and appropriate remediation, and does not otherwise present with any aggravating circumstances. Contrary to prior practice, however, the policy also suggests that such declinations would be accompanied by public pronouncements of the company’s alleged wrongful conduct, notwithstanding the declination.
George Terwilliger and John Richter will be joining us for this Teleforum to discuss the following elements surrounding this announcement: the disclosure dilemma and how the policy affects it, the fine print to consider before rushing into disclosure, how FCPA prosecutors may define “repeat offenders,” thereby disqualifying a company from voluntary disclosure benefits, and the implications of a policy encouraging public pronouncements of wrong doing based on a declination of uncharged and unproved conduct.
Featuring:
John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding
Hon. George J. Terwilliger, III, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP
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.
bookmark
plus icon
share episode
Between 2010 and 2013, a team of Wisconsin state officials assembled by the Milwaukee County District Attorney, and later involving the state’s Government Accountability Board, targeted the activities of certain groups who had supported Governor Scott Walker’s policy agenda. The probes seized millions of emails, bank records, hard copy documents, and other materials through a combination of electronic search warrants, subpoenas, and raids that used controversial tactics. Litigation in the Wisconsin state courts froze the John Doe investigations in early 2014. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ultimately terminated the investigations in the summer of 2015. In reaction, the Wisconsin legislature passed sweeping reforms of its campaign finance and criminal laws, eliminating the Government Accountability Board, changing John Doe rules, and fixing secrecy laws so that they restrained the prosecutors, not the targets. But there were new developments eight weeks ago: Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel issued a report following an investigation he initiated when, in September 2016, the British Guardian published approximately 1,400 pages of seized witness emails and draft court filings prepared by the prosecution team. Schimel found that a trove of evidence at the Government Accountability Board offices may have been leaked, and promised to institute contempt proceedings against prosecutors and other state officials. As a result, new individuals have learned that their materials were seized and reviewed during the original investigation. Some existing litigation may be impacted, and new litigation may occur. Find out what’s next.
Featuring:
Mr. Edward D. Greims, Partner, Graves Garrett, LLC
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.
bookmark
plus icon
share episode
FedSoc Forums - Janus in the Court

Janus in the Court

FedSoc Forums

play

09/19/17 • 19 min

In 1977 in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that public employees, including school teachers, could legally be required to pay a fee if they refuse to join a public-sector union. According to the Detroit Board of Education, the fee was necessary to off-set the costs the union incurred while bargaining on behalf of union and non-union members alike. -- A similar case came to the Supreme Court in 2014, but the Supreme Court did not answer the primary question of Abood, instead ruling that the public employees in question were not actually public employees. Last year, the Supreme Court was left in deadlock in a similar case on the same issue after Justice Scalia’s passing. -- Janus v. AFSCME, brought by an employee of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services who does not believe he should be legally obliged to join a union, is pending cert in the Supreme Court. William Messenger, Staff Attorney at the National Right to Work Foundation, joined us to discuss the probability of Janus being heard at the Court and what that could mean for the future of public-sector employees and unions. -- Featuring: William L. Messenger, Staff Attorney, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.
bookmark
plus icon
share episode
Some antitrust lawyers often say the federal government’s decisions about which mergers to challenge, which monopolists to rein in, and which price-fixers to send to jail are relatively consistent regardless of who occupies the White House. But has federal antitrust enforcement really been entirely apolitical, based on economics, and divorced from other issues such as trade, job creation, and national security? Should it be? A panel of distinguished practitioners and former top government officials from both parties discussed these issues in our Teleforum, which was especially timely given calls by Senate Democrats for increased antitrust enforcement as part of “A Better Deal” and the increasing use of competition law by foreign governments against U.S. companies. -- Featuring: Jon Leibowitz, Partner, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, and Former Chair, Federal Trade Commission; William E. Kovacic, Global Competition Professor of Law and Policy & Director, Competition Law Center, The George Washington University Law School, and Former Chair, Federal Trade Commission; Seth Bloom, President & Founder, Bloom Strategic Counsel PLLC, and Former General Counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Antitrust Subcommittee; and Tad Lipsky, Former Senior Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Justice Department Antitrust Division Official, and Retired Partner, Latham & Watkins. Moderator: Richard M. Steuer, Senior Counsel, Mayer Brown LLP, and Former Chair, American Bar Association Antitrust Section.
bookmark
plus icon
share episode
FedSoc Forums - Making the Administrative State More Accountable
play

04/11/17 • 59 min

How might America reform the modern administrative state—not only to limit its power, but to restore its constitutional accountability to Congress, the President, and the courts? That is the subject of a recent report by National Affairs, on policy reforms for a more accountable administrative state. In its four chapters, the report: 1. Diagnoses the fundamental problems underlying the modern administrative state, which reflect a failure of republican governance; 2. Proposes to restore Congress to its crucial constitutional role as the "First Branch" in lawmaking, policymaking, appropriations and oversight; 3. Proposes to modernize White House oversight of agency regulatory actions, primarily by shifting the Office of Information and Administration's role from one of reaction to one of action; and 4. Proposes to reform both the laws governing agency process and the laws governing judicial review of agency action, in order to improve the quality of agency actions and, relatedly, to ensure more meaningful judicial review of agency actions. -- To discuss these issues and proposals, please join us for a teleforum discussion with the report’s three authors: Adam White, Oren Cass, and Kevin Kosar. -- Featuring: Oren Cass, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Kevin Kosar, Governance Project Director and Senior Fellow, R Street Institute and Adam White, Research Fellow, The Hoover Institution and Adjunct Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School.
bookmark
plus icon
share episode

Show more best episodes

Toggle view more icon

FAQ

How many episodes does FedSoc Forums have?

FedSoc Forums currently has 1424 episodes available.

What topics does FedSoc Forums cover?

The podcast is about News, Podcasts and Politics.

What is the most popular episode on FedSoc Forums?

The episode title 'Iran Snapback' is the most popular.

What is the average episode length on FedSoc Forums?

The average episode length on FedSoc Forums is 52 minutes.

How often are episodes of FedSoc Forums released?

Episodes of FedSoc Forums are typically released every 23 hours.

When was the first episode of FedSoc Forums?

The first episode of FedSoc Forums was released on Jul 20, 2016.

Show more FAQ

Toggle view more icon

Comments