『FedSoc Forums』のカバーアート

FedSoc Forums

FedSoc Forums

著者： The Federalist Society
無料で聴く

【Amazonプライム会員限定】今ならプレミアムプランが4か月 月額99円。

10月19日まで。※適用条件あり
*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 政治・政府 政治学
エピソード
  • 2026 Mike Lewis Memorial Forum: Would a Lower Threshold for the Use of Force Under International Law Make the World Safer?

    2026 Mike Lewis Memorial Forum: Would a Lower Threshold for the Use of Force Under International Law Make the World Safer?
    2026/09/23
    The annual Mike Lewis Memorial Forum honors the life and legacy of Mike Lewis, a former naval aviator and leading scholar of international law. Mike wrote and spoke extensively on the use of force and the law of armed conflict and served on the Executive Committee of the Federalist Society’s International & National Security Law Practice Group. Mike passed away from cancer in 2015 at age 50. He was admired across ideological lines for both his scholarship and his generosity of spirit.This year’s Forum will examine the law governing anticipatory self-defense and whether the traditional interpretation of international law adequately accounts for modern threats. This traditional view generally permits anticipatory self-defense only against an “imminent” threat. But that standard took shape in an era when threats moved at the speed of 19th-century naval vessels.
    How should that requirement apply in an era of missiles, cyberattacks, and other threats capable of materializing rapidly? Critics argue that a strict imminence requirement leaves states unable to respond to serious threats before they fully materialize, and that the resulting gap between doctrine and state practice erodes confidence in international law. Defenders of the traditional standard counter that loosening it risks inviting states to invoke self-defense as a pretext for aggression.
    The panel will consider whether international law should permit a broader range of anticipatory action against developing threats, what principles should govern such uses of force, and whether the U.N. Charter itself can be interpreted to accommodate them. More broadly, the discussion will explore how the law governing self-defense can respond to changing technologies and security challenges while continuing to constrain the use of force.
    Featuring:

    Dr. Brian Cox, Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
    Prof. John Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Senior Research Fellow, School of Civic Leadership, Civitas Institute, University of Texas at Austin; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
    (Moderator) Vincent J. Vitkowsky, Fellow, National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1 時間 1 分
  • California v. EPA: Using the Congressional Review Act to Roll Back State Waivers

    California v. EPA: Using the Congressional Review Act to Roll Back State Waivers
    2026/09/23
    In September 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia preliminarily enjoined the EPA from sending four Clean Air Act waivers to Congress for potential repeal under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). These waivers have allowed California to enact its own vehicle emission standards. Judge Beryl Howell held the CRA's bar on judicial review does not reach an agency's threshold determination that its action is a "rule," and found California had standing to challenge the EPA's June 2026 press release announcing it was transmitting the rules to Congress. What may happen next in this case; and what does this litigation suggest about the limits on using the CRA as a deregulatory tool? Join us for a panel discussing the decision and the broader state of play on CRA issues under the current administration.
    Featuring:

    Michael Buschbacher, Managing Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
    Andrew Ceonzo, Counsel to U.S. Senator Schmitt and the Senate Judiciary Committee
    (Moderator) Daniel M. Flores, Senior Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1 時間 1 分
  • Bias, DEI, and CLE: Navigating the Constitutional Limits of Mandatory Training

    Bias, DEI, and CLE: Navigating the Constitutional Limits of Mandatory Training
    2026/09/11
    Jurisdictions increasingly require attorneys to complete CLE credits addressing bias, diversity, and inclusion in the legal profession. These requirements are often justified as tools to help lawyers reduce bias and ensure competent representation of clients from varied backgrounds. But these mandatory programs also raise significant and unsettled questions about how the profession may regulate bias in a manner consistent with federal law. When does a required course permissibly educate lawyers about bias, discriminatory conduct, barriers to access to justice, or cultural competency in legal practice? And when might mandatory training cross the line into compelled speech, viewpoint discrimination, or race- or sex-conscious practices that conflict with constitutional principles or civil-rights statutes?
    Join us for a CLE program examining the boundaries of these mandatory CLE requirements, including how such rules and programs can be structured to help lawyers recognize and mitigate bias in the legal profession while remaining consistent with constitutional and statutory limits.
    Featuring:

    Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston
    Prof. William Jacobson, Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School
    Daniel Lennington, Deputy Counsel, Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty
    (Moderator) Prof. Michael S. McGinniss, Professor of Law and J. Philip Johnson Faculty Fellow, University of North Dakota School of Law


    CLE
    This event has been approved for
    1.00 Total CLE Hours
    Approved specialty credit (DEI, Ethics, etc.) is included on the State Approval Status chart below.
    State Approval Status

    In order to receive CLE credit for this webinar, attendees must attend the Zoom Webinar and have access to the chat box. This event's accreditation is highly predicated upon interactivity and verification measures that are only available via the webinar.
    If you join via audio, calling in, SIP, or H.323, you will not be eligible to receive CLE Credit.
    CLE Materials

    Questions? Check out our CLE FAQ page.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    58 分
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません