We the People

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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected].

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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected].

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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected].

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 [email protected].

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 [email protected].

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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected].

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 [email protected].

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 [email protected].

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 [email protected].

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 [email protected].