We the People

Two years ago, the Trump administration decided to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) — a policy enacted under President Obama that deferred the deportation of undocumented people brought to the United States as children. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard challenges to that decision and was faced with the questions: can the Court even review the decision to end DACA, since it was an action taken by the Department of Homeland Security, an executive branch agency? If it can, was the decision to rescind DACA legal? And is DACA itself legal and constitutional? Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center and Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston join host Jeffrey Rosen to dive into the questions. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

This week, we’re celebrating the launch of host Jeffrey Rosen’s newest book, Conversations with RBG: Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Life, Love, Liberty, and Law—an informal portrait of the justice through an extraordinary series of conversations, starting in the 1990s and continuing to today. Jeff has collected Justice Ginsburg’s wisdom from their many conversations on the future of the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade, which Supreme Court decisions she would like to see overturned, the #MeToo movement, and how to lead a productive, compassionate life – illuminating the determination, self-mastery, and wit of the “Notorious RBG.” Dahlia Lithwick, veteran Supreme Court reporter and host of the Slate podcast Amicus, moderates. Check out Conversations with RBG on Amazon and listen to the audiobook on Audible. The audiobook also has its very own Alexa skill – Ask RBG. You can ask your Amazon echo things like, “Alexa, ask RBG about the #MeToo movement” and you’ll hear clips from the real-life interviews with Justice Ginsburg featured in the audiobook. This episode is a crossover with our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall – live constitutional conversations held here at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia and across America – which is available wherever you get your podcasts.

Brexit, the UK’s campaign to leave the European Union, has sparked ongoing political and constitutional controversy. However, the UK doesn’t have a written constitution — it is governed by a set of laws, norms, conventions, judicial decisions, and treaties — and Brexit has led some to think that needs to change. This episode dives into that debate over the UK’s unwritten constitution as well as other key Brexit-related issues including Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s attempts to “prorogue” Parliament and the ensuing UK Supreme Court decision, parliamentary sovereignty, and the role of referenda. Two leading experts on those topics –Meg Russell, Director of the Constitution Unit at University College London, and Kim Lane Scheppele, Professor of International Affairs at Princeton University phone in from London for a conversation with host Jeffrey Rosen. A term that is helpful to know for this week: Prorogation - brings the current session of Parliament to an end. While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation, or debate government policy. In general, bills which have not yet been passed are lost and will have to start again from scratch in the next session. The Crown decides when Parliament can be prorogued, but, typically, the Prime Minister advises the Crown to prorogue and that request is accepted. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

How should impeachment be carried out, according to the Constitution? This episode explores the constitutional process of impeachment, from investigation and passage of articles of impeachment by the House of Representatives, to the Senate trial, and the aftermath. Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, who served on the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment, and Gene Healy, author of Indispensable Remedy: The Broad Scope of the Constitution’s Impeachment Power detail the constitutional framework under which impeachment has been carried out in the past, how those precedents compare to what’s happening today, and what might happen next. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination “because of… sex.” Last week, a trio of cases that raise the question of whether Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of sexual orientation and/or gender identity were argued before the Supreme Court. Two of these cases – Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia and Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. – are lawsuits brought by employees who claim they were fired for being gay, and are suing their employers. The third case – R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. EEOC – centers around Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman who says she was fired from her job at a funeral home because of her gender identity. On this episode, Karen Loewy, Senior Counsel for LGBTQ legal advocacy organization Lambda Legal, and Professor David Upham of the University of Dallas – who both wrote briefs in these cases – explain the arguments on both sides, analyze the Justices’ reactions at oral argument, and predict the potential social and legal consequences of these cases. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

Last week, the National Constitution Center travelled to Washington, DC to host Clerks at 100 – a celebration of the 100th anniversary of the federal statute instituting Supreme Court clerkships that brought together hundreds of former clerks. Supreme Court clerks assist the justices with researching and drafting opinions and other work critical to the function of the Court. The day before the reunion, the NCC hosted a symposium in partnership with the George Washington Law Review at GW Law School featuring former clerks to discuss that special experience. This episode features NCC President Jeffrey Rosen’s conversation with Judges Diane Wood and Jeff Sutton, who shared how their clerkship experience affected them personally and professionally and shaped their methods of interpreting the Constitution. Judge Wood clerked for Justice Harry Blackmun and serves as Chief Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and Judge Sutton, who sits on the 6th Circuit, clerked for retired Justice Lewis Powell and Justice Antonin Scalia. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

