Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution
POPULARITY
3 episodes with Reconstruction Amendments
3 episodes with Reconstruction Amendments
2 episodes with Reconstruction Amendments
3 episodes with Reconstruction Amendments
3 episodes with Reconstruction Amendments
2 episodes with Reconstruction Amendments
2 episodes with Reconstruction Amendments
3 episodes with Reconstruction Amendments
3 episodes with Reconstruction Amendments
The Supreme Court just wrapped one of its most consequential terms in decades—and Amicus brought together three heavyweight legal experts to break down the damage. Their conversation centers on the biggest themes of the recent term: Congress has been sidelined completely; the Court is the final arbiter of all things; hubris has become the methodology, and the midterms should worry us all. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill, legal historian Nikolas Bowie, and Supreme Court expert Stephen Vladeck. The panel dissects a term defined by judicial supremacy: the gutting of the Voting Rights Act in Callais and Milligan, the “unitary executive” power grab in Trump v. Slaughter, the birthright citizenship fight that never should have been argued, and a shadow docket that increasingly infects the merits docket. They trace how the court has hollowed out Congress' power to legislate, rewritten the meaning of the Reconstruction Amendments, and applied its own rules with striking inconsistency—all while shrugging off any need to justify itself.The conversation closes with a hard question: What can actually be done about a court that's this unaccountable? The panel offers concrete ideas, from congressional hearings on court reform to a new Voting Rights Act—and the hosts preview Amicus' upcoming series, By the People.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The Supreme Court just wrapped one of its most consequential terms in decades—and Amicus brought together three heavyweight legal experts to break down the damage. Their conversation centers on the biggest themes of the recent term: Congress has been sidelined completely; the Court is the final arbiter of all things; hubris has become the methodology, and the midterms should worry us all. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill, legal historian Nikolas Bowie, and Supreme Court expert Stephen Vladeck. The panel dissects a term defined by judicial supremacy: the gutting of the Voting Rights Act in Callais and Milligan, the “unitary executive” power grab in Trump v. Slaughter, the birthright citizenship fight that never should have been argued, and a shadow docket that increasingly infects the merits docket. They trace how the court has hollowed out Congress' power to legislate, rewritten the meaning of the Reconstruction Amendments, and applied its own rules with striking inconsistency—all while shrugging off any need to justify itself.The conversation closes with a hard question: What can actually be done about a court that's this unaccountable? The panel offers concrete ideas, from congressional hearings on court reform to a new Voting Rights Act—and the hosts preview Amicus' upcoming series, By the People.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.Need to set up your Slate Plus feed? If you subscribed through Slate.com, check out our FAQ at slate.com/podcastfaqs for easy instructions. Members subscribed via Apple Podcasts get automatic access—no setup required. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The Supreme Court just wrapped one of its most consequential terms in decades—and Amicus brought together three heavyweight legal experts to break down the damage. Their conversation centers on the biggest themes of the recent term: Congress has been sidelined completely; the Court is the final arbiter of all things; hubris has become the methodology, and the midterms should worry us all. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill, legal historian Nikolas Bowie, and Supreme Court expert Stephen Vladeck. The panel dissects a term defined by judicial supremacy: the gutting of the Voting Rights Act in Callais and Milligan, the “unitary executive” power grab in Trump v. Slaughter, the birthright citizenship fight that never should have been argued, and a shadow docket that increasingly infects the merits docket. They trace how the court has hollowed out Congress' power to legislate, rewritten the meaning of the Reconstruction Amendments, and applied its own rules with striking inconsistency—all while shrugging off any need to justify itself.The conversation closes with a hard question: What can actually be done about a court that's this unaccountable? The panel offers concrete ideas, from congressional hearings on court reform to a new Voting Rights Act—and the hosts preview Amicus' upcoming series, By the People.This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In this episode, we are joined by Assistant Professor of Law Lucien Ferguson (Chicago-Kent College of Law) to discuss the ambiguities of freedom and labor in the constitutional interpretation of the Reconstruction Amendments that were passed after the US Civil War. Our discussion is guided by the landmark Slaughter-House Cases of 1873 that narrowly construed the federal rights protected by the 14th amendment and set the stage for the failure of Reconstruction at the end of the 19th century. We discuss the divergences between liberal and republican accounts of freedom, whether the constitution should remain the grammar for leftist political strategy, and how the collapse of reconstruction shapes debates around citizenship and belonging to this day.leftofphilosophy.com | @leftofphil | @leftofphilosophy.bsky.social References:William E. Forbath, “The Ambiguities of Free Labor: Labor and the Law in the Gilded Age” Wisconsin Law Review 4 (1985): 767-817. Music:“Vintage Memories” by Schematist | schematist.bandcamp.com“My Space” by Overu | https://get.slip.stream/KqmvAN
Historian and New York Times bestselling author Jemar Tisby joins Mark Labberton to confront the Supreme Court's 6–3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which has eviscerated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and reopened the door to racial gerrymandering across the South. Recorded in the immediate aftermath, the conversation traces the long arc from the Three-Fifths Clause and Dred Scott through Selma to this hour. "This has landed in the black community harder and heavier than a lot of what we've seen during the Trump administration." In this episode with Mark Labberton, Tisby reflects on the history of black disenfranchisement, the cynicism of colorblind jurisprudence, and what remains of multiracial democracy in America. Together they discuss how the legal architecture of Jim Crow reemerges under neutral language, John Roberts's decades-long campaign against the Voting Rights Act, Justice Kagan's umbrella analogy, the suspension of Louisiana's primary, the black church's response, and why this midterm may be the country's last political chance. Episode Highlights "This has landed in the black community harder and heavier than a lot of what we've seen during the Trump administration, and that's saying a lot." "It boggles the mind that folks sitting on the highest court in the land who have been to all these Ivy League schools, have literally decades of experience, can get it so wrong and stand so arrogantly on such faulty reasoning." "Colorblindness only works if you're starting from a level playing field." "These are not good-faith actors, not people wanting a representative democracy, but people wanting to consolidate power, which we call minority rule." "If you can't win on the merits of what you believe, then you have to rig the system so that no one can get you out of office." About Jemar Tisby Jemar Tisby is a New York Times bestselling author, historian, speaker, and professor of history at Simmons College of Kentucky, a historically black college in Louisville. He holds a BA from the University of Notre Dame, an MDiv from Reformed Theological Seminary, and a PhD in history from the University of Mississippi, where he studied race, religion, and social movements in the twentieth century. He is the founder of The Witness, Inc., a black Christian collective, and the author of The Color of Compromise, How to Fight Racism, and The Spirit of Justice: True Stories of Faith, Race, and Resistance. His commentary appears on CNN and in The Atlantic, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, and he writes Footnotes, a top-ranked history publication on Substack. Helpful Links and Resources Jemar Tisby's website: https://jemartisby.com Footnotes by Jemar Tisby (Substack): https://jemartisby.substack.com The Spirit of Justice: True Stories of Faith, Race, and Resistance (most recent book): https://jemartisby.com/the-spirit-of-justice/ The Color of Compromise: The Truth About the American Church's Complicity in Racism (bestseller): https://www.zondervan.com/9780310113607/the-color-of-compromise/ How to Fight Racism: https://www.harpercollins.com/products/how-to-fight-racism-jemar-tisby The Justice Briefing podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/footnotes-with-dr-jemar-tisby/id1460240056 Louisiana v. Callais, opinion of the Court (April 29, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf Elie Mystal, "The Supreme Court Has Completed Its Quest to Kill the Voting Rights Act," The Nation: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-demolishes-voting-rights-act/ "Sing Out, March On"—Joshuah Campbell's tribute to John Lewis, Harvard 2018 Commencement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=mKNRXQemxWQ NAACP Legal Defense Fund—Louisiana v. Callais case page: https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/louisiana-v-callais/ Brennan Center for Justice—Louisiana v. Callais: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/louisiana-v-callais Show Notes Why this conversation now: the SCOTUS ruling on the Voting Rights Act last week News breaking through a group text of lawyers, organizers, clergy, nonprofit leaders "This has landed in the black community harder and heavier than a lot of what we've seen during the Trump administration." John Lewis, SNCC, and the march from Selma to Montgomery A baton hard enough to crack the skull, the hardest bone in the body "It boggles the mind that folks sitting on the highest court in the land…can get it so wrong and stand so arrogantly on such faulty reasoning." Allen Temple Baptist in Oakland—watermelons, bubbles, and jelly beans on a Sunday morning The Three-Fifths Clause and the architecture of representation Dred Scott v. Sandford—"property can't sue" Reconstruction Amendments: 13th, 14th, 15th—birthright citizenship newly under threat Jim Crow's neutral codes: poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses Voting Rights Act of 1965 as the culmination of the civil rights movement Edmund Pettus Bridge—Bloody Sunday going viral in its day LBJ signs the bill with Rosa Parks and MLK in the room Elie Mystal in The Nation: gerrymandering with plausible deniability—https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-demolishes-voting-rights-act/ Shelby County v. Holder, 2013—preclearance gutted Roberts's tautology—stop discriminating to stop discrimination "Colorblindness only works if you're starting from a level playing field." Cast and umbrella analogies for premature dismantling of civil rights remedies Plaintiff Bert Callais's January 6 ties; Louisiana's roughly one-third black population Governor Jeff Landry's emergency order suspends Louisiana's May primary mid-election "These are not good faith actors…people wanting to consolidate power, which we call minority rule." "If you can't win on the merits of what you believe, then you have to rig the system so that no one can get you out of office." The activism horizon—courts, churches, voter registration, midterm turnout, NAACP, LDF, Brennan Center The last political chance before competitive authoritarianism #VotingRightsAct #JemarTisby #LouisianaVCallais #SCOTUS #CivilRights #BlackChurch #FaithAndJustice #SelmaToMontgomery #Democracy #MarkLabberton Production Credits Conversing is produced and distributed in partnership with Comment magazine and Fuller Seminary.
