We the People

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

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

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

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

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

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in California v. Texas—a recent lawsuit bringing another challenge to the Affordable Care Act. In 2012, in NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court upheld the ACA as constitutional exercise of Congress’s taxing power; but Congress in 2017 eliminated the individual mandate which served as a basis for the tax rationale—and a group of states and individual plaintiffs sued to challenge the law’s validity once again. This episode recaps the arguments and how the justices—including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose faced many questions about the ACA during her confirmation hearings— reacted to the arguments on both sides. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by two experts on the Affordable Care Act and the Constitution: Abbe Gluck of Yale Law School, author of The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America, and Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, author of Religious Liberties for Corporations? Hobby Lobby, the Affordable Care Act, and the Constitution. Some terms that will be helpful to know for this week: Standing: the ability of a person or party to bring a lawsuit in court. For instance, if the person who brings the lawsuit has suffered some “injury” or will be likely to suffer an injury if a particular wrong is not remedied, they may have standing to bring the case. Severability: a legal principle that allows an unconstitutional or unenforceable provision or part of law to be “severed” out from the rest of the law, leaving the remaining parts of the law intact and in force. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

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

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

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

This week’s episode recaps the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, discussing what the hearings revealed about Judge Barrett’s career, her judicial philosophy, and her approach to stare decisis and constitutional interpretation including her views on originalism, and how, if confirmed, Justice Barrett might rule on legal questions including: the recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act, reproductive rights, presidential power, any disputes arising from the 2020 election, the Second Amendment, religious liberty, race and criminal justice, and more. Kate Shaw, Professor at Cardozo Law School and co-host of the Supreme Court podcast Strict Scrutiny, and Michael Moreland, University Professor of Law and Religion at Villanova Law, join host Jeffrey Rosen. Terms that will be helpful to know for this week: Stare decisis: Latin for “to stand by things decided”; the doctrine of precedent—adhering to prior judicial rulings. Originalism: a judicial philosophy of constitutional interpretation holding that the words in the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as they were understood at the time they were written. “Super precedents”: Landmark Supreme Court decisions whose correctness, according to many, is no longer a viable issue for courts to decide and so are unlikely to be overturned. Severability: a principle by which a court might strike down one portion of a law but the remaining provisions, or the remaining applications of those provisions, will continue to remain in effect. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

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

The new U.S. Supreme Court term is set to begin Monday, October 5, the first day of remote oral arguments. To preview what’s ahead, Adam Liptak, Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times, and Marcia Coyle, Supreme Court correspondent for the Center’s blog Constitution Daily and Chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal, joined host Jeffrey Rosen. They explored how the election and the forthcoming confirmation battle over Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination might affect the Court, how the Court might shift with the addition of a new ninth justice, and the key cases to be heard this term including: California v. Texas (the most recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act) Fulton v. Philadelphia (a case asking whether religious organizations must allow same-sex couples to become foster parents, and whether the Court should revisit its decision in Employment Division v. Smith) Torres v. Madrid (a police violence case asking when physical force constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment) Tanzin v. Tanvir (a lawsuit related to the “no-fly list” and whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allows lawsuits for money damages against federal agents) Carney v. Adams (a case about the First Amendment and state judges’ partisan affiliations) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

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

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

Constitution Day— the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution on September 17th, 1787—is next week! As we look forward to Constitution Day, this week’s episode shares founding stories of America’s founding documents from three key periods: the Declaration of Independence and the Revolution, the Founding era, and post-Civil War Reconstruction, sometimes referred to as the “second founding.” Renowned teachers of the Constitution, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and professor Kurt Lash, tell the stories of: Thomas Paine’s Common Sense: the power of words and a single person to change the course of American history Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence, and how Jefferson’s words may have impacted abolition James Madison’s rejection of the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 and how it may have influenced abolitionists' fight for the freedom of formerly enslaved people like Joshua Glover The creation of the Electoral College The story of the adoption of the 14th amendment from different perspectives The debate over whether the Constitution is pro or anti-slavery What unites us in how we understand the story of our Constitution Tune into the NCC’s Constitution Day programming next Thursday! See the schedule here: https://constitutioncenter.org/learn/civic-calendar/constitution-day-civic-holiday

