We The People Stories

On August 8, the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago, former President Donald Trump’s home in Palm Beach, Florida. They seized 11 sets of documents, some of which were labeled “top secret.” Later in the week, a federal judge unsealed the search warrant, which stated that Trump was being investigated for possibly violating the Espionage Act and two other criminal statutes. John Yoo of the University of California at Berkeley and Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen to talk about the raid, the investigation, and the constitutional questions that arise out of it.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

The Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Bentonville, Arkansas, opened a new exhibit this summer called We the People: The Radical Notion of Democracy. It features an original print of the U.S. Constitution—one of only 11 in the world—as well as original prints of the Declaration of Independence, the proposed Bill of Rights, and the Articles of Confederation.
To celebrate the opening, the museum invited Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, to host a conversation centered around the text and impact of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. His guest was Eric Slauter, deputy dean of the humanities at the University of Chicago and the author of The State as a Work of Art: The Cultural Origins of the Constitution.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 is the law that dictates the congressional procedure for certifying Electoral College results in a presidential election. Congress passed it in response to the presidential election of 1876, where Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, but lost the presidency to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes because of contested results in three states.
The law is also implicated in the attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election. Now, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Senator Susan Collins of Maine have introduced a bill they say will fix the Electoral Count Act.
Rick Pildes of NYU Law and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law co-authored a piece for the Election Law Blog called “Why Congress should swiftly enact the Senate’s bipartisan ECA reform bill,” and today they joinhost Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the pros and cons of the bill.
Listen to our first episode on the Electoral Count Act with Ned Foley and Brad Smith from January 2022.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade and found no constitutional basis for a right to choose abortion. Teresa Stanton Collett of the University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota), David French of The Dispatch, Katherine Mayall of the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Mary Ziegler of UC Davis School of Law and author of Dollars for Life: The Anti-Abortion Movement and the Fall of the Republican Establishment, join for a conversation exploring the role of the Supreme Court in shaping abortion rights under the Constitution, how U.S. abortion law compares to that of other countries after Roe, and what lessons the United States can learn from how abortion is treated by law in other nations. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.
This program is presented in partnership and generously sponsored by the Center for Constitutional Design at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law.

The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

In June, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Moore v. Harper, a case out of North Carolina about the power of state courts to review election regulations set by state legislatures. At the heart of the case is the so-called “independent state legislature” theory, which has gained popularity in some limited circles. The Supreme Court will now directly address it when it hears arguments in the case next term.
Joining us to examine the arguments for and against the independent state legislature theory is Vikram Amar, dean of Illinois College of Law and co-author of an article in the Supreme Court Review that’s critical of the theory; and Jason Torchinsky, partner at Holtzman Vogel, and author of an amicus brief in Moore v. Harperon the side of North Carolina, on behalf of the National Republican Redistricting Trust. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.
Check out What is the “Independent State Legislature Doctrine”? – Part 1 from March 2022.

The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On July 6th, the National Constitution Center hosted a panel to present the reports of teams participating in the Center’s Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy project. The project brings together three teams of leading experts— conservative, libertarian, and progressive—to identify institutional, legal, and technological reforms that might address current threats to American democracy. Team conservative is comprised of Sarah Isgur, Jonah Goldberg, and David French—all of The Dispatch. Team libertarian includes Clark Neily and Walter Olson of the Cato Institute, and Ilya Somin of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. Team progressive is comprised of Edward Foley of The Ohio State University and Franita Tolson of USC Gould School of Law.
The three team leaders—Sarah Isgur, Clark Neily, and Ned Foley—presented their reports and discussed their various suggested reforms, including those on which they agree and disagree about. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderated.
Learn more about the Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy initiative and read the full reports on the National Constitution Center’s website.

Read the reports:

Sarah Isgur, David French, and Jonah Goldberg, Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy: Team Conservative

Clark Neily, Walter Olson, and Ilya Somin, Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy: Team Libertarian

Edward B. Foley and Franita Tolson, Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy: Team Progressive

The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Back in March, we recapped oral arguments in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, a case concerning the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. On the last day of its term, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 opinion dealing a significant blow to the federal government’s ability to enact climate regulations, and calling into question the future of the administrative state. Joining us to unpack the opinion is Jonathan Adler, inaugural Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and founding director of the Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law; and Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.

The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Toward the end of yet another landmark Supreme Court term, the Court issued decisions in two major cases concerning religious liberty when it comes to education in America. Carson v. Makin held that the state of Maine can’t withhold public funding from families relying on vouchers to attend religious schools. And Kennedy v. Bremerton came out in favor of a public high school football coach who lost his job after leading prayers on the 50-yard line. These are big First Amendment cases with widespread implications for free exercise of religion and separation of church and state in schools nationwide. In this episode, Michael Moreland, of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law, and Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, unpack the Court’s reasoning and help explain the outcomes. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.
Also check out:

“Student Aid, Religious Education, and the First Amendment,” We the People episode on Carson v. Makin

“Football, Faith, and the First Amendment” and “Football, Faith, and the First Amendment – Part 2” We the People episodes on Kennedy v. Bremerton

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On Friday, June 24th, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The decision overrules the landmark cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which held that women have the constitutional right to seek pre-viability abortions. In this episode, professors Mary Ziegler of UC Davis Law School and O. Carter Snead of Notre Dame Law School join once again to unpack the constitutional reasoning in the majority opinion and the dissent, and the implications for the future of other unenumerated rights in America. Jeffrey Rosen moderates.

Listen to “The Dobbs v. Jackson case – Part 1,” from November 25, 2021

Listen to “The Dobbs v. Jackson case – Part 2,” from December 3, 2021

Listen to “The Dobbs v. Jackson Case – Part 3,” from May 12, 2022

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On Thursday, June 23, the Supreme Court released its opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v.Bruen. In a 6-3 opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that New York’s law requiring anyone seeking a concealed carry license to demonstrate they had “proper cause” for the license—or a special need for self-defense—violated the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. The decision expands the Second Amendment right to bear arms to include outside the home. To help us understand the opinion and what it means for gun rights, gun control measures and future reforms and legislation surrounding guns—including assault weapons bans—are Adam Winkler of UCLA, author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, and Clark Neily of the Cato Institute, who served as co-counsel in the landmark Second Amendment case District of Columbia v. Heller. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

June is Pride Month. The first Pride March took place in June 1970, to commemorate the Stonewall Uprising the year prior. Today on We the People, we look back on LGBTQ rights and advocacy throughout American history—from key stories and figures to key court cases interpreting the scope of LGBTQ rights under the Constitution. James Kirchick, author of Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington, and Dale Carpenter, Judge William Hawley Atwell Chair of Constitutional Law at SMU and author of Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v Texas, join Jeffrey Rosen for the conversation.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

As the congressional hearings for the events of January 6, 2021, continue, we’ll hear from The Honorable J. Michael Luttig, formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, as he recounts a story of his historical tweet that contributed to Vice President Mike Pence’s decision to certify the results of the 2020 election, along with his reflections on how to prevent another January 6. He’s then joined by three experts—Ned Foley of The Ohio State University, Sarah Isgur of The Dispatch, and Clark Neily of the Cato Institute—who are each leading a team on a bipartisan project for the National Constitution Center, Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy. They discuss other potential reforms including whether changes should be made to the Electoral Count Act and preview their forthcoming reports for the project, which will be published later this summer. Together, our panelists consider ways to strengthen American constitutional and democratic institutions against current and future threats. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.

This conversation was originally part of a live, private event hosted by the National Constitution Center in Coral Gables, Florida, recorded in May 2022 with permission from the speakers. The Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy project is made possible with the support of Mike and Jackie Bezos.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

While the idea of freedom of speech may be closely associated with the American constitutional tradition under the First Amendment today, its origins go back thousands of years, and its ideals have been expressed in civilizations around the world. Joining president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss that storied history—from Martin Luther’s posting his 95 Theses, to state laws regarding social media—and examine defenses of free speech are Jacob Mchangama, author of Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media, and David Cole, National Legal Director of the ACLU.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

This week, the National Constitution Center and the National Association of Attorneys General hosted a bipartisan conversation with Attorneys General Doug Peterson of Nebraska and Phil Weiser of Colorado exploring the role of state attorneys general, state law, and state police powers under the Constitution in addressing the potential dangers of various social media platforms to public health, privacy, and competition. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderated.
This program is presented in partnership with the Center for Excellence in Governance at the National Association of Attorneys General.