The era we call Reconstruction is one of the most hopeful, and ultimately, heartbreaking of American history. The passage of the Reconstruction Amendments provided legal rights to thousands of people. But the bargain of 1877 and the corruption of the Gilded Age ultimately prove too much weight for the promise of equality to bear. Western Civ 2.0
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says: “all persons born are naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” But on his first day back in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that changed that understanding. According to the President's executive order, going forward, the only people who will be U.S. citizens at birth are people who are born in the United States to parents who are citizens, at least one of whom is a citizen, or at least one of the parents is a legal permanent resident of the United States. And what does all of this mean for Native Americans? In this episode, Greg Ablavsky, a Stanford Law professor and scholar of federal Indian law, joins Pam Karlan to discuss President Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship--a case now at the Supreme Court. The discussion centers on the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause and, in particular, the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Ablavsky explains why federal Indian law has become part of that debate. He traces the distinctive legal status of Native nations within the United States, the historical exception for members of tribal nations, and the way that history appears in seminal cases such as Elk v. Wilkins. The conversation also looks at the relationship between Elk and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case that recognized birthright citizenship for a child born in the United States to Chinese parents. Along the way, Karlan and Ablavsky break down why history matters to the government's current effort to argue for new limits on birthright citizenship--and more. Links: Gregory Ablavsky >>> Stanford Law page Federal Ground: Governing Property and Violence in the First U.S. Territories >>> Stanford Law page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) Who qualifies as a U.S. citizen at birth? (00:03:54) The Origins of the 14th Amendment (00:05:58) "Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof" (00:11:42) Citizenship at the Supreme Court (00:17:03) Native Americans, the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, and the Presidency (00:18:49) The Supreme Court Oral Argument in Trump v. CASA (Barbara) — Analogies, Originalism, and the Native American (00:28:31) Practical Chaos, Hard Cases and What the Court Should Do Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
In this first episode of our series, “Democracy, Under Construction,” Sherrilyn Ifill joins host Alex Lovit to discuss the Second Founding, when the Reconstruction Amendments—and in particular the 14th Amendment—fundamentally changed American rights and who was defined as American. Birthright citizenship, protections from abuses by state governments, and equality before the law all entered the Constitution following the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. The “Democracy, Under Construction” series commemorates America's 250th anniversary by focusing on the moments when our country became a more inclusive democracy and celebrating the historical figures who pushed the country to live up to its ideals. Sherrilyn Ifill is among the most accomplished civil rights lawyers in the United States. She is the Vernon Jordan Distinguished Professor in Civil Rights at Howard University School of Law and the founding director of the 14th Amendment Center for Law and Democracy. She previously served as the president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara. It's still somewhat unbelievable that the high court will entertain arguments in favor of gutting an utterly clear constitutional commitment. Nonetheless, our motto on Amicus is “legal knowledge is power,” and in this case, historical understanding of legal knowledge … is power. On this week's show, Dahlia Lithwick interviews constitutional and immigration scholar Anna O. Law about her forthcoming book, Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship. In preparation for a lot of very bad originalist takes, Lithwick and Law discuss how immigration actually worked in the colonial and pre-Civil War eras and why the framers of the Reconstruction Amendments (including the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment) meant exactly what they said and said exactly what they meant. Law also explains how and why Wong Kim Ark affirmed birthright citizenship for children of Chinese immigrants, and emphasizes that the words “subject to the jurisdiction” had narrow historical exceptions. Finally, a reminder that the framers of the 14th Amendment chose to constitutionalize citizenship rather than establish it in statute—in anticipation of exactly the situation America finds itself in today. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara. It's still somewhat unbelievable that the high court will entertain arguments in favor of gutting an utterly clear constitutional commitment. Nonetheless, our motto on Amicus is “legal knowledge is power,” and in this case, historical understanding of legal knowledge … is power. On this week's show, Dahlia Lithwick interviews constitutional and immigration scholar Anna O. Law about her forthcoming book, Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship. In preparation for a lot of very bad originalist takes, Lithwick and Law discuss how immigration actually worked in the colonial and pre-Civil War eras and why the framers of the Reconstruction Amendments (including the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment) meant exactly what they said and said exactly what they meant. Law also explains how and why Wong Kim Ark affirmed birthright citizenship for children of Chinese immigrants, and emphasizes that the words “subject to the jurisdiction” had narrow historical exceptions. Finally, a reminder that the framers of the 14th Amendment chose to constitutionalize citizenship rather than establish it in statute—in anticipation of exactly the situation America finds itself in today. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara. It's still somewhat unbelievable that the high court will entertain arguments in favor of gutting an utterly clear constitutional commitment. Nonetheless, our motto on Amicus is “legal knowledge is power,” and in this case, historical understanding of legal knowledge … is power. On this week's show, Dahlia Lithwick interviews constitutional and immigration scholar Anna O. Law about her forthcoming book, Migration and the Origins of American Citizenship. In preparation for a lot of very bad originalist takes, Lithwick and Law discuss how immigration actually worked in the colonial and pre-Civil War eras and why the framers of the Reconstruction Amendments (including the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment) meant exactly what they said and said exactly what they meant. Law also explains how and why Wong Kim Ark affirmed birthright citizenship for children of Chinese immigrants, and emphasizes that the words “subject to the jurisdiction” had narrow historical exceptions. Finally, a reminder that the framers of the 14th Amendment chose to constitutionalize citizenship rather than establish it in statute—in anticipation of exactly the situation America finds itself in today. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This Day in Legal History: Hiram Rhodes RevelsOn February 25, 1870, Hiram Rhodes Revels was sworn in as the first African American to serve in the United States Senate. His election came during the turbulent Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War, a period defined by constitutional change and political uncertainty. Revels represented Mississippi, a former Confederate state that had only recently been readmitted to the Union. In a moment heavy with symbolism, he filled the Senate seat once held by Jefferson Davis, the former president of the Confederacy. The contrast between the two men reflected the profound transformation taking place in American law and government.Revels' swearing-in came after the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which abolished slavery, guaranteed equal protection, and protected voting rights regardless of race. His presence in the Senate gave tangible meaning to those constitutional promises. Yet his path to office was not without challenge. Some senators argued that he did not meet the Constitution's nine-year citizenship requirement, claiming that the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford had denied Black Americans citizenship before the Civil War. Supporters countered that the 14th Amendment had settled the question of citizenship, making Revels eligible to serve. The Senate ultimately voted to seat him, affirming the legal force of the Reconstruction Amendments.Revels served only a brief term, but his impact was lasting. His election marked a rare window in American history when federal power was actively used to expand civil and political rights in the South. Although Reconstruction would eventually give way to decades of segregation and disenfranchisement, February 25, 1870 stands as a reminder of a constitutional moment when the nation attempted to redefine equality under the law.The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission released its first major update to its enforcement manual in eight years, outlining a new vision focused on fairness and transparency. SEC Chairman Paul Atkins described the revisions as overdue and said the agency will now review the manual annually. The updated 115-page guide provides clearer direction on how enforcement investigations will proceed and what options are available to individuals and companies under scrutiny.One key change involves the Wells process, which notifies potential defendants that SEC staff intend to recommend enforcement action. Under the revised policy, recipients of a Wells notice will have four weeks to submit a written response. After filing that response, they may request a meeting with senior leadership in the Division of Enforcement to argue against pursuing charges or to present their perspective on the case.Atkins has previously indicated that reforming the Wells process is a priority, emphasizing the need for accurate and carefully considered enforcement actions. Enforcement Division Director Meg Ryan also noted that a persuasive Wells response can influence whether commissioners ultimately approve a case. The manual further reinstates the ability of settling parties to request waivers from automatic industry bars that can follow enforcement actions. In addition, it introduces clearer guidance on how cooperation may reduce penalties and explains how the SEC may coordinate with criminal authorities. Overall, the agency says the revisions aim to clarify how it enforces federal securities laws and strengthen public confidence in the process.SEC Lays Out New Enforcement Vision In Revised Guidelines - Law360Paramount Skydance has submitted a revised proposal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, as a bidding battle with Netflix continues. The new offer follows the expiration of a seven-day waiver period under WBD's existing merger agreement with Netflix. For Paramount's deal to move forward, WBD's board must first determine that the revised bid qualifies as a “Company Superior Proposal” under the Netflix agreement. After that, a four-business-day match period would need to pass, the Netflix agreement would have to be terminated, and a new definitive agreement would need to be signed with Paramount.While the board reviews the updated proposal, Paramount said it will keep its tender offer in place and continue urging shareholders to reject what it calls the less favorable Netflix transaction. The rivalry between the bidders has spilled into public statements, with Paramount criticizing the structure of the Netflix deal as potentially reducing shareholder value. Netflix has pushed back, accusing Paramount of mischaracterizing regulatory issues and focusing on appearances rather than results.WBD confirmed it received the revised bid but reiterated that its current merger agreement with Netflix remains active and that the board still recommends the Netflix deal. Specific terms of Paramount's updated offer were not disclosed, though it recently added financial safeguards, regulatory commitments, and an offer to cover the breakup fee if WBD exits the Netflix agreement. Netflix's agreement to acquire WBD's studio and streaming operations is valued at about $82.7 billion, while Paramount's competing proposal to purchase the entire company is valued at roughly $108.4 billion.Paramount Revises WBD Offer As Netflix Bid War Goes On - Law360A federal judge has temporarily barred prosecutors from freely searching devices seized from a Washington Post reporter during a national security leak investigation. The FBI searched reporter Hannah Natanson's home in January and took electronic devices as part of a probe into the alleged disclosure of government secrets. Natanson, who has reported on President Donald Trump's efforts to dismiss large numbers of federal employees, has not been charged with any crime.U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter ruled that the government may not conduct an unrestricted review of the seized materials. Instead, he said the court will oversee the examination of the devices to ensure that journalistic protections are respected while still allowing investigators to seek relevant evidence. Porter rejected the Justice Department's request to let prosecutors carry