Amarica's Constitution

More than three years after the January 6, 2021 disastrous events, we remarkably are just now first learning of a complex series of events with profound ethical implications for Justice Alito. Like his fellow justice, Clarence Thomas, Justice Alito’s wife’s actions, possibly political in nature, have placed the Justice in a position where his own actions are being widely questioned. We take it one step at a time and offer our analysis, even if we don’t entirely agree with each other on this one.

Donald Trump’s New York trial - where a conviction would be federal pardon-proof - has proceeded apace. we are pleased to bring a report to you from the trial itself, introducing you to one of Professor Amar’s star students in the process. Are there constitutional issues stemming from the trial? You bet, and we address some of them. Meanwhile, a number of listeners have asked similar questions recently, so we take that family of questions on, and sure enough, there’s a lot to discuss there as well. CLE credit is available from pdcast.njsba.com after listening.

This week we continue with clips from the oral argument in the immunity case (Trump v. United States). Most of this week’s clips come from attorney Dreeben (representing the Special Counsel, and therefore the people of the United States), and some of the Justices have at him, sometimes in way Professor Amar finds wrong-headed or worse. Our own argument is brought to bear upon these controversies, and a consistent way of addressing these questions emerges. Clarity on the argument emerges. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The nine Justices heard arguments on ex-president Trump’s attempt to claim a sweeping immunity from criminal liability and prosecution. We present clips from the argument and our commentary, including some historical analysis of claims that Benjamin Franklin spoke in favor of such a thing (spoiler: NO), and many other claims which we had predicted in recent weeks. There is clear acceptance of some of the arguments we have made by many of the Justices, but questions remain to be sure, and we begin to address them in this first part of a planned two-episode arc of clip and comment. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

As we close in on oral argument in the Trump v. United States case wherein Trump asserts some sort of permanent presidential immunity, we close out our preparatory analysis. Impeachment’s relationship to criminal prosecution is explored. Some founding-era conversations involving, for example, John Adams, inform our discussion. Does the concept of double jeopardy play a role? Our hope is that these episodes prepare you for the oral argument with a comprehensive theory of how no one is held above the law even as a powerful executive sits high in We the People’s government. CLE credit is available after listening from podcast.njsba.com.

As oral argument in the Trump immunity case draws closer, we continue our discussion of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. Do so-called “official acts” during a president’s tenure in office raise special considerations? Constitutional text seems to offer an easy way out of the case - but does it, really - and historical precedents enter the conversation. Ultimately, some basic principles of immunity emerge, which leaves us with a much richer understanding of the many issues than a bland look the text alone would Meanwhile, a listener’s question takes us abroad for a change, and developments in Arizona remind us of several of our podcast’s recurring themes. CLE credit is available by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.

Former President Trump is making an extraordinary claim to the Supreme Court: that he is immune from criminal prosecution for crimes he may have committed while president. The Court has agreed to hear arguments on this proposition on April 25. We begin the preparation by posing the questions and taking them on. Professor Amar is an expert on Presidential immunities. Our analysis goes through originalism as well as precedent. This and subsequent episodes form an oral amicus brief of sorts - another “master class,” if you will. We also take a listener’s question seriously as we address the Comstock Act and related issues. CLE credit is available at podcast.njsba.com.

The Supreme Court heard the case on the legality of FDA regulation of Mifepristone. Issues of standing seemed to dominate, so Professor Amar treats us to a master class on standing - in this case, and its recent evolution. He also suggests that at least one Justice might benefit by attending. In a wide-ranging episode, we also share excitement and some new scholarly insights that emerged from the recent EverScholar program led by Akhil and others; and the Trump gag order gives rise to some musings as well. There’s a lot for everyone in this episode, including CLE available from podcast.njsba.com.