To watch National Constitution Center Town Hall programs live, check out our schedule of upcoming programs. Register through Zoom to ask your constitutional questions in the Q&A or watch live on YouTube.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

There’s a lot happening in the world of election law. From the Supreme Court’s opinion last week in FEC v. Ted Cruz, to a redistricting case in Alabama, to a North Carolina case dealing with the independent state legislature doctrine-- we’re doing a deep dive with John Fortier, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Rick Hasen, professor of law at UC Irvine, to discuss these cases and issues and what they mean for American democracy going forward. Jeffrey Rosen moderates.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Today on We the People, we’re sharing a conversation from a private event hosted by the National Constitution Center this week in Coral Gables, Florida, recorded with permission from the speakers.
In it, President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen moderates a conversation with five experts about two of the biggest issues before the Supreme Court this term: abortion and guns.
Those five experts are: Melissa Murray of NYU Law, Akhil Amar of Yale Law School, Clark Neily of the Cato Institute, Kimberly Atkins Stohr of The Boston Globe, and David French of The Dispatch.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On May 2, Politico published a leaked draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in the pending case Dobbs v. Women’s Health Organization. The draft opinion in Dobbs overrules the precedents Roe v. Wade andPlanned Parenthood v. Casey, which hold that women have the constitutional right to seek pre-viability abortions. In this episode, professors Mary Ziegler of UC Davis Law School and O. Carter Snead of Notre Dame Law School join once again to unpack the constitutional reasoning in Justice Alito’s draft, and the implications for the future of abortion rights in America and the future of Court as an institution in the aftermath of the leaked opinion. Jeffrey Rosen moderates.
Last year, we had two episodes about this case, before and after oral arguments, so be sure to listen to those if you haven’t – available here: Part 1 and Part 2.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On today’s very special episode, we share the exciting events that happened at the National Constitution Center earlier this week.
To celebrate the unveiling of the First Amendment tablet—once featured on the facade of the Newseum in Washington, D.C., now at its new home in the Grand Hall Overlook of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia—free speech defenders Randall Kennedy of Harvard Law School, former ACLU President Nadine Strossen of New York Law School, and Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education join for a discussion of why the First Amendment matters today. A dedication ceremony with remarks from the Honorable J. Michael Luttig, former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Jan Neuharth, chair and CEO of the Freedom Forum; and Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, follows.
This program was presented in celebration of the newly installed First Amendment tablet at the National Constitution Center donated by the Freedom Forum, which works to foster First Amendment freedoms for all. The design and installation of the tablet was made possible by the Honorable J. Michael Luttig and Elizabeth A. Luttig.
Watch the program video here: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/town-hall-video/why-the-first-amendment-matters-today
Read Jeff's remarks here: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/remarks-from-the-first-amendment-tablet-ceremony
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On April 18, a federal judge in Florida struck down the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s mask requirement on airplanes, trains, buses, and other public transportation. In a 59-page opinion, Judge Mizelle stated that the CDC had exceeded its legal authority under relevant federal law, including the 1944 Public Health Services Act, and failed to follow administrative procedure rules. The decision further vacated the mask mandate on a nationwide basis. The U.S. Department of Justice plans to appeal the decision. Michael Dorf of Cornell Law School and Adam White of the American Enterprise Institute join us for a discussion about the legal arguments on both sides of the decision, and a broader debate about nationwide injunctions—when a single district court judge blocks a law or government regulation on a national scale. Jeffrey Rosen moderates.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. The case is about Joseph Kennedy, a Christian high school football coach in Washington state who regularly prayed before games. Eventually a majority of the players joined in as well, and one player’s parent complained that he felt pressured to pray as well. Kennedy lost his job after refusing to comply with school district’s orders to stop.
Nicole Garnett of Notre Dame Law School and Rachel Laser of Americans United for Separation of Church and State join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the case; the questions raised around the limits of free speech, free exercise of religion, and the separation of church and state in schools; and how the Court might rule based on its prior jurisprudence—from the Lemon v. Kurtzmann test to the Abington v. Schempp case—and some justices’ questioning of it.
Listen to "Football, Faith, and the First Amendment" from January 31, 2019.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

At the end of March, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law House Bill 1557, also called the “Parental Rights in Education Bill.” Critics of the bill have referred to it as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Controversy has surrounded the bill since its inception. President Biden referred to it as “hateful,” but supporters say the bill is limited in scope and has been misinterpreted.
Constitutional law experts Joshua Matz of Kaplan Hecker & Fink and Eugene Volokh of UCLA School of Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the debate over the bill and others like it.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

As Russia continues to wage war on Ukraine, more horrifying news of its impact on civilians has been exposed, including graphic images of purported war crimes and other atrocities being committed against Ukrainian citizens.
Some international leaders have called for tougher sanctions against Russia, and others have expelled Russian diplomats from their countries.
But what else can be done? Does international law play a role in ending the conflict and bringing Russia to justice? Can Russian President Vladimir Putin be tried for war crimes, or any other international crimes, such as the crime of aggression? And if so, how?
International law experts Philippe Sands of University College London and Ryan Goodman of NYU Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the possibilities and limitations of international law in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, as well as the relevance of the origins of international criminal law, dating back to the Nuremberg trials in 1945 and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson’s role in its development.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Last week the Supreme Court handed down two nearly unanimous decisions in cases involving the First Amendment. One was an 8-1 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts in Ramirez v. Collier, in which the Court sided with a death row inmate who claimed he had the right to have the religious leader of his choice touch him and pray audibly for him in the execution chamber. The other opinion was 9-0 in Houston Community College v. Wilson, where the Court held that a legislative censure issued by a community college board did not violate the free speech rights of the respondent, another trustee on the board, in an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
First Amendment experts Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School and Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the opinions’ impact on how we interpret and understand religious freedom and freedom of speech in America.
The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is currently a judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals. Questions for Judge Jackson ranged from her judicial philosophy and methodology of constitutional interpretation; to her experience as a public defender and years as a trial court judge; to questions about various constitutional topics, from the First Amendment to the Fourth Amendment and other issues that may come before the Court for review.
Lisa Tucker, associate professor of law at Drexel University, and Melissa Murray, Frederick I. and Grace Stokes Professor of Law at NYU Law, join host Jeffrey Rosen to recap what we learned about Judge Jackson through four days of questioning by the committee.

The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block new congressional maps in North Carolina and Pennsylvania from going into effect. Both states’ maps had been redrawn by state courts, overriding maps that had been enacted by the states’ Republican legislatures. This means that the 2022 congressional elections in both states will proceed using the court-drawn maps. Despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene, four of the justices indicated they’re ready to address the doctrine at the heart of the cases: the independent state legislature theory.
To unpack all that’s at stake—and explain what that theory is and what effect, if implemented, it could have on the power of state courts to review actions by state legislatures in regulating elections—Jeffrey Rosen moderates a conversation with two constitutional law experts: Vikram Amar, dean and Iwan Foundation Professor of Law at Illinois College of Law and co-author of Constitutional Law: Cases and Materials; and Evan Bernick, assistant professor at the Northern Illinois University College of Law and co-author of The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit.

The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and the two nations have been at war since. This week, two experts in constitutional law and international affairs join us to unpack the causes of this war, what potential implications for the core principles of liberal democracy and constitutionalism might be, and whether international law has any power to stop the fighting. Kim Lane Scheppele, the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International Affairs in the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs, and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University, and Jeffrey Kahn, professor of law and Gerald J. Ford Research Fellow at Southern Methodist University, join Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center.

The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On February 28, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, a case concerning the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The outcome of the case has the potential to deal a significant blow to the federal government’s ability to enact climate regulations. Joining us to examine the arguments on either side is Jonathan Adler, inaugural Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and founding director of the Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law; and Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.
The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

In honor of President’s Day, this episode of We the People covers memorable writings and speeches from former presidents that help make up some of the foundational texts and ideas of our nation. In particular, we’ll take a close look at the words of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison as they reveal the former presidents’ thoughts the challenges of creating a nation; on the role public opinion plays in governance; on happiness and its pursuit and how that factors into the role government should play in our everyday lives; and more. Nancy Isenberg, Professor of history at Louisiana State University and co-author of Madison and Jefferson and The Problem of Democracy: The Presidents Adams Confront the Cult of Personality; and Colleen Sheehan, professor of politics at Arizona State and author of The Mind of James Madison: The Legacy of Classical Republicanism and James Madison and the Spirit of Republican Self-Government, join host Jeffrey Rosen for an illuminating discussion.
The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation!
Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Last week, the Supreme Court issued an order in a case—Merrill v. Milligan—about voting district maps in Alabama. After the 2020 census, Alabama drew new maps for seven districts, which would determine the seats in the House of Representatives. Of those seven, one district has a majority Black population. A lower court ordered Alabama to redraw the maps so that two districts have majority Black populations, finding that the current plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, temporarily put that ruling on hold, with Chief Justice Roberts siding with the three liberal justices. So—what does it all mean for voting rights in Alabama, and for the Voting Rights Act itself? In this episode we dig into the issues surrounding Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how its interpretation could affect voting across the country. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen are Rick Hasen, Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine, and co-director of the Fair Elections and Free Speech Center; and Matthew Clark, executive director of the Alabama Center for Law & Liberty.

The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation!
Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

The National Constitution Center is launching a multi-year initiative exploring the history and meaning of the First Amendment, anchored by the magnificent 50-ton First Amendment tablet newly installed at the Center overlooking Independence Mall. The giant tablet was previously engraved, fabricated and erected in 2007 at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. After the Newseum closed in 2019, the Freedom Forum donated the tablet to the Center.
In conjunction with the initiative, Jeffrey Rosen is joined by First Amendment experts Robert Post and Keith Whittington to discuss the origins of the First Amendment, its importance in American society, and several of the most important Supreme Court cases centering around free speech. Robert Post is a Sterling Professor of Law at Yale Law School and author of Citizens Divided: A Constitutional Theory of Campaign Finance Reform. Keith Whittington is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University and the author of Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech.

The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation!
Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Last week, Justice Stephen G. Breyer announced his decision to retire after 28 years on the U.S. Supreme Court. To reflect on his legacy, both personal and professional, today’s episode is a two-part conversation with guests who have unique insights into Justice Breyer’s life and work.
Joining host Jeffrey Rosen for the first part of the conversation are two former law clerks to Justice Breyer. Neal Katyal, who clerked for Justice Breyer from 1996 – 1997, is a partner at Hogan Lovells and the Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law at Georgetown University Law Center, and Theodore Ruger, who clerked for Justice Breyer from 1997 – 1998, is the Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and Bernard G. Segal Professor of Law.
For the second part of the conversation, Nell Breyer, executive director of the Marshall Scholars Association and Foundation and Justice Breyer’s daughter, joins us to share some family memories and life lessons learned from her dad.

