POPULARITY
2 episodes with gillian metzger
2 episodes with gillian metzger
2 episodes with gillian metzger
Legal scholars Gillian Metzger of Columbia Law School and Saikrishna Prakash of the University of Virginia School of Law examine the founders' vision for the presidency, how presidential power has changed over time, and the key constitutional debates that have shaped the modern presidency. The discussion explores how the Trump presidency fits within this historical context and what it means for the future of presidential power. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources Federalist No. 70 Myers v. United States (1926) Trump v. United States (2024) Saikrishna Prakash, The Living Presidency: An Originalist Argument Against Its Ever-Expanding Powers, (2020) Saikrishna Prakash, Imperial from the Beginning: The Constitution of the Original Executive, (2015) Gillian Metzger, “Disqualification, Immunity, and the Presidency,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 138 (April 1, 2025) Michel Martin, “Political scientists alarmed by Trump's disregard for checks on the executive branch,” NPR (Feb. 3, 2025) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate
Gillian Metzger of Columbia Law School and Saikrishna Prakash of the University of Virginia School of Law join Jeffrey Rosen to examine the founders' vision for the presidency, review how presidential power has changed over time, and debate the constitutional questions—including the unitary executive theory—that have shaped the modern presidency. Resources Federalist No. 70, New York Packet (March 18, 1788) Myers v. United States (1926) Trump v. United States (2024) Saikrishna Prakash, The Living Presidency: An Originalist Argument Against Its Ever-Expanding Powers, (2020) Saikrishna Prakash, Imperial from the Beginning: The Constitution of the Original Executive, (2015) Gillian Metzger, “Disqualification, Immunity, and the Presidency,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 138 (April 1, 2025) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate
Israel is all in on President Trump's proposal to clear out and take over Gaza. But many Palestinians in Gaza are saying very clearly that they're not going anywhere. Tom Fletcher is the United Nations' top humanitarian official and joins from inside Gaza. Jennifer Mittelstadt, Professor of History, Rutgers University; Gillian Metzger, Professor of Constitutional Law, Columbia Law School Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Donald Trump will enter office at a time when presidential power has significantly expanded, because of a string of Supreme Court decisions in recent years. These decisions can be understood to have two functions: They give presidents a “sword” to act more decisively and unilaterally, and a “shield” that protects them from prosecution against actions taken in their official capacity. What will these capacities mean for Trump's second term — especially as he has promised to radically transform the federal government?Gillian Metzger is a professor at Columbia Law School who has studied the presidency, the administrative state and the Supreme Court's relationship to both. In this conversation, guest-hosted by Kate Shaw, a New York Times Opinion contributing writer and law professor, Metzger discusses two key Supreme Court cases — the Trump immunity case, which gave presidents broad protections from prosecution, and the Loper Bright Enterprises case, which overturned the Chevron doctrine, expanding judicial power. Shaw and Metzger also cover how much leeway Trump actually has to take some of the bolder executive actions he's floated, including ending birthright citizenship; what still remains uncertain about the federal government's regulatory powers in the post-Chevron regime; and more.“The Demise of Deference — And the Rise of Delegation to Interpret?” by Thomas W. Merrill“The DOGE Plan to Reform Government” by Elon Musk and Vivek RamaswamyBook recommendationsCreating the Administrative Constitution by Jerry L. MashawThe Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy by Daniel Carpenter“Curation, Narration, Erasure” by Karen M. TaniThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.This episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” was produced by Elias Isquith. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris, with Mary Marge Locker. Mixing by Isaac Jones, with Efim Shapiro and Aman Sahota. Our supervising editor is Claire Gordon. The show's production team also includes Rollin Hu, Kristin Lin and Jack McCordick. Original music by Pat McCusker. Audience strategy by Kristina Samulewski and Shannon Busta. The executive producer of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
As the Supreme Court moves forward with its administrative state agenda, we thought we'd get in on the action and make sure we understand what exactly that agenda even is. Lucky for us, we've got some friends who can shed light on that matter. On today's episode, we're joined by Emma Kaufman, Professor of Law at New York University Law School, to discuss her paper, co-authored with previous pod guest Adam Cox, “The Adjudicative State.” In this episode, we talk about the administrative state as a neglected site of adjudication and agency adjudication as a neglected site of administration. First, Professor Kaufman explains how her past research on immigration helped her identify and break through these blind spots. Next, we talk about how best to achieve equal justice under the law. Should we follow the legal academy, and half the op-eds in the New York Times, and leave politics out of courts? Or should we politicize justice entirely? (It turns out politicizing administration is complicated anyway!) Finally, Professor Kaufman leaves us with a bit of a cliff-hanger – stay tuned for her history of private prosecution and tune in to find out how it related to the rest of the topics on today's pod. This podcast is generously supported by Themis Bar Review. Referenced Readings “1930s Redux: The Administrative State Under Siege” by Gillian Metzger
In the face of a polarized and often gridlocked Congress, presidents have increasingly appeared to use various forms of “executive action” to advance their agendas. This has created a great deal of public (and journalistic) confusion about the nature of executive orders and other forms of executive initiative. Political scientist Andrew Rudalevige and law professor Kate Shaw, who has served in the White House Counsel's office, explore the reach and limits of executive orders with Peter Shane and his co-host, Columbia law professor Gillian Metzger.