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the term that just wrapped up, the Supreme Court decided several key cases weighing the First Amendment’s protection of free exercise of religion in relation to workers’ rights and antidiscrimination concerns, the separation of church and state, and more. This week’s episode examines those cases including: Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue holding that Montana can’t deny tuition assistance to parents who send their children to religious-affiliated private schools Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru holding that the plaintiffs, teachers at religious schools, couldn’t sue for employment discrimination because, under the “ministerial exception,” their schools can make decisions about teaching without government interference Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania: holding that religious employers don’t have to provide health insurance for contraceptive coverage if doing so violates their beliefs Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by constitutional law scholars Leah Litman and Michael McConnell. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

Last week, host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost for a bipartisan discussion about the role of state attorneys general in addressing policing reform, protests, and other constitutional challenges facing their states today. This conversation was a hosted as an online America’s Town Hall program. Hear more programs on our companion podcast Live at the National Constitution Center https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/live-at-americas-town-hall/id1037423300 or register for an upcoming program—to watch live via Zoom and ask speakers questions in the Q&A—at https://constitutioncenter.org/townhall. You can also watch videos of archived programs on the National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution Media Library https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. This program is presented in partnership with the Center for Excellence in Governance at the National Association of Attorneys General.

The 2019-2020 Supreme Court term recently ended with a series of blockbuster opinions involving presidential subpoenas, religious liberty, abortion, the Electoral College and more. Supreme Court experts Kate Shaw of Cardozo Law School and Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute join host Jeffrey Rosen to recap those opinions and more. They also weigh in on Chief Justice Roberts’ efforts to put the institutional legitimacy of the Court front and center in this historic term. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

In 1852, the Ladies Anti-Slavery Society of Rochester, New York, invited Frederick Douglass to give a July Fourth speech. Douglass opted to speak on July 5 instead, and, addressing an audience of about 600, he delivered one of his most iconic speeches that would become known by the name “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” This episode explores Douglass’ oration on racial injustice and the broken promises of equality and liberty laid out in the Declaration of Independence. David Blight, Pulitzer Prize-winning Douglass biographer, and Lucas Morel, an expert on Douglass and African American history and politics, join host Jeffrey Rosen. They discuss the context and content of the speech, which Blight calls “the rhetorical masterpiece of abolition.” They also explore Douglass’ views of the Declaration of Independence—including that the principles expressed in the Declaration are eternal, but America does not live up to them in practice—as well as the Constitution. Finally, they reflect on what Douglass can teach us about the challenges America faces today, including the ongoing fight for racial justice and efforts to remove monuments around the country. The full text of the speech is available here https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july/ Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) will remain in place, ruling that the Trump administration’s attempts to rescind DACA were “arbitrary and capricious.” This episode details the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, and the partial dissents by Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh, and how the case arose including the history of DACA under the Obama and Trump administrations. Constitutional law scholars Leah Litman, who co-hosts the podcast Strict Scrutiny, and Jonathan Adler, who blogs for the Volokh Conspiracy, join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

This week, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and two related cases, holding that an employer who discriminates against or fires an individual for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This episode explores this landmark decision with Joshua Matz, a constitutional lawyer who wrote a key amicus brief in support of the employees in these cases, and Dr. Matthew Franck of Princeton University. They dive into the “weeds” of Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion, the dissenting opinions by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, and the reasoning behind them—then take a step back and examine the “forest” view of how this ruling may affect LGBTQ people as well as religious groups and others more broadly. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