The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation!
Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Earlier this month, President Biden voiced support for getting rid of the filibuster, looking to ease the path of voting rights legislation in Congress. But Senators Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema opposed the change. The legislation has been stalled, and debate over the filibuster runs high once again.
Joining host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the history, constitutionality, and calls for reform of the filibuster are two of the nation’s leading experts on congressional power and practices. Josh Chafetz is a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center, and Jay Cost is the Gerald R. Ford nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. His newest book is James Madison: America's First Politician.
The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation!
Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

The nation celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day this week, honoring what would have been his 93rd birthday. In this special episode of We the People, we examine King’s thinking about the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as well as his views on agape and universal love, and more, through a close reading and analysis of some of his most significant speeches and writings.
Joining host Jeffrey Rosen are two of the nation’s leading experts on civil rights and American history. William Allen is emeritus dean and professor of political philosophy at Michigan State University and Hasan Kwame Jeffries is associate professor of history at The Ohio State University, where he teaches courses on the civil rights and Black Power movements.
Speeches and writings discussed include:
“An Experiment in Love,” A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches, by Martin Luther King Jr. (1958)
King’s essay discussing the concept of agape and how it undergirds nonviolent resistance.
“Pilgrimage to Nonviolence,” by Martin Luther King Jr. (1958)
King’s essay explaining the intellectual and philosophical influences that led him to embrace agape and nonviolent resistance.
“Letter from Birmingham Jail,” by Martin Luther King Jr. (April 16, 1963)
King's seminal open letter — written from a jail in Birmingham, Alabama — on civil disobedience, justice, and the ethics of violating unjust laws.
“I Have A Dream,” by Martin Luther King Jr. (August 28, 1963)
King's iconic speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial about civil rights, freedom, and equality
“Our God is Marching On,” by Martin Luther King Jr. (March 25, 1965)
King’s speech at the conclusion of the marches from Selma to Montgomery
“Beyond Vietnam,” by Martin Luther King Jr. (1967)
King’s speech at New York’s Riverside Church condemning the Vietnam War
“Where Do We Go From Here?” by Martin Luther King Jr. (1967)
King’s speech on the future of the civil rights movement, given at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Atlanta, Georgia.

The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation!
Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 dictates the congressional procedure for certifying electoral college results in a presidential election. The Act was passed in response to the presidential election of 1876—where Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, but lost the presidency to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes because of contested results in three states—in an effort to avoid future contested elections
But a large bipartisan group of election law scholars and politicians across the political spectrum have argued that the law creates more confusion and needs to be reformed. Today on We the People, we’re doing a deep dive into the Electoral Count Act and proposals for fixing it—which have gained traction after the events of January 6, 2021, when members of Congress challenged the electoral slates of several states and some, along with President Trump, asked Vice President Pence not to certify these votes, which would have switched the presidential election results from Joe Biden to Trump.

Joining host Jeffrey Rosen are two election law experts who co-authored an op-ed in The Washington Post titled “How Congress can fix the Electoral Count Act. Ned Foley holds the Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law at The Ohio State University, and he also directs its election law program. Brad Smith is the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University Law School. And from 2000-2005, he served on the Federal Election Commission.

The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation!
Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On January 7 the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a set of cases challenging the Biden administration’s Covid vaccine mandates. Under one mandate, employers with more than 100 employees must require those employees to be vaccinated, or be tested for Covid on a weekly basis. Under the other mandate, any health care facility that participates in Medicare or Medicaid must ensure that all their workers are fully vaccinated.
Joining host Jeffrey Rosen are two attorneys who filed amicus briefs in these cases. John Masslon, senior litigation counsel at Washington Legal Foundation, filed an amicus brief arguing against the legality of the mandates, and Deepak Gupta, founding principal of Gupta Wessler and instructor at Harvard’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, filed an amicus brief in support of the legality of the mandates on behalf of the American Public Health Association.
The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation!
Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

How have poets and poetry—from John Milton to Mercy Otis Warren and Phillis Wheatley—influenced the Constitution and America’s core democratic principles? Join Vincent Carretta, editor of the Penguin Classics editions of the Complete Writings of Phillis Wheatley and professor emeritus of English at the University of Maryland, Eileen M. Hunt, full professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, and Eric Slauter, associate professor and director of the Karla Scherer Center for the Study of American Culture at the University of Chicago, for a discussion exploring the ways poetry has intersected with the Constitution and constitutional ideas throughout American history. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.
This program originally aired on our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. Check it out on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts..
We’ll be back next week to kick off another year of lively and civil constitutional debates.
Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In this episode, we look back on the events of 2021 from a constitutional perspective—from a violent mob storming the Capitol in January, to the inauguration of President Biden, and the convergence of a new Supreme Court with the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett; from key Supreme Court cases about religious liberty, voting rights, abortion, and guns, and finally, continuing questions about the scope of individual rights and government power amidst the continuing coronavirus pandemic.
As 2021 comes to a close, we look back on how this year will be remembered in constitutional history. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen for the conversation are Adam Liptak, Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times, and Jennifer Mascott, assistant professor of law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.

The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation!
Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Last spring, President Biden issued an executive order to form the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, a bipartisan commission charged with examining proposals for Supreme Court reform. The commission, made up of more than 30 of the nation’s leading legal scholars and experts on the judiciary, submitted a 294-page report to the president last week.
Some of the proposals examined in the report include court expansion, term limits, and jurisdiction stripping, as well as the Court’s larger role in the constitutional system. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by two members of the commission: Tara Leigh Grove, professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, and Keith Whittington, professor of politics at Princeton University. They lay out the cases for and against each proposal, and discuss the complications involved in implementing any of them.

The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation!
Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Carson v. Makin, which centers around the free exercise clause, and public funding for religious education.
The issue is whether a state—in this case, Maine, violates the First Amendment by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction.
In Maine, not all school districts have their own public secondary schools. For students in those districts, the state will pay for them to attend private high schools— unless the private school has a religious affiliation. The petitioners in this case are parents who are seeking that state funding for their son to attend a religious private school.
Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law and co-author of The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State, and Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law at Stanford, and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. They discuss the history of religious schooling and public funding in America under the Constitution, including from the founding onward; what historical precedent means for how to understand and interpret the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment; and how the Court might rule in the case.

The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit constitutioncenter.org/wethepeople, and thank you for your crucial support.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: a case challenging Mississippi’s law that bans abortion after 15 weeks. The issue in the case is whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional—and the outcome could challenge the future of Supreme Court precedent on abortion from Roe v. Wade to Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In our last episode, we were joined by two experts to preview the issues in Dobbs. (Be sure to listen to The Dobbs v. Jackson Case – Part 1 episode if you haven’t already!) Today, they return to help us unpack the oral arguments.
Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Mary Ziegler, the Stearns Weaver Miller Professor at Florida State University College of Law and author of Abortion and the Law in America: A Legal History, Roe v. Wade to the Present, and O. Carter Snead, professor of law at Notre Dame Law School and director of the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture.
The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit constitutioncenter.org/wethepeople and thank you for your crucial support.
Additional resources and transcript are available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On this week’s episode, we preview Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case challenging Mississippi’s law that bans abortion after 15 weeks, which comes before the Supreme Court on December 1. The issue in the case is whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional—and the outcome could challenge the future of Supreme Court precedent on abortion from Roe v. Wade to Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In another recent case, Justice Kavanaugh laid out three criteria for overturning a precedent believed to be wrongly decided. In this episode, we use these criteria to examine the arguments on either side, and then next week we’ll be back with a part two, recapping the oral arguments.
Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Mary Ziegler, the Stearns Weaver Miller Professor at Florida State University College of Law and author of Abortion and the Law in America: A Legal History, Roe v. Wade to the Present, and O. Carter Snead, professor of law at Notre Dame Law School and director of the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture.
The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit constitutioncenter.org/wethepeople and thank you for your crucial support.
Additional resources and transcript are available in our Media Library at https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

November 19, 2021 marks the 158th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. This week’s episode highlights the landmark speech, its historical and constitutional significance, and its continued relevance today. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by historians Kate Masur of Northwestern University and Sean Wilentz of Princeton University. Through a close, line-by-line read of the speech they analyze its rhetoric, highlight its references to other founding documents including the Declaration of Independence, and illuminate its dire historical context memorializing the Civil War’s bloodiest battle at a crucial turning point.
The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit constitutioncenter.org/wethepeople and thank you for your crucial support.
Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On this week’s episode, We the People examines United States v. Vaello-Madero, a case involving U.S. citizen Jose Luis Vaello-Madero who claims the exclusion of Puerto Ricans from the Supplemental Security Income program violates the Constitution. Vaello-Madero began receiving Supplemental Security Income while living in New York but then moved back to Puerto Rico. When the government found that out, it cut off Vaello-Madero's benefits and sued him because SSI is available in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands, but not in Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories.
Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Neil Weare, president and founder of Equally American who was raised in the U.S. territory of Guam and previously worked for Guam’s non-voting Delegate Madeleine Bordallo, and Christina D. Ponsa-Kraus, the George Welwood Murray Professor of Legal History at Columbia Law School who was raised in Puerto Rico and specializes in studying the legal issues surrounding Puerto Rico. Weare and Ponsa-Kraus explain the case, recap its oral argument at the Supreme Court, and walk us through the history of how Puerto Rico and its residents have been treated under the Constitution and by the U.S. government.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two challenges to S.B. 8. S.B. 8 bans almost all abortions in the state of Texas by allowing anyone, including people who do not live in the state, to bring a lawsuit in state court against anyone who performs an abortion after six weeks, or helps to make one possible. Leaving enforcement to the populace raised a unique procedural question in this case: who should be sued over the Texas law? In this episode, we unpack that question and the complex issues in these cases, and recap the argument including the questions asked by the Supreme Court justices. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Miriam Becker-Cohen, Appellate Counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center who co-authored briefs in support of the abortion provider Whole Women’s Health and the Biden administration, and Stephen Sachs, the Antonin Scalia Professor of Law at Harvard Law School who has covered these cases for the legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy.

Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On November 3, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in New York State Rifle in Pistol Association Inc. V. Bruen. The case was brought by two men who were denied New York concealed carry permits, along with New York’s National Rifle Association affiliate, against the superintendent of the New York State Police, Kevin Bruen. The lawsuit challenges a provision of New York’s law regarding concealed carry permits—which allow owners to carry guns in public in a concealed manner—requiring anyone who does not automatically qualify for a permit (including some state judges, correctional facilities employees, and others) to show that they have “proper cause” for the permit in order to receive one.
On this week’s episode, host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by two legal scholars who filed briefs on opposing sides of the case—Judge J. Michael Luttig who filed in support of Bruen, and David Kopel who filed in support of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. They detail the arguments they made in their briefs as well as what’s at stake in this case, and debate how to interpret the text, history, and meaning of the Second Amendment in light of whether the Court should uphold the New York law.

Additional resources and transcripts available at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On April 9, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14023 forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. The Commission is comprised of a bipartisan group of experts on the Court—from former federal judges and practitioners, to legal scholars and historians—who have been tasked with analyzing arguments and the merits and legality of proposals in the current public debate for and against Supreme Court reform. Last week, after months of research and expert testimony, the Commission released discussion materials in the form of five separate reports. It then held a public hearing to discuss the various topics and reform ideas presented, including whether to enact Supreme Court term limits, increase the number of justices on the Court, or reexamine the Court’s practices and procedures. Its final report is expected on November 14. Two of the scholars who testified before the Commission—Jamal Greene of Columbia Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School—join host Jeffrey Rosen on this week’s episode to discuss the Commission, which reforms they are evaluating have bipartisan support and might be achievable—and whether they should and can be enacted.
The work of the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project—which both Greene and McConnell participated in as well—was also cited in both the Commission materials and in expert testimony. Visit https://constitutioncenter.org/debate/special-projects/constitution-drafting-project for more info.

Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen recently testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, telling senators that Facebook and Instagram stoke division, harm children, and avoid transparency and any consequences for their damaging effects. Her testimony amplified calls for regulation of the platforms. On today’s episode we consider a variety of proposed reforms, whether they would violate any other laws and whether they would be constitutional. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by internet law experts Jeff Kosseff of the United States Naval Academy and Nate Persily of Stanford Law School. They also consider why it is so difficult to regulate the platforms as well as the unintended consequences that may arise if they are regulated, and unpack prior cases on free speech that influenced the overall approach to Internet regulation from its very beginning, including the passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.

Last week, Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito gave a speech responding to criticism of the Supreme Court’s emergency docket levied by, among others, his fellow Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. On this week’s episode, we explain what types of cases comprise the Court’s the emergency docket—sometimes referred to as the “shadow docket,” a term coined by scholar Will Baude—and whether the Court’s approach to emergency decision-making has changed in recent years, and why. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by law professors Jennifer Mascott of George Mason Law School and Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas Law School, both of whom testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee at its hearing about the shadow docket this week. They illuminate current debates surrounding the shadow docket and detail some recent decisions that have drawn increased scrutiny to the Court’s emergency rulings, including in COVID-related cases, the Texas abortion case, and in challenges to some of President Trump’s immigration policies.

Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Monday, October 4, will be the first day of oral arguments in the new 2021-22 Supreme Court term. On this week’s episode, Supreme Court journalists Kimberly Atkins Stohr of Boston Globe Opinion and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal join host Jeffrey Rosen to preview the forthcoming term’s blockbuster cases on issues including abortion, religion, guns, free speech, state secrets, and more. Cases discussed include:

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Houston Community College System v. Wilson

Carson v. Makin

City of Austin, Texas v. Regan Nat’l Advertising of Texas

United States v. Vaello-Madero

Hemphill v. New York

United States v. Tsarnaev

United States v. Zubaydah

Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Doe

Ramirez v. Collier

Shinn v. Ramirez

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard

Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Three judges from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals joined host Jeffrey Rosen for a live panel held on September 17, Constitution Day, the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. They shared an inside look into some of their rulings that then became blockbuster Supreme Court cases. Judge Cheryl Ann Krause discussed her ruling in the case involving a cheerleader who was punished for a Snapchat, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. Judge Stephanos Bibas spoke on his decision in one of the major Trump campaign challenges to the 2020 election results, Donald Trump for President, Inc v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And Judge Marjorie Rendell shared insight into her decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the case spurred by the city barring Catholic Social Services (CSS) from placing children in foster homes because CSS refused to allow same-sex couples to be foster parents. The judges also reflected on their work more broadly, their efforts to find compromise among colleagues with differing opinions, and their important roles in American government.

Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

September 17 is Constitution Day—the anniversary of the framers signing the Constitution in 1787. This week’s episode dives into what happened after the Constitution was signed—when it had to be approved by “we the people,” a process known as ratification—and the arguments made on behalf of the Constitution. A major collection of those arguments came in the form of a series of essays, today often referred to as The Federalist Papers, which were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay using the pen name Publius and published initially in newspapers in New York. Guests Judge Gregory Maggs, author of the article “A Concise Guide to The Federalist Papers as a Source of the Original Meaning of the United States Constitution,” and Colleen Sheehan, professor and co-editor of The Cambridge Companion to The Federalist, shed light on the questions: What do The Federalist Papers say? What did their writers set out to achieve achieve by writing them? How do they explain the ideas behind the Constitution’s structure and design—and where did those ideas come from? And why is it important to read The Federalist Papers today?
Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, the Supreme Court declined to temporarily halt, and thus allowed to go into effect, a new Texas law that bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy—effectively banning most abortions in the state. The law is unusual in that, instead of enacting criminal penalties as a method of enforcement, it enables others to sue anyone who violates the law for money damages. On this week’s episode, host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by constitutional law scholars Kate Shaw and Sarah Isgur to explain what exactly the Texas law says, the motivations and legal theory behind it, and why it was structured the way it was specifically in order to be hard to challenge—given that it directly violates constitutional precedents like Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which protect the constitutional right to abortion pre-viability (around 22-24 weeks). Shaw and Isgur also consider whether the type of enforcement mechanism that makes this Texas law unique might be replicated in other states for abortion restrictions or gun control. They also unpack the Supreme Court’s brief ruling declining to intervene at this time, its reasoning, and how it compares to other recent emergency rulings like the COVID-19 cases and the eviction moratorium. Kate Shaw is a professor at Cardozo Law and a co-host of the Supreme Court podcast Strict Scrutiny. Sarah Isgur is staff writer at The Dispatch and co-host of the legal podcast Advisory Opinions.
This episode was recorded just before the Justice Department announced that it will sue the state of Texas over this law—although our guests provide some pre-emptive speculation on what such a lawsuit may look like.

Legal battles over masks in schools are being fought across the country—in states including Arkansas, California, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma, Nevada and Texas—and the U.S. Department of Education recently announced a civil rights investigation into mask mandate bans in several states.
This week’s episode explores lawsuits brought against governors who took action to try to ban local mask mandates in schools, as well as challenges to state school mask mandates brought by people who say their individual rights were violated. We also address broader questions raised by this debate regarding the balance of power in America, and whether the Supreme Court might intervene. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Charles C. W. Cooke, senior writer for National Review, and professor Jennifer Selin of the University of Missouri.

Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the passage of the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18. This week’s episode tells the fascinating story of the amendment—sparked by two wars and the idea of “old enough to fit, old enough to vote,” principally designed by two senators, and advocated for by countless young people, students, and civil rights activists. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Jason “Jay” Berman, a longtime advisor to one of the principal architects of the 26th Amendment, U.S. Senator Birch Bayh, and Yael Bromberg, author of the article “Youth Voting Rights and the Unfulfilled Promise of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.”
Special thanks to the 26th Amendment Collection, Modern Political Papers, Indiana University Libraries as well as the Youth Franchise Coalition and Project Vote 18 for the Birch Bayh audio at the top of the episode.

Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week’s episode profiles Mercy Otis Warren—a trailblazing woman who was one of the leading thinkers of America’s Revolutionary and Founding period. A poet, playwright, and pamphleteer—Warren’s ideas influenced John, Abigail, and Samuel Adams as well as Alexander Hamilton and others, and even helped shape the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by two biographers of Warren, Nancy Rubin Stuart, author of The Muse of the Revolution: The Secret Pen of Mercy Otis Warren and the Founding of a Nation, and Rosemarie Zagarri, author of A Woman's Dilemma: Mercy Otis Warren and the American Revolution.

Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On August 3, the Biden Administration issued an order from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention creating a second “eviction moratorium” that extended the pause on eviction proceedings in state courts during the pandemic—sparking debate over whether such an action was legal and constitutional. Joining Jeffrey Rosen to debate those questions this week are Ilya Shapiro, vice president of the Cato Institute who’s written on this issue for Cato at Liberty, and Peter M. Shane, professor at the Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law and author of a Washington Monthly piece about the moratorium.

Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.
Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

As students return to school, hundreds of colleges and universities are requiring those returning to campus to get coronavirus vaccines. Recently, a federal appeals court declined to grant an injunction against Indiana University’s vaccine mandate after it was challenged in a lawsuit by students who say it violates their constitutional rights. On this week’s episode, we discuss the Indiana case as well as the constitutionality of vaccination mandates issued or being considered by different institutions including schools; discuss whether states or the federal government may also have the power to issue vaccine mandates; and explain how Supreme Court cases, including those from over a century ago, might impact this question. Wendy K. Mariner, professor at the Boston University Schools of Public Health, Law, and Medicine, and Josh Blackman, constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, join host Jeffrey Rosen.

Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

President Biden recently issued the Executive Order on Competition which aims to break up corporate power across the economy—proposing antitrust initiatives at more than a dozen federal agencies including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This week’s episode explores the executive order, the history, ideals, and legal principles behind it, and its potential impact. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by William Kovacic, former chair of the FTC and professor at GW Law, and Barry Lynn, Executive Director of the Open Markets Institute.
Additional resources and transcript available in the Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The landmark 1964 Supreme Court decision New York Times Company v. Sullivan shaped libel and defamation law and established constitutional principles that still govern the scope of press protections in America today. The “actual malice” standard established in the decision requires a public official suing for defamation to prove that the newspaper published a false statement “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” This made it harder for news publications to be sued for libel; yet it also made it more difficult for those defamed to seek redress. Recently, Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Thomas in separate opinions have each called for Sullivan to be revisited. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderated a debate over the importance of the Sullivan case and whether or not it should be reconsidered—featuring experts RonNell Andersen Jones, professor of law at the University of Utah and an Affiliated Fellow at Yale Law School’s Information Society Project, and David A. Logan, professor of law and former dean at Roger Williams University and author of an article cited by Justice Gorsuch in his opinion questioning Sullivan.
In this episode you’ll also hear audio from the Supreme Court oral argument of New York Times v. Sullivan, courtesy of Oyez.

Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Benjamin Franklin is well known as a Founding Father and an innovative inventor, scientist, and diplomat. But did you know he had a major and often unsung role at the Constitutional Convention? Historians H.W. Brands, author of The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin, and Ed Larson, author of Franklin & Washington: The Founding Partnership, join host Jeffrey Rosen on this week’s episode. They illuminate Franklin’s involvement in drafting and debating the Constitution during the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia—as host of the Constitutional Convention and one of the Convention’s most-respected delegates—as well as his vision for America’s future.

Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee—upholding two Arizona voting rules by deciding that they did not violate the Voting Rights Act or the Constitution and were not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose. On this week’s episode, scholars debate whether that ruling was correct and how it might impact the future of voting rights and how elections are conducted in America. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Rick Hasen, professor of law at the University of California Irvine, and Ilya Shapiro, a vice president at the Cato Institute.
For more insight on this case from our guests, check out Rick Hasen’s recent pieces for Slate (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/07/supreme-court-sam-alito-brnovich-angry.html) and The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/opinion/supreme-court-rulings-arizona-california.html) and Ilya Shapiro’s recent pieces for The Washington Examiner (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/the-voter-suppression-lie) and SCOTUSblog (https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/02/supreme-court-needs-to-set-clear-standards-for-vote-denial-claims).

Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

As Americans look forward to celebrating Independence Day this holiday weekend, this week’s episode dives into the Declaration of Independence. We trace where its words and its ideals came from and how it went on to influence state constitutions, the U.S. Constitution, and other key American texts—including President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School, author of The Words That Made Us: America’s Constitutional Conversation 1760-1840, and Steven G. Calabresi of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

The Supreme Court recently released decisions from some of the most highly-anticipated cases of this term. Jess Bravin, who covers the Supreme Court for The Wall Street Journal, and Marcia Coyle, chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal and contributor to the National Constitution Center’s blog Constitution Daily, join host Jeffrey Rosen to recap those decisions and highlight the role, approach and legal philosophy of each individual justice in this blockbuster term.
Marcia, Jess, and Jeff discuss cases including:

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia in which the Court held that the refusal of Philadelphia to contract with Catholic Social Services (CSS) for the provision of foster care services unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

Mahanoy Area School District in which the Court sided with a student whose initials are B.L., ruling that the school district’s decision to suspend B.L. from the cheerleading team for posting to social media vulgar language and gestures critical of the school violates the First Amendment.

California v. Texas in which the Court held that the plaintiffs in the case lack standing to challenge the Affordable Care Act’s minimum essential coverage provision—essentially protecting the ACA from its latest challenge.

Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.
Questions or comments available at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On June 19, 1865, Union soldiers, led by Major General Gordon Granger, arrived in Galveston, Texas, with news that the Civil War had ended and that the enslaved were now free. President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation had been issued over two years earlier, and the South had surrendered in April 1865, ending the Civil War. So why did it take so long for Texans to hear the news of their freedom? Why do we celebrate Juneteenth as Emancipation Day? And how did emancipation finally become a reality under the Constitution and throughout the nation?
We answer those questions and more on this week’s episode featuring Martha Jones, author of 'Vanguard: How Black Women Broke Barriers, Won the Vote, and Insisted on Equality for All,' and Lucas Morel, author of 'Lincoln and the American Founding.' Jones and Morel trace the story of the fight for freedom and equality in America from the Declaration of Independence through the founding of the country and the Constitution; the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation; the ratification of the 13th Amendment; and beyond. They also highlight some of the fascinating figures and movements that shaped Black American politics and history. Jeffrey Rosen hosts.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

As the Supreme Court approaches the home stretch of the 2020-2021 term, it’s released some opinions with unanimous decisions and others with split votes composed of unusual alignments of justices. Supreme Court experts Kate Shaw, cohost of the podcast Strict Scrutiny and professor at Cardozo Law, and Jonathan Adler, contributing editor of National Review and professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, join host Jeffrey Rosen to recap those decisions and detail why they’re important, as well as what to look out for in the rest of the outstanding cases still left in this term, and new cases in the next.
Some terms that will be helpful to know this week:

Textualism: a method of interpreting laws and/or the Constitution whereby the plain text is used to determine the meaning, and/or a set of techniques used by judges and justices to determine the application of a statute through close consideration of its text.

Stare decisis: Latin for “to stand by things decided.” The doctrine of adhering to precedent i.e. cases previously decided.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer joined National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for a live online program to discuss the Constitution, civility, the Court, and more. In a wide-ranging conversation, the justice discusses how he goes about making decisions, shares some stories and life lessons from his time on the bench, and shares some of his favorite books and authors. He also explains why civic education is so important today, why people need to reach across the political divides more than ever, and why he's optimistic about the future of America. Finally, he answers questions from the audience and describes how he’s been spending his time during the pandemic (including Zooming with his law clerks and meditating).
This conversation was one of our constitutional classes broadcast live to learners of all ages. All of the classes from the past school year were recorded and can be watched for free at https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks (with narrow exceptions for medical emergencies or “severe fetal abnormality,” but not for instances of rape or incest). The case could lead the Supreme Court to once again question its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade (and later cases like Planned Parenthood v. Casey) which held that there was a constitutional right to seek an abortion under the 14th Amendment and that the government could not place an undue burden on the right prior to the “viability” of the fetus, or the ability of an unborn child to survive outside the womb. This week’s episode focuses on two big questions: Does the Constitution indeed protect the right to choose abortion—and if so, when? And in the new abortion challenge, Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization, will the court uphold Roe v. Wade or narrow the decision in some way, revising the viability standard? Our guests unpack these questions and more, explaining the arguments on all sides as well as relevant legal terms—including “substantive due process,” “natural law,” and “stare decisis.” Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Leah Litman, assistant professor at Michigan Law and co-host of the podcast Strict Scrutiny, and Teresa Stanton Collett, professor and director of the Prolife Center at University of St. Thomas School of Law.

Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library

In the wake of the 2020 election, a host of new laws that deal with voting have been proposed across the country by both states and the federal government. Election law experts Rick Hasen, professor at UCI Law and author of Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy, and Derek Muller, election law professor at Iowa Law, join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss whether or not the proposed bills are constitutional; explain how the election system is structured under our Constitution and state, federal, and local laws; and more.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

This week’s episode previews New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett, which could become a major Second Amendment and gun rights case. This lawsuit was brought by two New York state residents who were denied licenses to carry firearms outside of the home, AKA “concealed carry” permits, because they had failed to show "proper cause" to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense and did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished them from the general public. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, and Clark Neily, who was co-counsel in the major gun rights case District of Columbia v. Heller, to explore the case, debate whether New York’s controversial concealed carry law is constitutional, examine the surprising history of similar laws, and more.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

The Facebook Oversight Board—a recently-developed court of sorts that independently reviews Facebook’s decisions and policies—issued a major ruling this week, upholding the company’s initial decision to ban President Trump indefinitely, but calling on the company to come to a final decision on its suspension of Trump and similar cases with greater detail. The board also requested that Facebook clarify its policies on political leaders, do some additional fact-finding, and report back with more on its decision and rationale in six months—when the board will reconsider the ban. Host Jeffrey Rosen considered the impact of the decision for the future of digital speech with two experts who have done path-breaking work on the Facebook Oversight Board: Kate Klonick, assistant professor of law at St. John’s Law School who spent a year embedded with the Oversight Board as it was being developed, and Nate Persily, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and co-director of the Stanford Program on Democracy and the Internet.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

After a high school student with initials B.L. posted a snap on the social media app Snapchat complaining about sports and school, she was suspended from the cheerleading team. She sued the school for violating her First Amendment rights and appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court; the court heard arguments in the case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., this week, which could become the court’s first major ruling on student speech in decades. On this week’s episode, we recap the oral argument in the case, as our guests explain the arguments on both sides. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Will Creeley, Legal Director at Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE) who authored an amicus brief on behalf of B.L., and Francisco Negrón, Chief Legal Officer at the National School Boards Association who joined a brief on behalf of the school district. They discuss how the court might apply the leading precedent, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)—in which the court famously wrote that students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate at the schoolhouse gate,” but that schools could punish student speech if it substantially disrupts the educational process—to this case, and whether and to what extent schools can regulate student speech online.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear argument in a key consolidated case about the First Amendment and donor disclosure laws. Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rodriquez asks whether a policy of the California attorney general’s office that requires charities to disclose the names and addresses of their major donors violates the First Amendment. Cindy Lott, Associate Professor of Professional Practice at Columbia University and Academic Program Director for Nonprofit Management Program at the School of Professional Studies, and Brian Hauss, a staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, discuss this case and its potential implications for nonprofit organizations, campaign finance, free speech, and more.

Recently, the Supreme Court seemingly put an end to the legal battle over whether President Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking people on Twitter by instructing the lower court to declare the case moot. Justice Thomas authored a separate concurring opinion that expanded on the language of the Court’s decision to discuss the power of social media platforms over free speech. This week, we discuss that opinion and the potential broader impacts of this case—now known as Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute due to the change in administrations—on the future of the First Amendment. Katie Fallow, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute who led litigation of this case since its inception, and Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA Law, joined host Jeffrey Rosen.

Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

This week we dive into the fascinating history of global constitutionalism and declarations of independence. Linda Colley of Princeton University, author of the new book The Gun, The Ship, and the Pen: Warfare, Constitutions, and the Making of the Modern World, and David Armitage of Harvard University author of The Declaration of Independence: A Global History, join host Jeffrey Rosen. They explain how constitutions from around the world are intertwined with warfare, globalism and travel, writing, media and communication technologies, and more; and highlight stories of constitution-making by figures from Catherine the Great to George Washington and beyond.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

In the midst of March Madness, the Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in NCAA v. Alston. The case is an antitrust challenge to the NCAA’s rules on compensation for athletes, brought by college basketball and football players including Shawne Alston, a former West Virginia University running back who argues that college athletes are being exploited. The NCAA argues that maintaining the amateur status of college athletes actually fosters consumer choice between amateur and professional sports. Thomas Nachbar, professor of law at the University of Virginia School of Law who authored a brief in support of the NCAA, and Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at the Open Markets Institute who co-authored a brief on behalf of Shawne Alston, join host Jeffrey Rosen to explore both sides of the case. They also explore the case's potential implication for the future of antitrust across industries, detail past Supreme Court decisions involving the NCAA, and more.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

On March 23, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid. Broadly, the case pits the rights of unions to communicate with workers who work and largely live on site versus the rights of business owners to keep people off of their private property. More specifically, the case asks whether California’s Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which allows union organizers to be granted temporary access to speak to agricultural employees on worksites—which are largely private property—amounts to a taking of property without just compensation that violated the Fifth Amendment. Hugh Baran and Robert McNamara joined Jeffrey Rosen to explain both sides of the case. McNamara, a senior staff attorney at Institute for Justice, filed an amicus brief in support of Cedar Point Nursery while Hugh Baran, staff attorney and Skadden Fellow at National Employment Law project, filed an amicus brief in support of the chair of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, Victoria Hassid.
A term that will be helpful to know for this week:

“Taking”:

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution says: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

A taking is when the government seizes private property for public use.

Typically, a “just compensation” is determined by an appraisal of the property’s fair market value.

Courts have broadly interpreted the Fifth Amendment to allow the government to seize property if doing so will increase the general public welfare.

Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In honor of Women’s History Month, this week we highlight women constitutional visionaries from landmark eras in our nation’s history—sharing the legendary contributions of women to the founding; the fight for abolition, the right to vote, and the 19th Amendment; the civil rights and equal rights movements; and more. Martha Jones, author of Vanguard: How Black Women Broke Barriers, Won the Vote, and Insisted on Equality for All, and Lisa Tetrault, author of The Myth of Seneca Falls: Memory and the Women's Suffrage Movement, 1848-1898, join host Jeffrey Rosen.

Additional resources and transcript available at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
Questions or comments? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

As the world reflects on the anniversaries of COVID-19 lockdowns this week, this episode recaps the variety of constitutional issues sparked by the pandemic. Joshua Matz—a lawyer and partner at Kaplan Hecker and Fink LLP who successfully defended a Kentucky coronavirus-related public health order before the U.S. Supreme Court—and Adam White, a professor at George Mason Law and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who has studied COVID-19-related constitutional issues—join host Jeffrey Rosen. They explore how the pandemic has fueled debates over governmental power to handle public health crises while balancing individual rights and liberties; the First Amendment rights of religious institutions in the face of shutdowns and other orders; state versus federal power; how courts ruled on voting rights issues during the 2020 election in the midst of the pandemic; how COVID-19 has affected inmates, immigrants, detainees and the criminal justice system, and more.

Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.
Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Lange v. California. The case asks whether a police officer violated the Fourth Amendment when he entered the garage of a person suspected of a misdemeanor crime without a warrant while in “hot pursuit” of him. Professor Jeffrey Fisher of Stanford University, who argued the case on behalf of Arthur Lange, and professor Donald Dripps of the University of San Diego Law School, a Fourth Amendment and criminal procedure expert, join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the case and its potential implications for policing, privacy, the Fourth Amendment, and more.
Some terms that will be helpful to know for this week (definitions adapted from Legal Information Institute):
-Warrantless entry: when a police officer enters a private residence without a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate that would allow the police officer to search a specified place for evidence even without the occupant’s consent
-Hot pursuit: exception to the general rule that police officers need a warrant before they can enter a home to make an arrest. Current case law states that if a felony has just occurred and an officer has chased a suspect to a private house, the officer can forcefully enter the house in order to prevent the suspect from escaping or hiding or destroying evidence.
-Exigent circumstances: exceptions to the general requirement of a warrant under the Fourth Amendment searches and seizures

Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. The case centers on two of Arizona’s election rules: 1. Arizona does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct and 2. its ballot-collection law permits only certain persons (family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers, and elections officials) to handle another person’s completed early ballot. The DNC challenged the rules, arguing that both discriminate against racial minorities in Arizona. On appeal, the Supreme Court will consider whether both policies violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965—which prohibits nationally any election laws or policies that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color”—and whether the second violates the 15th Amendment—which states that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Chris Kieser of Pacific Legal Foundation, who wrote a brief in support of Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, and Sean Morales-Doyle of the Brennan Center, who wrote a brief in support of the DNC, explore the case and its potential implications in conversation with Jeffrey Rosen.

Resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In commemoration of Black History Month, this week we’re sharing the courageous stories and legendary lives of African American constitutional visionaries throughout history—including well-known figures like Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Ida B. Wells, W.E.B. DuBois, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X, as well as some lesser-known but groundbreaking figures like Monroe Trotter and Pauli Murray. We highlight their fights to bring about constitutional change, from abolition and suffrage to the civil rights and voting rights movements and beyond. Judge Theodore McKee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and professor Theodore M. Shaw of UNC Law, former director-counsel of the NAACP, join host Jeffrey Rosen.

Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Did President Trump’s January 6 speech prior to the attack on the Capitol constitute the crime of incitement? Is it necessary to demonstrate that it did in order for the Senate to find him guilty of incitement as a high crime and misdemeanor under the Impeachment Clause and convict him? What are the relevant legal and constitutional standards? Catherine Ross, George Washington University Law School professor and author of the forthcoming book A Right to Lie? Presidents, Other Liars, and the First Amendment, and Josh Blackman, professor of law at South Texas College of Law in Houston whose work has been cited by President Trump’s defense team during this second impeachment trial, join host Jeffrey Rosen to debate those questions.
Some terms that will be helpful to know this week:

“The Brandenburg test”: In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court established that speech could be punished in a criminal trial only when the speech is:

“directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” AND

“likely to incite or produce such action”

Impeachment: per Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

What are executive orders, and how has the Biden administration used them thus far? Presidential power experts Cristina Rodriguez, professor at Yale Law School and author of The President and Immigration Law, and Michael McConnell, professor at Stanford Law School and author of The President Who Would Not Be King, join host Jeffrey Rosen to answer those questions and more. They recap what they think are the most notable executive actions President Biden has taken in his first weeks in office, what their implications might be, and how they are being challenged, before reflecting on presidential power more broadly.

