Podcast appearances and mentions of Philip Hamburger

In a major decision last week, the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine in a 6–3 vote.Critics called Chevron the “Lord Voldemort” of administrative law. So what was Chevron deference exactly? How did it transform the federal government? And what are the implications of this recent Supreme Court decision?In this episode, I do a deep dive with constitutional law scholar and Columbia Law professor Philip Hamburger. He's the founder and CEO of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which argued the two relevant cases in front of the Supreme Court.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

News

News

News

Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and subsequent precedents held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. This “Chevron Deference” has been a topic of great debate, with many calling for it to be overturned, while others argue it is a vital part of how Courts address the complexity of law and agency actions. Experts on both sides argue it has implications on the role of judges, judicial independence, separation of powers, stare decisis, governmental accountability, and the rule of law.In two cases this term (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce) the Court will be asked whether that precedent should be overturned. Join us as a panel of experts give a preview of these two important cases in a discussion of what the Chevron doctrine has done, how these cases may affect it and the body of precedent surrounding it, and what they may mean moving forward. Featuring:Prof. John Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; CEO, New Civil Liberties AllianceProf. Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School(Moderator) Hon. Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge, United States Court of International Trade

NCLA filed a reply brief in Relentless Inc., et al. v. Dept. of Commerce, et al., a potential landmark case before the U.S. Supreme Court, calling for an end to the unconstitutional Chevron doctrine. NCLA addresses two core problems with Chevron deference that NCLA founder Philip Hamburger has emphasized for years. First, employing such deference abandons a judge's Article III duty of judicial independence. Second, when a federal court defers to an agency's legal interpretation, it denies due process of law to the entity opposing the government in that case. The logic of Chevron deference breaks apart under this devastating dual critique. Chevron also violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Mark and Vec highlight NCLA's Supreme Court reply brief in Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Government-Directed Social Media Censorship on TrialNCLA appeared before Judges Boggs, White, and Bush of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for oral arguments in a major lawsuit against Biden Administration officials for directing social media companies to censor viewpoints that conflicted with the government's Covid-19 messaging. This is a gross violation of the First Amendment. Mark and Vec discuss NCLA's oral argument in Changizi v. HHS. Prof. Philip Hamburger's “How the Government Justifies Its Social-Media Censorship” Mark and Vec break down NCLA Founder Professor Philip Hamburger's recent Wall StreetJournal piece, “How the Government Justifies Its Social-Media Censorship.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Battling the Administrative State: Interview with NCLA Founder Philip Hamburger Mark and Vec interview NCLA Founder and CEO Prof. Philip Hamburger on why he founded the New Civil Liberties Alliance. The Problems with Chevron Deference Prof. Philip Hamburger details the problems with Chevron deference.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week on The Learning Curve, cohost Cara Candal and guest cohost Michael Bindas, senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, speak with noted constitutional law professor Philip Hamburger of Columbia Law School. They discuss the legal basis for private and religious school choice, and how American constitutionalism supports parental choice in education. Prof. Hamburger explores the implications of recent landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Carson v. Makin for the future of private and religious school litigation in America. Prof. Hamburger closes with a reading from his book Purchasing Submission: Conditions, Power, and Freedom.This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5817368/advertisement

They've done many podcast interviews but never yet with a host who has had cigars with Rick Joyner and Lance Wallnau, two people referenced in their books. I know people on both sides of this issue here, so I add what I can by way of eye-witness testimony and personal anecdote. My old (extremely old !) (j/k, Doug) Epistemology professor Dr. R. Douglas Geivett (I was his TA for a while, and had 3 courses with him at Biola -- my favorite professor during my time there) and his co-author/spearhead researcher on this project, Mrs. Holly Pivec (former editor of Biola Magazine) join The Republican Professor podcast today to discuss their latest work, "Counterfeit Kingdom: The Dangers of New Revelation, New Prophets, and New Age Practices in the Church (Broadman & Holman Press, 2022). Strap in for over 2 hours discussing prophecies of Trump, Bethel & Hillsong Music, and Christian anti-intellectualism more generally in this contemporary church history episode. If you'd like to connect with the author, you're invited to connect with Holly at her popular blog , https://www.hollypivec.com/ Other TRP episodes referenced in this episode include 1) The one on Trump and the Law of Presidential Power with UC Berkeley Law Professor John Yoo, available here : https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/2022/03/23/episode-29-trump-presidential-power-prof-john-yoo-u-c-berkeley-school-of-law/ 2) The one on the newest, most insidious dangers of the Administrative State with Columbia University (New York City) School of Law professor Philip Hamburger available here : https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/2022/06/26/new-insidious-types-of-regulatory-control-w-columbia-university-law-prof-philip-hamburger/ 3) And the one with Lance Wallnau, which the Democrats on YouTube censored, threatening to take down this entire channel, documented and backed up on Rumble, here : https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/p/trps-first-rumble-video-what-youtube and here : https://rumble.com/v2cb5kw-trp-interviews-lance-wallnau-sr..html The Republican Professor is an anti-anti-intellectual, pro-getting-church-history-right podcast. Therefore, welcome Dr. R. Douglas Geivett, Ph.D. (my former boss and professor) and Mrs. Holly Pivec, apologetics journalist and contemporary church history researcher. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Professors Noah A. Rosenblum, Thomas W. Merrill, and Philip Hamburger talk about what the rule of law means in the context of administrative law on a panel moderated by Judge Rachel P. Kovner. The discussion came out of a forthcoming symposium in the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty and took place on campus at NYU. Source