out a broad, unsupervised search.Justice Department attorneys had argued that reviewing the materials was essential to a criminal investigation involving national security concerns. They proposed using a separate FBI “filter team” to screen the data and remove irrelevant content before investigators accessed it. The judge's order reflects an effort to balance press freedom with the government's authority to pursue evidence in sensitive cases.US judge blocks search of Washington Post reporter's devices | ReutersA California woman is set to testify in Los Angeles that her early use of Instagram and YouTube harmed her mental health, in a closely watched trial against Meta and Google. The plaintiff, identified as Kaley G.M., says she began using YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine, and later struggled with depression and body dysmorphia. Her attorneys argue the companies deliberately designed their platforms to attract and retain young users despite being aware of potential psychological risks.The case is part of a broader international push to address the impact of social media on children, with some countries already imposing restrictions. Earlier phases of the trial focused on what the companies knew about the effects of their platforms on young users and how they targeted that demographic. Now the proceedings are turning to Kaley's personal experiences and whether the platforms substantially contributed to her mental health challenges.To succeed, her legal team must prove that the design or operation of the platforms was a significant factor in causing or worsening her condition. Meta has pointed to her history of family instability and alleged abuse as alternative explanations for her struggles. Her lawyer, however, referenced internal company research suggesting that teens facing difficult circumstances were more likely to use Instagram compulsively.The lawsuit also challenges features such as autoplay videos, endless scrolling, “like” buttons, and beauty filters, which the plaintiff claims encouraged prolonged use and distorted self-image. YouTube's defense argues that she did not fully use available safety tools and presented data indicating her recent average viewing time was relatively limited.Woman suing Meta, YouTube over social media addiction takes the stand at trial | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
This Day in Legal History: Fifteenth Amendment RatifiedOn February 3, 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, marking a pivotal moment in American legal history. The amendment prohibits federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Its ratification was the third and final of the Reconstruction Amendments, following the Thirteenth (abolishing slavery) and Fourteenth (guaranteeing equal protection and due process) Amendments.The Fifteenth Amendment was a direct response to the systemic disenfranchisement of Black Americans in the post-Civil War South. While it granted a legal foundation for Black men's suffrage, implementation faced immediate resistance. Southern states adopted literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and other discriminatory practices to circumvent the amendment and suppress Black political participation.Despite its passage, the amendment's guarantees would not be meaningfully enforced until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, nearly a century later. The legal battles stemming from the Fifteenth Amendment's promise have shaped much of the country's voting rights jurisprudence and continue to echo in current debates about voter ID laws, redistricting, and access to the ballot box.A U.S. federal judge is set to hear arguments on February 5 regarding Danish company Ørsted's request to lift the Trump administration's pause on its offshore Sunrise Wind project near Long Island, New York. Ørsted has asked for a preliminary injunction, warning that without a decision by February 6, it could lose access to a specialized vessel crucial for cable installation, putting the project's timeline, financial viability, and even survival at risk. The Interior Department halted five offshore wind projects in December, citing newly obtained, classified national security concerns, particularly radar interference. Ørsted's filing states the company has already committed over $7 billion to the Sunrise Wind project, which is about 45% complete and projected to power nearly 600,000 homes by October.Judge Royce Lamberth, who previously granted an injunction for Ørsted's Revolution Wind project off Rhode Island, will preside over the case. Four similar wind developments have already won legal relief allowing construction to continue during litigation. The ongoing delays reflect broader tensions between offshore wind expansion and the Trump administration's skepticism of the technology, as well as evolving security concerns.US judge to consider last project challenge to Trump offshore wind pause | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice has launched a civil rights investigation into the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse, by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis. Pretti was killed during an enforcement operation that has since drawn national outrage and led the Trump administration to alter its tactics in Minnesota. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the FBI is conducting a preliminary review, with potential involvement from the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, though he emphasized that the investigation is still in early stages.Video footage verified by Reuters shows Pretti being tackled by agents while holding a phone, and an officer retrieving a firearm from his body just before shots were fired. The Justice Department said a formal criminal civil rights probe would only proceed if the evidence supports it. Local officials have voiced distrust of the federal response and are conducting their own inquiry. Pretti is the second protester killed by federal agents in Minneapolis this month, and his family, represented by attorney Steve Schleicher, is demanding a transparent and impartial investigation. So far, no similar federal probe has been opened into the earlier shooting of Renee Good by an ICE officer.US Justice Dept opens civil rights probe into Alex Pretti shooting, official says | ReutersIn this week's column for Bloomberg Tax, I argue that Volkswagen's decision to cancel plans for a new Audi plant in the U.S. highlights the limitations of using tariffs as a cornerstone of industrial policy. The assumption underpinning tariff-heavy strategies is that the U.S. market is irresistible enough to force global firms to onshore production, even as tariffs erode that market's size and appeal. Tariffs have come to function like sin taxes—meant to discourage consumption—but unlike cigarettes or soda, the goal with trade policy is not abstention, but investment and economic engagement. Instead, firms like VW are responding by pulling back, as higher costs reduce consumer demand and make U.S. market share too small to justify large-scale investment. The belief that global manufacturers can swiftly build U.S. capacity ignores the time, cost, and uncertainty involved, especially in capital-intensive sectors. VW's exit is rational: it doesn't make financial sense to break ground on a multibillion-dollar plant when the target market is shrinking and returns are questionable.Policymakers need to move beyond blunt tools and design trade incentives based on real market data, such as U.S. demand and potential return on investment. That means requiring ROI modeling before tariffs are imposed, and asking whether the targeted company has enough exposure to be moved by them. If the answer is no, we risk losing access to competitive products, jobs, and consumer choice—not gaining them. Trade policy should be surgical, not punitive, and should acknowledge that capital follows incentives, not threats.In a piece I wrote for Forbes late last week, and with apologies for a double dose of me today: I examined California's long-running flirtation with a mileage-based tax to replace its declining gas tax revenues—and how what began as a test program has quietly become a form of policymaking through delay. In 2014, the state authorized a pilot program to study a “road usage charge,” a per-mile fee designed to keep transportation funding solvent as gas consumption drops. That pilot wrapped up in 2017 and showed the system works: vehicles can be tracked, billing can be simulated, and the technical challenges are manageable. But nearly a decade later, no mileage tax has been implemented, and new legislation—AB 1421—would extend the advisory committee until 2035.The real issue now isn't feasibility but political avoidance. The state has drifted into a passive strategy where permanent pilots and advisory boards take the place of real decisions. This kind of inertia has a name: policy drift—when the law remains formally unchanged, but materially obsolete. California's ongoing study phase has become a way to defer a difficult conversation about revenue and equity in a post-gasoline economy. The technology exists, and other states have already tested it. What's missing is political will and public engagement.AB 1421 doesn't collect revenue or educate voters—it simply extends the status quo under the guise of preparation. From the outside, it looks like planning. In practice, it's a weather balloon designed to measure political tolerance, not policy readiness.California Mileage Tax—Pilot Programs And Permanent Policy Inertia This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
This Day in Legal History: John Marshall Harlan DiesOn October 14, 1911, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan I died, closing the chapter on one of the Court's most powerful voices of dissent. Appointed in 1877 by President Rutherford B. Hayes, Harlan served for 34 years and left an indelible mark on constitutional law—not through majority opinions, but through unwavering dissents that often read as moral indictments of the Court's direction.Most famously, Harlan stood alone in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), rejecting the Court's embrace of “separate but equal” and warning that the Constitution is “color-blind.” At a time when the legal system was ratifying segregation, Harlan insisted that racial classifications violated both the spirit and letter of the Fourteenth Amendment. His lone dissent—widely criticized at the time—would later become foundational to the Court's reversal in Brown v. Board of Education more than half a century later.But Harlan's commitment to constitutional principles extended beyond race. He defended civil liberties in United States v. E.C. Knight Co., supported expansive readings of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and warned against unchecked corporate power. His approach was rooted in a belief that the Reconstruction Amendments were designed not just to end slavery, but to secure full legal equality.Though his views often put him in the minority, time has proven Harlan prophetic. His jurisprudence helped shift the constitutional center of gravity in the 20th century, as future courts took up the causes he championed alone. Remarkably, his grandson, John Marshall Harlan II, would go on to sit on the Court as well, carving out his own legacy in cases like Katz v. United States and Reynolds v. Sims.Justice Harlan I's death marked the loss of a constitutional conscience—one that held firm against the tide of his era. His dissents remain a blueprint for principled judging, reminding us that sometimes the most enduring legal influence comes not from prevailing, but from refusing to go along.In a massive trial that began this week in London's High Court, over 1.6 million claimants are suing several major carmakers—including Mercedes-Benz, Ford, Nissan, Renault, Peugeot, and Citroën—over allegations that they used illegal “defeat devices” to cheat diesel emissions tests. The lawsuit, one of the largest in UK legal history, follows in the wake of Volkswagen's 2015 “dieselgate” scandal and targets vehicles manufactured between 2012 and 2017.Claimants argue that these manufacturers deliberately programmed cars to meet legal nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions standards only under lab testing, while on-the-road emissions were allegedly up to 12 times higher—harming the environment and misleading consumers. They seek compensation for what they claim was a systemic, industry-wide choice to cheat rather than comply with the law.The defendants deny any wrongdoing, rejecting comparisons to VW and maintaining that emissions systems are legally and justifiably calibrated to function differently under certain conditions for technical and safety reasons. A central point of contention is whether the sample vehicles in the case contain prohibited defeat devices.The trial currently focuses on 20 vehicles, but its outcome will set a precedent for nearly 850,000 claims and influence another 800,000 similar suits against other carmakers, including Vauxhall/Opel and BMW. The court's decision on liability is expected by mid-2026, with damages to be determined separately.Carmakers accused in huge UK lawsuits of cheating diesel emissions tests | ReutersVisa and Mastercard have agreed to a $199.5 million settlement to resolve a class action brought by merchants who alleged the companies colluded to shift fraud-related costs onto businesses. Filed in federal court in Brooklyn, the settlement—still awaiting judicial approval—stems from a lawsuit first initiated in 2016, challenging rule changes that made merchants liable for chargebacks when they hadn't upgraded to chip-enabled point-of-sale systems.The plaintiffs argued this policy shift violated antitrust