Last Friday, the National Constitution Center hosted a two-part national Town Hall program on policing, protests, and the Constitution. The wide-ranging discussions covered qualified immunity for police officers, the history of racial inequality, protests and the First Amendment, and more. Part two of the discussion features Monica Bell of Yale Law School, David French of The Dispatch, Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and Theodore Shaw of the University of North Carolina School of Law. Part one is a keynote conversation featuring Judge Theodore McKee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and you can listen to that here https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/live-at-ncc-policing-protests-constitution-part-1/id83213431?i=1000477612011 Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Listen and subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center here https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/live-at-americas-town-hall/id1037423300 Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

Last Friday, the National Constitution Center hosted a two-part national Town Hall program on policing, protests, and the Constitution. This episode—which originally aired on our companion podcast Live at the National Constitution Center—features National Constitution Center President Jeffrey Rosen’s keynote conversation with Judge Theodore McKee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Their wide-ranging discussion covered qualified immunity for police officers, the history of racial inequality, protests and the First Amendment, and more. In part two, leading scholars touch on those topics further, and you can listen to that episode here https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/live-at-ncc-policing-protests-constitution-part-2/id83213431?i=1000477612012 Listen and subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center here https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/live-at-americas-town-hall/id1037423300 Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

Last week, Twitter added a fact-check message to President Trump's tweets about voter fraud and vote by mail, and a notice that one of his tweets about recent protests violated Twitter’s policy against glorifying violence. In response to the fact-check, the President signed an executive order aimed at limiting the legal protections given to online platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This episode explores Section 230—what does it say and how has it influenced speech online?—and the potential consequences of the executive order. It also takes a broader look at content regulation on Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms, and how that squares with First Amendment values. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by digital speech experts Professor Kate Klonick and David French. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

Coronavirus has presented difficulties in holding presidential primaries this spring and will continue to pose challenges for the general election. Some states have responded by implementing vote by mail (although those decisions have brought logistical challenges like those that Pennsylvania currently faces) while some that have not are facing lawsuits. The U.S. Supreme Court also recently issued a ruling about voting in Wisconsin in April, RNC. v. DNC, which involved questions about counting absentee ballots amidst the risks that in-person voting might present. This episode explores those cases as well as the latest news surrounding how Americans will vote in the midst of the pandemic, and, broadly, what the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent require. Election law experts Ned Foley and Michael Morley join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments by teleconference, and the National Constitution Center recapped those arguments live on C-SPAN with advocates on either side of each case. On this week’s episode we’re sharing the recap for the cases Colorado Dept. of State v. Baca and Chiafalo v. Washington, about "faithless electors" and the electoral college. Those cases ask whether states can penalize or remove a presidential elector because they refused to vote for the candidate who won their state's popular vote. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by David Kopel, the research director of the Independence Institute who wrote a brief in support of the “faithless electors,” and Paul Smith, vice president of litigation and strategy at the Campaign Legal Center who wrote a brief in support of the states. Hear more argument recaps on We the People and our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. This week’s episode of Live at the National Constitution Center features the argument recap of the cases asking whether President Trump must release financial records to House committees and prosecutors, and you can listen to that here. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

This week, the Supreme Court continued to hear oral arguments by teleconference, and the National Constitution Center recapped those arguments live on C-SPAN with advocates on either side of each case. Today we’re sharing the recap for Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru—which raises the question of whether two former teachers who taught at Catholic schools fall under the "ministerial exception,” and thus are unable to sue their employers for alleged employment discrimination. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Sunu P. Chandy, Legal Director of the National Women’s Law Center, and UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh to explain the case and recap the argument. The National Constitution Center recapped all of the Supreme Court's remote arguments live on C-SPAN. You can watch the rest of those recaps on our YouTube channel at YouTube.com/constitutioncenter or hear more in the coming weeks on this podcast and our companion podcast Live at the National Constitution Center. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments by teleconference, allowing the public to listen in, in real time, for the first time in history. On Monday, the Court heard United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com—a case about whether Booking.com can trademark its name. Immediately following the argument, host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by three experts who filed briefs on different sides of the case—Corynne McSherry of Electronic Frontier Foundation, professor Rebecca Tushnet of Harvard Law School, and Margaret Duncan of Loyola University Chicago School of Law—to recap the argument, explain the case, and reflect on a historic moment for the Court. The National Constitution Center collaborated with C-SPAN to broadcast this conversation live. The National Constitution Center recapped all of the arguments heard this past week live on C-SPAN. You can watch the rest of those recaps on our YouTube channel at YouTube.com/constitutioncenter. The Supreme Court will hear additional arguments next Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, starting at 10 a.m. EDT, and then Jeff will be back on C-SPAN to recap them with some of the leading experts involved in the cases. So please tune in! Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

