A tragedy in Idaho riveted the nation, as a dragnet, a manhunt, a search of garbage, a DNA test, a bail hearing, an extradition, and much more surrounded the eventual arrest and the onset of legal process in the case. Fortunately, Professor Amar has written on all these subjects, and we travel down these various roads, explaining and navigating their constitutional complexities.
We’re back early this week, as promised in our last episode, to help you take in the spectacle underway on the floor of the House of Representatives. We give you the historical background, the constitutional framework, and we look at some of the tactical and political machinations playing out in as close to real time as podcasts allow. We also peek at the still-simmering Santos situation, which takes us back into the law classroom for a look at the classic case of Powell v. McCormack and how it ...
Two year anniversaries in Washington mean a new Congress, but this year January also brings the echoes and the legacy of January 6. These intertwine most intimately, as the end of the old Congress necessitated the windup of the January 6 Commission, a report, some referrals, and all sorts of constitutional questions. Meanwhile, it also brings a new Speaker election and why should anything be simple in Washington these days? If that wasn’t spicy enough, the usually routine seating of the new Hous...
The third season of Amarica’s Constitution begins with a special guest, as the star of the podcast “Strict Scrutiny,” Professor Kate Shaw, spends an hour with us. Like Andy and Akhil, she attended the oral arguments in Moore v. Harper - as she had attended many arguments when she clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens. Her insights on clerking for the Court are particularly timely, since Justice Stevens wrote the dissent in Bush v. Gore, which listeners know has been enjoying a lamentable rehabil...
The oral argument in Moore v. Harper lasted approximately three hours. In our last podcast, we began an analysis by tracing some of the advocates’ arguments and justices’ responses. This time, we go to the key questions that lay at the basis of all the back and forth. We answer them, but more than that, we look at their underpinnings and construct a framework in which, we believe, all elements of the case fit together. For your trouble, audience, you will receive a master class in the law of “Fe...
After a year of lead-up, Moore vs. Harper has landed at the Supreme Court for oral argument. Akhil and Andy travel to Washington and attend the three hours of argument in the Chamber. We play clips and analyze them - the words, the logic, the briefs, the lawyers, the justices, the clerks, the legal world, as America holds its collective breath while democracy itself hangs in the balance. This is the place for the most nuanced and informed analysis of the positions. We also post relevant document...
Amarica’s Constitution is invited to Yale Law School by the YLS chapter of the Federalist Society for a live podcast, and Yale cooperates by choosing this day to withdraw from the US News rankings of Law Schools. Naturally, we take that on, and it is the law students themselves that serve as our guests for a lively discussion. Beyond this issue, however, we take a look inside this iconic Law School, and we see what it’s like for the FedSoc members - perhaps outside of YLS’ ideological mainstream...
It’s Part 2 of our discussion of the Supreme Court’s affirmative action cases, with Harvard and the University of North Carolina defending their procedures We play clips from the oral arguments, with every justice chiming in along with the advocates, and our analysis follows. This time we address themes that recurred during the arguments - how does one determine an endpoint for racial preferences in admissions? How can we measure or pinpoint the educational value of diversity? What is the approp...
It’s Amarica’s Constitution’s 100th episode, and anniversary celebrations are in the air! We bring back Professor Steve Calabresi, who returns from the Federalist Society’s Lawyers Convention - which just celebrated its own 40th anniversary. The occasion was marked by a memorable Rosenkranz Debate, wherein Akhil took on Professor John Yoo on - what else? - the merits and demerits of ISL theory, and the forthcoming case of Moore v. Harper. Steve Calabresi was present at the debate, and he offers ...
Affirmative action is before the Supreme Court, and two cases - one involving Harvard, and one implicating the University of North Carolina - were recently argued before the Court. We have pulled out clips from the more than six hours of argument, culled the main arguments, and we present them to you. Listen to the voices of the justices and the advocates, and hear Akhil’s commentary and analysis. This is the first of a planned two-podcast series.