Professors Noah A. Rosenblum, Thomas W. Merrill, and Philip Hamburger talk about what the rule of law means in the context of administrative law on a panel moderated by Judge Rachel P. Kovner. The discussion came out of a forthcoming symposium in the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty and took place on campus at NYU. Source

RedactGate They think if they put Trump away all the MAGA's and what they stand for will go away too.  HEADLINE: Can Magistrate Judges Constitutionally Issue Search Warrants Against Trump (Or Anyone Else)? by Philip Hamburger  All courts are inferior to the Supreme Court. The Biden Regime in broad daylight has committed a felony. This is how you know there is a massacre event coming up. This whole thing is a set-up for what is about to be done. AUDIO/VIDEO: Mike Davis FMR Law Clerk to Justice Gorsuch - This raid was unprecedented, unlawful and unnecessary. The President has the authority since 1988 SCOTUS case made this clear, he can declassify anything he wants.  REMEMBER THE PERFECT CALL? QUESTION: What did Trump specifically ask for? ANSWER: To look into Crowdstrike. QUESTION: What is Crowdstrike? This is precisely what got Trump impeached! These criminals now have control and access to whatever the money supply is. Illegal, Illicit and Unconstitutional - this is evidence that they couldn't use against him in a court case.  Now the information is tainted.  The documents that Trump declassified show direct links b/w the Clintons, Obamas etc to all the corrupt oligarchs in Ukraine. The average American doesn't know or care about any of this. There is a reaction they wish to get out of you…. They are banking on you getting angry and wanting to take up arms against them thus becoming the ‘angry mob' they have been calling you.

The Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia University (New York City) Law School joins The Republican Professor podcast in this episode to alert us to the newest form of regulatory manipulative control used by the federal Administrative State (it's also at the state and local level), described chillingly yet simply for non-lawyers in his newest book, "Purchasing Submission" (Harvard University Press, 2021). The subtitle of the wonderfully clear book is "Conditions, Power, and Freedom." As the title indicates, the book is about government control by purchased "consent", often using private actors as third-parties. Is it really consent, and therefore, okay ? As Professor Hamburger so aptly explains in this TRP episode, this form of Administrative control is actually quite harmful and therefore, rightly disturbing. Much of this type of regulation by purchase of consent, moreover, is probably unConstitutional. In addition to his teaching duties there in New York City at the Law School of Columbia University (Harlem), Professor Hamburger is the Chief Executive Officer of New Civil Liberties Alliance, an organization that engages in healthy, Constitutional resistance to the harmful effects of what passes as Administrative "Law." Professor Hamburger told me off camera that they are litigating Second Amendment issues as well, for example, with the bump stock rule-making-based ban. (That criminalized innocent conduct overnight under the guise of administrative "law"). And the organization works on much more besides. You can find out more information and support this resistance to insidious governmental manipulation and overreach by visiting their website : https://nclalegal.org/ https://nclalegal.org/philip-hamburger/ The book can be found at your local book dealer. Please support community book stores ! If you must use the major River that will go unnamed, you can find the book here : https://www.amazon.com/Purchasing-Submission-Conditions-Power-Freedom/dp/0674258231/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=purchasing+submission&qid=1656099799&s=books&sprefix=purchasing+s%2Cstripbooks%2C179&sr=1-1 . The Republican Professor is a pro-rightly-understanding-Administrative-"Law", pro-rightly-contemplating-real-Constitutional-law, anti-criminalization-of-innocent-conduct, pro-healthy-resistance-to-the-harmful-effects-of-the-newest-manipulative-schemes-of-the-Administrative-State podcast. Therefore, welcome Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia University (New York City) Law School ! The Republican Professor podcast is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

3 SCOTUS Upholds Government's Power to Deny Puerto Ricans Federal Benefits The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a bid to extend a federal program offering benefits to residents of Puerto Rico, finding that Congress had the authority to deny that assistance. Vec discusses administrative programs and American territories in U.S. v. Madero. 4 Professor Philip Hamburger on Purchasing Submission Mark interviews Professor Hamburger on his new book, Purchasing Submission: Conditions, Power, and Freedom. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Public lecture titled: "How to Protect Free Speech from Big Tech", by Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School. Presented by the Notre Dame Center for Citizenship & Constitutional Government on Thursday, March 24, 2022 at the University of Notre Dame. More information at constudies.nd.edu

Why Georgetown Shouldn't Have Put Ilya Shapiro on Leave  Ilya Shapiro, the newly slated executive director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, has been on administrative leave since last week after publishing several tweets criticizing President Biden's promise to nominate a Black woman to fill Justice Breyer's Supreme Court seat. John explains why Georgetown put Ilya Shapiro on leave but shouldn't have. Mark and Vec also discuss Philip Hamburger's recent op-ed for The Wall Street Journal on keeping intolerant lawyers off the bench. Professor Hamburger discusses, in the context of the Ilya Shapiro news, what should be done about law school deans and others in legal institutions who censor, cancel, and otherwise blacklist others for their opinion.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode, Philip Hamburger joins Mark Bauerlein to discuss his new book, "Purchasing Submission: Conditions, Power, and Freedom.

On this episode, Philip Hamburger joins Mark Bauerlein to discuss his new book, “Purchasing Submission: Conditions, Power, and Freedom.

Is the Chevron Doctrine Doomed: Richard Samp, Senior Litigation Counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, speaks with host Richard Levick of LEVICK about the Chevron Doctrine --judicial deference given to administrative actions -- which courts have followed for nearly 40 years but now appears likely to be re-examined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Throughout his 40-year career in private law practice in Washington, D.C., Richard Samp has specialized in appellate litigation with a focus on constitutional law and has participated directly in more than 200 cases before the High Court. NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger – author of Is Administrative Law Unlawful? - to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State.