The coronavirus pandemic has seriously impacted the criminal justice system—as prisons experience severe outbreaks, states release nonviolent offenders, trials experience delays, and some jurisdictions halt arrests for misdemeanors to keep jail populations down. On this episode, criminal justice experts Emily Bazelon and Paul Cassell weigh in on those and other changes affecting criminal justice systems around the country, and potential long-term impacts. They also explain defendants’ rights under the Constitution as well as victims’ rights, and detail some recent lawsuits filed, both on behalf of prisoners arguing that being detained in the midst of a pandemic violates the Eighth Amendment’s protection from cruel and unusual punishment claims, and by victims requesting notification of perpetrators’ release. Bazelon is the author of Charged: The Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration and Cassell is a former federal judge who now specializes in victims’ rights and is a law professor at the University of Utah. They join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

As the United States seems to begin to flatten its curve of new coronavirus cases, President Trump has claimed he has the authority to reopen the economy and the nation. Evaluating that claim in relation to both presidential power under Article II and state power under the 10th Amendment—professors John Yoo and Alison LaCroix join host Jeffrey Rosen. They give their takes on the president’s claims and conduct in the midst of coronavirus and evaluate what he can and can’t do in light of the system of separation of powers and federalism; comment on whether the president can or should withdraw from the World Health Organization, suspend immigration, and support citizen protests against governors; and place these contemporary debates in historical context. A term that will be helpful to know for this week—federalism. Federalism is the constitutional division of power between U.S. state governments and the federal government. Professors Yoo and LaCroix detail the history of federalism and how it’s evolved from the founding to today.

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear its May oral arguments over the phone, allowing the public to listen in live for the first time. On this episode, host Jeffrey Rosen first interviews Marcia Coyle, chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal, to discuss that change and other adjustments the Court has made due to the coronavirus pandemic. Coyle is also the new Supreme Court correspondent for the National Constitution Center’s blog Constitution Daily. Next, Jeff is joined by appellate lawyer Jaime Santos and Case Western Law professor Jonathan Adler to dive into the substance of the cases recently decided, and those being argued in May. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

Responses to the coronavirus pandemic may be posing a danger to democracies around the world—as fault lines in constitutional systems are exposed and some authoritarian leaders attempt to grab broad powers. Two experts on constitutional and international law — Professor Kim Lane Scheppele of Princeton University and Professor Deborah Pearlstein of Cardozo Law School — join host Jeffrey Rosen to explore the governmental challenges raised by COVID-19 in the United States and around the world. Scheppele – one of the foremost experts on Hungary – sheds light on the country’s dangerous recent slide into authoritarianism, made worse by a “draconian” emergency law passed under the guise of combatting coronavirus. And Pearlstein shares insights from her recent work on how the outbreak can impede elections and how Congress should begin preparing for election 2020. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

Some of Americans’ civil liberties—like the freedom to assemble in public, the right to travel, the ability to purchase a gun at a gun store or visit a reproductive health clinic, the freedom to exercise religion by going to church, and more— are typically exercised in person. As states enforce the stay-at-home orders necessary to prevent the spread of coronavirus, how will those rights be impacted? And what will happen to them after the crisis is over? This episode explores those questions as First Amendment experts Lata Nott and David French join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments? Email us at [email protected].