laws, claiming Visa and Mastercard moved in parallel to implement changes that benefited the networks while leaving merchants exposed to fraud losses without any offsetting fee reductions. According to the proposed agreement, Visa will pay $119.7 million and Mastercard will contribute $79.8 million. Discover and American Express, also named in the litigation, previously agreed to a $32.2 million settlement.While all four companies deny wrongdoing, plaintiffs' lawyers praised the deal, saying it recovers around 13% of the best-case damages scenario and over half of a more conservative estimate. Mastercard stated the settlement supports its broader efforts to increase security through technological upgrades, while Visa and the plaintiffs' counsel did not comment.This case is separate from the larger $5 billion settlement Visa and Mastercard reached in 2019 over allegations of fixing credit and debit card fees.Visa, Mastercard agree to $199.5 million settlement in merchants' class action | ReutersFederal courts in California and Alabama recently fined two attorneys thousands of dollars for submitting legal filings that contained fake case citations generated by AI. These sanctions highlight a persistent problem: despite repeated warnings, some lawyers continue to rely uncritically on generative AI tools that produce fictitious case law, a phenomenon known as “hallucination.” Judges in both cases criticized the attorneys for failing to verify the AI-generated content, calling the misconduct more serious than simple oversight.In Alabama, Judge Terry F. Moorer imposed a $5,000 sanction on James A. Johnson, a court-appointed criminal defense attorney, who filed a motion containing fabricated citations. The judge noted that Johnson used a Microsoft Word plugin called Ghostwriter Legal and submitted the motion during a holiday weekend while caring for a relative, but emphasized that such explanations do not excuse the lack of basic diligence. Johnson must now disclose the sanctions order in all cases he handles for the next year, and his client—visibly upset in court—requested new counsel, delaying the case.In California, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín fined attorney Edward A. Quesada $1,000 after his civil filing contained at least three false citations. Quesada admitted he had run out of time and may have accidentally copied one fake citation from an AI-generated web summary. He was also ordered to complete a CLE course on responsible AI use, with the judge citing his failure to stay informed about relevant legal technologies as a violation of professional conduct rules.Fake AI Citations Produce Fines for California, Alabama LawyersIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I examine the property rights implications at the heart of Pung v. Isabella County, a case the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear. I argue that when the government seizes and sells property for unpaid taxes, “just compensation” shouldn't be defined by whatever price the property fetches at a government-run auction. That process—entirely designed and controlled by local officials—often prioritizes administrative efficiency over fair market value, turning tax sales into what I describe as “clearance rack” events.The problem is structural. Local treasurers are incentivized to close the books quickly rather than ensure former owners recover equity. That means the government may undersell a home, pay itself the back taxes, and call it a day—leaving the former owner uncompensated for the true value of what they lost. Worse, when courts treat the auction price as constitutionally adequate, they allow the taker to set the value of what it took.I draw a comparison to Tyler v. Hennepin County, where the Court ruled the government can't pocket surplus proceeds from a tax sale. Pung asks the natural follow-up: what rules apply when determining how much surplus exists? If courts accept fire-sale auction prices as “just compensation,” they effectively endorse an end-run around the Fifth Amendment.As a compromise, I propose a clear rule: auction prices should only be presumed fair if they fall within 10% of an appraised value. Outside that range, the burden should shift to the government to prove the sale was legitimate. After all, if local governments want the legitimacy of a market sale, they need to run a sale that looks like one. Otherwise, taxpayers are left holding the bag—punished not for failing to pay taxes, but for the government's indifference to recovering real value from their property. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
This week, we sit down with Nicole Etcheson, a Civil War and Reconstruction Era scholar, ahead of her public lecture for Constitution Week—where she'll speak on the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th) and their relevance to the present day. Also in this episode: board members from the MuncieArts & Culture Council, we hear a collegiate Beautiful Thing, and "What Are You Working On?" artist River Feeney wouldn't define themselves as an artist—he'll explain!
This Day in Legal History: Fourteenth Amendment RatifiedOn July 28, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was officially adopted, reshaping the legal and constitutional landscape of the nation. Ratified in the wake of the Civil War, it was one of the Reconstruction Amendments designed to integrate formerly enslaved people into American civic life. Section 1 of the amendment granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," effectively nullifying the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Black people could not be citizens.The amendment also introduced two foundational legal principles: the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. These clauses placed new limitations on state governments, barring them from infringing on individual rights and mandating that laws be applied equally to all people. The Due Process Clause would later become a cornerstone in expanding civil liberties, providing the basis for numerous Supreme Court decisions involving privacy, marriage, and bodily autonomy. The Equal Protection Clause became instrumental in the fight against racial segregation and discrimination, notably underpinning Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which dismantled “separate but equal” doctrine in public education.Initially resisted by many Southern states, the amendment's ratification was made a condition for reentry into the Union. Over time, its scope grew far beyond the post-Civil War context, influencing legal battles on gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and immigration. It also played a critical role in the doctrine of incorporation, through which many protections in the Bill of Rights became applicable to state governments. The Fourteenth Amendment remains one of the most litigated and interpreted sections of the Constitution, central to the American concept of civil rights and liberties.A&O Shearman has postponed the start date for some of its incoming associates until January, according to a source familiar with the matter. The firm typically offers new associates a choice between two start dates and provides a salary advance to those opting for the later one. The decision comes amid broader industry trends of delaying associate onboarding as a cost-management strategy in response to uneven client demand, despite overall revenue growth among top firms.Formed through the May 2024 merger of Shearman & Sterling and Allen & Overy, A&O Shearman is now the fourth-largest law firm by revenue. While the firm's revenue has benefited from broader sector gains, it faces challenges tied to economic uncertainty and trade tensions. Internally, a cohort of associates had reportedly resisted leadership shortly before the firm joined other legal powerhouses in agreements involving legal services to President Trump—moves seen as efforts to fend off sanctions and settle federal investigations into workplace diversity practices. The firm also experienced a recent exodus in its London office, with nine lawyers, including eight associates, departing in June.A&O Shearman Pushes Start Date to January for Some AssociatesA New York state appeals court has ruled that social media companies cannot be held legally responsible for the 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo that left 10 people dead. The court reversed a lower court's decision, finding that platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Reddit are shielded by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which grants online platforms immunity from liability for user-generated content. The lawsuit alleged that these platforms were designed to addict and radicalize users, including the shooter, Payton Gendron.Justice Stephen Lindley, writing for the 3-2 majority, argued that holding platforms liable would threaten the open nature of the internet and contradict Congress's intent to foster innovation and limit government interference. He acknowledged the horrific nature of the shooting and the hateful content that influenced it but warned that allowing liability would cause the internet to collapse into tightly restricted message boards.Dissenting justices contended that the platforms actively pushed extremist content through targeted algorithms, suggesting that this behavior went beyond neutral hosting. Other platforms used by Gendron, including Amazon, Discord, 4chan, Snap, and Twitch, were also named in the lawsuit. Gendron is currently serving a life sentence without parole after pleading guilty to state charges, and he still faces federal charges that may lead to the death penalty.Social media companies not liable for 2022 Buffalo mass shooting, New York court rules | ReutersA federal judge in Massachusetts has reaffirmed a nationwide injunction blocking President Donald Trump's executive order that sought to limit birthright citizenship. Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that only a nationwide halt could fully protect the coalition of 22 Democratic-led states challenging the policy, rejecting arguments from the Trump administration that a narrower ruling would suffice following a recent Supreme Court decision. The executive order, signed on Trump's first day back in office in January, directed federal agencies to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.Judge Sorokin found that allowing the policy to take effect even in some states would harm immigrant families and disrupt federal benefits programs like Medicaid. Plaintiffs argued it would create a confusing and unfair patchwork of citizenship rules and overwhelm states not enforcing the order. The Trump administration maintained that the Constitution was being misinterpreted, and signaled plans to appeal.Although the Supreme Court recently limited the use of nationwide injunctions, it allowed exceptions under certain conditions—exceptions Sorokin found applicable here. Meanwhile, a separate federal appeals court in California also ruled that Trump's executive order violated the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause and blocked it nationwide.US judge reaffirms nationwide injunction blocking Trump executive order on birthright citizenship | ReutersCalifornia has dropped plans to require Internet service providers (ISPs) to offer $15-per-month broadband plans to low-income residents, following pressure from both the Trump administration and major telecom companies. Assemblymember Tasha Boerner, who led the effort, said her office was warned that enforcing such a law could jeopardize California's access to $1.86 billion in federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funding. The administration's revised BEAD rules prohibit states from setting explicit or implicit broadband pricing requirements.Despite earlier court wins by New York upholding a similar law, Boerner chose to pull the bill after the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) confirmed that even applying for BEAD funds could exempt ISPs from state pricing rules. Advocates and lawmakers criticized the move as a giveaway to large corporations, arguing it undermines efforts to ensure affordable internet access. Boerner had already watered down the bill in negotiations with ISPs, reducing required speeds and allowing ISPs to handle eligibility verification—both points that drew backlash from digital equity groups.Advocates argued the BEAD funding was intended for new broadband infrastructure, while the California bill focused on existing networks, meaning the NTIA's restrictions shouldn't apply. Critics also pointed out that the proposed speed standards were below the federal definition of broadband, and that delegating verification to ISPs risked privacy and access issues. While Boerner acknowledged the need for affordable broadband, she said the risk of losing billions in federal funds wasn't worth pushing the mandate. A separate Senate bill aims to encourage, but not require, ISPs to offer low-cost plans by linking them to subsidies.California backs down to Trump admin, won't force ISPs to offer $15 broadband - Ars Technica This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
This is the first official episode of our ongoing series breaking down the U.S. Constitution.This month, Roman and Elizabeth discuss the Preamble, alongside Nikole Hannah-Jones. Elizabeth also explains that while the United States generally does not allow a standing army to be used against civilians, Trump has been exploiting an exception to keep troops in Los Angeles to protect ICE agents — with terrifying implications.Constitution Breakdown #1: Nikole Hannah-Jones Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of 99% Invisible ad-free and a whole week early. Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus.