By placing conditions on government benefits, gifts, or licenses, governments can often achieve compliance in ways that would otherwise be blatantly unconstitutional. Philip Hamburger details how it works in his new book, Purchasing Submission. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This is Episode 1 of The Everlasting Education Podcast, a Kepler Education Production.   In this episode, Scott Postma and Joffre Swait unpack Philip Hamburger's Wall Street Journal article, Is the Public School System Constitutional? In this article, Burger asserts that "The public school system...burdens [parents] not simply with poor teaching and discipline, but with political bias, hostility toward religion, and now even sexual and racial indoctrination. Schools often seek openly to shape the very identity of children" and then asks, "What can parents do about it?" Listen in to hear Scott and Joffre's answer to Burger's timely question.    

When the state offers money, licenses, or other benefits (such as reduced sentences) with “strings” attached, that's a powerful method of government control. The federal government increasingly uses this method to induce states, localities, and private parties to submit to conditions of its choosing. And yet this formidable power can enable it to sidestep vital limits that would otherwise apply to its authority. For example, it can secure submission to rules that it would lack the constitutional power to order directly or that would otherwise be subject to the checks and balances of the political process.Courts and lawyers have brought to bear on this problem the theory of “unconstitutional conditions,” but in Purchasing Submission, renowned legal scholar Philip Hamburger argues that a broader critique is needed if we are to protect liberty and rein in the danger of arbitrary power. Please join us for a lively discussion of a new book by one of today's preeminent constitutional thinkers. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Today Jeremy speaks with Philip Hamburger about the surprising origins of the IRS's restrictions on a charity's political speech, and why those restrictions ought to be regarded as unconstitutional. Philip Hamburger is the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and President of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. He writes on constitutional law and its history—with particular emphasis on religious liberty, freedom of speech and the press, judicial office, administrative power, and unconstitutional conditions. He also studies Anglican, Baptist, and Quaker history, early secularism, and the Ku Klux Klan. He has twice received the Sutherland Prize for the most significant contribution to English legal history, and has been awarded the Henry Paolucci-Walter Bagehot Book Award, the Hayek Book Prize, and the Bradley Prize.Jeremy dives in by asking Philip about his book, Liberal Suppression: Section 501(c)(3) and the Taxation of Speech. His argument that the IRS essentially taxes speech is both compelling and provocative. Philip connects the origins of the 501(c)(3) free speech restrictions to former Ku Klux Klan imperial wizard Hiram Evans and his hatred of the Catholic Church. Philip argues that the net effect is that all theologically orthodox speech is treated as a threat to democracy. He continues that the mere history behind this tax law should cause Americans to pause and ask whether it is constitutional or not. All of this and more during this week's episode with Philip Hamburger.On this week's Practicalities segment, American Philanthropic partner Matt Gerken discusses the influence and importance of donor surveys for nonprofits. Donor surveys provide the unique opportunity to cultivate and identify major gift opportunities in your donor file. This allows your organization to understand donor priorities and learn what they believe and care about. Learn more about American Philanthropic's donor surveys here.Do you want to participate in the 2021 Performance Fundraising Survey that Jeremy mentioned at the end of the podcast? You can join the survey by clicking here. When you participate in this survey, you will receive a free digital copy of the final report and be entered into a drawing with prizes ranging $100-$3,000 in value. The survey closes October 31—participate before it is too late!You can find Givers, Doers, & Thinkers here at Philanthropy Daily, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Buzzsprout, and wherever you listen to p

Southwest Airlines CEO Gary Kelly recently said on CNBC that he has always opposed vaccine mandates like the one recently announced by OSHA under President Biden's executive order, yet he has reluctantly chosen to enforce it as a matter of legal compliance. Even apart from the heavy fines threatened by the order, airlines like Southwest receive federal contracts from the government, which they might lose if they fail to follow the legally dubious order.Philip Hamburger first joined my show in 2014, warning of the threat of the administrative state, which has only grown since he released his prescient book – Is Administrative Law Unlawful? Now, he has followed up with the sequel: Purchasing Submission: Conditions, Power, and Freedom, which examines a frequent tool used by the "fourth branch of government" to further circumvent the Constitution. Hamburger explains that by imposing conditions on the recipients of government largesse, the administrative state has cleverly been able to evade the usual constitutional considerations.I was recently joined by Hamburger's colleague at the National Civil Liberties Alliance – Jenin Younes – who has been fighting against unconstitutional vaccine mandates. However, Hamburger joined me to step back from the specifics of any single instance of administrative overreach and see the bigger picture. Tune in to learn about the patterns and mechanics of how the government gets away with its new assaults on civil liberties by essentially purchasing our constitutional rights through various conditions on its special favors.

Philip Hamburger discusses how the government bypasses the Constitution and the rule of law to secure our submission to its will.

Philip Hamburger on Purchasing Submission

John J. Miller is joined by Philip Hamburger to discuss his book, 'Purchasing Submission.'