Congress and the courts depend on meeting in-person, so how can they adjust to the coronavirus outbreak and the public health measures necessary to stop its spread – like social distancing – while continuing to meet their constitutional functions? Host Jeffrey Rosen explores that question with Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, who’s worked since the aftermath of 9/11 on emergency-preparedness recommendations for all three branches of government, and lawyer and podcast host Ken White, who sheds light on how the pandemic is affecting his clients and the courts more broadly. They share insight into what’s keeping Congress from meeting virtually, how courts will deal with suspended arguments, what might happen to incarcerated people in the midst of the pandemic, continuing concerns about presidential succession, and more—in a wide-ranging conversation on how the U.S. government functions during a national emergency, and what reforms may be necessary to ensure it can continue to function in future crises. A term that will be helpful to know for this episode — Quorum: a majority, in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. The Constitution requires a majority of senators, 51, for a quorum, and, when there are no vacancies in its membership, a quorum in the House is 218. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution stipulates that “a majority of each [House] shall constitute a quorum to do business.” Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

Jeffrey Rosen is joined by public health law experts Polly Price of Emory University School of Law and Ed Richards of Louisiana State University Law Center to discuss key questions about the coronavirus and the Constitution. Starting with the history of quarantines prior to and during the Founding era, they explain how the government combatted diseases when, as Ed puts it, “The colonies were basically fever-ridden swamps.” Drawing examples from public health responses to outbreaks of yellow fever and the 1918 influenza pandemic through the AIDS epidemic and SARS, they also answer questions including: What restrictions can government authorities enact under the Constitution during a pandemic—from quarantines to isolation measures, to shutting down private businesses? How do the powers of state and federal governments interact during emergency scenarios? Would it be constitutional for the government to impose the kind of lockdown that has occurred in China or Italy, and, if so, would the Supreme Court intervene? And what might happen next? Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

A challenge to the Louisiana abortion law that requires doctors performing abortions to have hospital admitting privileges was heard by the Supreme Court last week. Julie Rikelman of the Center for Reproductive Rights, who argued on behalf of the abortion providers in June Medical Services v. Russo, and Catherine Glenn Foster of Americans United for Life, who authored an amicus brief on behalf of Members of Congress on the opposing side of the case, joined host Jeffrey Rosen on this week’s episode. They presented the arguments on both sides of the case — diving into the facts, considering whether admitting privilege requirements are prudent and whether the “undue burden” standard established by the 2016 Supreme Court case Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt is workable, and explaining how they think this case might impact the lives of women. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

Richard Cordray, the first Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from 2012-2017, and Ilya Shapiro, the co-author of an amicus brief in support of Seila Law, joined host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case. This case, which the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in on Tuesday, is a challenge to the constitutionality of the leadership structure of the CFPB, and its outcome could affect the future of the agency as a whole. The CFPB is a regulatory agency responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector. Currently, the president can only fire the CFPB director “for cause,” i.e. only for wrongdoing, not for a policy disagreement. This lawsuit asks whether that restriction violates presidential power and the separation of powers, and, if it does, can it be struck down without invalidating the entire Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB? This episode explores those questions and more. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

The controversy over the sentencing of President Trump’s former associate Roger Stone has raised larger questions about the role of the Department of Justice, presidential power, and the rule of law including: Should the president be able to influence sentencing in individual cases? What level of control should he have over DOJ? And, more broadly, how should the president exercise power? Host Jeffrey Rosen dives into those questions with Professor John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, and Professor Kim Wehle, former assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. Need a refresher on the Stone sentencing controversy? Here’s a timeline of events from ABC News. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