Their Accomplices Wore Robes: How the Supreme Court Chained Black America to the Bottom of a Racial Caste System (Doubleday, 2025) takes readers from the Civil War era to the present and describes how the Supreme Court, even more than the presidency or Congress, aligned with the enemies of Black progress to undermine the promise of the Constitution's Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.The Reconstruction Amendments, which sought to abolish slavery, establish equal protection under the law, and protect voting rights, converted the Constitution into a potent anti-caste document. But in the years since, the Supreme Court has refused to allow the amendments to fulfill that promise. Time and again, when petitioned to make the nation's founding conceit, that all men are created equal, real for Black Americans, the nine black robes have chosen white supremacy over racial fairness. Their Accomplices Wore Robes brings to life dozens of cases and their rich casts of characters to explain how America arrived at this point and how society might arrive somewhere better, even as today's federal courts lurch rightward. Brando Simeo Starkey is a writer and scholar. A graduate of Harvard Law School and a member of the New York Bar, he taught law at Villanova Law School and wrote for several years for ESPN's The Undefeated (now Andscape). Born and raised in Cincinnati, he lives in Southern California with his wife and two sons. You can find him online at The Braveverse, and on his YouTube channel of the same name. You can find the host, Sullivan Summer, online, on Instagram, and at Substack, where she and Brando continue their conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies
Their Accomplices Wore Robes: How the Supreme Court Chained Black America to the Bottom of a Racial Caste System (Doubleday, 2025) takes readers from the Civil War era to the present and describes how the Supreme Court, even more than the presidency or Congress, aligned with the enemies of Black progress to undermine the promise of the Constitution's Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.The Reconstruction Amendments, which sought to abolish slavery, establish equal protection under the law, and protect voting rights, converted the Constitution into a potent anti-caste document. But in the years since, the Supreme Court has refused to allow the amendments to fulfill that promise. Time and again, when petitioned to make the nation's founding conceit, that all men are created equal, real for Black Americans, the nine black robes have chosen white supremacy over racial fairness. Their Accomplices Wore Robes brings to life dozens of cases and their rich casts of characters to explain how America arrived at this point and how society might arrive somewhere better, even as today's federal courts lurch rightward. Brando Simeo Starkey is a writer and scholar. A graduate of Harvard Law School and a member of the New York Bar, he taught law at Villanova Law School and wrote for several years for ESPN's The Undefeated (now Andscape). Born and raised in Cincinnati, he lives in Southern California with his wife and two sons. You can find him online at The Braveverse, and on his YouTube channel of the same name. You can find the host, Sullivan Summer, online, on Instagram, and at Substack, where she and Brando continue their conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
Their Accomplices Wore Robes: How the Supreme Court Chained Black America to the Bottom of a Racial Caste System (Doubleday, 2025) takes readers from the Civil War era to the present and describes how the Supreme Court, even more than the presidency or Congress, aligned with the enemies of Black progress to undermine the promise of the Constitution's Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.The Reconstruction Amendments, which sought to abolish slavery, establish equal protection under the law, and protect voting rights, converted the Constitution into a potent anti-caste document. But in the years since, the Supreme Court has refused to allow the amendments to fulfill that promise. Time and again, when petitioned to make the nation's founding conceit, that all men are created equal, real for Black Americans, the nine black robes have chosen white supremacy over racial fairness. Their Accomplices Wore Robes brings to life dozens of cases and their rich casts of characters to explain how America arrived at this point and how society might arrive somewhere better, even as today's federal courts lurch rightward. Brando Simeo Starkey is a writer and scholar. A graduate of Harvard Law School and a member of the New York Bar, he taught law at Villanova Law School and wrote for several years for ESPN's The Undefeated (now Andscape). Born and raised in Cincinnati, he lives in Southern California with his wife and two sons. You can find him online at The Braveverse, and on his YouTube channel of the same name. You can find the host, Sullivan Summer, online, on Instagram, and at Substack, where she and Brando continue their conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history
Their Accomplices Wore Robes: How the Supreme Court Chained Black America to the Bottom of a Racial Caste System (Doubleday, 2025) takes readers from the Civil War era to the present and describes how the Supreme Court, even more than the presidency or Congress, aligned with the enemies of Black progress to undermine the promise of the Constitution's Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.The Reconstruction Amendments, which sought to abolish slavery, establish equal protection under the law, and protect voting rights, converted the Constitution into a potent anti-caste document. But in the years since, the Supreme Court has refused to allow the amendments to fulfill that promise. Time and again, when petitioned to make the nation's founding conceit, that all men are created equal, real for Black Americans, the nine black robes have chosen white supremacy over racial fairness. Their Accomplices Wore Robes brings to life dozens of cases and their rich casts of characters to explain how America arrived at this point and how society might arrive somewhere better, even as today's federal courts lurch rightward. Brando Simeo Starkey is a writer and scholar. A graduate of Harvard Law School and a member of the New York Bar, he taught law at Villanova Law School and wrote for several years for ESPN's The Undefeated (now Andscape). Born and raised in Cincinnati, he lives in Southern California with his wife and two sons. You can find him online at The Braveverse, and on his YouTube channel of the same name. You can find the host, Sullivan Summer, online, on Instagram, and at Substack, where she and Brando continue their conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history
Their Accomplices Wore Robes: How the Supreme Court Chained Black America to the Bottom of a Racial Caste System (Doubleday, 2025) takes readers from the Civil War era to the present and describes how the Supreme Court, even more than the presidency or Congress, aligned with the enemies of Black progress to undermine the promise of the Constitution's Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.The Reconstruction Amendments, which sought to abolish slavery, establish equal protection under the law, and protect voting rights, converted the Constitution into a potent anti-caste document. But in the years since, the Supreme Court has refused to allow the amendments to fulfill that promise. Time and again, when petitioned to make the nation's founding conceit, that all men are created equal, real for Black Americans, the nine black robes have chosen white supremacy over racial fairness. Their Accomplices Wore Robes brings to life dozens of cases and their rich casts of characters to explain how America arrived at this point and how society might arrive somewhere better, even as today's federal courts lurch rightward. Brando Simeo Starkey is a writer and scholar. A graduate of Harvard Law School and a member of the New York Bar, he taught law at Villanova Law School and wrote for several years for ESPN's The Undefeated (now Andscape). Born and raised in Cincinnati, he lives in Southern California with his wife and two sons. You can find him online at The Braveverse, and on his YouTube channel of the same name. You can find the host, Sullivan Summer, online, on Instagram, and at Substack, where she and Brando continue their conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies
Their Accomplices Wore Robes: How the Supreme Court Chained Black America to the Bottom of a Racial Caste System (Doubleday, 2025) takes readers from the Civil War era to the present and describes how the Supreme Court, even more than the presidency or Congress, aligned with the enemies of Black progress to undermine the promise of the Constitution's Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.The Reconstruction Amendments, which sought to abolish slavery, establish equal protection under the law, and protect voting rights, converted the Constitution into a potent anti-caste document. But in the years since, the Supreme Court has refused to allow the amendments to fulfill that promise. Time and again, when petitioned to make the nation's founding conceit, that all men are created equal, real for Black Americans, the nine black robes have chosen white supremacy over racial fairness. Their Accomplices Wore Robes brings to life dozens of cases and their rich casts of characters to explain how America arrived at this point and how society might arrive somewhere better, even as today's federal courts lurch rightward. Brando Simeo Starkey is a writer and scholar. A graduate of Harvard Law School and a member of the New York Bar, he taught law at Villanova Law School and wrote for several years for ESPN's The Undefeated (now Andscape). Born and raised in Cincinnati, he lives in Southern California with his wife and two sons. You can find him online at The Braveverse, and on his YouTube channel of the same name. You can find the host, Sullivan Summer, online, on Instagram, and at Substack, where she and Brando continue their conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law
Their Accomplices Wore Robes: How the Supreme Court Chained Black America to the Bottom of a Racial Caste System (Doubleday, 2025) takes readers from the Civil War era to the present and describes how the Supreme Court, even more than the presidency or Congress, aligned with the enemies of Black progress to undermine the promise of the Constitution's Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.The Reconstruction Amendments, which sought to abolish slavery, establish equal protection under the law, and protect voting rights, converted the Constitution into a potent anti-caste document. But in the years since, the Supreme Court has refused to allow the amendments to fulfill that promise. Time and again, when petitioned to make the nation's founding conceit, that all men are created equal, real for Black Americans, the nine black robes have chosen white supremacy over racial fairness. Their Accomplices Wore Robes brings to life dozens of cases and their rich casts of characters to explain how America arrived at this point and how society might arrive somewhere better, even as today's federal courts lurch rightward. Brando Simeo Starkey is a writer and scholar. A graduate of Harvard Law School and a member of the New York Bar, he taught law at Villanova Law School and wrote for several years for ESPN's The Undefeated (now Andscape). Born and raised in Cincinnati, he lives in Southern California with his wife and two sons. You can find him online at The Braveverse, and on his YouTube channel of the same name. You can find the host, Sullivan Summer, online, on Instagram, and at Substack, where she and Brando continue their conversation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This episode of Justice Above All examines how the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and how today's legal arguments decontextualize the Amendment's historical context in which it was ratified—during Reconstruction, to secure full citizenship and legal equality for formerly enslaved Black people. Today, multiple Supreme Court decisions reflect an inaccurate and ahistorical reading of the Reconstruction Amendments—the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth—which were enacted to dismantle the legacy of slavery and secure full citizenship and equal protection under the law for all people of African descent.Today's host is Karla McKanders, Director of the Thurgood Marshall Institute. She is in conversation with the following guests: - Lynne Adrine: Alumna, Ludlow Elementary School and President, LKA Strategies- Joel Motley: Civil and human rights advocate, filmmaker, and the son of Constance Baker Motle- Kenji Yoshino: Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law, NYU School of Law and Faculty Director, Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and BelongingFor more information on this episode, please visit https://tminstituteldf.org/brown-v-board-ii-fourteenth-amendment-myth-of-neutrality/.This episode was produced by Jakiyah Bradley and Lauren O'Neil. It was hosted by Karla McKanders. Resonate Recordings edited the episode.If you enjoyed this episode please consider leaving a review and helping others find it! To keep up with the work of LDF please visit our website at www.naacpldf.org and follow us on social media at @naacp_ldf. To keep up with the work of the Thurgood Marshall Institute, please visit our website at www.tminstituteldf.org and follow us on Twitter at @tmi_ldf.
Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies
Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics
Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science
Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law
Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Join Zak Paine, Chris Paul, CannCon and Ashe in America for Badlands Media's Special Coverage of the 2025 election certification. As Trump officially secures his presidency with J.D. Vance as Vice President, the hosts break down the procedural process, Kamala Harris's role, and the legacy of January 6th. From historical insights on the Reconstruction Amendments to reflections on media narratives, this episode provides both sharp commentary and thought-provoking analysis on the state of American governance.
My guest for today's interview is DaWuan Norwood, a dedicated civil rights attorney and advocate for Black liberation. DaWuan specializes in voting rights, democracy, and criminal penal system abolition, bringing a wealth of experience from their work with organizations such as the NAACP, ACLU, and Campaign Legal Center. We explore their journey from law school to the frontlines of voting rights litigation and their innovative research on the Reconstruction Amendments. DaWuan's passion for justice and commitment to underrepresented communities shines through in this powerful conversation.
How did the Reconstruction Amendments set the stage for the ongoing battle for civil rights? In this episode of 60-Second Civics, Dr. Lester Brooks, emeritus professor of American history at Anne Arundel Community College, explains the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. Center for Civic Education
In this episode of Consider the Constitution, recorded close to the 2024 Juneteenth federal holiday commemorating the end of slavery, host Dr. Katie Crawford-Lackey interviews Dr. DeAnza Cook about the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th) and their impact on the American justice system. Dr. Cook explains how the 13th Amendment abolished slavery but left a loophole allowing involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime. This led to the disproportionate criminalization and incarceration of Black Americans during the Reconstruction era and beyond.The 14th and 15th Amendments aimed to address citizenship and voting rights for African Americans, but racial discrimination persisted. Black activists leveraged these amendments to challenge racist policing and punishment practices through the courts, protests, and self-defense. However, mass incarceration, which began in the late 20th century, continues to disproportionately affect people of color.Dr. Cook introduces the concept of "abolition democracy," which argues that the abolition of slavery was not enough to secure the rights and freedoms promised to Black Americans. She emphasizes the importance of restoring voting rights for those serving felony convictions and addressing de facto disenfranchisement in jails.The episode underscores the ongoing struggle for equal protection under the law and the need for collective action to pursue a more just and inclusive democracy, particularly as we reflect on the significance of Juneteenth.
Madiba Dennie is Deputy Editor and Senior Contributor at the critical legal commentary outlet Balls and Strikes. Her debut book is The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We The People Can Take it Back. We discuss a fresh way to interpret the Constitution. Inclusive Constitutionalism interprets the Constitution in a way that makes inclusive democracy real. By contrast, originalism interprets the meaning of the Constitution as fixed in time in the 1800s. However, the Reconstruction Amendments that were enacted in the wake of the Civil War tried to address the status of newly freed, formerly enslaved people. The Amendments were designed to foster a multiracial democracy for the first time. In addition, the public has a role in articulating what it believes the Constitution means. Follow Madiba on X: https://x.com/AudreLawdAMercy Follow Mila on X: https://x.com/milaatmos Follow Future Hindsight on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/futurehindsightpod/ Sponsor: Thanks to Shopify for supporting Future Hindsight! Sign up for a $1/month trial at shopify.com/hopeful. Love Future Hindsight? Take our Listener Survey! http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=6tI0Zi1e78vq&ver=standard Take the Democracy Group's Listener Survey! https://www.democracygroup.org/survey Want to support the show and get it early? https://patreon.com/futurehindsight Check out the Future Hindsight website! www.futurehindsight.com Read the transcript here: https://www.futurehindsight.com/episodes/take-the-constitution-back-from-originalism-madiba-dennie Credits: Host: Mila Atmos Guests: Madiba Dennie Executive Producer: Mila Atmos Producer: Zack Travis
A Lightweight Champion, a female politician who challenged the glass ceiling, and an influential jazz musician. Who were they?Today's episode shares three more mixed-race public figures from history. Coined “The Reading Hour”, listen along as Jolie reads about these dynamic trailblazers.Saoul Paul Mamby (1947–2019) was an American boxer who held the WBC super lightweight title from 1980 to 1982. Born in the South Bronx, New York, to parents of Spanish and Jamaican descent, Mamby converted to Judaism at a young age. He began boxing in 1963, turned professional in 1969, and served in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. Mamby's boxing career included notable victories and title defenses, facing opponents like Roberto Durán and Saengsak Muangsurin. He continued fighting into his 50s and attempted a comeback at age 60, becoming one of the oldest boxers to compete in an officially sanctioned bout. Known for his durability, Mamby was stopped only once in 85 professional fights.Mae Street Kidd (1904–1999) was an American businesswoman, civic leader, and politician known for her significant contributions during a time when gender and racial barriers were prominent. Born in Kentucky to an interracial family, she had a distinguished career in public relations and served in the Red Cross during WWII. In politics, she represented Louisville in the Kentucky House of Representatives from 1968 to 1984, advocating for landmark legislation such as the creation of the Kentucky Housing Corporation and the ratification of the Reconstruction Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Kidd's legacy reflects her resilience and commitment to civil rights.Charles Mingus Jr. (1922–1979) was a multifaceted American jazz musician known for his prowess as an upright bassist, composer, bandleader, and pianist. He was a key figure in jazz history, collaborating with luminaries like Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, and Max Roach. Mingus' innovative compositions spanned genres from bebop to avant-garde jazz, showcased in albums like "Pithecanthropus Erectus" and "Mingus Ah Um." His music continues to be celebrated, performed by groups like the Mingus Big Band. Mingus' life was marked by his diverse heritage and experiences with racism, shaping his music's themes of injustice and discrimination. He was also known for his tempestuous personality and occasionally violent temper, alongside his brilliance as a musician. Mingus left a lasting legacy in jazz, honored with accolades like induction into the Grammy Hall of Fame and a US postage stamp in his honor.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saoul_Mambyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae_Street_Kiddhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_MingusDOWNLOAD and SUBSCRIBE to Generation Mixed, on Apple, Spotify, IHeart, or Spreaker!FOLLOW US: Instagram: @generationmixedpodcast | https://www.instagram.com/generationmixedpodcast/Tik-Tok: @GenMixedpodcast | https://www.tiktok.com/@genmixedpodcastSubscribe to our newsletter at www.nuwavemedia.orgE-mail us with any questions, comments, or suggestions for future episodes: Generationmixedpodcast@gmail.comWanna be on the show? Text or call 510-852-9550! What it means to be multiracial in America, one story at a time, from the studio to the streets. –Exciting news! JMarc has partnered with NuWave Community Media, a non-profit promoting digital literacy. Support our cause by donating or volunteering at www.nuwavemedia.org. Explore our diverse podcastsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/generation-mixed--5176197/support.