We round up our analysis of the opinion in Trump v. Anderson with Justice Barrett’s concurrence. All of this has raised many questions, particularly in light of the Court’s errant reasoning and other shenanigans. And it turns out that many of the best questions come from you, our audience! So we turn to those as well, both about Section 3, and other matters as well. We also look at the news media’s latest interesting directions, including takes on Justice Breyer’s new book and seeds planted by Professor Amar bearing fruit. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com

The Trump v. Anderson lead balloon continues to smolder. This episode looks at the areas wherein the concurring Justices took issue with the per curiam, and they are many. Indeed, the three Justices who concurred only in the judgment disagree with the scope of the per curiam as well as its particulars, and their concurrence reads more like a dissent. Can we find areas of agreement with ourselves and the concurrences? What can we learn from all this? CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The concurrence by three Justices (as opposed to that of Justice Barrett) in Trump v. Anderson concurs only in the judgment. We look at different types of concurrences and why a Justice might choose one type or the other; and as for this one, we find much to dissent with. We dissect the arguments and now with the benefit of a week since the opinion, we “slow it down” and take you carefully through the logic and illogic we find. Can we locate common ground among justices who claim to be unanimous but in fact significantly diverge? And how do we address our own position, which seems to lie firmly opposed to the entire Court? CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The Court has ruled in Trump v. Anderson, and a strange day it was. An announcement on a Sunday of opinion on Monday; no justices present; metadata weirdness, and worst of all, a unanimous opinion that is unanimously wrong. Concurrences that are dissents. A nearly 250 year old electoral college system that somehow escaped the Justices. Notorious cases cited with approval. The opinion is a veritable patchwork of error. The autopsy begins.

We’re back, and still waiting for the opinion in Trump v. Anderson, which gives us a chance to highlight important new evidence that has come to light - thanks in large part to Professor Amar’s great law student team. It fatally undermines what seemed likely to be the reasoning the opinion was going to take. Will it matter? This is related to the role amici play in the Court ecosystem, and we look at how another case we had a brief in, Moore v. US, seemed to be possibly influenced by our brief by beginning our long-promised clip-based analysis of that oral argument. So a whole lot in a compact episode. CLE is available from podcast.njsba.com.

As promised, we return in very short order with the completion of our analysis and response to the oral argument in Trump v. Anderson - before the Court has ruled. Again, key clips from the argument are played and dissected. The previous Part I episode concentrated on arguments concerning self-execution of Section Three; this episode reviews many of the other issues addressed by the Court, from questions of the nature of the Presidential Election and the closely related Electoral College, to the persistent irritant of "officer" and "office" questions. As in the prior episode, Professor Amar “slows everything down” to allow you and hopefully the Court avoid sweet-sounding but flawed paths. This episode is posted 8 days early for this reason. Continuing legal education credit is available; visit podcast.njsba.com after listening.

EARLY UPLOAD - The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson on Thursday, and we were so alarmed by the errant direction they took that we decided to take to the air early. Here are key clips from the argument dissected - exposed, really - to reveal the mistaken representations of the meaning of certain cases; the ignoring of key facts which then distort others; the absence of key lines of argument; and the danger that the Court may be headed for another debacle on the scale of Bush v. Gore. Professor Amar “slows everything down” so the sometimes subtle misdirection that a fast-paced oral argument can induce is neutralized, creating clarity that we can only hope some Justice or some clerk sees in time. This episode is posted 4 days early for this reason, and next week’s will follow later this week as well. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com beginning Monday, February 12.

Oral arguments are scheduled for this Thursday in the Trump v. Anderson case, concerning the possible disqualification of former President Trump from the ballot in Colorado, and with a myriad of questions surrounding Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment at stake. We have something new to offer, as the distinguished historian, Professor Ted Widmer, joins us to add his considerable expertise to the oh-so-timely topics of John B. Floyd and the conspiracy to prevent the certification of Abraham Lincoln’s election with the aim to prevent his inauguration and otherwise cripple the Union during the Secession Winter. This was of course integral to our amicus brief in the case, and this podcast offers additional support for its theses. We also review the promised “20 questions” that the brief explored - the perfect review or reference as the Court faces this vital case that has gripped the nation. CLE Credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