During the 2020 election campaign, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party floated the idea of "court packing"––adding Justices to the Supreme Court. The call for court reform was a response to Amy Coney Barrett's nomination following the death of Justice Ruther Bader Ginsburg.Fast forward to April 15, 2021. Congress has introduced legislation that would add four more Justices to the Supreme Court. President Biden, meanwhile, has formed a commission to reform the Supreme Court, either via packing or term limits. The historical situation has striking parallel's to the 1937 Roosevelt court-packing attempt, which ultimately failed but caused the court to submit to his New Deal agenda in the hope of "saving the court," regardless of whether they thought the New Deal was constitutional or not.Today, we seem to be in the same situation. The executive branch has taken on the role of bullying the court into adopting Biden's agenda, whether or not that agenda is constitutional. Even if the court packing attempt fails, many Americans wonder whether the threat on the court alone is sufficient to corrupt the impartiality and independence of the Judiciary.I was joined by Phillip Hamburger. Phillip is the creator of the Columbia Law School's Center for Law and Liberty and is the founder of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a civil rights organization based in Washington, D.C. He has authored two recent books on the administrative state, Is Administrative Law Unlawful, and The Administrative Threat. Phillip has recently written a Wall-Street Journal article on the dangers of court packing to the American Republic and the separation of powers, entitled, "Court Packing is a Dangerous Game."What does this court packing attempt mean for the American Republic? Phillip and I will sift through the frightening implications of the Democrat's plan.

Philip Hamburger on Court Packing

On May 17, as part of their annual Executive Branch Review Conference, the Federalist Society's Practice Groups hosted an expert panel on the non-delegation doctrine.Whether as the result of hyper-partisanship or as a residue of the constitutional design for lawmaking, government by executive "diktat" is lately increasing. Many of these executive actions appear to have dubious — if any — statutory authority, but the courts have been reticent to validate objections along these lines. The U.S. Supreme Court has indicated a willingness to revisit and possibly to reinvigorate the non-delegation doctrine (with 5 Justices adhering to that view publicly), or at least to put some teeth into its supposedly constraining intelligibility principle. To do so, the Court first will have to grapple with whether Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution contains a non-delegation principle at all.Featuring: - Prof. Nicholas Bagley, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School- Prof. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School- Prof. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School- Prof. Nicholas Parrillo, William K. Townsend Professor of Law, Yale Law School- Moderator: Hon. Neomi Rao, United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

With the arrival of new Supreme Court justices, and with the emergence of new debates among scholars like Adrian Vermeule and Philip Hamburger over the Constitution and the administrative state, what will happen to Administrative Law? In a recent Harvard Law Review article, Notre Dame's Professor Jeffrey Pojanowski assesses the scene and suggests a new school of thought: “Neoclassical... Source

With the arrival of new Supreme Court justices, and with the emergence of new debates among scholars like Adrian Vermeule and Philip Hamburger over the Constitution and the administrative state, what will happen to Administrative Law? In a recent Harvard Law Review article, Notre Dame’s Professor Jeffrey Pojanowski assesses the scene and suggests a new […]Join the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/arbitrary-capricious/what-is-the-future-of-administrative-law/.Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/membership/.Subscribe to Arbitrary & Capricious in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Philip Hamburger joins us to discuss his new book Liberal Suppression

The standard narrative used to justify the existence of the administrative state and thus legitimate its powers is that America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries entered into a realm of industrialization, corporate power and concentration, density and urbanization, among other causes, that entailed the need for expert rule in executive agencies. Necessity […]

First up, Steve talks trade issues.Then, Nathan Lewis, economic expert and writer whose most recent book, The Magic Formula, distills the sought-after goal of thriving economies to a simple solution: low taxes and stable money. Through fascinating examples from the past and present, he shows why this formula always leads to robust prosperity and demolishes the prevailing “wisdom” on tax and monetary policy....and, Steve’s read of the week consists of two pieces. One is an article by Philip Hamburger in the WSJ called “Stop Beating College Bureaucratic Bloat” and the other is a transcription of an interview between Jan Crawford, chief legal correspondent for CBS News and William Barr, United States attorney general.

The administrative state, with roots over a century old, was founded on the premise that Congress lacked the expertise to deal with the many complex issues facing government in a fast-changing country, and that it was unhelpfully mired in and influenced by politics, leading to bad outcomes when it did act. The alternative was to establish administrative agencies, each with assigned areas of responsibility, housing learned experts qualified to make policy decisions, deliberately insulated from political accountability. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), passed in 1946, both governs the manner in which agencies may adopt and enforce regulations, and provides for judicial review of agency action. Supporters of the administrative state point to the successes of agency actions leading to a cleaner environment, more sensible use of finite resources, healthier foods, safety on the roads and rails, and many other areas of improved quality of life. But even looking past structural separation of powers issues written into the bones of the administrative state, critics assert that in the ensuing 70 years the APA has become an ineffective limitation an agency power, as agencies bypassed its requirements by issuing sub-regulatory guidance, letters, FAQs, and more. Compounding the problem, the critics continue, the courts have adopted a policy of deference to agency actions that grant agencies even more latitude. Is it time to revisit the APA? If so, how should it be updated?Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of LawProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Kathryn Kovacs, Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School Prof. Jon Michaels, Professor of Law, UCLA School Of LawModerator: Hon. Britt Grant, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

The administrative state, with roots over a century old, was founded on the premise that Congress lacked the expertise to deal with the many complex issues facing government in a fast-changing country, and that it was unhelpfully mired in and influenced by politics, leading to bad outcomes when it did act. The alternative was to establish administrative agencies, each with assigned areas of responsibility, housing learned experts qualified to make policy decisions, deliberately insulated from political accountability. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), passed in 1946, both governs the manner in which agencies may adopt and enforce regulations, and provides for judicial review of agency action. Supporters of the administrative state point to the successes of agency actions leading to a cleaner environment, more sensible use of finite resources, healthier foods, safety on the roads and rails, and many other areas of improved quality of life. But even looking past structural separation of powers issues written into the bones of the administrative state, critics assert that in the ensuing 70 years the APA has become an ineffective limitation an agency power, as agencies bypassed its requirements by issuing sub-regulatory guidance, letters, FAQs, and more. Compounding the problem, the critics continue, the courts have adopted a policy of deference to agency actions that grant agencies even more latitude. Is it time to revisit the APA? If so, how should it be updated?Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of LawProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Kathryn Kovacs, Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School Prof. Jon Michaels, Professor of Law, UCLA School Of LawModerator: Hon. Britt Grant, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Mark and Philip Hamburger discuss Hamburger’s new book, “Liberal Suppression.”

