FedSoc Forums copertina

FedSoc Forums

FedSoc Forums

Di: The Federalist Society
Ascolta gratuitamente

3 mesi a soli 0,99 €/mese

Dopo 3 mesi, 9,99 €/mese. Si applicano termini e condizioni.

A proposito di questo titolo

 *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.Copyright The Federalist Society Politica e governo Scienze politiche
Episodi
  • Regulation and Fair Access to Banking

    Regulation and Fair Access to Banking
    Jan 21 2026
    Allegations of politically motivated “debanking” have intensified debate over how federal regulation, supervisory practices, and concerns about “reputation risk” influence banks’ decisions about which customers to serve. In recent months, the President issued an Executive Order directing agencies to reexamine supervisory and risk-management frameworks, while the banking regulators themselves have taken steps related to supervision, anti-money-laundering obligations, and the treatment of reputation risk—often implicating questions surrounding confidential supervisory information. At the same time, Congress and stakeholders across the financial sector continue to grapple with the scope and meaning of federal “fair access” standards and what they might require of banks going forward.With these developments unfolding in parallel, important questions remain unresolved. What role should the government play in shaping banks’ customer relationships? How should supervisory expectations be calibrated, and what legal clarity—whether legislative or regulatory—might be needed to strike the proper balance?Please join the Federalist Society on Wednesday, January 7, at 12 PM ET for a virtual discussion exploring these issues and examining where regulators and lawmakers may go from here.

    Featuring:
    John Berlau, Senior fellow and Director of Finance Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute
    Tabitha Edgens, Executive Vice President & Co-Head of Regulatory Affairs, Bank Policy Institute
    Brian Knight, Senior Counsel, Corporate Engagement Team, Alliance Defending Freedom
    (Moderator) John Heltman, Washington Bureau Chief, American Banker
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    1 ora e 2 min
  • A Seat at the Sitting - January 2026

    A Seat at the Sitting - January 2026
    Jan 13 2026
    Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.

    Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (January 12) - Federal Officer Removal Statute; Issue(s): (1) Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute, which provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against "any person acting under [an] officer" of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office"; and (2) whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.
    West Virginia v. B.P.J. (January 13) - Fourteenth Amendment; Title IX; Issue(s): (1) Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and (2) whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.
    Little v. Hecox (January 13) - Fourteenth Amendment; Title IX; Issue(s): Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
    Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation (January 14) - Sovereign Immunity, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether the New Jersey Transit Corporation is an arm of the State of New Jersey for interstate sovereign immunity purposes.
    Wolford v. Lopez (January 20) - Second Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier.
    M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund (January 20) - ERISA; Issue(s): Whether 29 U.S.C. § 1391’s instruction to compute withdrawal liability “as of the end of the plan year” requires the plan to base the computation on the actuarial assumptions most recently adopted before the end of the year, or allows the plan to use different actuarial assumptions that were adopted after, but based on information available as of, the end of the year.
    Trump v. Cook (January 21) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Administrative Law; Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court should stay a district court ruling preventing the president from firing a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

    Featuring:

    Bradey A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law Group
    Stephanie L. Freudenberg, Counsel, Schaerr Jaffe LLP
    Jacob H. Huebert, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
    Ryan D. Walters, Deputy Attorney General, Legal Strategy, Texas
    (Moderator) Tiffany H. Bates, Associate, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    1 ora e 1 min
  • Litigation Update: Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education

    Litigation Update: Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education
    Jan 6 2026
    In Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, Defending Education brought a suit challenging Olentangy Local School District policies related to student speech. These policies, among other things, barred students from using pronouns that match a person's biological sex if that individual identified with different pronouns. Defending Education challenged the policies, contending they both impermissibly prohibited speech, by not allowing students who believed sex is immutable & therefore personal pronouns cannot be chosen to express that belief as they wished, and compelled speech by forcing students to use pronouns for others that express a perspective with which the students did not agree. The case was filed in the southern district of Ohio, which ruled in favor of the school district, and the Sixth Circuit initially affirmed that decision. The case was then reheard en banc by a 17-judge panel, and on November 6, 2025, the court reversed the judgment 10-7, holding that the policies did violate the First Amendment rights of the affected students. Join us for a litigation update on this important case. Featuring:

    Mathew Hoffmann, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
    (Moderator) Krista Baughman, Founder and Managing Attorney, Baughman Law PC
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    54 min
Ancora nessuna recensione