Oral arguments are approaching in the Trump v. Anderson case, and the nation is talking about little else. At the Harvard Law School, Professor Amar is invited to debate a former US Attorney General and Federal Judge, Michael Mukasey, who also submitted an amicus brief in the case together with Bill Barr and Ed Meese, among others. We analyze the debate - and the brief. And in that brief, Akhil identifies what he considers to be an egregious error, which is telling not only in its fatal weakening of the particular argument, but in the way it calls into question the entirety of their brief, and how it points the way to needed reforms in the legal ecosystem as a whole. This is an indispensable episode. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The legal world is abuzz with the impending oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson in a couple of weeks. In the forefront are the powerful arguments and compelling history that are introduced in the amicus brief from the Professors Amar. We continue to delve into the principal lines of reasoning in the brief, and how they take the starch out for some of the tropes that were found in the media. When you take the history one step at a time it is hard to escape the obvious parallels with the actions and inactions of ex-President Trump, and how they precisely align with the concerns the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had that prompted them to advocate for and ultimately author, pass, and successfully ratify Section Three. Will the Court see it this way? Time will tell, but follow the discussion as we take you through it. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The “brothers-in-law” Vik and Akhil Amar have filed an amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson et al. The brief contains a dramatic historic episode that you almost certainly knew nothing about, and which is highly relevant - perhaps decisive - to the case. Prepare to be amazed by this story of the “First Insurrection,” which preceded and was distinguishable from the Civil War itself, and which makes clear the certain intent of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment - and the course the Supreme Court should take in this case. This, and the episodes to follow, may be the most important episodes we have offered in the more than three years of this podcast. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The months of discussion of Section Three on Amarica's Constitution now make their way to Washington, as cert has been granted in Trump v. Anderson. Amicus briefs will pour in - including the brothers Amar's brief. We present some of the approach the brief will take, and we look at the nine Justices, taking account of their jurisprudential history and styles, and discuss how an intellectually honest brief-writer can make their best arguments even better by considering how their readers will read them, and what might be most useful to provide to those readers. It's not quite "handicapping" but it is insightful, as all America is wondering if this case might actually result in the removal of Donald Trump from Colorado's primary ballot, and eventually possibly more states' ballots as well. It has come to this.

The nation awaits the Supreme Court’s seemingly inevitable review of the Section Three case from Colorado, and perhaps Maine as well. Media around the world is weighing in with editorials and op-Ed’s; a smorgasbord of legal, political, and predictive arguments from professors, editors, elected officials, and others with their own range of expertise. We continue our attempt to help you make sense of these by choosing pieces that make the range of arguments out there. We do our best to present their argument and respond to it, bringing Professor Amar’s considerable armamentarium to bear for your benefit. And this week, Akhil has at least two - maybe three - major new ideas he brings to the national discussion. They can be found here first. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The Colorado Supreme Court opinion on disqualifying Donald Trump, though long anticipated, landed like a tornado. Op-eds, pundits, academics, officials - all are weighing in. It’s a victory for democracy - no, it’s antidemocratic. Section Three is a dead letter - no, it’s self-executing. Trump is out - no, this helps him. America is reaffirmed - no, there will be violence in the streets. Liberals are split; conservatives are split. What will the Supreme Court do? Spend some time with Amarica’s Constitution and we will help you make sense of it, and we will present the best and worst arguments out there. And - get some CLE for your trouble! Visit podcast.njsba.com after listening.

The administrative state is up for grabs, some say, in the case of SEC v. Jarkesy, which was argued before the Supreme Court recently. We have another “clip” episode, with Akhil weighing in on attorneys and justices alike. It’s particularly appropriate in this case, because so much of the case concerns juries and the 7th amendment - which, by the way, Akhil has written extensively on. That’s probably why he’s cited in so many of the briefs. We also heard some noise out of Colorado, by the way. CLE credit is available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.

The question of Donald Trump's disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is before the courts. Last week the Colorado Supreme Court heard appeals of the District Court rulings. As they consider their decision, we have the privilege of hearing from the nation's two leading experts on the subject, the author of The Sweep and Force of Section Three - the universally acknowledged definitive article. (Note: this episode is uploaded a day early because of the timing of the case.) They respond to the arguments made in court, as well as those that have been put forth in media and elsewhere - and we also consider the two other cases, in Michigan and Minnesota. The previous appearance by Profs. Baude and Paulsen were the highest rated episodes in Amarica's Constitution's 3 years, and this may be even more important for clerks, judges, and citizens to hear and consider.