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.

Philip Hamburger and Mark Bauerlein discuss Hamburger’s new book, “The Administrative Threat,” and the ways in which today’s administrative state curtails Americans’ basic constitutional freedoms.

This panel will examine the history of the emergence of the Administrative State and will ask whether even in a reformed fashion such a state can ever be consistent with the separation of powers. The panelists will each comment on the separation of powers challenge to modern Administrative Law. Can modern Administrative Law be made consistent with the Framers' Constitution of 1787? The Framers envisioned a much smaller government. How does one govern and oversee in a meaningful way a government of this size? Is accountability practical? Does the idea of accountability need rethinking?Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. John Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Gary Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of LawProf. Kevin M. Stack, Lee S. and Charles A. Speir Chair in Law, Vanderbilt Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Kevin Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

This panel will examine the history of the emergence of the Administrative State and will ask whether even in a reformed fashion such a state can ever be consistent with the separation of powers. The panelists will each comment on the separation of powers challenge to modern Administrative Law. Can modern Administrative Law be made consistent with the Framers' Constitution of 1787? The Framers envisioned a much smaller government. How does one govern and oversee in a meaningful way a government of this size? Is accountability practical? Does the idea of accountability need rethinking?Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. John Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Gary Lawson, Philip S. Beck Professor of Law, Boston University School of LawProf. Kevin M. Stack, Lee S. and Charles A. Speir Chair in Law, Vanderbilt Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Kevin Newsom, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

The Trump administration has taken a number of significant steps to provide the regulatory relief that candidate Trump repeatedly promised to provide to get the economy growing again. Working with Congress, the President used the Congressional Review Act to veto an unprecedented number of regulations issued in the last days of the Obama administration. Early in his term, President Trump issued Executive Order 13771 that established a one-in-two-out regulation reduction requirement and compliance cost caps for agency rulemaking. The EPA has begun the process to repeal the Clean Power Plan, and has declared an end to the “war on coal.”As a result of Trump administration initiatives, the number of new federal regulations currently under development has fallen significantly from the numbers seen in recent years. Nevertheless, it is fair to ask whether these relief measures will create any lasting limit on the long-term expansion of the administrative state. Do rollbacks constitute reform? If not, what would real and lasting regulatory reform look like? What kind of reforms are needed to restore the constitutional rule of law essential for the preservation of liberty and the promotion of prosperity? This Teleforum brings together a noted business leader and legal scholar to share their perspectives on this critically important subject. Featuring:John A. Allison, Executive in Residence, Wake Forest School of BusinessProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman, Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolTeleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The Trump administration has taken a number of significant steps to provide the regulatory relief that candidate Trump repeatedly promised to provide to get the economy growing again. Working with Congress, the President used the Congressional Review Act to veto an unprecedented number of regulations issued in the last days of the Obama administration. Early in his term, President Trump issued Executive Order 13771 that established a one-in-two-out regulation reduction requirement and compliance cost caps for agency rulemaking. The EPA has begun the process to repeal the Clean Power Plan, and has declared an end to the “war on coal.”As a result of Trump administration initiatives, the number of new federal regulations currently under development has fallen significantly from the numbers seen in recent years. Nevertheless, it is fair to ask whether these relief measures will create any lasting limit on the long-term expansion of the administrative state. Do rollbacks constitute reform? If not, what would real and lasting regulatory reform look like? What kind of reforms are needed to restore the constitutional rule of law essential for the preservation of liberty and the promotion of prosperity? This Teleforum brings together a noted business leader and legal scholar to share their perspectives on this critically important subject. Featuring:John A. Allison, Executive in Residence, Wake Forest School of BusinessProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman, Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolTeleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The Future of the Administrative State is a weekly podcast, hosted by RealClearPolicy editor Tony Mills, that explores the virtues and vices of administrative power in the era of Trump. In this second episode, Tony talks with Columbia Law School’s Philip Hamburger, author of 'Is Administrative Law Unlawful?' and 'The Administrative Threat'. In a discussion that touches on the monarchical concept of absolute power and German political philosophy, Hamburger explains why he thinks the administrative state not only violates the separation of powers, but also threatens Americans’ civil liberties.

Philip Hamburger, the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and frequent writer on constitutional law, including religious liberty, freedom of speech and the press, administrative power, and unconstitutional conditions, sits down with ChangeUp Media's Ben Weingarten for Encounter Books to discuss his new book " The Administrative Threat." During the interview, Philip and Ben discuss a variety of topics including the administrative state's roots in King James' England, progressive regressivism, how the administrative state subverts the Constitution and turns our justice system on its head, stifles free speech, violates civil liberties, what can be done to restore constitutional order and much more. Read 'The Administrative Threat': tinyurl.com/mqn8xpn. 'Freeway' by Kurt Vile is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License. Download 'Freeway' here: tinyurl.com/p4tkyfb

Philip Hamburger, the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and frequent writer on constitutional law, including religious liberty, freedom of speech and the press, administrative power, and unconstitutional conditions, sits down with ChangeUp Media's Ben Weingarten for Encounter Books to discuss his new book " The Administrative Threat." During the interview, Philip and Ben discuss a variety of topics including the administrative state's roots in King James' England, progressive regressivism, how the administrative state subverts the Constitution and turns our justice system on its head, stifles free speech, violates civil liberties, what can be done to restore constitutional order and much more. Read 'The Administrative Threat': tinyurl.com/mqn8xpn. 'Freeway' by Kurt Vile is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License. Download 'Freeway' here: tinyurl.com/p4tkyfb

Philip Hamburger, the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and frequent writer on constitutional law, including religious liberty, freedom of speech and the press, administrative power, and unconstitutional conditions, sits down with ChangeUp Media's Ben Weingarten for Encounter Books to discuss his new book " The Administrative Threat." During the interview, Philip and Ben discuss a variety of topics including the administrative state's roots in King James' England, progressive regressivism, how the administrative state subverts the Constitution and turns our justice system on its head, stifles free speech, violates civil liberties, what can be done to restore constitutional order and much more. Read 'The Administrative Threat': tinyurl.com/mqn8xpn. 'Freeway' by Kurt Vile is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License. Download 'Freeway' here: tinyurl.com/p4tkyfb

Philip Hamburger, the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and frequent writer on constitutional law, including religious liberty, freedom of speech and the press, administrative power, and unconstitutional conditions, sits down with ChangeUp Media's Ben Weingarten for Encounter Books to discuss his new book " The Administrative Threat." During the interview, Philip and Ben discuss a variety of topics including the administrative state's roots in King James' England, progressive regressivism, how the administrative state subverts the Constitution and turns our justice system on its head, stifles free speech, violates civil liberties, what can be done to restore constitutional order and much more. Read 'The Administrative Threat': tinyurl.com/mqn8xpn. 'Freeway' by Kurt Vile is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License. Download 'Freeway' here: tinyurl.com/p4tkyfb

Philip Hamburger, the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and frequent writer on constitutional law, including religious liberty, freedom of speech and the press, administrative power, and unconstitutional conditions, sits down with ChangeUp Media's Ben Weingarten for Encounter Books to discuss his new book " The Administrative Threat." During the interview, Philip and Ben discuss a variety of topics including the administrative state's roots in King James' England, progressive regressivism, how the administrative state subverts the Constitution and turns our justice system on its head, stifles free speech, violates civil liberties, what can be done to restore constitutional order and much more. Read 'The Administrative Threat': tinyurl.com/mqn8xpn. 'Freeway' by Kurt Vile is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License. Download 'Freeway' here: tinyurl.com/p4tkyfb

Philip Hamburger, the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and frequent writer on constitutional law, including religious liberty, freedom of speech and the press, administrative power, and unconstitutional conditions, sits down with ChangeUp Media's Ben Weingarten for Encounter Books to discuss his new book " The Administrative Threat." During the interview, Philip and Ben discuss a variety of topics including the administrative state's roots in King James' England, progressive regressivism, how the administrative state subverts the Constitution and turns our justice system on its head, stifles free speech, violates civil liberties, what can be done to restore constitutional order and much more. Read 'The Administrative Threat': tinyurl.com/mqn8xpn. 'Freeway' by Kurt Vile is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License. Download 'Freeway' here: tinyurl.com/p4tkyfb

Philip Hamburger, the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and frequent writer on constitutional law, including religious liberty, freedom of speech and the press, administrative power, and unconstitutional conditions, sits down with ChangeUp Media's Ben Weingarten for Encounter Books to discuss his new book " The Administrative Threat." During the interview, Philip and Ben discuss a variety of topics including the administrative state's roots in King James' England, progressive regressivism, how the administrative state subverts the Constitution and turns our justice system on its head, stifles free speech, violates civil liberties, what can be done to restore constitutional order and much more. Read 'The Administrative Threat': tinyurl.com/mqn8xpn. 'Freeway' by Kurt Vile is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (aka Music Sharing) 3.0 International License. Download 'Freeway' here: tinyurl.com/p4tkyfb