The recent brief in the ISL case, Moore v. Harper, was notable in part because it was co-authored not only by our own Professor Amar and his brother, Dean Vik Amar, both well-known Democrats, but also by one of America’s best-known conservatives, Professor Steven Calabresi. Steve is a co-founder and national chair of the Federalist Society, and importantly, this is not the first time he has crossed the aisle in matters of national import. He joins our podcast and engages with his close friend, A...
It’s a week since the amicus curiae brief in the case of Moore v. Harper - the ISL case - was filed by Professor Amar, Dean Vik Amar, and Professor Steven Calabresi, and the reaction has been pouring in. What arguments have been made to attempt to refute the brief? The answer may surprise you. Meanwhile, we take you through the remainder of the brief, explaining and expounding, providing backstory, and challenging you to reason along with us. We suggest that you print out the brief to make it ea...
Professor Amar and colleagues have weighed in (heavily) on the ISL danger, as they filed a brief with the Supreme Court in the case of Moore v. Harper. The brief is garnering wide attention with its powerful argument, as well as an innovative format. We review the background to the case and the brief, and then take you through the argument point by point. Law and history come together to make the case in this most consequential matter. Judging from the response, the country is watching....
Amarica’s Constitution is “On the Road” in Alabama for the dedication of the Hugo Black Memorial and Park. Akhil is the keynote speaker and we record this live podcast at the Symposium that preceded Dedication Day. For the occasion, we look at the great originalist and see that his moment is now - not only in Alabama, but at the Supreme Court, where case after case tracks his issues, his reasoning, and his method. Indeed, Black’s greatest cases, including Adamson, Everson, Engel, and Gideon, fin...
Our judicial Zelig, Felix Frankfurter, continues to grab our spotlight as his biographer, Brad Snyder, joins us again - this time, as a sitting Justice. The many landmark cases that came Frankfurter’s way on the Supreme Court allow us to contrast his method of jurisprudence - be it “Thayerism,” “judicial restraint,” or something else - with originalism. This means that Hugo Black, Frankfurter’s colleague on the Court (it’s complicated), takes the stage as well, as we look at case after case and ...
Do you know who was Franklin Roosevelt's most trusted advisor? Do you know who practically invented the law clerk infrastructure and controlled the clerk assignments to 60% of the justices at once? Do you know who was a key early reporter for The New Republic? Do you know who was the first Jewish professor at the Harvard Law School? Who was the sharpest critic of the Supreme Court only to become a Justice of that Court? Who went to Versailles and advised both Weizmann and T.E. Lawrence? Who foug...
It’s almost the First Monday in October, so the Supreme Court term is upon us. Those who follow the Constitution may turn to Amarica’s Constitution for their Constitution-listening, and after meeting Amy Howe, founder of SCOTUS Blog, they will turn to that amazing resource for their Court-watching. So, join us. Meet today’s special guest, Amy Howe; meet SCOTUS Blog; meet the new term; and see why Professor Amar and colleagues regard her as a rock of integrity, completeness, and civic virtue....
Happy Constitution Week! Our Fifth Amendment journey takes us in a somewhat unexpected direction, as we pit Abraham Lincoln against the Supreme Court on the Fifth as well as on several other areas of contested constitutional law. Then it’s back to the near future as we look at how today’s Fifth confusion could be tomorrow’s clarity - and we look at the Court to see if there are five votes for a new Fifth. Then we top it all off with an exciting - very exciting - announcement.
The controversy over a possible appointment of a special master in the. Mar-a-Lago search matter is a timely trigger for our discussion, especially in light of our recent 4th amendment episodes. Meanwhile we continue a rethinking of the fifth, and of course Professor Amar has a theory that unites everything. There’s also the Queen”s death, which is also fascinatingly relevant, and somehow Lincoln finds his way in, as he usually does.
Our last episode explored how the self-incrimination protection came about, and how much of safeguards now lie outside the fifth amendment. Given that, what is left? Surprise - Professor Amar has a theory, and once again, it can change everything. Well, almost everything - Donald Trump is still up to his old tricks. Why does he say his name, and nothing else? Also, what’s going on back in Florida, and what does it mean for Trump’s hapless attorneys? There will be a lot to explain to your friends...
