Legal disputes, argued in full.
FedSoc Forums is a formal legal forum built around moderated panels, speaker handoffs, and audience questions. Recent episodes move from stablecoin regulation and Supreme Court previews to campus civil-rights enforcement, climate litigation, foreign influence operations, and the FACE Act.
PRESS PLAY
FedSoc Forums is a legal-policy forum organized around panels, moderators, and formal issue framing. It sounds closer to a webinar from a practice group than a conversational podcast. That is the point. The show takes disputes that are already politically charged and asks what the legal structure actually permits, forbids, or leaves unresolved. Recent episodes range across national security, financial regulation, civil-rights enforcement, foreign policy, Supreme Court previews, the FACE Act, climate litigation, and ESG-related settlement fights. The pacing is deliberate. A topic is introduced, the relevant speakers are named, the audience is invited to submit questions, and the moderator turns the discussion toward doctrine, enforcement, or institutional consequences. The result is not casual background noise. It is built for listeners who can follow terms like preemption, Dormant Commerce Clause, private right of action, agency deference, and judicial power without needing every premise translated. The show’s strongest moments come when panelists connect practical stakes to legal mechanisms. A climate suit becomes a question about tort law and broader policy effects. A stablecoin discussion becomes a map of supervision, innovation, and advocacy. A FACE Act panel turns on constitutionality, enforcement discretion, and claims of unequal application. A Supreme Court preview moves case by case, with attention to oral argument timing and the questions likely to matter. FedSoc Forums also preserves the texture of live events, including introductions, credentials, disclaimers, and Q&A prompts. That format can be slow, but it makes the institutional setting clear. The show does not flatten legal disputes into slogans. It gives them procedural shape. For PlayNext users, it is best understood as a serious, argument-forward feed for court watchers, lawyers, policy staff, law students, and listeners who prefer legal architecture to political theater.
Made for: FedSoc Forums is for lawyers, law students, policy professionals, court watchers, and legally fluent listeners who want detailed argument rather than quick commentary. It also suits anyone tracking how litigation, regulation, and constitutional doctrine shape public policy.
What sets it apart: The show keeps the structure of a formal legal panel, including moderated handoffs, speaker credentials, disclaimers, and audience questions. Compared with broader politics podcasts, it spends more time on procedural posture, doctrine, enforcement authority, and institutional consequences.
*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…
Based on 6 episodes we listened to · September 2026
FedSoc Forums makes legal disputes legible by testing competing arguments against statutes, precedent, regulatory practice, and the limits of institutional authority.
FedSoc Forums turns current legal and policy disputes into structured conversations among speakers who often disagree on doctrine, enforcement, or institutional authority.
Even a stablecoin reward turns into a question about the rules behind your idle balance.
Press play if you want
Short reviews from the PlayNext desk, based on the episodes we processed.
A federal statute, uneven enforcement, and a constitutional fight over who gets protected.
FedSoc Forums centers on the FACE Act, its recent enforcement, and the constitutional and policy questions that hang over its future. The discussion returns to Massachusetts pregnancy care centers after Dobbs, Attorney General Mara Healey's decision to pursue those centers, and…
A focused doctrinal discussion of federalism and preemption in Suncor Energy v. Commissioners of Boulder County.
The episode centers on Suncor Energy v. Commissioners of Boulder County, following how the Colorado courts treat the defendants' activities and emissions in Colorado, and then turning to the harder question of whether preemption should end the case before the plaintiffs try to…
A close read of Hemani's Second Amendment stakes, with Bruen, historical analogies, and the narrower arguments kept in view.
United States v. Hemani is treated as a real stress test for how the Court's newer Second Amendment framework handles drug-use restrictions. The discussion moves through Bruen, public-drunkenness analogies, and the government's historical theory, which gives the case more…
A Federal Society discussion of the Vanguard settlement that frames ESG as a legal fight with coal and media spin in view.
This Federal Society panel treats the Vanguard settlement announced yesterday as a live test of ESG promises, coal production, and litigation strategy.
A law-forward discussion of Section 230, platform design, and accountability for online harms.
The conversation frames safeguarding vulnerable users online as a legal problem, moving from Section 230 to recommendation systems and platform design.
A careful preview of Olivier v. City of Brandon through abstention doctrine, future enforcement, and Woolley's prospective-injunction logic.
Olivier v. City of Brandon centers on a procedural issue with real-world stakes: whether a person convicted under an allegedly unconstitutional law can still seek an injunction against future enforcement.
A grounded look at how stablecoin rewards and rulemaking could shape the GENIUS Act in practice.
Stablecoin regulation comes into focus through the practical questions surrounding the GENIUS Act, especially how future rules may handle rewards linked to stablecoin balances.
David French and Sarah Isgur break down Supreme Court arguments and rulings twice a week.
David Roberts interviews energy and policy experts on grids, solar, geothermal, and climate law.
Olivier v.
Stablecoin rewards are where the fight gets practical.
This episode is a Federalist Society webinar panel discussion analyzing the newly proposed Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, featuring legal and policy experts.
This episode analyzes how the 2024 Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright is impacting SEC rulemaking and enforcement, and its future implications for regulatory agencies.
This episode discusses foreign influence operations and their role in national security, featuring a moderator from the Federal Society's practice groups.
This episode features a panel discussion on the practical implementation and key regulatory questions surrounding the GENIUS Act for stablecoins, with experts from the Federal Reserve and blockchain advocacy.
This Federalist Society webinar examines the Trump administration's efforts to combat antisemitism on college campuses through civil rights enforcement one year into implementation.
A panel of legal experts previews upcoming Supreme Court oral arguments in March 2026, discussing cases and taking audience questions.
This episode features a panel of legal experts discussing the potential resurgence of the Monroe Doctrine in relation to U.S.
Elizabeth Slattery opens on the FACE Act and its recent enforcement.
FedSoc Forums takes up Suncor Energy v.
FedSoc Forums opens on a conversation about the landmark Vanguard settlement announced yesterday.
The program opens with John Ohlendorf moderating a Courthouse Steps discussion of United States v.
FedSoc Forums turns to the legal and policy questions raised by safeguarding vulnerable populations online.
This Federalist Society webinar features legal experts discussing the Third Circuit's review of whether publishing ASTM technical standards constitutes fair use under copyright law.
This Federalist Society webinar previews the legal case Trump v.
This episode is a Federalist Society virtual event discussing the USPTO's proposed 'One-Challenge' rule changes for Inter Partes Review patent challenges.