When the Supreme Court ruled that OSHA's Covid vaccine mandate was unlawful, Justice Gorsuch wrote separately that the Court's decision “rightly applies the major questions doctrine.” The Major Questions Doctrine has been increasingly important in the Supreme Court and lower courts' decisions, among judges who believe (as Gorsuch puts it) that the doctrine “ensures that the national government's... Source
When the Supreme Court ruled that OSHA's Covid vaccine mandate was unlawful, Justice Gorsuch wrote separately that the Court's decision “rightly applies the major questions doctrine.” The Major Questions Doctrine has been increasingly important in the Supreme Court and lower courts' decisions, among judges who believe (as Gorsuch puts it) that the doctrine “ensures that […]
When the Supreme Court ruled that OSHA's Covid vaccine mandate was unlawful, Justice Gorsuch wrote separately that the Court's decision “rightly applies the major questions doctrine.” The Major Questions Doctrine has been increasingly important in the Supreme Court and lower courts' decisions, among judges who believe (as Gorsuch puts it) that the doctrine “ensures that the national government's power to make the laws that govern us remains where Article I of the Constitution says it belongs—with the people's elected representatives.” To discuss the past, present, and future of the Major Questions Doctrine, Adam White chats with Professors Gillian Metzger and Kristin Hickman. This episode features Kristin Hickman, Gillian Metzger, and Adam White.
In this very first episode of Talking Feds: Women at the Table, which first appeared as a Talking Feds bonus episode, three clerks to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, come together to describe what Justice Ginsburg really was like as a mentor, judge, spouse, and improbable pop culture hero. Amanda Tyler, Gillian Metzger, and Ginger Anders talk about their lives during their clerkships and paint a multi-dimensional portrait of the woman they knew and revered. They discuss everything from her approach to writing to her love of opera and of course her judicial work. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
This week, we sit down with Abbe Gluck, a former clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away last week, on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. A professor of law and founding faculty director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy at Yale Law School, she and fellow former clerk Gillian Metzger penned an op-ed in The New York Times just days after Justice Ginsburg’s passing, recalling her impact on them and on gender equality in the United States. Professor Gluck joins us to reflect on that legacy.
Marking the passing of a constitutional titan, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Columbia Law professor and former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Gillian Metzger. And a special remembrance from Justice Ginsburg’s law school classmates Flora Schnall and Judge Carol Brosnahan. Podcast production by Sara Burningham. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Marking the passing of a constitutional titan, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Columbia Law professor and former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Gillian Metzger. And a special remembrance from Justice Ginsburg’s law school classmates Flora Schnall and Judge Carol Brosnahan. Podcast production by Sara Burningham. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this special bonus Talking Feds Now, three #Sistersinlaw, all clerks to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, come together to describe what Justice Ginsburg really was like as a mentor, judge, spouse, and improbable pop culture hero. Amanda Tyler, Gillian Metzger, and Ginger Anders talk about their lives during their clerkships and paint a multi-dimensional portrait of the woman they knew and revered. They discuss everything from her approach to writing to her love of opera and of course her judicial work.
Gillian Metzger, a professor at Columbia Law School, discusses why two high profile Supreme Court rulings are just the latest setbacks for the Trump administration in the area of federal agencies where it loses about 90% of its cases in court. June Grasso hosts.
