Professor Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University and one of the nation's leading authorities on the Constitution, offers weekly in-depth discussions on the most urgent and fascinating constitutional issues of our day. He is joined by co-host Andy Lipka and guests drawn from other top experts including Bob Woodward, Nina Totenberg, Neal Katyal, Lawrence Lessig, Michael Gerhardt, and many more.
Don't just listen to podcasts. Learn from them with transcripts, summaries, and chapters for every episode. Skim, search, and bookmark insights. Learn more
We’re a bit late this week, because following our recent conversation with Justice Breyer, we had the opportunity to speak at length with Judge William Pryor, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, former Alabama Attorney General, and an important member of the Judicial Conference the “national policymaking body for the federal courts.” Judge Pryor has had a colorful career, having effectively prosecuted another judge for misconduct, had a contentious confirmatio...
President Trump has been firing various Federal officials, many of whom serve pursuant to statutes that claim to provide protection against firing without cause. One of the most prominent, Hampton Dellinger, who served as Special Counsel of the United States, took the President to Court, winning at the Federal District Court before losing on appeal. Why did he sue? Why did he drop his case? What are the implications for the other firings being contested, and what does it mean for the office of t...
Akhil Reed Amar and Andy Lipka delve into Marbury v. Madison, moving beyond judicial review to uncover its significance in administrative law, presidential transitions, and the unitary executive. They discuss the challenges of the Adams-Jefferson transition, the "midnight judges," and John Marshall's strategic handling of undelivered commissions. The episode draws parallels to contemporary issues like the Hampton Dellinger case and explores the historical fragility of the judiciary, early impeachment threats, and the complexities of presidential power, including an analysis of John Adams' presidency and the Sedition Act.
This episode delves into the ongoing debate surrounding the unitary executive theory, focusing on historical precedents like the “sinking fund” from the Washington administration. Guests Steven Calabresi and Akhil Amar present opposing originalist arguments regarding presidential removal power and the constitutionality of independent agencies. The discussion explores the implications of historical practice, modern case law, and the dynamic tension between the executive and legislative branches.
We are joined by Professor Steven Calabresi, the co-founder and co-president of the Federalist Society, for three big topics. First, he offers insights for this fraught moment in our history with a new book on a key figure from an earlier era. Second, he finds himself on the other side from our current president on an important constitutional issue of the day. And third, he and Professor Amar explore aspects of unitary executive theory, where they find themselves diverging on key cases that have...
A Federal District Court has temporarily halted an executive order from President Trump that purports to halt wide swaths of federal spending. This impoundment of funds duly appropriated by Congress may violate the Constitution as well as federal statutes. We bring an expert on the relationship between Congress and the Presidency, Professor Josh Chafetz, and he takes us back to 17th century and Britain, through the American founding, into the early republic, and indeed into the presidency of Ric...
Funds are impounded. Board members are summarily dismissed. Funds appropriated by Congress are impounded. Inspectors General are removed without notice or cause. And arguments are still being made to undermine birthright citizenship. Are all these actions unconstitutional? It turns out that it appears that many may well be, but others that may seem nearly identical may if fact be legal, if of questionable wisdom or propriety. We explain where the constitutional lines are for many of these matter...
In the aftermath of a scathing ruling by the Federal District Court and its issuance of an order blocking President Trump’s executive order which attempted to abridge birthright citizenship, one might think the matter closed. But appeals await, no doubt. Last podcast we offered Professor Amar’s arguments in support of his interpretation - and the interpretation of most legal experts - of the matter, but obviously there were arguments made in opposition. We address these arguments, starting with ...
The Trump Administration takes office, and the Constitution is immediately in the crosshairs. An executive order targeting birthright citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment is issued on the first day, with an even more extreme version of its renouncement than had previously been contemplated. The pushback begins in a Washington courtroom, and a Federal District Judge shoots it down with a nationwide injunction. But surely the legal battle continues; we are here to arm you with Professor Amar’s...