This week, We the People partnered with SCOTUSblog's podcast SCOTUStalk for a live preview of the Supreme Court's 2019 term – recording our show in front of a live National Constitution Center audience for the first time! Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe and John Elwood to preview the blockbuster cases of the upcoming term, on topics including LGBTQ rights under Title VII, immigration policies like DACA, the Second Amendment, school choice and the free exercise of religion, and more. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

This week, the National Constitution Center in partnership with The Atlantic launched a new web project: “The Battle for the Constitution”— a year-long exploration of the major issues and controversies surrounding the Constitution today from all sides of the debate. At the Atlantic Ideas Festival yesterday, the NCC and the Atlantic celebrated the project launch with a series of panels featuring scholars, journalists and legislators. They discussed the breaking news of the House’s impeachment inquiry into President Trump, as well as what separation of powers means in U.S. government today. Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO of the NCC, kicked off the discussion in conversation with Martha Jones, professor of history at John Hopkins University, John Malcolm, Vice President for Constitution Government at the Heritage Foundation, and Quinta Jurecic, managing editor at Lawfare. Later, Representatives Lance Gooden (R-TX) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) spoke about their views on the impeachment question and the proper exercise of congressional power.

Justice Neil Gorsuch visited the National Constitution Center to celebrate Constitution Day and discuss his new book A Republic, If You Can Keep It. Justice Gorsuch, the Honorary Chair of the National Constitution Center’s Board of Trustees, sat down with President Jeffrey Rosen to discuss his passion for civics and civility, the importance of separation of powers, what originalism means to him, and why he is optimistic about the future of America. This episode is a crossover with our companion podcast Live at America’s Town Hall — live constitutional conversations held here at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia and around the country — which is available wherever you get your podcasts. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

James Madison and George Mason, both Virginian Founding Fathers, diverged on some of the biggest debates of the Constitutional Convention—including the proper distribution of power between national and local government, the future of the slave trade, and whether or not the Constitution should have a Bill of Rights. Exploring these debates and their impact on the Constitution – scholars Colleen Sheehan and Jeff Broadwater join host Jeffrey Rosen. They dive into the core of the constitutional visions and ideas of Madison and Mason. Next Tuesday, September 17th, is Constitution Day – the anniversary of the signing of our constitution back in 1787. To learn more about the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Day programming, including the launch of our upgraded Interactive Constitution, visit constitutioncenter.org/learn. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

What are “nationwide injunctions”? When and why are they issued by federal courts? Have they been invoked more frequently in recent years, and, if so, how is that affecting how laws or executive orders are implemented nationwide? And is the term “nationwide injunctions” itself actually a misnomer? Two experts on these broad kinds of injunctions, Amanda Frost of American University’s Washington College of Law and Howard Wasserman of Florida International University, answer those questions. They also detail how nationwide injunctions have been used to block policies of both President Obama and President Trump – including immigration policies like DAPA and DACA under President Obama, and the so-called “travel ban” and third country asylum rule under President Trump – as well as civil rights policies like President Obama’s protections for transgender students using bathrooms that match their identities and President Trump’s ban on people with gender dysphoria serving in the military. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

The upcoming Supreme Court case New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. the City of New York could be the first major Second Amendment case in almost a decade. It centers around a New York City regulation prohibiting residents from taking their guns to second homes and shooting ranges outside the city, even when the guns are unloaded and separated from ammunition. New York’s NRA affiliate and some gun-owning residents challenged the regulation, but, in the midst of litigation, New York City changed it – raising the question of whether the case was now “moot”. And, Senate Democrats filed a controversial brief addressed to the Supreme Court warning that they might pursue structural reform of the Court if they don’t like the outcome in this case. Detailing the twists and turns of the case and its potential impact on the Second Amendment – Adam Winkler of UCLA Law School and Ilya Shapiro of the CATO Institute join host Jeffrey Rosen. Here’s some vocabulary that may be helpful to know this week: Mootness: A case becomes moot if the conflict, or the law at issue, that was present at the start of litigation no longer exists. Judicial review doctrines: A judicial review test is what courts use to determine the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. There are three main levels in constitutional law: Strict scrutiny: For a law to survive a court’s review under strict scrutiny, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest Intermediate Scrutiny: A level down from strict scrutiny. The law must be substantially related to an important government interest. Rational basis review: The most deferential kind of review to the legislature. A law only has to be “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government interest. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