Gillian Metzger, a professor at Columbia Law School, discusses why two high profile Supreme Court rulings are just the latest setbacks for the Trump administration in the area of federal agencies where it loses about 90% of its cases in court. June Grasso hosts. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Over the last two weeks, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments remotely, by teleconference, allowing the public to listen in in real time for the first time in history. The National Constitution Center recapped those arguments live on C-SPAN with advocates on either side of each case. This episode features the recap of Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Vance — disputes over whether President Trump must release his tax returns and other financial records to prosecutors and House committees. NCC President Jeffrey Rosen was joined by law professors Gillian Metzger and Andy Grewal to recap the arguments and dive into the case’s potential implications for presidential powers. Check out more Supreme Court argument recaps on our companion podcast We the People or on our YouTube channel. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.
2019 John Gedid Lecture Series The speaker this year was Gillian Metzger of the Columbia Law School. She will present, 1930s Redux: The Administrative State Under Siege, which was recently published in Harvard Law Review. In the article, she addresses the fact that the national administrative state is under attack today to an extent not witnessed since the New Deal. In particular, constitutional challenges to key features of administrative governance are surfacing in the Supreme Court. Taking a historical perspective, the lecture will argue that the current constitutional challenges are fundamentally misguided. These challenges not only risk the institutional legitimacy of the Court, but also they ignore the extent to which the national administrative state is constitutionally beneficial and even obligatory. Gillian Metzger is the Stanley H. Fuld Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, where she is also a faculty co-director of Columbia’s Center for Constitutional Governance. She writes and teaches in the areas of federal courts, administrative law, and constitutional law, specializing on separation of powers, federalism, and privatization. Click here to read more about Metzger. Music Credit: LeChuckz
This episode, recorded live in New York City at the Federal Bar Association’s 2018 annual convention, features a debate of the following question: “Should Chevron Be Overturned?” The 1984 Supreme Court decision Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council established a judicial doctrine of deference to certain administrative agency actions commonly known as “Chevron deference.” As wonky as it may sound, Chevron is implicated in important constitutional debates surrounding the modern administrative state and separation of powers. Columbia Law School professors Philip Hamburger and Gillian Metzger explain just what Chevron deference is, why it matters, and whether or not it should be overturned. Lana Ulrich guest hosts.
Statutory administrative law judges (ALJ) located within each agency adjudicate administrative law cases brought by agency enforcement personnel, located in the same building as the judges. These judges do not enjoy tenure during good behavior or an irreducible salary. Their rulings are often appealable only to the administrative agency itself and only later to an Article III Court, and then only on a very deferential standard of judicial review. Civil jury trial is not currently available in administrative law judicial proceedings and the rules of evidence and the burden of proof arguably operate in a manner that favors the agency. This panel will assess the constitutionality of current law and ask whether Congress ought to change the law and, if so, how. Should ALJs have life tenure? Should they be housed separately from their agency?Prof. Steven G. Calabresi, Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of LawProf. Linda D. Jellum, Ellison C. Palmer Professor of Tax Law, Mercer University School of LawProf. Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. Gillian Metzger, Stanley H. Fuld Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Edith Jones, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Statutory administrative law judges (ALJ) located within each agency adjudicate administrative law cases brought by agency enforcement personnel, located in the same building as the judges. These judges do not enjoy tenure during good behavior or an irreducible salary. Their rulings are often appealable only to the administrative agency itself and only later to an Article III Court, and then only on a very deferential standard of judicial review. Civil jury trial is not currently available in administrative law judicial proceedings and the rules of evidence and the burden of proof arguably operate in a manner that favors the agency. This panel will assess the constitutionality of current law and ask whether Congress ought to change the law and, if so, how. Should ALJs have life tenure? Should they be housed separately from their agency?Prof. Steven G. Calabresi, Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of LawProf. Linda D. Jellum, Ellison C. Palmer Professor of Tax Law, Mercer University School of LawProf. Jennifer L. Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. Gillian Metzger, Stanley H. Fuld Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Edith Jones, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Gillian Metzger of Columbia University and David Bernstein of George Mason University explain how President Trump, Congress, and the courts may challenge the executive agencies that govern our daily lives. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by David Stotz and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.
Gillian Metzger of Columbia University and David Bernstein of George Mason University explain how President Trump, Congress, and the courts may challenge the executive agencies that govern our daily lives. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by David Stotz and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