To see the full list of executive actions discussed in this episode, visit the National Archives Federal Register page “2021 Joe Biden Executive Orders”

Resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org

A mob stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, leading to a ricochet of effects including the impeachment of President Trump. On this episode, experts Larry Kramer, president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and Colleen Sheehan, Director of Graduate Studies at the Arizona State School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership, explore the history of mobs past and present, online and in-person. They discuss how “good” versus “bad” mobs played a role at the Founding, and how concerns about mobs influenced the political and constitutional thought of Founders including James Madison. They also trace how different types of mobs evolved over time and were seen as illegitimate especially around the Civil War, as well as what has fueled mobs—particularly online mobs—today, including disinformation and social media. They conclude with some thoughts on potential reforms, including the need for more civic education and protections for free speech. Jeffrey Rosen hosts.

Resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Judge J. Michael Luttig, formerly of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Professor Keith Whittington of Princeton join host Jeffrey Rosen to consider how to interpret the constitutional text and historical precedent surrounding the question of whether the senate can hold President Trump’s impeachment trial now that he’s left office.
Judge Luttig explains why he thinks that the president cannot be tried and convicted by the senate after he has already left office, and why only the Supreme Court can answer the question of whether Congress can hold an impeachment trial for a former president. Professor Whittington details his view that a former president can be tried and convicted, and that it’s a purely political question up to the senate to ultimately decide.

Resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library
Questions or comments? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump for a second time this week, with a vote of 232 in favor, 197 against, and 4 not voting. Prior to the vote, host Jeffrey Rosen sat down with two experts on the Constitution and presidential power—Cristina Rodriguez of Yale Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School. They shared their thoughts on the article of impeachment passed by the House; the charge against President Trump of incitement of insurrection in the wake of the mob invasion of the U.S. Capitol; the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors under the Impeachment Clause; if Section 3 of the 14th Amendment should be invoked to disqualify President Trump from holding office again; how the current media and information landscape may have contributed to polarization and events culminating in the riot; what reforms might help; and more. Professor McConnell is the author of the new book The President Who Would Not be King, and professor Rodriguez is the co-author, with Adam Cox, of The President and Immigration Law.

Additional resources and transcripts available at constitutioncenter.org/constitution/media-library

Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In the early morning on January 7, 2021, Congress certified President-elect Biden’s Electoral College victory after a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol. This episode reflects on the historic and constitutional significance of the events of “a date which will live in constitutional history.” Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Judge J. Michael Luttig, formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of Berkeley Law. They discuss the president’s debunked claims about the 2020 election results that sparked the riot; whether President Trump’s words at a rally held in Washington, D.C., on January 6 count as incitement under the law; what the blocking of President Trump’s social media accounts by Facebook and Twitter afterward means for freedom of speech; and what the unprecedented nature of the events means for the future of the country.

Additional resources and transcripts available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

A panel of experts dives into what early American founding figures—including Thomas Jefferson, John and Abigail Adams, George Washington, Mercy Otis Warren, and Phyllis Wheatley—learned from the Greeks and Romans, from their early education through adulthood, and how that knowledge came to influence founding documents such as the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and the scope and shape of the American republic. They also explore the founders’ philosophical understanding of passion versus reason, the meaning of “happiness,” and how ancient philosophy continued to influence American democracy throughout turbulent times including the Civil War. Historians and authors Caroline Winterer and Carl Richard and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas Ricks joined National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen.
This program originally aired on our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. Check it out on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to catch up on the live constitutional conversations we hosted in 2020.

Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library
Questions or comments? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

2020 was a tumultuous and eventful year—starting with the impeachment trial, and then the COVID-19 pandemic, crucial conversations about racial inequality, the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, as well as the 2020 presidential election and ensuing court battles over it. How did the Constitution, and American institutions, prevail throughout? John Yoo, a professor at Berkeley Law who previously served in the Bush administration’s Justice Department, and Melissa Murray, a professor at NYU and co-host of the Supreme Court podcast Strict Scrutiny, reflect on that question and look back at the major events of 2020 through a constitutional lens. Jeffrey Rosen hosts.

Additional resources and transcript available at https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution says the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” This episode explores presidential pardons past and present—from Thomas Jefferson’s pardons of people convicted under the Sedition Act, through President Carter pardoning Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush pardoning those involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, to President Trump’s exercise of the pardon power today. Experts Brian Kalt of Michigan State Law School and Saikrishna Prakash of the University of Virginia Law School answer questions including: Can the president pardon himself? What does the history say? What are the limits of the pardon power? Does someone admit guilt when they accept a pardon? How might the Supreme Court rule on pardons? And more, in conversation with host Jeffrey Rosen.

Additional resources and a transcript are available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020), the Supreme Court recently granted a preliminary injunction against (i.e. temporarily blocked) New York’s COVID-19 restrictions on attendance at houses of worship (pending further litigation), siding with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two orthodox Jewish synagogues, who argued that the restrictions violated the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment. Constitutional law experts Michael Dorf of Cornell Law School and David French of The Dispatch join host Jeffrey Rosen to unpack the decision, the restrictions at issue, and broader questions including: Has the Supreme Court become more open to claims of religious discrimination? And, in the context of the ongoing pandemic, does and should the Supreme Court still apply its usual judicial tests to determine if something is constitutional? They also explain the role of prior cases crucial to understanding the modern debate in the area of religious freedom law—from Employment Division v. Smith to Masterpiece Cakeshop and beyond.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Can non-citizens be excluded from the census count, which serves as a basis of apportionment and allocates seats in the House of Representatives? Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and John Eastman of Chapman University debate this question, which is at the heart of Trump v. New York, the 2020 census case that the Supreme Court heard on November 30. Jeffrey Rosen moderates.

Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project brought together three teams of leading constitutional scholars—team libertarian, team progressive, and team conservative—to draft and present their ideal constitutions. The leaders of each team—Caroline Frederickson of team progressive, Ilya Shapiro of team libertarian, and Ilan Wurman of team conservative—joined host Jeffrey Rosen to share the process behind their approach to drafting their constitutions and agreeing on what to include and not to include; the overall structure of their constitutions as well as the specific constitutional ideas they added to and subtracted from the U.S. Constitution; and the similarities and differences between the three constitutions.
Team libertarian also included Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute and Christina Mulligan of Brooklyn Law School.
Team progressive also included Jamal Greene of Columbia Law School and Melissa Murray of New York University School of Law.
Team conservative also included Robert P. George of Princeton University, Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School, and Colleen A. Sheehan of Arizona State University.
The project was generously supported by Jeff Yass.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

A panel of experts from across the ideological spectrum joined National Constitution Center President Jeffrey Rosen on November 11 to consider what the 2020 election and its aftermath demonstrates about the political parties, polarization, and the state of American democracy today. They also explored how debates over what “truth” means have grown over the last four years, how that manifested in the election and its results, and where we’re headed next including the future of American values like free speech. The panel features Anne Applebaum and Yascha Mounk of the SNF Agora Institute and The Atlantic, David French of The Dispatch, and Charles Kesler of Claremont McKenna College.
This episode originally aired on our companion podcast, Live at the National Constituiton Center, which shares live constitutional conversations hosted by the Center. Listen and subscribe or follow on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Register to watch future programs live as Zoom webinars where you can ask your constitutional questions in the Q&A box.
This program was presented in partnership with the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in California v. Texas—a recent lawsuit bringing another challenge to the Affordable Care Act. In 2012, in NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court upheld the ACA as constitutional exercise of Congress’s taxing power; but Congress in 2017 eliminated the individual mandate which served as a basis for the tax rationale—and a group of states and individual plaintiffs sued to challenge the law’s validity once again. This episode recaps the arguments and how the justices—including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose faced many questions about the ACA during her confirmation hearings— reacted to the arguments on both sides. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by two experts on the Affordable Care Act and the Constitution: Abbe Gluck of Yale Law School, author of The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America, and Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, author of Religious Liberties for Corporations? Hobby Lobby, the Affordable Care Act, and the Constitution.
Some terms that will be helpful to know for this week:

Standing: the ability of a person or party to bring a lawsuit in court. For instance, if the person who brings the lawsuit has suffered some “injury” or will be likely to suffer an injury if a particular wrong is not remedied, they may have standing to bring the case.