What follows is an edited partial transcript of my conversation with Stephen M. Jones. He is an economist for the US Coast Guard. However, we are discussing his own research, so nothing in this conversation should be taken to represent the official views of the US Coast Guard. Petersen: So Stephen, let's start just by defining regulatory discretion. What does that mean in this context? Jones: Sure. So, I think first off, we should probably define regulation because when Congress writes a law, they pass the law on to regulatory agencies and it will say something to the effect of "agencies: issue a regulation." So, when we talk about regulations this point isn't always clear because people just aren't familiar with this process. The regulation is a statement that kind of clarifies existing congressional law or is written in direct response to congressional law. And this could be as specific as, say, Congress can direct an agency to set an exact amount of pollution that is permitted for an industry to as broad as saying something like "protect consumers from unreasonable risks." And then the agency has room to interpret that statement as wide as it wants to. So, when I talk about agency discretion what I'm really talking about is Congress wrote a rule that gave the agency power to issue legally binding rules that may or may not trace directly back to Congress. Petersen: Yes. So, in the example you use with the pollution, Congress has something fairly specific in mind---a specific type of pollution---but the agency might have to clarify and to say what counts as pollution and how much they're measuring it and maybe they might establish a quota system, they might have specific rules for specific firms. And in the other example you gave, which is just protecting consumers from unnecessary risk, in that case they can basically write rules as if they were their own legislator, they're essentially doing what Congress is ostensibly meant to do. Is that correct? Jones: I'm not sure I would go that far. So, there are various theories of the purpose of the regulatory apparatus in the bureaucracy. Some people---I cite them in the paper---Baumgartner and Jones and Workman have one that is called 'The Politics of Information' and I forget what the other is called, it was written in 2015. And their theory instead is that Congress gives the agencies discretion because Congress doesn't know the problems it needs to solve and so the agency is kind of like the specialists that you subcontracted to figure out what Congress wants them to solve without actually knowing, say the relevant information to determine that. That's one theory. You've got other people like Philip Hamburger notably, who has written a whole book on how administrative law, which is another word for regulation, is unlawful and so he goes through sort of the common-law tradition and cites numerous pieces of evidence to say, exactly in the way that you put it, that it's a deep legislative function and only Congress should be performing that. And so, whether that's true I think depends on a number of different assumptions that aren't always discussed directly in the literature. That would be my interpretation if that makes sense. Petersen: Right. And of course, we're approaching this from an economic standpoint so there are important public choice issues involved with this. The same rule whether it's written by a legislator or a bureaucracy---a regulatory agency--- it's the same rule and so in principle, there should be no difference. But the important thing is that the agency and the Congress may have different incentives and may write different rules. That's what I interpret as an important underlying theme in your paper. Jones: That's most certainly true. So, that's actually one of the things that frustrate me greatly about reading a lot of these other, I think, great researchers who don't in my opinion sufficiently consider the role of incentives. To couch it in Baumgartner's or in Jones' and Workman's terms, okay, let's assume that the purpose of the bureaucracy is to create the information that's necessary to solve the national problems, whatever these supposed national problems are. Why would you assume that bureaucrats would supply the right amount of information in the right ways consistently throughout time? And it's not clear to me that those incentive systems are ever worked out; or if you do work them out, I don't think it actually shows that bureaucrats are beholden directly to Congress. So the big terminal literature, which comes from McNollgast, which is McCubbins, Noll, and Weingast, in the 80s is called Congressional dominance. They basically say that because Congress writes the rules they structure all the incentives and have all the tools at their disposal to monitor and police agencies. And I'm just deeply skeptical that that works as well as they describe. Petersen: Right. Your paper mentions the Administrative Procedure Act which is sort of an attempt by Congress to keep these agencies in check. Could you describe that act and what exactly it does? Jones: Sure. So, the Administrative Procedure Act is the main document that governs how agencies regulate. It defines the process by which regulation is made. And the chief component is that it really says before an agency issues a regulation it has to go through notice-and-comment. And what that means is when it sends out a rule it issues it in the Federal Register, which is the government's journal of record, and then it allows everybody to comment on this rule, and literally anybody will comment on these rules, and the agency is legally required to respond to all comments. So, the basic theory is this, it's kind of got a two-part mechanism here. On the one side, it's a sort of direct structural constraint and doesn't really affect agency decision making because all it's really saying is you have to send out all rules---if the fire alarm is triggered it acts like a fire alarm. So, if you get a whole bunch of comments it's a really easy way for Congress to tell, "oh there's a problem with this policy" or it's a contentious policy because all of these people commented it and it's really loud, it's like a fire alarm. But it doesn't necessarily mean that an agency, that an individual bureaucrat in that agency really feels that alarm. It's more like it'll just be triggered, make sure just do something that doesn't trigger that alarm and you should be okay. The other way in which it might change agency behavior is that by forcing agencies to publish rules they reveal a lot of information and in the rule itself you have to describe, say, the cost of the benefits. You have to describe whether or not it has impacts on Native American tribes, or on the Federal structure, or various other executive orders that have been issued. So, one of the main ways in fact that notice-and-comment system has changed is executive orders that define how in a very practical sense these final rules will be constructed. And so, they're all today reviewed in an office inside of the OMB---the Organization for Management and Budget---and the office is called a wire at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. And so, they're responsible for reviewing all regulation and they are an Office of the president. So, some people then conclude that the President has all this power, in effect, of rulemaking in general. Petersen: I guess the idea of the President is that it's the executive branch and so it executes and it sort of makes sense that these agencies that are executing laws would ultimately be beholden to the President. It sort of fits. So, do you know quantitatively how many comments? Are these regulatory agencies writing regulations and getting hundreds of comments every time, or is it rare to get even one comment? Jones: It depends on the agency and it depends on the rules. So EPA because many of its rules will have national effects, and then there are national environmental organizations that you can say are key stakeholders in the outcome of all these rules could very easily generate hundreds of thousands of comments. And so, they'll actually have computer programs that scrape the comments and kind of try to sort them in the boxes. You have other organizations, like FRA for instance, they might have a rule that only gets 30 comments. Petersen: Sorry what does FRA stand for? Jones: Sorry, that's the Federal Railroad Administration and that's one of the two main regulators of railroads in the United States. The other regulator, the Service and Transportation Board, is primarily focused on business practices, antitrust type issues, and FRA is focused primarily on health safety and welfare of anything railroad related. So that's everything from, say, the occupational safety of railroad workers to the safety of passengers on trains. And so, the Federal Railroad Administration might only get 30 to 40 comments on a normal rule, they might even get less than that. It really depends on the rule itself. Petersen: And typically, this would be if a rule affects my business and I might pay attention to the new rules coming out in my industry and if one I thought was going to be detrimental to my bottom line if I work for or run a private business, then I would comment. Is that the typical thing that happens? Jones: Probably. I really think the diversity of interaction is so high it's really hard to characterize exactly what normal public commenting looks like. Because it could be everything from "I'm a regulated businessman who wants this," there might be somebody on the other side who benefits directly because the new rule sets a standard and the standards organization writes in and says your standard isn't strict enough. It could be something like there's a proposed rule that the Federal Aviation Administration, which regulates commercial flying, or anything air related at all pretty much, and they have a rule on the use of cell phones on planes. They've got about 5,000 comments, 6,000 comments. It's quite a number. Once you get above 100 that's usually quite significant. And a lot of those could be something as simple as "we just think phones shouldn't be on planes" and just average citizens writing in upset at the very concept of a phone being on a plane. So, there's quite a diversity of interactions between the agency and public on that. Petersen: So, getting into the main topic of your paper you discuss what you call channels of influence. So, what are those and why are they important? Jones: Yes. The way I think about it is this. I think the chief question of the bureaucracy literature is who does this regulatory bureaucracy exist for? Does it exist for interest groups? Does it exist for Congress to ultimately provide information that Congress needs? Does it exist for the President to carry out the President's wishes and his policy? Or does it exist for the bureaucrats themselves which is the one I also like to emphasize because the literature on that one is not very common today. It was more common I think about 30 years ago but the framing of it is a little different. And so, my point is to say each one of these separate groups should have an effect on the outcome itself of the final rule which changes say the regulatory set. Some rules may be demanded by bureaucrats, some rules are demanded by interest groups in Congress. If I were to put it in the econ speak---because I'm writing this paper probably more for a political science literature---but if I had to put it in an econ speak my I'm kind of saying you have four different demanders for this product and so who is the regulatory agency really supplying this for? It's I think really how I'm thinking about it. For the full conversation, listen to the episode.  