The last days of the Biden administration have come and gone, and with them, some controversy in the form of a presidential statement on ERA ratification, and some more controversial pardons. Then came the inauguration of President Trump, and an inaugural speech some found dark and atypical, if unsurprising. The many events that followed will be fodder for future podcasts, but here we look at Presidents attempting to insert themselves in various ways that seem outside the norm, including a role ...
As Inauguration Day approaches, anxiety and uncertainty, even dread, mixes with the optimism of some in the American polity. Many express a mix of apathy, weariness, or hopelessness, with a sentiment akin to “wake me in four years.” What would they find when awakened? We begin to take a look ahead, in part by looking behind and evaluating how our own earlier prognostications have turned out. We start with abortion and the Dobbs case, as it loomed large in recent years and clearly continues to re...
With rumblings around a possible Constitutional Convention around, we have noted some similarities with those issues that surrounded the recent ERA discussions. Now we dive deeper. Can a convention be limited to one possible amendment or some small group of amendments, or is a “runaway convention” a real possibility? Can a state (this means you, California) rescind its previous vote calling for a convention? Suppose there were a convention; would it be like the Philadelphia convention? Would Cal...
Amarica’s Constitution proudly celebrates four years of ambitious inquiry with a long-promised and very honored guest, former Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Breyer placed no restrictions on our questioning, and we engaged him in a frank discussion on a variety of topics related to his time on the Court, and then we switched to his current book: Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, not Textualism. As you can imagine, Professor Amar has some opin...
As the Biden Administration winds down, pressure is being applied to the President, asking him to order the National Archivist to certify the Equal Rights Amendment as part of the Constitution. Senator Gillebrand has submitted a letter, co-signed by more than 40 Senators, making arguments that harken back to the resolution that accompanied the 1972 amendment, when Congress purported to place a time limit on the amendment’s ratification. Also, some state legislatures withdrew their ratification a...
In the wake of President Biden’s pardon of his son, and with the shadow of President-elect Trump’s possible pardons of the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol and attempted to prevent Congress from certifying Biden’s election, are there constitutional issues? The Constitution itself seems direct on the subject, but it turns out there is a lot to discuss. Scope, timing, subject, language, all are questionable. Would either or both of these be impeachable acts? What would happen to the pardon...
Could Republicans in the House conspire with a 2025 President Trump to manufacture a forced Senate recess in an effort to bypass the advise and consent appointments process? The much-anticipated article in The Atlantic has been published, to widespread approval. We proudly present all three co-authors of this article in a wide-ranging, nuanced, fascinating discussion, as Professors Josh Chafetz, Tom Schmidt, and of course Akhil Amar reunite to take us from Restoration England to the chambers of ...
The presidential transition is always a bit fraught, as we have discussed in past episodes, but this one seems to be boundary-pushing, even for Trump. He intends to fire the FBI director, whom he appointed, (can he do that? - we explain) and replace him with a singularly problematic bomb thrower. He had pardoned a family criminal, and now appoints him to be ambassador to France. He prizes loyalty to him above all, it seems, but is there a place for competence? And we have more on the withdrawal ...
Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump was ineligible for the Presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, following a trial, a verdict, and appeals. The January 6th commission had numerous findings of fact that seemed damning to the former President. The Special Counsel brought charges against him related to the fateful day. But the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Colorado; the Justice Department is dropping their case; the January 6th commission has disbanded. Meanwhile ...
President-elect Trump has begun to announce his plans for his cabinet and other top appointments for January. Unconventional is a kind word for some of them. And suddenly, in a House where Republicans have a razor-thin majority, there is a resignation - months before it would be required. Why? There are conspiracy theorists for health care positions; admirers of Putin for intelligence posts; newscasters who have never managed anything for one of the largest organizations in the world. The Consti...
The election is behind us, and foreboding fills the air. We are live at the Yale Club of New York City for a live recording, addressing some of the many constitutional matters that are or soon may be front of mind as the seemingly inevitable challenges to norms, rules, and laws await. Matters as wide-ranging as the implications of undivided government; the significance of state constitutional amendments on abortion; Justice Sotomayor’s future; recess appointments - and much more are on our plate...