The Lincoln-Douglas debates — the historic series of seven debates which pitted Abraham Lincoln against Stephen Douglas as they vied for an Illinois Senate seat — began on August 21, 1858. In honor of that anniversary, this episode explores the clash of constitutional visions that characterized the debates between Lincoln and Douglas. Each man argued that he was the heir to the Founders’ legacy as enshrined by the Constitution, as they battled over slavery, popular sovereignty, the nature of rights, and the future of the union. Historians Sidney Blumenthal and Lucas Morel trace the constitutional visions and political rivalries of Lincoln and Douglas from the Kansas Nebraska Act to the Dred Scott decision, through the Civil War and the passage of the Constitution’s Reconstruction amendments. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist George F. Will returned to the National Constitution Center earlier this summer to discuss his new book, 'The Conservative Sensibility', a reflection on American conservatism. He sat down with National Constitution Center President Jeffrey Rosen for a wide-ranging conversation, sharing his thoughts on everything from natural rights and the Declaration of Independence through the Woodrow Wilson presidency and up to the Roberts Court. This episode originally aired on our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

In early August 1787, the Constitutional Convention’s Committee of Detail had just presented its preliminary draft of the Constitution to the rest of the delegates, and the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were beginning to parse some of the biggest foundational debates over what American government should look like. On this episode, we explore the questions: How did the unique constitutional visions of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists influence the drafting and ratification of the Constitution? And how should we interpret the Constitution in light of those debates today? Two leading scholars of constitutional history–Jack Rakove of Stanford University and Michael Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law – join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

President Trump can no longer block people on Twitter, following a ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The court held that because President Trump controls access to his @realdonaldtrump Twitter account and uses it for official government purposes, it is a public forum and, under the First Amendment, he cannot block people solely based on their viewpoints. Katie Fallow – one of the lead attorneys who represented the blocked Twitter users in the case – and David French, senior writer at National Review and former First Amendment litigator, debate the merits of the decision as well as its potential impact on future cases. They also explore a similar lawsuit recently filed against Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez by people claiming that she unconstitutionally blocked them on Twitter. And, they explain how the Second Circuit’s decision may impact government attempts to regulate social media. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

July 19 was the anniversary of the Seneca Falls Convention, the nation’s first women’s rights convention held in Seneca Falls, New York in 1848. This episode explores what happened at the historic convention, and how its legacy shaped the Constitution through the fight for women’s suffrage and the 19th Amendment and, later, landmark gender equality and reproductive rights cases, including Roe v. Wade. Gender law and women's rights scholars Erika Bachiochi of the Ethics & Public Policy Center and Tracy A. Thomas of the University of Akron School of Law join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

Justice John Paul Stevens—one of the nation’s oldest, longest-serving, and most-revered justices—passed away at the age of 99 on Tuesday. On this episode, we remember the man, the justice, and some of his most influential majority opinions and dissents. Two of Justice Stevens' former law clerks, Daniel Farber of Berkeley Law and Kate Shaw of Cardozo Law, share some favorite memories from their clerkships and commemorate Justice Stevens’ life and legacy in conversation with host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

July 11 is the anniversary of the 1804 duel in which Alexander Hamilton was fatally shot by Vice President Aaron Burr. On today’s episode, we pick up where the musical 'Hamilton' left off, and explore what happened to Vice President Burr in the aftermath of the duel. Why wasn’t Burr prosecuted until after he left office in 1807? What happened during his treason trial? And what relevance does his treason trial have for executive privilege and indictments of executive officers today? Two leading experts on the life and legacy of Aaron Burr—Nancy Isenberg and Kevin Walsh—join host Jeffrey Rosen in studio to discuss. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

As guest Ilya Shapiro put it, “If it’s June/July, we’re talkin’ SCOTUS.” We review the 2018-19 Supreme Court term and explore the nature and future of the new Roberts Court and the Chief’s newfound role as the swing justice. Topics include the partisan gerrymandering case, the differences that emerged between Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, and the future of the administrative state at the Court. Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute and Leah Litman of the University of Michigan Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

