Amarica's Constitution

Trump says he will no longer take advice from the Federalist Society, and Leonard Leo in particular, for judicial nominations.  The criteria he will use instead appear to be cause for great concern, and we discuss this. Meanwhile, the Senate is poised to bypass the filibuster for more than judicial nominations, which calls for an analysis that we provide.  And the publication this week of Charles Sumner: Conscience of a Nation brings its author, Zaakir Tameez, onto our podcast to speak to Sumner's enduring relevance.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

This past week, the Supreme Court issued stays of injunctions which lower courts had issued, those injunctions blocking the firings of officials on statutorily independent agencies.  In doing so, the Court may have pointed to an imminent overruling of Humphrey's Executor, possibly removing existing limitations on the unitary executive theory.  At the same time, the Court moved to protect the Federal Reserve, or at least markets' perception of the independence of that crucial Board.  Several justices reacted strongly, led by Justice Kagan, who found fault not only in the ruling regarding the injunction, but in the behavior of the President in bringing this case on in the first place.  We take a deeper look at these controversies.  Meanwhile, the Court deadlocked in a religious freedom case, and surprisingly, we see a connection between these two events.  And some other tidbits, as well.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The Trump executive order on birthright citizenship has been banging around the lower federal courts for months now, with court after court opining on its unconstitutionality and issuing injunctions against it that span the nation.  The Supreme Court took cert on the question of whether such national injunctions are appropriate, and if not, how the relief that appears indicated can be offered.  Along the way questions of the merits poked their way through, with interesting results.  In this episode you will hear from the justices and the attorneys, and you will hear Professor Amar doing his Howard Cosell halftime highlights imitation, opining on their arguments, responses, and questions, and offering a holistic approach to the case as well as some new theories on how to think about citizenship in this context.  A “clip episode” as only Amarica's Constitution does it.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

With the passing of Justice David Souter, the legal establishment has lost one of its most honored members.  In this and our next episode, we pay tribute to the man and his work with the help of an amazing roster of his former clerks, friends, and colleagues.  We begin with Judge Kevin Newsom from the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the Dean of the Yale Law School, Heather Gerken, who share their experience working closely with the Justice on the Supreme Court, as well as his role in their lives that did and does inspire them.  Meanwhile, Akhil, who considered the Justice a good friend and role model, offers an in-depth look at various aspects of the Justice, including why a Justice who disagreed with Akhil on method and, in many cases, substance, nevertheless is regarded by him as one of the great Justices in American history.  In our next episode we will have more guests whom we will reveal in the discussion during this episode.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Law firms are threatened with draconian penalties, with scarcely disguised vengeful and politically destructive motive.  Universities are dragged on the carpet, with demands that they forfeit their academic freedom, choice in hiring, and internal mission priorities.  What's going on here?  What is likely to happen in Court?  Are the firms and universities defensible on constitutional grounds as well as because of procedural and statutory reasons?  We bring on Vik Amar, former Dean at the Law School at University of Illinois, Urbana, and author of recent articles on both these crises.  And while we are at it, we take a look at the forthcoming Supreme Court oral arguments in the birthright citizenship case, which superficially is about nationwide injunctions.  Is that really what it's about, and in any case, is there more than that there?  Three of our current crises in one sweeping conversation.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Deportations, the administration's preferred tactic du jour, appear to many as extreme, inadvisable, and often cruel.  Are they unconstitutional?  What framework can we use to determine the rights of citizens versus aliens, even if legal, even if permanent resident?  What kind of process is “due” for the various groups? Where can we locate the origins in our history, and how do they interact with some of the great themes of the Constitution, including the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, and the rights of “persons” as expressed in the 14th Amendment? The case of Mahmoud Khalil offers a set of facts that shed light on these questions, as do other deportations; we start with this one.  

Markets are crashing; freedom seems under siege; the international order is threatened.  One man's whim seems to be decisive.  Where are the guardrails of our republic?  We see some glimmers through the darkness, as some of the feedback mechanisms start to kick in.  The constitutional order may be slow but it may not be completely in ruins.  However, there is a threat, and we identify it in not one, but the sum of the actions the president has pursued.  Many of these are unconstitutional; others may well be.  The first step in protecting the republic from these threats is to identify them.  We take that on and at least make a start; the task, in the end, however, will be up to the American people, as Project 2025 may fall to Project 2026.