There is no shortage of tributes to the just passed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and rightly so, and this first female Justice richly deserves praise and memory. We aim to offer a tribute by taking her seriously as a Justice of ideas as well as the frequently mentioned deeply human remarkable woman she was. Fortunately, Akhil’s career has been intertwined with Justice O’Connor’s in a remarkable back-and-forth of ideas, cases, refinement, and legal innovation, so our perspective is a deeply informative one. Among other things, we look at the 10 most significant areas of jurisprudential impact in this remarkable but somehow underestimated to the end titan. CLE credit available after listening from podcast.njsba.com.

Donald Trump’s disqualification for the Presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is on the docket for the Colorado Supreme Court next week. We have brought the two leading experts on the history of this clause to our podcast. They have written extensively on the 38th-40th Congresses who passed and first acted under the amendment; on John Bingham, the “James Madison” of the Fourteenth; and they continue to provide pertinent historical details on almost a daily basis. Professor Magliocca testified in the District Court hearing on this. Suffice it to say, then, that the best arguments on both sides will be aired here first, before they are heard in Colorado, and you will be the judge today. CLE credit available at podcast.njsba.com.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in US v. Rahimi, a significant gun case, and we get to work. We have pulled clips from the argument so you can hear the justices and advocates in their own words, and Akhil comments after each clip. The case is important in itself, with wide implications regarding permissible gun regulation, and it also touches on a number of key methodological points that teach about originalism - properly done, and perhaps at times, improperly done. CLE credit is available after listening by visiting podcast.njsba.com

The Amars’ amicus brief in Moore vs. United States is the talk of the legal ecosphere. Akhil’s co-author, Professor Vik Amar, joins us for analysis of the precedents that followed Hylton - faithful and otherwise. This tour de force of legal analysis is perfectly suited for your CLE credit. We also look at recent comments from the Supreme Court on Moore’s issues, and survey the reactions to the brief’s release. Various arguments that purport to address some of the brief’s claims have emerged: in support, in conflict, and complementary; we analyze and respond to them.

In our 150th episode, we present the amicus brief in Moore v. United States, authored by Professor Amar with his brother, Professor Vikram Amar. Reminder: CLE credit is available after listening by going to podcast.njsba.com. The brief begins with the provocative statement that most other briefs in the case have missed the point? What is the point that they missed? We explain how their focus on the 16th amendment misses the basic constitutional questions which the Court answered back in 1796 in the Hylton v. US case. Who says so? Some guys named Washington and Hamilton, to start. And this Lincoln fellow agreed later. But everyone seems to have missed this. You won’t.

The follies in the House have ended, for now. Many Americans looked upon the travesty with despair, wondering if our government might yet be up to the task of leading and reaching beyond party to find country and duty. We take a good look and search for places where reaching across the aisle might still take place - and we try to do our part and go beyond demonizing those not in our own party. Plus - the Amars’ amicus brief is up in Moore vs. US, and we open that door. This episode is eligible for CLE credit at podcast.njsba.com.

Still no speaker. Is it really the case that the House can’t do anything? How might it work? What about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment - does it play any role in the Speaker selection process? Meanwhile, we turn towards the other Jordan and see the dangers of insecure borders that are inherently hard to defend. Professor Amar explains how this simple fact led him to insights that resulted in a constitutional narrative quite different from those you may have been taught, and which makes certain predictions and conclusions. Does it stand up? We begin a process, which we will return to, of seeing where it leads us. A sweeping episode - eligible for CLE credit by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.

The House is at it again, and there is no Speaker in the chair as of this recording. So many implications - for Presidential succession, for democratic governance, for legislative stalemate. Meanwhile violence escalates in the Middle East. How are these connected? We explore all these, and Akhil has some fascinating originalist analyses - of history you surely didn’t know; of structural reasons that the Speaker can’t be in the line of succession; and a new textual analysis. Meanwhile - why can’t the House act? Has this happened before? (Hint: yes) NOTE: CLE Credit Available for this episode by going to podcast.njsba.com after listening.

After the Court decided important voting rights and affirmative action cases last term, these issues are back either before the Court or apparently headed for it. Why? We look at Allen v. Milligan, and affirmative action in the service academies, and find that the bounce-back of what seem to be entirely unrelated cases in fact demonstrates important constitutional and indeed originalist principles. And who is at the center of all this? Justice Kavanaugh, once again. (CLE CREDIT IS AVAILABLE for lawyers and judges for this episode.)