Severability: a legal principle that allows an unconstitutional or unenforceable provision or part of law to be “severed” out from the rest of the law, leaving the remaining parts of the law intact and in force.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On November 4, as the nation watched and waited for election results, the Supreme Court continued business as usual, hearing oral arguments in one of the term’s key cases—Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. This lawsuit was brought by Catholic Social Services (CSS), a foster-care organization that works with the city of Philadelphia to certify prospective foster parents. When the city found out that CSS, due it its religious beliefs, would not certify unmarried or same-sex married couples to be foster parents, the city cut off foster-parent referrals to CSS, and CSS filed suit. To explain the case, recap the arguments on both sides, and explore the major implications a decision may have for how to balance anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom under the First Amendment—host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Leah Litman, Michigan Law Professor and host of the Supreme Court podcast Strict Scrutiny, and Jonathan Adler, Professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law and contributing editor to National Review Online.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Justice Department recently filed a lawsuit against Google, accusing the company of illegally maintaining monopolies over search and search advertising. This week’s episode details the ins and outs of the lawsuit, the allegations the government makes against Google, and what all this might mean for similar companies like Apple and the future of Big Tech. To figure out how we got here, we also look to the history of antitrust, including what happened when a similar lawsuit was brought against Microsoft. Leading experts on technology, antitrust, and the Constitution Tim Wu of Columbia Law School and Adam White of George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

As the 2020 election quickly approaches, the Supreme Court issued two key rulings on state election laws this week—ruling 5-3 in Merill v. People First of Alabama to prevent counties from offering curbside voting in Alabama, and, in Pennsylvania Democratic Party v. Boockvar, upholding Pennsylvania’s extension of its mail-in ballot deadline by a 4-4 vote. This episode recaps those rulings, explores other key election-related cases before courts around the country, and explains the constitutional dimensions of legal battles over voting including why and how a court decides when state laws rise to the level of disenfranchisement or not. Emily Bazelon of the New York Times Magazine and co-host of Slate’s podcast “Political Gabfest”, and Bradley Smith, professor at Capital University Law School who previously served on the Federal Election Commission, join host Jeffrey Rosen.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week’s episode recaps the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, discussing what the hearings revealed about Judge Barrett’s career, her judicial philosophy, and her approach to stare decisis and constitutional interpretation including her views on originalism, and how, if confirmed, Justice Barrett might rule on legal questions including: the recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act, reproductive rights, presidential power, any disputes arising from the 2020 election, the Second Amendment, religious liberty, race and criminal justice, and more. Kate Shaw, Professor at Cardozo Law School and co-host of the Supreme Court podcast Strict Scrutiny, and Michael Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion at Villanova Law, join host Jeffrey Rosen.
Terms that will be helpful to know for this week:

Stare decisis: Latin for “to stand by things decided”; the doctrine of precedent—adhering to prior judicial rulings.

Originalism: a judicial philosophy of constitutional interpretation holding that the words in the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they were written.

“Super precedents”: Landmark Supreme Court decisions whose correctness, according to many, is no longer a viable issue for courts to decide and so are unlikely to be overturned.

Severability: a principle by which a court might strike down one portion of a law but the remaining provisions, or the remaining applications of those provisions, will continue to remain in effect.

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In light of President Trump and numerous other high-ranking government officials recently contracting COVID-19, this week’s episode explores the 25th Amendment, which outlines what happens if the president becomes unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. We explore questions related to current concerns including: should President Trump have invoked the 25th Amendment when he was in the hospital? And questions that have arisen throughout American history such as: What happens if a vacancy in the office of president or vice president arises? What mechanisms does the 25th Amendment lay out for coping with that situation, and what scenarios does it fail to provide solutions for? What if the president is unable to fill his role but won’t step aside? And more. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by constitutional scholars David Pozen and Brian Kalt, who wrote an essay explaining the 25th Amendment for the National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution which you can read here https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-xxv/interps/159
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The new U.S. Supreme Court term is set to begin Monday, October 5, the first day of remote oral arguments. To preview what’s ahead, Adam Liptak, Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times, and Marcia Coyle, Supreme Court correspondent for the Center’s blog Constitution Daily and Chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal, joined host Jeffrey Rosen. They explored how the election and the forthcoming confirmation battle over Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination might affect the Court, how the Court might shift with the addition of a new ninth justice, and the key cases to be heard this term including:

California v. Texas (the most recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act)

Fulton v. Philadelphia (a case asking whether religious organizations must allow same-sex couples to become foster parents, and whether the Court should revisit its decision in Employment Division v. Smith)

Torres v. Madrid (a police violence case asking when physical force constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment)

Tanzin v. Tanvir (a lawsuit related to the “no-fly list” and whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allows lawsuits for money damages against federal agents)

Carney v. Adams (a case about the First Amendment and state judges’ partisan affiliations)

Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Following the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Republicans have promised to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice swiftly, before the imminent presidential election. If the Republican-led Senate confirms a new nominee either before or closely after the November election, some Democrats have said they will respond by attempting to “pack”—or add justices—to the Supreme Court. This week’s episode looks to history, particularly to the 19th century and the Civil War era, to see what lessons from historic battles over the composition of the Court might teach us today. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by two renowned constitutional historians —Tim Huebner of Rhodes College and Mark Graber of the University of Maryland Carey Law School.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On Constitution Day, September 17, the National Constitution Center awards the 2020 Liberty Medal to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for her efforts to advance liberty and equality for all. As part of the Liberty Medal celebration—and the Center’s yearlong Women and the Constitution initiative celebrating 100 years of women’s suffrage—this podcast explores the Justice’s living constitutional legacy both before and after joining the Supreme Court bench, including her trailblazing work as a lawyer advocating for gender equality, then as an Associate Justice writing landmark majority opinions in addition to her well-known dissents, and today as cultural and constitutional icon who continues to inspire generations of Americans. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Kelsi Corkran, head of the Supreme Court practice at Orrick, and University of California Berkeley Law Professor Amanda Tyler, who both clerked for Justice Ginsburg.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Constitution Day— the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution on September 17th, 1787—is next week! As we look forward to Constitution Day, this week’s episode shares founding stories of America’s founding documents from three key periods: the Declaration of Independence and the Revolution, the Founding era, and post-Civil War Reconstruction, sometimes referred to as the “second founding.” Renowned teachers of the Constitution, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and professor Kurt Lash, tell the stories of:

Thomas Paine’s Common Sense: the power of words and a single person to change the course of American history

Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence, and how Jefferson’s words may have impacted abolition

James Madison’s rejection of the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 and how it may have influenced abolitionists' fight for the freedom of formerly enslaved people like Joshua Glover

The creation of the Electoral College

The story of the adoption of the 14th amendment from different perspectives

The debate over whether the Constitution is pro or anti-slavery

What unites us in how we understand the story of our Constitution

Tune into the NCC’s Constitution Day programming next Thursday! See the schedule here: https://constitutioncenter.org/learn/civic-calendar/constitution-day-civic-holiday

In August, the Democratic and Republican parties held their conventions mostly virtually for the first time in history due to the coronavirus crisis. This week on We the People we look back to past conventions throughout history. Host Jeffrey Rosen and scholars John Gerring and Michael Holt explore the constitutional positions the parties have taken from the Founding to the Civil War era and beyond, diving into nineteen century party platforms to consider the evolution of the parties’ constitutional positions.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In celebration of the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment on August 18th and its certification on the 26th—this episode dives into the story of the 19th Amendment from its roots among abolition and the Civil War and Reconstruction through its ratification, the fight for the Equal Rights Amendment, and beyond. 19th Amendment experts and historians Reva Siegel and Laura Free explain when and why the word “male” was first introduced into the Constitution, how the right to vote radically changed women’s position within the family, and how we can and should expand the our constitutional story to include the many diverse groups who advocated for suffrage.
Learn more about the National Constitution Center’s new exhibit The 19th Amendment: How Women Won the Vote and check out its online interactive content here https://constitutioncenter.org/experience/exhibitions/feature-exhibitions/women-and-the-constitution-feature-exhibit
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

President Trump recently signed several executive actions and, in doing so, some have argued the president overstepped his constitutional authority and infringed on congressional power. This week’s episode considers those claims in regards to the president's recent actions on coronavirus crisis relief, the post office, and more. It also examines how presidential power has grown over time, how we think about the three branches and the “political” Constitution versus the legal one, and more. Constitutional and administrative law experts Adam White and David Super join host Jeffrey Rosen.
Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, historians Martha Jones and Lisa Tetrault joined National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for a conversation exploring the history and legacy of the 19th Amendment. The discussion highlighted the untold stories of women from all backgrounds who fought for women's suffrage and equality for all—as well as the work still left to do after the Amendment's ratification was won. Martha Jones is author of the new book Vanguard: How Black Women Broke Barriers, Won the Vote, and Insisted on Equality for All. Lisa Tetrault is author of The Myth of Seneca Falls: Memory and the Women's Suffrage Movement, 1848-1898.
This conversation originally aired on our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. Listen and subscribe here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/live-at-americas-town-hall/id1037423300
This program was presented as part of the 19th Amendment: Past, Present, and Future symposium presented in partnership with All in Together, the George & Barbara Bush Foundation, the LBJ Presidential Library, the National Archives, The 19th, and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. It’s part of the National Constitution Center's Women and the Constitution initiative—a yearlong celebration of the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

As the coronavirus crisis presents major challenges for voting this November, today’s episode looks backs at past elections during major crises in American history. How were they handled, what were their outcomes, and what are the lessons learned for election 2020? Kim Wehle, CBS News commentator and professor at the University of Baltimore Law School, and historian Jonathan White of Christopher Newport University explore key elections such as the Election of 1864 carried out in the throes of the Civil War, midterms conducted in the midst of the 1918 flu pandemic, and landmark presidential elections during World Wars I and II. They also consider how absentee voting and vote-by-mail has evolved over time, how voter fraud has been perceived throughout American history, and whether it presents a challenge for the upcoming election. President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen hosts.
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Portland has seen more than 60 consecutive days of protests since the killing of George Floyd. The protests escalated when federal forces were deployed in Portland to protect its federal courthouse, angering protestors and local officials who said they did not ask for the federal deployment. On Wednesday, Oregon Governor Kate Brown announced that federal officials will soon begin withdrawing from the city, although they remained as of Thursday morning. On today’s episode, we’ll discuss the rapidly evolving situation in Portland—exploring the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights of protestors; the president’s power to deploy federal forces in the states to protect federal property, and the limits on that power; and more. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by John Inazu, an expert on the First Amendment right of assembly, and Bobby Chesney, an expert on the president’s power to deploy federal forces.
Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.