President Trump likes being president.  He doesn't like the 22nd amendment so much, and has spoken, with increasing seriousness, of his conviction that he could remain president beyond the end of his second term.  Various pundits have weighed in, some dismissively, others with grave declarations that Trump can accomplish this through constitutional contortions of one sort of another.  Professor Amar, it turns out, has thought and written about this decades ago.  We will take you through all the history; all the constitutional provisions - beyond the 22nd amendment alone; all the supposed workarounds,; and present you with a definitive understanding of the matter.  Look to our episode number - 222 - for a preview of where we think it will come out.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

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 confirmation hearing, clerked for a titan among judges in Judge Wisdom, and served at the highest level short of the Supreme Court for many years.  We discuss a wide range of matters from judicial safety, to the importance of following Court orders, to enforcing civil rights laws, and much more.  The discussion took place in two parts;  with an audience of undergraduates, and then with an audience of Yale Law School students, many from the Federalist Society chapter at Yale; this produced a great variety of topics. We also have timely information on a new EverScholar program where registration is about to open; be among the first to know about this!  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

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 the Special Counsel itself? The Special Counsel is a haven for whistleblowers; does that, along with the statutes' clear intent, offer him any protection? The Special Counsel also enforces the Hatch Act; we explain many of the ins and outs of that statute and how the history of the civil service is integral to understanding it.  Finally, Hampton Dellinger comes from a most distinguished family, and there are some stories to tell on that score.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Our recent episodes on constitutional questions such as the unitary executive have looked at founding history, but less so the cases of the founding period.  In this episode we take a look at one of the most famous cases of all, Marbury v. Madison.  But this isn't primarily a look at judicial review, but instead Marbury reveals itself, in Professor Amar's hands, as a key administrative law case, with surprising relevance for, among other things, questions of presidential transition and unitary executive theory.  How did a change of party in the White House lead to tension with an unpredictable, even rash, president?  The answers will surprise you, and may be further explored in briefs in the Supreme Court case that is sure to come before long.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

President Trump continues to wield the ax in a manner consistent with Unitary Executive theory.  The question is, is it also consistent with the Constitution, and with the various statutes on the books that are at odds with that theory?  Professor Calabresi returns for more discussion of this crucial question; in this episode, Akhil is pressing a number of challenges to the theory.  Among these is an important example from the early Republic, which indeed followed soon after the Decision of 1789, which is so heavily relied upon by proponents of the unitary executive.  History, text, structure  - all come together in a lively debate.

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 profound implications for many of the more controversial actions of the new administration.  All in all, it adds up to something you don't see that often these days: a prominent conservative and a scholar often on the side of the Democrats having civil discussion and finding common ground as well as principled disagreement.  Professor Calabresi speaks for himself in this podcast, and not on behalf of the Federalist Society.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges at podcast.njsba.com.

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 Richard Nixon to give a full historical and originalist background.  But there's more, with modern statutes, Supreme Court cases, structural analysis - in short, everything.  And for good measure, we dive a little deeper into some statements by Vice President Vance which seem to suggest that he thinks the President is not bound by the Supreme Court's decisions and orders.  Professor Amar appeared on CNN to discuss this, and now he expands on those comments.  Lots of depth in this episode, and as usual, CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges by visiting podcast.njsba.com.

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 matters, or in some tricky cases we show how one goes about looking for those lines.  And while we are at it, we believe we have dug the last shovels worth in the grave of the attempt to distort, pervert, or reduce birthright citizenship.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges at podcast.njsba.com.

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 those made in Trump's brief in the case, and going beyond them as well.  In doing so, we revisit a familiar name: Justice Joseph Story, who Trump's lawyers attempt to enlist in support of their position, with arguments that perhaps don't tell the whole story.

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 arguments, articulated over many years and well in advance of this crisis.  Text, history, structure, precedent, and more are placed in the service of the Constitution and one of its most fundamental and consequential sentences.  You should be in a position to argue this case before the Supreme Court after listening to this episode.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com

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 in constitutional amendments.  And the norm-buster Trump sounded several themes in the inaugural that we highlight.  The speech and what followed were an avalanche of controversy, and perhaps that's the idea, but we make a start.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

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 reverberate and feeds resentment on one side, activism on the other.  What lies ahead for the law, the Court, and the people?  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges at podcast.njsba.com.

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 California be no more powerful than Wyoming in such a meeting?  In fact, there are even more terrifying implications and scenarios - and we will review them for you.  Meanwhile, we have a new Speaker of the House - for now - and the January 6th certification did take place without incident.  But many believe the Speaker's days may be numbered, and so our review of the history behind Speaker selections in the past remains relevant - and fascinating.  That John Quincy Adams keeps showing up in the strangest places - like the presiding officer's chair when he arguably had no business there.  What's up with that? 

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 opinions on the matter as well.  The discussion ranged far, from the French essayist Montaigne to 20th century American pragmatists, as Justice Breyer's broad range is displayed in a way few have seen.  We take our time, and the Justice generously indulged, for an in-depth look at the thinking that helped shaped the bench for decades. This podcast will be available on YouTube video as well as the usual audio feeds found here; we will provide  information on accessing the video in subsequent podcast episodes, as well as on our Instagram feed - check it out.  CLE credit is available through podcast.njsba.com.