The career of America’s greatest investigative reporter has spanned more than 50 years, and Bob Woodward has told the stories of eleven presidents, the Supreme Court, the Intelligence Community, and indeed the American political system with a penetrating, persistent drive towards the truth. (LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.) Today this titan spends 90 minutes with us, and the insights continue to pour out of him. One can’t help but see Nixon at one end and Trump near the other; Woodward certainly sees them, and even with his ever-present professional distance and restraint, it’s powerful to hear the most deeply informed perspective there has ever been on the Constitution’s most ambitious creation - the Presidency - and the extraordinarily aberrant occupants of that office.

It’s almost October, and the Supreme Court readies to hear a new set of cases. The Roberts Court seems defined above all by the Dobbs decision at this point. The opinion, authored by Justice Alito, has been exhaustively dissected, but looking forward, we see various states taking further and more extreme actions. What role will the so-called swing justices, some of whom wrote concurrences in the case, play in the litigation that the new developments will likely spawn? What of the dire predictions of many pundits in the aftermath of the case? And what about Amarica’s Constitution - what did we say, and what say we now? Travel the road with us.

It’s an assortment of topics as listeners response to some recent developments and nagging questions. We revisit the 303 case, specifically the dissent, as Justice Jackson lays out an interesting hypothetical that doesn’t produce, perhaps, the intended response - at least from Professor Amar. Meanwhile, Justice Alito is back in the news with his judicial Declaration of Independence - Akhil may not quite agree. We also have an exciting prelude to a big announcement about our podcast!

Two recent major podcast themes - section 3 of the fourteenth amendment, and judicial ethics - echoed through the news this past week. Wisconsin legislators seek to impeach a new state Supreme Court Justice before she even sits for a case; and in Washington, Justice Alito is asked to recuse himself because of an interview he gave. Meanwhile, Section 3 is addressed by a former US Attorney General, who says it is inapplicable to the President for reasons that may seem counterintuitive, even strange. We analyze the claims as well as what lies behind them in our constitutional system. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

***CLE Available*** We continue our exclusive discussion with the Professors Baude and Paulsen, authors of the bombshell article declaring Trump ineligible for the Presidency. This time we explore some concerns that have been voiced in the media and elsewhere; we look at how this provision might make itself effective in practice. We trace the possible routes such an effort might take; where would it be initiated - and importantly, who would be the final authority? Along the way we enter the Fed Courts classroom and look at - what else - the Constitution’s voice on these matters, in the 14th amendment, and elsewhere. Continuing Education Credit is available by going to podcast.njsba.com after listening.

***CLE available*** In a special episode, the two distinguished authors of a recent major article, which dives deep into Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and finds that Donald Trump is disqualified from the Presidency, join us for a thoughtful and rigorous examination of the tough questions about their conclusions. These are leading conservative scholars who have gone where their methodologies, and the law, has taken them. Reaction has been swift and impassioned around the country, and in this episode they respond for the first time to some of the critiques, explore the implications of their work, and in doing so, they bring an integrity to our civic conversation. This is an important discussion of important issues, by real experts. Note: Continuing Legal Education Credit available after listening by going to podcast.njsba.com.

Everyone needs a translator, and for decades there have been few better than Washington Post columnist, reporter, and editor Ruth Marcus. She has made understandable the intricacies of many a Supreme Court matter, not to mention the vicissitudes of other Washington institutions. Now, with Federal and State cases against former president Trump pending, the complexities are impressive, but we take you through them with Ruth’s help. There are also stories galore, with angles political, constitutional, and gleeful.

Ex-President Trump faces a number of trials, and he doesn’t like where some of them are. Too many Democrats, or he doesn’t like the judge. Does he have recourse? No surprise - Professor Amar has written on this subject. There is a fascinating history behind it, an originalism analysis, and, most importantly - an answer. Changes of venue, bench trials, peremptory challenges, unanimous verdicts - they all find their way into this episode.

He's baaack. Former President Trump has been arraigned once again, this time on serious federal charges related to the very heart of democracy - the election itself. Special Counsel Jack Smith continues to discharge his appointed function by bringing charges he deems warranted. Beyond Smith, however, do the American people have other means of redress? And if Trump is guilty, will these prosecutions prevent him from seeking and possibly gaining the White House? Akhil has some surprising ideas - and one that even surprises himself!