Originalism is the ascendant legal theory espoused by conservative legal thinkers, including the majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices. But far from being an objective framework for constitutional interpretation, says author and attorney Madiba Dennie, its true purpose is to achieve conservative political aims regardless of the historical record. In The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back, Dennie traces the roots of originalism as a legal theory back to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, though the Supreme Court rejected the arguments in the 1954 case. Its adherents argue the meaning of the Constitution must solely be determined by “the original public meaning of the Constitution at the time it was drafted,” and that there is a discernible correct answer to what that meaning would have been. The theory gained popularity in the 1980s, with the late Robert Bork and Justice Antonin Scalia as two influential proponents. Scalia famously said the Constitution is “not a living document. It's dead, dead, dead.” Today, originalism has formed the basis for decisions such as Justice Samuel Alito's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. “Despite originalism's reputation as a serious intellectual theory, it's more like dream logic: It seems reasonable at first, but when you wake up, you can recognize it as nonsense,” Dennie writes. “Originalism deliberately overemphasizes a particular version of history that treats the civil-rights gains won over time as categorically suspect. The consequences of its embrace have been intentionally catastrophic for practically anyone who isn't a wealthy white man, aka the class of people with exclusive possession of political power at the time the Constitution's drafters originally put pen to paper (or quill to parchment).” In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Dennie and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how conservative originalists prioritize the time period of the Founding Fathers over the Reconstruction Era that produced the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. “We can't fulfill the Reconstruction Amendments' radical vision of full equality and freedom if we can't be attentive to the ways in which we have been made unequal and unfree,” Dennie writes in The Originalism Trap. While Dennie believes there are portions of the historical record that support broad civil liberty protections, she says she does not think originalism is a useful tool for progressives to use as a legal framework. In place of originalism, Dennie has a bold proposal: inclusive constitutionalism. “Inclusive constitutionalism means what it says: the Constitution includes everyone, so our legal interpretation must serve to make the promise of inclusive democracy real. When the judiciary is called upon to resolve a legal ambiguity or when there are broad principles at issue, the application of which must be made specific, it is proper for courts to consider how cases may relate to systemic injustices and how different legal analyses would impact marginalized people's ability to participate in the country's political, economic and social life.” Rawles and Dennie also discuss how lawyers and judges can push back against originalism; the legal rights and protections achieved by groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and the LGBTQ+ community; why she dropped Jurassic Park references into the book; and how she keeps an optimistic outlook on the expansion of civil liberties. “Justice for all may not be a deeply rooted tradition,” Dennie writes, “but fighting for it is.”
Originalism is the ascendant legal theory espoused by conservative legal thinkers, including the majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices. But far from being an objective framework for constitutional interpretation, says author and attorney Madiba Dennie, its true purpose is to achieve conservative political aims regardless of the historical record. In The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back, Dennie traces the roots of originalism as a legal theory back to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, though the Supreme Court rejected the arguments in the 1954 case. Its adherents argue the meaning of the Constitution must solely be determined by “the original public meaning of the Constitution at the time it was drafted,” and that there is a discernible correct answer to what that meaning would have been. The theory gained popularity in the 1980s, with the late Robert Bork and Justice Antonin Scalia as two influential proponents. Scalia famously said the Constitution is “not a living document. It's dead, dead, dead.” Today, originalism has formed the basis for decisions such as Justice Samuel Alito's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. “Despite originalism's reputation as a serious intellectual theory, it's more like dream logic: It seems reasonable at first, but when you wake up, you can recognize it as nonsense,” Dennie writes. “Originalism deliberately overemphasizes a particular version of history that treats the civil-rights gains won over time as categorically suspect. The consequences of its embrace have been intentionally catastrophic for practically anyone who isn't a wealthy white man, aka the class of people with exclusive possession of political power at the time the Constitution's drafters originally put pen to paper (or quill to parchment).” In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Dennie and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how conservative originalists prioritize the time period of the Founding Fathers over the Reconstruction Era that produced the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. “We can't fulfill the Reconstruction Amendments' radical vision of full equality and freedom if we can't be attentive to the ways in which we have been made unequal and unfree,” Dennie writes in The Originalism Trap. While Dennie believes there are portions of the historical record that support broad civil liberty protections, she says she does not think originalism is a useful tool for progressives to use as a legal framework. In place of originalism, Dennie has a bold proposal: inclusive constitutionalism. “Inclusive constitutionalism means what it says: the Constitution includes everyone, so our legal interpretation must serve to make the promise of inclusive democracy real. When the judiciary is called upon to resolve a legal ambiguity or when there are broad principles at issue, the application of which must be made specific, it is proper for courts to consider how cases may relate to systemic injustices and how different legal analyses would impact marginalized people's ability to participate in the country's political, economic and social life.” Rawles and Dennie also discuss how lawyers and judges can push back against originalism; the legal rights and protections achieved by groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and the LGBTQ+ community; why she dropped Jurassic Park references into the book; and how she keeps an optimistic outlook on the expansion of civil liberties. “Justice for all may not be a deeply rooted tradition,” Dennie writes, “but fighting for it is.”
Originalism is the ascendant legal theory espoused by conservative legal thinkers, including the majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices. But far from being an objective framework for constitutional interpretation, says author and attorney Madiba Dennie, its true purpose is to achieve conservative political aims regardless of the historical record. In The Originalism Trap: How Extremists Stole the Constitution and How We the People Can Take It Back, Dennie traces the roots of originalism as a legal theory back to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, though the Supreme Court rejected the arguments in the 1954 case. Its adherents argue the meaning of the Constitution must solely be determined by “the original public meaning of the Constitution at the time it was drafted,” and that there is a discernible correct answer to what that meaning would have been. The theory gained popularity in the 1980s, with the late Robert Bork and Justice Antonin Scalia as two influential proponents. Scalia famously said the Constitution is “not a living document. It's dead, dead, dead.” Today, originalism has formed the basis for decisions such as Justice Samuel Alito's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. “Despite originalism's reputation as a serious intellectual theory, it's more like dream logic: It seems reasonable at first, but when you wake up, you can recognize it as nonsense,” Dennie writes. “Originalism deliberately overemphasizes a particular version of history that treats the civil-rights gains won over time as categorically suspect. The consequences of its embrace have been intentionally catastrophic for practically anyone who isn't a wealthy white man, aka the class of people with exclusive possession of political power at the time the Constitution's drafters originally put pen to paper (or quill to parchment).” In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Dennie and the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles discuss how conservative originalists prioritize the time period of the Founding Fathers over the Reconstruction Era that produced the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. “We can't fulfill the Reconstruction Amendments' radical vision of full equality and freedom if we can't be attentive to the ways in which we have been made unequal and unfree,” Dennie writes in The Originalism Trap. While Dennie believes there are portions of the historical record that support broad civil liberty protections, she says she does not think originalism is a useful tool for progressives to use as a legal framework. In place of originalism, Dennie has a bold proposal: inclusive constitutionalism. “Inclusive constitutionalism means what it says: the Constitution includes everyone, so our legal interpretation must serve to make the promise of inclusive democracy real. When the judiciary is called upon to resolve a legal ambiguity or when there are broad principles at issue, the application of which must be made specific, it is proper for courts to consider how cases may relate to systemic injustices and how different legal analyses would impact marginalized people's ability to participate in the country's political, economic and social life.” Rawles and Dennie also discuss how lawyers and judges can push back against originalism; the legal rights and protections achieved by groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and the LGBTQ+ community; why she dropped Jurassic Park references into the book; and how she keeps an optimistic outlook on the expansion of civil liberties. “Justice for all may not be a deeply rooted tradition,” Dennie writes, “but fighting for it is.”