Picking up on some of the themes of last week’s episode, historians Lindsay Chervinsky and Craig Bruce Smith discuss how George Washington conceived of civic virtue, honor, and public service both as a general and as president. They explain why, during the Revolution, “without Washington there was no army” and, how, later, President Washington was considered by many to be “the embodiment of the nation.” Smith and Chervinsky offer a holistic portrayal of Washington — the good and the bad — and contemplate his constitutional legacy as the creator of a powerful executive branch and the first president to peacefully transfer power. Washington’s birthday is this Saturday, February 22. Correction: In this episode, Jeff mistakenly said that Alexis Coe’s book You Never Forget Your First: A Biography of George Washington includes a claim that Washington “likely engaged in premarital sex - nonconsensual sex - with an enslaved woman.” Instead, Coe actually quotes a letter written about Washington that describes his possible premarital sex with a “Cirprian Dame,” and explains what that term might have meant. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

In these polarized times and in the wake of impeachment – how can we be a better “We the People”? Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Margaret Taylor of Lawfare and Adam White of AEI to discuss the values that our founders thought were necessary to uphold American government, and whether or not the American people and our representatives are living up to them. The episode centers around the idea of civic virtue: a political philosophy term which describes personal qualities associated with the effective functioning of the civil and political order, or the preservation of its values and principles (per Encyclopedia Britannica.) Margaret Taylor and Adam White are authors of pieces for The Battle for the Constitution – a partnership between The National Constitution Center and The Atlantic which features essays exploring the constitutional issues at the center of American life. Check out the page here: https://www.theatlantic.com/projects/battle-constitution/ Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

This live conversation at George Washington Law School recaps the arguments presented on both sides of the impeachment trial. GW Law professor Andrew Knaggs – who served in the Trump administration’s Department of Defense – presents arguments against convicting the president, and his colleague Professor Peter Smith – a former Justice Department lawyer – presents pro-conviction arguments. They discuss the facts and circumstances surrounding President Trump’s impeachment, how “mixed motive” situations should be dealt with, what constitutes obstruction of Congress, whether or not impeachable offenses must be crimes, and more. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

The Virginia legislature ratified the Equal Rights Amendment earlier this month, and Virginia, Illinois, and Nevada filed a lawsuit this morning urging a federal judge to declare that the ERA is now part of the Constitution. This episode explores the fast-developing constitutional question of whether an amendment that declares that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex” will be adopted, despite its unusual ratification process. Dr. Julie Suk, author of a forthcoming book on the ERA, and Professor Sai Prakash, author of an article on its ratification process, join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue – a case that may have major implications for the free exercise of religion and the future of school choice and public education. The lawsuit asks whether Montana violated the federal constitution when it terminated a program that gave tax breaks to people who donated to a scholarship fund, which was used by students attending both religious and secular private schools. Our guests explain the technicalities of the case, and how it squares with some of the Court’s key decisions on the separation of church and state. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Michael Bindas – a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice (IJ), the group representing the parents who filed suit after the program was terminated – and Alice O’Brien – General Counsel at the National Education Association (NEA), who’s written about the case for SCOTUSblog. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

Today, Chief Justice John Roberts was sworn in at the United States Senate to preside over the third presidential impeachment trial in American history. On this week’s episode, Ken Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated President Clinton before his impeachment, and Joan Biskupic, CNN Supreme Court analyst and biographer of Chief Justice Roberts, join host Jeffrey Rosen to preview the trial. They discuss how disagreements over trial procedure, including whether or not to call witnesses, might be resolved. They also offer insight into how the Chief will likely handle his role, and how past Chief Justicse have presided. [This episode was recorded on Monday, January 13th, before the announcement that Ken Starr would be joining President Trump's legal team.] Questions or comments? Email us at [email protected]. [Jeff offers a special chance to win his book Conversations with RBG if you write in before 11:59 a.m. on 1/20/19 completing the stanza of one of his favorite operas. Book contest open to US + Canada legal residents 18 +. No purchase necessary; void where prohibited! Limit one per listener.]