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 after initially approving it, and the Senators are crying foul on this.  We take a deep dive into the arguments put forth by the amendment's implementation advocates, the history of other amendments that faced analogous issues, including the great 14th amendment, and Professor Amar's own scholarship on the matters.  Meanwhile, our 4th anniversary is approaching, and we preview the gala event - with Justice Breyer getting behind the microphone with us before you know it!  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

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 in that case?  Are there immunity issues?  Where does the pardon power come from, and how has it been used in the past?  What is the originalism of pardon law?  Lots to talk about, however you feel about the acts themselves politically.  And - some big coming attractions!  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

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 Supreme Court where Professor Schmidt clerked for Justice Breyer, the author of the principal case on recess appointments, NLRB v. Noel Canning, in 2014.  We hear how that case has lessons, and yet is distinguished, from the scenario here, and what might happen if the contemplated maneuvers, deemed grossly unconstitutional by our experts, try it anyway.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

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 of Gaetz and his strange resignations. Speaking of resignations, a judge in Ohio has thrown yet another resigning twist our way. This episode was recorded prior to the Hunter Biden pardon, which will be discussed in a later episode. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

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 there has been no ruling that Trump did not in fact violate Section 3.  Does it exist?  And if it does, what are the implications for Congress' certification of the vote in early January 2025?  We return to this subject even as the nation seems to be leaving it behind.  Also - an early look at some of the background to the recess appointment article authored by Prof. Amar and others which will appear soon, and a celebration of a great man and a great historian.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

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 Constitution has something to say about some of these, and we dive in.  Suffice to say, the water is murky.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

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 this week.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges at podcast.njsba.com.

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 year's crucial choice.  And we have an audience for this live-to-tape podcast - an EverScholar audience - who asks questions on the mind of many.  Here are perspectives you won't gain anywhere else. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

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 board?  What is the role of the owner?  What are the alternatives for editors, columnists, and reporters? Was Bezos intimidated by Trump?  What does all this mean for the nation?  We have the perfect means to explore this shocker: a frank and unhurried inquiry with our friend, Ruth Marcus.  What a way to mark our bicentennial.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

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 (besides the election, that is).  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

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 a similar though not as extreme direction. We identify the flaws with these approaches, and offer an alternative that would be constitutional, and has an actual chance of being effective, based upon history and constitutional structure. We also take up some fascinating readers' questions, including one which might matter for some overseas voters.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

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, one of the few who have studied ex-presidents in any detail, treats us to a master class in this unusual but suddenly vital group of Americans. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

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 of your election-related constitutional questions. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.  

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 the inevitable accusations to come from predictable sources on these matters.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

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 might protect against. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

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 mention one of the Court's greatest moments - the Nixon tapes case.  Keep those questions coming!  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

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, as well as the issues it raises for consideration even if it fails, as it seems likely to do. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has been overruled by the Supreme Court more often, and more forcefully, than any other circuit during the past term.  Why?  What are the consequences for the judges of the Fifth Circuit, if any?  Is this a problem for our judicial system, and if so, are there any remedies available?  Listeners to Amarica's Constitution will not be surprised to learn that Professor Amar has some ideas on this topic.  He also grounds the problems and the solutions in history and structure, and lest one think this is a partisan attack on a conservative court, he tells of his past criticism of the then-ultra-liberal ninth circuit for analogous behavior. 

Court reform is in the air.  Having presented the problems with the 18 year term proposals before the House and Senate, Professor Amar's plan deserves its own scrutiny.  We therefore present the plan in detail, explaining the problems that it attempts to solve, the principles it attempts to uphold, and the criticisms it might attract. Since it is a proposal and not yet a statute, it is subject to modification and hopefully improvement, so we invite the audience to chime in with your own critiques and suggestions.  Let's keep the conversation going.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The 2021 Biden Commission on the Court has now led - with a big “assistance” from the Court itself - to President Biden's own plan for Court reform. It is sketchy in many ways, but is entirely consistent with Professor Amar's long-held views on 18 year active terms for Supreme Court justices, though the President's proposal lacks the detail of that plan. This is unsurprising in a way since Prof. Amar testified before that Commission.  There are other related plans in proposed statutes that lie in committees of the House and Senate.  We consider the features of all, the flaws we have diagnosed, and we also have some commentary on some other aspects of the President's proposals, including a possible constitutional amendment.  Lots to consider this week!  CLE credit is available for judges and lawyers from podcast.njsba.com.