There haven't been that many insurrections in the United States, which means the case law ahead of next week's arguments in Trump v. Anderson (the 14th Amendment, Section 3 disqualification case) is pretty thin. And so we, and presumably the justices, must rely on text and history to understand the intent of the drafters of the Reconstruction Amendments. Civil war and reconstruction historian Professor Manisha Sinha, signatory of one amicus brief and cited in another, explains that the history is crystal clear. Trump must be disqualified from the ballot. After weeks of discussing concerns about the strategic, political implications of this case, this week Dahlia Lithwick tackles the text and the history head-on, in a case that's almost a natural experiment in applying originalism on its own terms. See also: Amicus Brief signed by 25 civil war and reconstruction historians (including Professor Sinha) Abraham Lincoln's Lyceum Address Sean Wilentz: The Case for Disqualification, New York Review of Books Jamelle Bouie: If It Walks Like an Insurrection and Talks Like an Insurrection... NY Times In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Slate's judicial diviner Mark Joseph Stern joins to talk about a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on abortion that really took both text and history and human rights seriously. Also, an 8th circuit decision that could put a stake in the heart of what remains of the voting rights act. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
There haven't been that many insurrections in the United States, which means the case law ahead of next week's arguments in Trump v. Anderson (the 14th Amendment, Section 3 disqualification case) is pretty thin. And so we, and presumably the justices, must rely on text and history to understand the intent of the drafters of the Reconstruction Amendments. Civil war and reconstruction historian Professor Manisha Sinha, signatory of one amicus brief and cited in another, explains that the history is crystal clear. Trump must be disqualified from the ballot. After weeks of discussing concerns about the strategic, political implications of this case, this week Dahlia Lithwick tackles the text and the history head-on, in a case that's almost a natural experiment in applying originalism on its own terms. See also: Amicus Brief signed by 25 civil war and reconstruction historians (including Professor Sinha) Abraham Lincoln's Lyceum Address Sean Wilentz: The Case for Disqualification, New York Review of Books Jamelle Bouie: If It Walks Like an Insurrection and Talks Like an Insurrection... NY Times In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Slate's judicial diviner Mark Joseph Stern joins to talk about a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on abortion that really took both text and history and human rights seriously. Also, an 8th circuit decision that could put a stake in the heart of what remains of the voting rights act. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
There haven't been that many insurrections in the United States, which means the case law ahead of next week's arguments in Trump v. Anderson (the 14th Amendment, Section 3 disqualification case) is pretty thin. And so we, and presumably the justices, must rely on text and history to understand the intent of the drafters of the Reconstruction Amendments. Civil war and reconstruction historian Professor Manisha Sinha, signatory of one amicus brief and cited in another, explains that the history is crystal clear. Trump must be disqualified from the ballot. After weeks of discussing concerns about the strategic, political implications of this case, this week Dahlia Lithwick tackles the text and the history head-on, in a case that's almost a natural experiment in applying originalism on its own terms. See also: Amicus Brief signed by 25 civil war and reconstruction historians (including Professor Sinha) Abraham Lincoln's Lyceum Address Sean Wilentz: The Case for Disqualification, New York Review of Books Jamelle Bouie: If It Walks Like an Insurrection and Talks Like an Insurrection... NY Times In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Slate's judicial diviner Mark Joseph Stern joins to talk about a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on abortion that really took both text and history and human rights seriously. Also, an 8th circuit decision that could put a stake in the heart of what remains of the voting rights act. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Join us as we delve into the crucial debate surrounding the exclusion of Donald Trump from the Colorado and Maine ballots, a pivotal issue in the political and legal spheres with Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, Henry L. Chambers, JR. Our insightful discussion centers on the implications of the 14th Amendment, specifically Section 3, which disqualifies individuals involved in insurrection from holding office. We dissect the self-executing aspect of the 14th Amendment and analyze the diverse interpretations by states like Colorado and Maine.Crucially, we examine the Supreme Court's role in determining Trump's eligibility, emphasizing the significance of their impending decision. Our conversation also ventures into the possibility of a write-in campaign and its extensive political ramifications.Throughout the episode, we navigate through various dimensions of the upcoming election, focusing on bipartisan perspectives on disqualifying Trump, the urgent need for highly qualified presidential candidates, and the intense nature of presidential elections. We address the concerning lack of national discourse on multiple qualified candidates, the internal divisions plaguing the Republican Party, and the overall scarcity of meaningful dialogues and common ground in today's political landscape.Furthermore, we discuss the anxieties surrounding the upcoming election, the ongoing court cases and state legislation pertinent to Trump's disqualification, the necessity for a national discussion on the January 6th insurrection, and the interpretation of the Constitution in the context of the Reconstruction Amendments. It was a very in-depth conversation with a wonderful mind helping us make sense of it all! Read the publication Professor Chambers mentioned in the show: https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol69/iss1/10/Guest Bio:Professor Henry L. Chambers, Jr., teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, criminal law, law and religion, and employment discrimination. He is active in the Virginia State Bar, including serving as chair of its Section on the Education of Lawyers from 2007-2009, and has been a member of the American Law Institute since 2002. Professor Chambers served as Special Assistant Attorney General for redistricting matters for the Commonwealth of Virginia from 2011-2013. He also frequently lectures on constitutional law through the We The People program, which provides civic education instruction to school teachers and the public; at James Madison's Montpelier; and at the Federal Executive Institute in Charlottesville.Support the showTo learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics
Chrissie explains the third of the Reconstruction Amendments, the Fifteenth. Read the essay here: https://historywiththeszilagyis.org/hwts221 Find us on Twitter:The Network: @BQNPodcastsThe Show: @HistorySzilagyi.Chrissie: @TheGoddessLivia. Jason: @JasonDarkElf.Send topic suggestions via Twitter or on our Facebook page History with the Szilagyis.Suggested Reading: Daniel Boorstin, The Americans: The Democratic Experience. Eric Foner, The Second Founding. Heather Cox Richardson, How the South Won the Civil War. The BQN Podcast Collective is brought to you by our listeners. Special thanks to these patrons on Patreon whose generous contributions help to produce this podcast and the many others on our network! Jason AndersonVera BibleSusan Capuzzi-De ClerckTim CooperChrissie De Clerck-SzilagyiLars Di ScenzaThad HaitMatt HarkerPeter HongJim McMahonJoe MignoneGreg MolumbyMahendran RadhakrishnanTom Van ScotterDavid WillettCarl WondersAnonymousDavid You can join this illustrious list by becoming a patron here: https://www.patreon.com/BQN
Chrissie explains the Second of the Reconstruction Amendments, the Fourteenth. Read the essay here: https://historywiththeszilagyis.org/hwts220 Find us on Twitter:The Network: @BQNPodcastsThe Show: @HistorySzilagyi.Chrissie: @TheGoddessLivia. Jason: @JasonDarkElf.Send topic suggestions via Twitter or on our Facebook page History with the Szilagyis.History with the Szilagyis is supported by our patrons: PatiSusan Capuzzi-De ClerckLaura DullKris HillBetty LarsenVince LockeJoin these wonderful supporters by visiting patreon.com/historywiththeszilagyis. Suggested Reading: Daniel Boorstin, The Americans: The Democratic Experience. Eric Foner, The Second Founding. Heather Cox Richardson, How the South Won the Civil War. The BQN Podcast Collective is brought to you by our listeners. Special thanks to these patrons on Patreon whose generous contributions help to produce this podcast and the many others on our network! Jason AndersonVera BibleSusan Capuzzi-De ClerckTim CooperChrissie De Clerck-SzilagyiLars Di ScenzaThad HaitMatt HarkerPeter HongJim McMahonJoe MignoneGreg MolumbyMahendran RadhakrishnanTom Van ScotterDavid WillettCarl WondersAnonymousDavidYou can join this illustrious list by becoming a patron here: https://www.patreon.com/BQN
Chrissie explains the first of the Reconstruction Amendments. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery in the United States. Read the essay here: https://historywiththeszilagyis.org/hwts219 Find us on Twitter:The Network: @BQNPodcastsThe Show: @HistorySzilagyi.Chrissie: @TheGoddessLivia. Jason: @JasonDarkElf.Send topic suggestions via Twitter or on our Facebook page History with the Szilagyis. History with the Szilagyis is supported by our patrons: PatiSusan Capuzzi-De ClerckLaura DullKris HillBetty Larson Vince LockeJoin these wonderful supporters by visiting patreon.com/historywiththeszilagyis. Suggested Reading: Daniel Boorstin, The Americans: The Democratic Experience. Eric Foner, The Second Founding. Heather Cox Richardson, How the South Won the Civil War. The BQN Podcast Collective is brought to you by our listeners. Special thanks to these patrons on Patreon whose generous contributions help to produce this podcast and the many others on our network! Jason AndersonVera BibleSusan Capuzzi-De ClerckTim CooperChrissie De Clerck-SzilagyiLars Di ScenzaThad HaitMatt HarkerPeter HongJim McMahonJoe MignoneGreg MolumbyMahendran RadhakrishnanTom Van ScotterDavid WillettCarl WondersAnonymousDavidYou can join this illustrious list by becoming a patron here:patreon.com/BQN
The beginning of the Civil Rights Movement is often dated to sometime in the middle of the 1950s, but the roots of it stretch back much further. The NAACP, which calls itself “the nation's largest and most widely recognized civil rights organization,” was founded near the beginning of the 20th Century, on February 12, 1909. As today's guest demonstrates, though, Black Americans were exercising civil rights far earlier than that, in many cases even before the Civil War. Joining me in this episode is Dr. Dylan C. Penningroth is a professor of law and history and Associate Dean of the Program in Jurisprudence and Social Policy at the University of California–Berkeley and author of Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights. Our theme song is Frogs Legs Rag, composed by James Scott and performed by Kevin MacLeod, licensed under Creative Commons. The mid-episode music is “Hopeful Piano,” by Oleg Kyrylkovv, available via the Pixabay license. The episode image is “Spectators and witnesses on second day of Superior Court during trial of automobile accident case during court week in Granville County Courthouse, Oxford, North Carolina,” by Marion Post Wolcott, photographed in 1939; the photograph is in the public domain and available via the Library of Congress Prints & Photographs Division, Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information Black-and-White Negatives. Additional Sources: “8 Key Laws That Advanced Civil Rights,” by Mehrunnisa Wani, History.com, January 26, 2022. “The Reconstruction Amendments: Official Documents as Social History,” by Eric Foner, The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. “(1865) Reconstruction Amendments, 1865-1870,” BlackPast. “14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868),” U.S. National Archives. “March 27, 1866: Veto Message on Civil Rights Legislation,” Andrew Johnson, UVA Miller Center. “Andrew Johnson and the veto of the Civil Rights Bill,” National Park Service. “Grant signs KKK Act into law, April 20, 1871,” by Andrew Glass, Politico, April 20, 2019. “Looking back at the Ku Klux Klan Act,” by Nicholas Mosvick, National Constitution Center, April 20, 2021. “Reconstruction and Its Aftermath,” Library of Congress The African American Odyssey: A Quest for Full Citizenship. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Reconstruction Amendments and How They've Created Our Political World Today Guest: Eric Foner is DeWitt Clinton Professor Emeritus of History at Columbia University. He is the author of several books including, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men; The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery which won the Pulitzer; and The Second Founding : How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution. The post KPFA Special – Volatile Times: The Political History of the Civil War Part III appeared first on KPFA.
How did the Reconstruction Amendments set the stage for the ongoing battle for civil rights? In this episode of 60-Second Civics, Dr. Lester Brooks, emeritus professor of American history at Anne Arundel Community College, explains the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. Center for Civic Education
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