The Trump investigations are everywhere. This week we move from Mar-A-Lago to New York, where the Attorney General had some questions for the ex-president. He took the Fifth, repeatedly if unsurprisingly. We look at it, but to do so we look at the Fifth Amendment itself, its roots going back millennia, and its evolution as American law. So you think you know the Fifth? We beg to differ. Prepare for an entirely new way to think about this venerable protection, as Professor Amar offers a framework...
Following Akhil’s MSNBC appearance on “Velshi,” we elaborate on how a Republic is a Democracy. Does it matter - oh yes, and we explain why. Then we go back to the future - to the biggest Supreme Court case of the 18th century, with rock star Alexander Hamilton arguing, and the echoes resonate today. So why haven’t you heard of this case? Well, now you will, and follow a step-by-step explanation you won’t find anywhere else.
***CLE available*** Ex-President Trump’s residence - or is it his club? - at Mar-A-Lago was searched, and US government papers seized, pursuant to a search warrant which has since been made public. Warrants, papers, searches, seizures - all words found in the Fourth Amendment. We take the opportunity to upend what every American thinks they understand: that searches require warrants, that probable cause is a must, that failure to heed these dictates means the fruits of the search will be suppres...
The recent Supreme Court term gave rise to a virtual anointment of originalism, as the Court in case after case declared originalism the approach and method that determined the result. Professor Amar has spent a career on the study, exposition, and refinement of originalism, and that expertise is employed here to respond to these developments. We begin a look at the great cases and controversies of American history, and through them, we define an originalism that has a clear method, recognizes i...
Events continue to unfold, causing us to look back, forward, inward, and outward. A new bill is introduced which takes us back 20 years and ahead 18 years. Professor Amar conducts an unprecedented interview - maybe we shouldn’t use that term - and you are there. A moot court from 23 years ago reappears in the present. And lessons from nearly 250 years ago will unfold in the next year - and affect us forever. Professor Amar unwraps this scroll.
Our tour through the late-term Supreme Court cases now runs through the football field where Coach Kennedy sits praying on the 50 yard line. Professor Amar calls the play - a run through the string of cases that took the Court to this point by way of Abington and progeny. We wind up in this fact-specific case with turns and twists, and detours through the pledge of allegiance and an old Missouri case along the way. It’s a master law school class in case analysis, and we aren’t so sure that the m...
***CLE Available*** Our review of the major cases decided at or near the end of the recent Supreme Court term continues with Carson v. Makin, The case immediately brings to mind the often-invoked metaphor of the “wall of separation” between church and state. Professor Amar takes us back to the Founding and the origin of this meme, and in so doing, gives us an originalist analysis of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. By now our listeners should know the next step...
We continue our look at the big cases that rocked the end of the Supreme Court term. Turning to the Bruen gun case, we see a long opinion and two short concurrences. An ambitious, contentious opinion by Justice Thomas riled many, especially in the wake of the continuing plague of shootings around America. We draw particular attention, however, to concurrences that may be the real news here. And if this case indeed has great impact, is it in its short-term policy implications, or its long-term co...
The nation continues to be abuzz over the Supreme Court’s recent decisions that rounded out the term, particularly in the Dobbs case. We take a careful look at the dissent in this case; in particular, at the various claims that it makes regarding the majority opinion and its overall approach to evaluating Roe and Casey. We reflect on the significance of the opinion and its methodology, particularly as we look to analyze the Bruen and Carson cases in forthcoming episodes, and as a big one – the I...
The Supreme Court term came to a roaring end, and we couldn’t wait a week - so here we are with an extra episode for you. At least three huge decisions came down, and we begin to assess them. The newspapers are ablaze with outrage and shock - but are our listeners equally shocked? We look at the opinions through the lens of our body of work - particularly appropriate now since this marks the 1 and a half year mark of Amarica’s Constitution. In addition to the now-final Dobbs opinion, we look at ...