President Biden has stepped aside as a candidate, and as promised, we look at what's next from a variety of points of view.  Some Republicans, notably the Speaker, are claiming that the President should actually resign or step back under the 25th amendment. What would this mean? Meanwhile, we have a lot more in this early episode, including a reader's question on Barack Obama; another on Edmund Burke; a preview of an amazing EverScholar program; a preview of Biden's Supreme Court proposed reform; and more.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

Resignations are in the air, and our discussion - recorded before President Biden's actions - offers surprising resonances in its wake.  Meanwhile, our guest, Professor Vik Amar, provides not just a condemnation of Judge Cannon's recent dismissal of the Trump documents case, but a refutation of the arguments she made, and a recitation of those crucial points, cases, and reasonings which she ignored.  Plus we finally have the details on the EverScholar announcements we have been teasing; 18 year terms are back in the news; and more.  We will be back, possibly early this week depending on developments, with a special episode on President Biden's withdrawal from the presidential race. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

President Biden is hearing calls from many quarters to step down as a candidate.  Donald Trump is shot. Questions of presidential succession and/or resignation abound.  While it may seem these are unique and strange situations which the American republic has never faced, in fact, resignation has been a key American issue for centuries.  Episodes well-known, and others rarely taught, are reviewed on our podcast this week, providing context and counsel for our listeners, and hopefully for the candidates themselves.  The path to Mount Rushmore may take a turn away from the Oval Office, it turns out.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The Court's opinion in the presidential immunity case Trump v. US, has sunk in. On reflection it is even worse that on first impression, and that is saying something.  But just to condemn the opinion is not enough.  Professor Amar distills the Court's argument to its essence and explains why it completely collapses under any kind of rigorous scrutiny.  Its abandonment of originalism and of the constitution's own terms is laid bare. How could the Court go so astray?  We also take a stab at this, and speculate on various forms of rot that it may reveal. CLE credit is available from visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.

In an exhausting week, the Court released a number of long-awaited cases, and we had a consequential presidential debate. We look at several cases that many believe have profound implications for the administrative state; the opinions in SEC v. Jarkesy, and Loper Bright v. Raimondo clearly have the effect of increasing the role of courts and juries, among other things. We look at the opinions, the underlying themes, and the impact.  Meanwhile, following the debate, questions of presidential succession of several types, and of the vice president, are everywhere; these happen to be areas of Prof. Amar's expertise, and so we address them. NOTE: The Presidential Immunity case, Trump v. US, came down after we taped this episode; we have some early but important resources for you on this as well.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

As the end of the term approaches the deluge of major cases has begun.  Two big cases - the eagerly awaited sequel to the Bruen case - Rahimi - features an orgy of originalist theorizing and opining.  Meanwhile, in Moore v. US - a case where Professor Amar and his team had an amicus brief - the tax power was upheld, but reading the opinion one might wonder if the same Court had sat for this case.  We take a look at the opinions and give our own take on these impactful cases, even as we brace ourselves for many more in the week or so to come.

Akhil is in Boston this week and reminds us that the history of the American Revolution, where Boston is so pivotal, contains myriad lessons that provide insight into the student protests of today - so we look at this subject in some detail.  Meanwhile, the Court issued opinions in two prominent cases, and Akhil seems to be reluctant to take “yes” for an answer in one of them, so we take another look at issues of standing.  Does Akhil convince you of the correctness of his approach?  Finally, the bump stock gun case, a statutory interpretation case, is lamented by many; we take a quick look at why it doesn't have to be the last word on this matter.  CLE credit is available after listening by visiting podcast.njsba.com.

The Court is taking its time on major opinion, which gives us a moment to turn to other matters.  Ethics remain in the news; the Court's annual financial disclosures contain a number of surprises - maybe not so surprising.  There's a lot to say there, and we have some proposals to improve the situation.  President Biden takes a position on a pardon, and we take a position on that.  Our listeners continue to provide great input on an ongoing conversation, and we take it seriously.   CLE is available after listening from podcast.njsba.com.

The verdict is in: guilty x 34.  A jury of Trump's peers had its say, but the ex-president couldn't leave it at that, of course.  On the legitimate side, the appeals are expected to begin soon.  On the Trump bombastic side, he blasted every institution in the legal system for having the audacity to do their duty.  Particularly in the case of the ordinary citizens of the jury, this bears examination, and so we do.  We also preview some of the likely appellate issues, lay out the expected path through the courts, and take some interesting listener's questions.  CLE is available after listening at podcast.njsba.com.

The nation has been riled by campus unrest surrounding events in the Middle East.  Terms like “freedom of speech,” “academic freedom,” “right to protest,” “conduct vs. speech,” and issues of hate speech, offensive speech, safety, and more have arisen.  We start our look at this situation where we always begin: with the Constitution.  This episode aims to lay out the history, background, constitutional provisions, interpretations, cases, and overall approach to these matters, so we can then look at what is actually happening and be in a position to offer opinions and possible prescriptions. CLE credit is available after listening by visiting podcast.njsba.com.