How do judges manage the personal challenges that their role often requires them to face, including unconscious bias, chronic stress, exposure to emotionally-charged circumstances, and public pressure and scrutiny? Current and former judges join in candid conversations about how they have managed these challenges and how they have approached their work. The first panel features moderator Michael Lewis, best-selling author of ‘Moneyball’ and ‘The Big Short’ and host of the podcast ‘Against the Rules’, in conversation with Justice Eva Guzman of the Supreme Court of Texas and Judge Charles Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The second panel is moderated by National Constitution Center President Jeff Rosen, who sits down with Executive Director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute and former U.S. District judge for the Northern District of California Jeremy Fogel, former Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court Carlos Moreno, and former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Deanell Reece Tacha. This program was presented in partnership with the Berkeley Judicial Institute, and this episode was originally published on our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

In honor of the anniversary of the ratification of the Constitution, June 21, and the upcoming Independence Day holiday on July 4 – today’s episode celebrates the influence of the Declaration of Independence on the Constitution and constitutional movements throughout history. We explore how the Declaration influenced the drafting of the Constitution itself; the abolitionist movement and Abraham Lincoln’s conception of a new birth of freedom after the Civil War; the Seneca Falls Convention and the campaign for women’s suffrage; the Progressive movement and the New Deal;,Dr. King and the Civil Rights revolution; through to the modern conservative originalist movement as well as progressivism today. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Danielle Allen – James Bryan Conant University Professor at Harvard and author of the book 'Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality' – and Ken Kersch – professor of political science at Boston College and author of 'Conservatives and the Constitution: Imagining Constitutional Restoration in the Heyday of American Liberalism'. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

Investigations into several leading big tech companies – including Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon – began on Tuesday as the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the role of such companies in the decline of the news industry. Prior to the hearings, host Jeffrey Rosen sat down with anti-trust law experts Mark Jamison of the American Enterprise Institute and Barry Lynn of the Open Markets Institute to ask: if these investigations lead to increased government regulation—what might the consequences be–for big tech, antitrust law, and for the Constitution? Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

What’s at stake, for the Constitution and the Supreme Court, in the 2020 election? If President Trump is re-elected and has the chance to appoint more Supreme Court justices, will the Court—and the country—fundamentally transform in a way not seen in generations? Professors and constitutional theorists Bruce Ackerman of Yale Law School and Randy Barnett of Georgetown University Law Center explore these questions and more in a wide-ranging discussion with host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

In part two of our discussion on abortion and the Constitution – David French of National Review and reproductive rights historian Mary Ziegler of Florida State College of Law join host Jeffrey Rosen. French and Ziegler break down the recent Supreme Court decision in Box v. Planned Parenthood, and the related legal debates surrounding “fetal dignity” and fetal rights. Exploring Justice Thomas’ concurrence in Box – French explains why he thinks Thomas is once again “throwing down the gauntlet” on the constitutional underpinnings of abortion rights. Next, these experts explore the history and resurgence of the “fetal personhood” movement, which asserts that fetuses have certain constitutional rights, including the right to life. French and Ziegler trace the movement’s history and analyze the strategies of states like Alabama and Georgia that have passed new laws attempting to protect the personhood of the fetus. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

The increasing number of new laws restricting abortion recently passed in numerous states around the country has some wondering: is Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion at risk? On this episode, we dive into landmark abortion precedent from Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade through Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, tracing the evolution of abortion jurisprudence under the Constitution. We also discuss the variety of new laws aimed at restricting access to abortion, and how current justices may rule on upcoming challenges to these laws—whether they will be upheld or struck down. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Kathryn Kolbert, a reproductive rights lawyer who argued on behalf of Planned Parenthood in the Casey case, and Clarke Forsythe, Senior Counsel at Americans United for Life. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

In light of the ongoing subpoena fights between Congress and the president and the House Judiciary Committee’s vote to hold Attorney General Barr in contempt for refusing to release the full Mueller report—this episode addresses the questions: Are we in a constitutional crisis? Or are these normal disputes occurring within our constitutional system? Have we been here before? Adam Liptak of The New York Times and Keith Whittington of Princeton University join host Jeffrey Rosen to answer these questions. They explore legal precedent set by previous disputes between Congress and the president, and historical analogs from the Civil War through the Nixon and Clinton administrations. They also give their take on what might happen next, including how the Supreme Court might rule on the question, if asked to do so. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