We return to the affirmative action case, and again former Yale Dean of Undergraduate Admissions, Jeffrey Brenzel, joins us with his peerless expertise. The fallout of the opinion is enormous ,and we address some of its ramifications, including legacy admissions, donor admissions, private vs. public institutional options, admissions departments’ responses, and much more. What about the new frontiers of litigation that seem to be emerging, from scholarships designed to address racial disparities to non-race-conscious policies that nevertheless have impact on racial makeup? Former Dean Brenzel also offers a fascinating critique of the likely responses, showing how what might seem like a powerful response might actually be a foolish way to avoid real impact.

What’s in a name? This week, it’s “Amar was wrong - Amar was right.” Two weeks ago it was “bigots” and many made much of that. So we take the feedback seriously and revisit it - you can judge the result. Meanwhile, news from Long Island brings the 4th amendment to the fore again, and in a somewhat different way. Different - how? Listen and find out how to create a better jurisprudence without amending the Constitution, and the real differences in the lives of the people this would make. Finally, Akhil has a new article in the popular press, and we introduce that for later elaboration.

It’s time to discuss the Affirmative Action cases from Harvard and the University of North Carolina, and we have brought in an expert on college admissions - Jeff Brenzel, the former Dean of Undergraduate Admissions at Yale. Jeff is so much more than that - he has taught at Yale as a lecturer in philosophy and humanities; is the former head of the Alumni Association, and is a current trustee at Morehouse College, to name some of his many hats. He offers a perspective that is a perfect supplement to the legal analysis from Professor Amar, as we make our way through 237 pages of Supreme Court opinion, concurrences, and fiery dissents, not to mention Akhil’s scholarship on this subject over the decades. It’s potentially a morass and we begin to find our way through it, to hopefully understand the stormy present and the uncertain future of college admissions.

A Colorado website designer refuses to create sites for gay couples’ weddings, going afoul of Colorado’s public accommodations law. Can she be compelled to author such a site? The Court has ruled, and we have the analysis. Along the way, we find ourselves discussing the intricacies of stipulations, and getting into the fine points of how one gets to federal court, even as we consider more mainstream questions as speech vs. conduct, the limits of rights, and some interesting hypotheticals. Professor Amar, as usual, has his own take on such things.

The Supreme Court has ruled in the Independent State Legislature case, Moore v. Harper. As we have from the beginning, we look at the case from the point of view of the precedents, of the history, the constitutional issues and implications, and the inner dynamics of the Court and beyond. As an author in a key amicus brief, Professor Amar is on the inside, and now so are you, as we take the opinion apart and explain the sometimes confusing matter of why the case was not rendered moot by later developments - and we look at the strange split among the various advocates on this question. We compare Chief Justice Roberts’ reasoning with our own from our brief, and look at the importance of a concurrence. At the end of the day, and of this podcast, you will come away with a thorough understanding of what could have been a disaster for the country but instead is a fine hour for the Court.

It’s Supreme Court opinion season, and just before this week’s upload came the happy news of the Moore v. Harper decision. We’ll be back with details on that soon enough, of course. Prior to that, however, the Court issued some fascinating decisions last week, including in the case of Samia v. United States. This confrontation clause/Sixth Amendment case happens to hit one of Professor Amar’s many sweet spots; he has written on the subject in numerous forums over years and is a true expert. You will have a complex set of facts made legible, and a confusing set of key constitutional principles sculpted into an elegant formulation.

The Supreme Court upheld various provisions of the controversial Indian Child Welfare Act last week. The facts of Haaland v. Brackeen, and some provisions of the Act, raise dramatic questions about questions of best interests of children, of the nature of tribal entities, and of who speaks for whom. The opinion itself largely sidesteps many of these questions and instead dives into areas which Professor Amar has long offered his expertise - going back nearly 20 years or more. No wonder, then, that he is cited twice in this case, and now our listeners have the chance to learn from the acknowledged expert on these matters.

All eyes are on Miami, where Donald Trump faces justice. But should it be Miami? Should it be this judge, who has such a checkered history in this case? What does the Constitution say about these and other issues this case brings forth? What about precedents? It’s just the beginning, but we are ready to take on these and other issues.