We are here early this week - for Election Day! And we bring you a panel that looks at elections, and Presidents, from American history, putting this year’s choice in perspective. Gordon Wood, the greatest historian of the early Republic; Steven Smith, an expert on political institutions, on The Federalist, on Lincoln; Paul Grimstad, authority on great American thinkers and writers like Emerson and Thoreau; and of course, Professor Amar, weigh in on all sorts of questions and aspects of this yea...
It's 200 episodes for Amarica's Constitution, and we mark the occasion by bringing you a key expert for an in-depth exploration of a breaking development. Ruth Marcus, long-time Washington Post columnist, editor, Pulitzer Prize nominee, and insider, joins us to explore the inexplicable: the last-minute decision by the Post and its owner, billionaire Jeff Bezos, to withhold what would have been an endorsement for Vice President Harris for election to the Presidency. What goes on in an editorial b...
We are approaching our 200th episode and completing our 4th year of “Amarica’s Constitution,” and it seems appropriate to take stock. By coincidence, the Yale Law School is celebrating its own anniversary, and these things come together as Akhil is part of a big event and presents a “big idea” that sounds like a strange saying: “the Constitution is a thing.” We explain, elaborate, and celebrate a little bit. We look back, and we look ahead to some real excitement over the next few months (beside...
In Trump v. United States , we have said that the Court went far astray from the Constitution and from its duty, endangering the nation in the short and long terms. Many have shared this opinion and these fears, and reaction has been profound. In the New York Times, two law professors take up the pen and offer a number of suggestions that purport to restrain and direct the Court towards Congress’ will, assuming that Congress agrees with the authors, that is. Senator Schumer in a recent bill took...
The Supreme Court has, through its recent follies, managed to bring the status of ex-presidents into the spotlight. How appropriate, then, that perhaps America’s greatest ex-president reaches a milestone this past week: Happy Birthday, President Carter. The ex-presidents, it turns out, have told a myriad of stories through the centuries. America largely avoided succession crises until recently, but as far back as Alexander Hamilton, the potential for mischief was seen and feared. Professor Amar,...
Donald Trump continues to spout inflammatory rhetoric; he has compounded his talk of being “a dictator on day one” with an intention to conduct a “purge” with extreme violence allowed, again allegedly for one day. All this makes one expect that he will not back off his first-term tendency to take an authoritarian posture regarding the Justice Department. The New York Times ran an article presenting new and thorough look at Trump and the Dept in his prior term, and we analyze. We also take more o...
Nebraska is no flyover state; its unusual electoral vote structure puts Omaha’s one electoral vote up for grabs - both as a contest for votes, and a legislative battle to possibly restructure Nebraska’s election law. We tell an originalist story form the early Republic that surprisingly echoes some of the issues in today’s situation. Meanwhile, other types of blue dots, and how the right to travel and to reside where one wishes can play a role in the election. We also try to proactively refute t...
The New York Times looks at the Constitution as an allegedly anti-democratic, divisive, secession-promoting document. They bring authority to bolster their case in the person of the Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky. We take a close look at this article and the arguments it employs. This takes us to the center of the Constitution’s purposes, of course to questions of originalism, as well as an analysis of what sort of democracy the Constitution protects, and what sort it m...
It’s time for your questions, and having a great audience means there are so many fascinating directions to go. A Canadian listener tells of how a non-originalist purpose-oriented approach to constitutional law works for them - why not in the US? We go in a different direction when we consider the wisdom of increasing the size of the House of Representatives. Still another asks about whether the presidential immunity decision has undermined some fundamental aspects of criminal law, not to mentio...
RFK Jr. has withdrawn from the race and endorsed Trump. This meeting of an estranged Kennedy and an indicted Trump, is laced not only with strangeness but also constitutional themes, as we explore. Meanwhile, backlash after the Trump immunity opinion continues, and Senate Majority Leader Schumer has introduced legislation in response. The great Washington Post columnist, Ruth Marcus, returns to our podcast to comment on this legislation and the many serious implications it would have if adopted,...