On May 7, host Jeffrey Rosen sat down with Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. to celebrate the opening of the National Constitution Center’s new permanent exhibit – ‘Civil War and Reconstruction: The Battle for Freedom and Equality.’ The exhibit is America’s first devoted to exploring how constitutional clashes over slavery set the stage for the Civil War, and how the nation transformed the Constitution after the war with the addition of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. Professor Gates discussed the new exhibit in addition to his PBS series about Reconstruction and two new books—"Stony the Road: Reconstruction, White Supremacy, and the Rise of Jim Crow" and a young adult book "Dark Sky Rising: Reconstruction and the Dawn of Jim Crow." Gates told the story of the advancements of Reconstruction and the Reconstruction Amendments, how those advancements were thwarted by Jim Crow laws like poll taxes, vagrancy laws, and the rise of hate groups, how the Civil Rights Movement fought against that backlash, and how we are still dealing with many of these issues and challenges today. If you enjoyed this constitutional conversation, please listen and subscribe to our companion podcast, Live at America's Town Hall, on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

Would adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census—which a lawsuit argues could dissuade people from responding to it—violate the Constitution’s enumeration clause, which requires that an “actual enumeration,” or a counting, of all Americans be performed every ten years? Does it matter how and why the question is added? Tom Wolf, Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, and John Eastman, Professor at Chapman University School of Law, join host Jeffrey Rosen to debate these questions. They discuss the pending Supreme Court case Department of Commerce v. New York, in which numerous states are suing Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross over his decision to add a citizenship question to the census. Wolf and Eastman consider how Ross’s motive for asking about citizenship on the census might affect how the justices rule on the case, and offer a helpful historical deep dive into the census itself and its inclusion of questions regarding citizenship. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

This episode sheds constitutional light on the Mueller report, focusing on the question of obstruction. We explore what Special Counsel Robert Mueller did and did not conclude about obstruction, explain the “corrupt intent” requirement for an obstruction charge, and grapple with the constitutional question as to whether the president can commit obstruction. Our guests also address the question: in the aftermath of the Mueller report, what should Congress do, and what are the lessons for future Attorneys General in similar situations? Mary McCord, senior litigator at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law Center, and Josh Blackman, associate professor of law at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

The indictment of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for conspiracy to hack into a classified government computer has reignited the debate over the question: what is the line between First Amendment-protected journalism and cyber-crime? On this episode, two leading experts on the intersection of the First Amendment and national security–Josh Geltzer of Georgetown University Law Center and Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project—join host Jeffrey Rosen to consider whether Assange’s indictment poses a threat to press freedom. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

How did a Vietnam War veteran’s request for disability benefits turn into one of the key Supreme Court cases of this term, one with major implications for the future of the administrative state? In this episode, administrative law experts Jonathan Adler of Case Western Law School and Ron Levin of Washington University in St. Louis School of Law explain the issues in this case, Kisor v. Wilkie. They join host Jeffrey Rosen to unpack Kisor and the administrative law deference doctrine, known as “Auer deference,” at the center of the dispute. They also break down other administrative law doctrines like “Chevron” and “Skidmore” deference and the non-delegation doctrine, explaining why they’re so important and at times, controversial. For more information and resources, visit constitutioncenter.org/podcasts. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

Last week, the Department of Justice surprised many by reversing its position on the Affordable Care Act—stating that it agrees with U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor that the ACA is unconstitutional, and won’t defend the law. Judge O’Connor’s December 2018 decision in Texas v. United States held that because the tax penalty that enforced the individual mandate had been reduced to $0 in Congress’s 2017 tax reforms, the rest of the ACA could not stand. The House of Representatives, along with several states, has intervened in the case to defend the ACA. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen to break down this case and the legal and constitutional arguments on both sides are ACA experts Abbe Gluck of Yale University and Tom Miller of the American Enterprise Institute. For more information and resources, visit constitutioncenter.org/podcasts. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

The Supreme Court heard two partisan gerrymandering cases—one from North Carolina and another from Maryland—this week: Lamone v. Benisek and Rucho v. Common Cause. Examining those cases and how the Court might rule, host Jeffrey Rosen sits down with Nick Stephanopoulos, one of the attorneys in the North Carolina case and a law professor at the University of Chicago, and Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation. These scholars debate whether or not the Supreme Court should be involved in examining partisan gerrymandering claims, and discuss what the Constitution says about gerrymandering. For more information and resources, visit constitutioncenter.org/podcasts. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