Confused by all the talk around Halbig v. Burwell? Rumors abound that this case represents the next big legal challenge to Obamacare, but how do we know it's not just hype surrounding a technicality, as the law's supporters suggest? In Halbig, an IRS interpretation of Obamacare – dubious, but crucial to the law's implementation – was rejected by the courts as an unlawful use of administrative authority. The underlying concern is the ongoing revival of extralegal executive powers – akin to the "Royal Prerogative" of yore – under the banner of "Administrative Law." If the Halbig decision stands, it would represent at least a small win against the growth of executive power. But health care isn't the only area where increasingly absolute executive authority is eroding the checks and balances of our constitutional government. Columbia Law Professor Philip Hamburger will join the show to clear up the confusion, and to reveal the long historical struggle to constrain extralegal power as told in his fascinating new book, Is Administrative Law Unlawful?

Philip Hamburger of Columbia Law School discusses his new book, Is Administrative Law Unlawful?

1-206-350-1642 ***NEW!***Call in and leave an audio comment! | Current Book | Chapter 31 (VOL 2, ch 6) of Elizabeth Gaskell's with many thanks to our reader, . Book talk begins at 23:12 minutes. . If the iTunes feed ever goes down, please head over to the . | | | | This Week | Literary Links Link to —Philip Hamburger is the guy I heard. Fun Stuff Zeolite from Gonzo (the ADsorption rocks)   Concrobium—mold killer Zep—mold killer   Episode Sponsors | This Month | July Raffle has TWO parts—a copy of Stampington's Stuffed and Stampington's Somerset Life. Visit our Crafty Appearances Yet To Come July 11, 2014 1–4pm for Defarge FOs, pattern-choice support and more! 7709 Germantown Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19118 | Every Week | Need More Audiobooks With Benefits? Shop in the Shoppe! , , and Premium Subscriptions! and options Use Our App! • • make a ——donation   . FORTY hours of awesomeness with another 10 hours coming as soon as the book is finished for subscribers. Return to the Top Take this pic—or   Want a button? Swag Grounded Updates Be the first to find out when the will be released!

For the Fourth of July, a refreshing reality check about the long road of American democracy. We remember forgotten but fascinating, useful history as we contemplate how we might help young democracies on their own tumultuous paths now.

Steven Waldman is the author of “Founding Faith: How Our Founding Fathers Forged a Radical New Approach to Religious Liberty.” He is the founder and former editor of Beliefnet and now heads Daily Bridge Media. This interview is edited and produced with music and other features in the On Being episode “Steven Waldman and Philip Hamburger — The Long Experiment of American Democracy.” Find more at onbeing.org.

When law in America can be made by executive “pen and phone” alone — indeed, by a White House press release — we're faced starkly with a fundamental constitutional question: Is administrative law unlawful? Answering in the affirmative in this far-reaching, erudite new treatise, Philip Hamburger traces resistance to rule by administrative edict from the Middle Ages to the present. Far from a novel response to modern society and its complexities, executive prerogative has deep roots. It was beaten back by English constitutional ideas in the 17th century and even more decisively by American constitutions in the 18th century, but it reemerged during the Progressive Era and has grown ever since, regardless of the party in power. Please join us for a discussion of the most pressing constitutional issue before the nation today. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

At the center of our history of church and state is a troublesome irony. What began as an attempt to guarantee religious tolerance in the new world has at various times been commandeered by the most chauvinistic movements America has known. In spite of this, religious liberty has survived as an American ideal—one which we continue to test. We live in a world of increasing religious pluralism—diversity beyond the imagining of our nation’s founders—which suggests fresh nuance to the meaning of religious liberty. This much is clear: our modern conversation has few connections to the social, political, and religious impulses that led to the First Amendment. Host Krista Tippett and her guests revisit the history and meaning of separation in thought-provoking and, at times, unsettling ways. Charles Haynes talks about his work in the American public school system—the arena in which our modern debates often center. Philip Hamburger describes his research into the surprising, and largely forgotten, origins of separation of church and state. And, Cheryl Crazy Bull speaks about the loss and reemergence of religious expression in tribal public life.