Now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has submitted the findings from his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, many are wondering, what will happen next? John Yoo of Berkeley Law School and Steve Vladeck of University of Texas Law School detail the possible scenarios and examine how the president and Congress might respond—focusing on potential executive privilege claims by President Trump. They also consider how President Trump might claim executive privilege in other contexts—like the House obstruction inquiry, a possible impeachment probe, attempts to prevent release of notes from his Helsinki meeting with Vladimir Putin, or in pending civil lawsuits against him. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. Note: This podcast was recorded on Wednesday, March 20th, before the news broke (on Friday) that the Mueller report was completed. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

Is it constitutional to execute an inmate who doesn’t remember the crime he committed? Or a person who might suffer excruciating pain during execution? These questions were raised by cases that came before the Supreme Court this term; joining host Jeffrey Rosen to debate them are John Bessler of the University of Baltimore School of Law and Richard Broughton of the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. These two scholars consider the death penalty’s past and present, find points of agreement between death penalty abolitionists and supporters, and predict what the new makeup of the Court will mean for the future of capital punishment. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

On March 2, President Trump announced his plans to sign an executive order “requiring colleges and universities to support free speech if they want federal research dollars.” Considering whether or not such an order would be constitutional, how it might be enforced, and how it could affect colleges and universities—two experts on campus free speech, Sigal Ben-Porath of the University of Pennsylvania and Adam Kissel, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education at the U.S. Department of Education, join host Jeffrey Rosen. They discuss the state of free speech on campuses across the country, and debate the best ways to tackle challenges to free speech, from speech zones to speech codes to protecting the rights of students and universities alike. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

Two leading voices from organizations on different sides of today's biggest debates over reproductive rights and abortion laws—Catherine Glenn Foster of Americans United for Life and Dr. Kelli Garcia of National Women's Law Center—join host Jeffrey Rosen to explore the key cases making their way up to the Supreme Court. Garcia and Foster also share their views on landmark abortion precedent like Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and the more recent case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, and predict how precedent might affect the outcomes of challenges to pending abortion laws at the federal level and in states like Louisiana, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

On this Presidents’ Day edition of We the People, political historian Julian Zelizer of Princeton and constitutional law professor Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen to debate the question: Is the presidency too powerful? Starting with the Founding Fathers’ vision for the presidency, they trace the evolution of presidential power through the Progressive Era presidencies of Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson, the move to restrain presidential power in the 1970s during LBJ’s and Richard Nixon’s presidencies, and the uptick in exercises of unilateral presidential power by modern presidents like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. Finally, they share their thoughts on presidential emergency powers and President Trump’s recent declaration of a national emergency to fund construction of the border wall. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

For We the People listeners enjoying wine this Valentine’s Day – we’re exploring the still-pending Supreme Court case Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair. This lawsuit was brought by Total Wine & More, a retail liquor giant, and the Ketchums, a family who moved to Tennessee hoping to open a liquor store. Both parties were denied retail liquor licenses because they hadn’t resided in Tennessee long enough. This episode examines a variety of technical but fascinating legal and constitutional questions at issue in the case, including the history of the 21st Amendment, the scope of the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities clause. Two advocates involved in the case, Michael Bindas of the Institute for Justice and John Neiman of the law firm Maynard Cooper, join host Jeffrey Rosen for a wide-ranging discussion about it. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) technically expired on June 30, 1982, the ratification deadline set by Congress, but a renewed push to resurrect and ratify this constitutional amendment gained momentum in 2017, with ratification by Illinois and Nevada. Now, ERA proponents are looking to secure ratification in a 38th state, which would round out the necessary three-fourths majority of the states required to pass an amendment. Two leading voices on either side of the debate over the ERA – Linda Coberly, chair of the national ERA Coalition Legal Task Force, and Inez Stepman, senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum – join host Jeffrey Rosen to detail the potential constitutional, legal, political, and cultural effects of adding the ERA as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

A dispute over the firing of a high school football coach who refused to stop praying on the field after games reached the Supreme Court this term; last week, the justices said they would not hear the case until its facts were better established by lower courts. Justice Alito concurred but, joined by three other conservative justices, indicated that he might be sympathetic to Kennedy’s claim that his actions were protected by the First Amendment, should his case eventually return to the Court. Justice Alito also suggested that he and some of his colleagues may be willing to overturn Employment Division v. Smith in order to bolster free exercise and religious exemption claims under the First Amendment. Religion law experts Stephanie Barclay of BYU Law School and Richard Katskee of Americans United for Separation of Church and State discuss Coach Kennedy’s case, whether Smith should be overturned, and how such changes might affect people like public school teachers and coaches. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at [email protected].

In honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, this episode celebrates King’s life and work, his hopeful vision for America, and his fight to pass landmark civil rights laws and realize the promises of the Constitution. Civil rights and constitutional law experts Michael Klarman of Harvard Law and Theodore M. Shaw of UNC Law join guest host Lana Ulrich to explore King’s constitutional legacy. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

The Supreme Court has not decided a major Second Amendment case since McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, but the Court may break this silence soon if it decides to grant certiorari in Mance v. Whitaker – a challenge to a law prohibiting interstate handgun sales. In this episode, Cato's Clark Neily, a leading Second Amendment litigator, and Adam Winkler, UCLA Law professor and noted Second Amendment scholar, join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss Mance and other pending cases and debate whether courts have treated the Second Amendment as a “second class right.” Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected]

President Trump and congressional Democrats remain at an impasse over a White House proposal to fund the construction of a southern border wall. The president has said that if Congress decides not to appropriate the funds, then he will “probably” declare a national emergency to circumvent Congress and build the wall. On this episode of We the People, we ask: what would happen if the president decided to declare a national emergency and divert military funds to build the wall? What statutes could he rely on? And would such an action be constitutional? Host Jeffrey Rosen and constitutional law experts Mark Tushnet of Harvard Law and Sai Prakash of University of Virginia Law explore the constitutional clauses, cases, and laws at issue in this hotly contested debate, including the Take Care, Appropriations, and Takings Clauses of the Constitution, the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case, and the National Emergencies Act of 1976 and related statutes. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

Jeffrey Rosen hosts a live conversation at the National Constitution Center with leading journalists—Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of The Atlantic; Michelle Goldberg, op-ed columnist for The New York Times; and Jonah Goldberg, senior editor of the National Review—discussing what James Madison might think of mainstream media today and the effects of social media on modern democracy and politics. The conversation explores everything from Twitter mobs and the threats posed by growing tribalism to Facebook’s proposed “Supreme Court” and the challenges presented by online content regulation. This event was presented in partnership with The Atlantic magazine and generously sponsored by the John S. Templeton Foundation as part of the NCC’s Madisonian Constitution for All Initiative. This episode originally aired on our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, where you can hear live constitutional conversations held here at the National Constitution Center and across America. Questions or comments? Email us at [email protected].

Pulitzer-prize winning historian Doris Kearns Goodwin sits down with host Jeffrey Rosen at the National Constitution Center to discuss her new book, Leadership in Turbulent Times–a culmination of five decades of acclaimed study in presidential history. Goodwin compares the leadership styles of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson, sharing fascinating anecdotes and lessons from these legendary presidents, and offering hopeful advice about how to apply these lessons to solve some of the toughest constitutional issues of today. This episode originally aired on our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, where you can hear live constitutional conversations held here at the National Constitution Center and across America. Questions or comments? Email us at [email protected].

This episode looks back at the biggest constitutional issues of 2018—from the recent ruling striking down Obamacare, to the Emoluments Clause lawsuits, the census case, the Mueller investigation, and more. Guests Emily Bazelon and Josh Blackman join host Jeffrey Rosen to give updates about where these constitutional questions stand and forecast where they’re headed next year. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].

President Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison after pleading guilty to several crimes, including illegally making hush money payments to two women alleging affairs with then-candidate Trump. On this episode, campaign finance law experts Rick Hasen, a law professor at UC Irvine and co-editor of Election Law Journal, and Brad Smith, former chair of the FEC and founder of the Institute for Free Speech, debate the campaign finance laws at issue, explore precedents like the John Edwards case, and consider possible legal liability for President Trump. They also dive into other current election and campaign finance law issues, including the case involving Donald Trump Jr. Jeffrey Rosen hosts.

This episode examines the constitutionality of the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act – bipartisan legislation that, if passed, would impose regulations on firing a Special Counsel (such as Robert Mueller). Although the bill is stalled for now, legal thinkers continue to offer a range of views on its constitutionality. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen to explore this debate are Josh Geltzer of Georgetown, arguing that the bill is not constitutional, and Eric Posner of University of Chicago, arguing that it is. BONUS: Hear Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) – one of the co-sponsors of the act – discuss it with Jeffrey Rosen on a special bonus episode, recorded the same day that Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) voted to stall the bill on the Senate floor.