Podcast appearances and mentions of Reva Siegel

Hello Interactors,Watching all the transnational love at the Olympics has been inspiring. We're all forced to think about nationalities, borders, ethnicities, and all the flavors of behavioral geography it entails. After all, these athletes are all there representing their so-called “homeland.” And in the case of Alysa Liu, her father's escape from his. Between the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre and the fall of the Berlin wall, “homeland” took on new meaning for many immigrants. This all took me back to that time and the start of my own journey at Microsoft at the dawn of a new global reality.HOMELAND HATCHED HEREWith all the focus on Olympics and immigration recently, I've found myself reflecting on my days at Microsoft in the 90s. As the company was growing (really fast), teams were filling up with people recruited from around the world. There were new accents in meetings, new holidays to celebrate, and yummy new foods and funny new words being introduced. This thickening of transnational ties made Redmond feel as connected the rest of the world as the globalized software we were building. By 2000 users around the world could switch between over 60 languages in Windows and Office. In behavioral geography terms, working on the product and using the product made “here” feel more connected to “elsewhere.”This influx of new talent was all enabled by the Immigration Act of 1990. Signed by George H. W. Bush, it increased and stabilized legal pathways for highly skilled immigrants. This continued with Clinton era decisions to expand H-1B visa allocations that fed the tech hiring boom. I took full advantage of this allotment recruiting and hiring interaction designers and user researchers from around the world. In the same decade the federal government expanded access to the United States, it also tightened security. Terrorism threats, especially after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, spooked everyone. Despite this threat, there was more domestic initiated terrorism than outside foreign attacks. The decade saw deadly incidents like the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 by radicalized by white supremacist anti-government terrorists, which killed 168 and injured hundreds, making it the deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history before 9/11.A year later, the Atlanta Olympic bombing and related bombings by anti-government Christian extremists caused multiple deaths and injuries. Clinic bombings and shootings by anti-abortion extremists began in 1994 with the Brookline clinic shootings and continued through the 1998 Birmingham clinic bombing. These inspired more arsons, bombings, and shootings tied to white supremacist, anti-abortion, and other extreme ideologies.Still, haven been shocked by Islamist extremists in 1993 (and growing Islamic jihadist plots outside the U.S.) the federal government adopted new security language centered on protecting the “homeland” from outside incursions. In 1998, Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 62, titled “Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the Homeland and Americans Overseas,” a serious counterterrorism document whose title quietly normalized the term homeland inside executive governance.But there was at least one critical voice. Steven Simon, Clinton's senior director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council, didn't think “Defense of the Homeland” belonged in a presidential directive.Simon's retrospective argument is that “homeland” did more than name a policy, it brought a territorial logic of legitimacy that the American constitution had historically resisted. He recalls the phrase “Defense of the Homeland” felt “faintly illiberal, even un-American.” The United States historically grounded constitutional legitimacy in civic and legal abstractions (people, union, republic, human rights) rather than blood rights or rights to soil. Membership was to be mediated by institutions, employment, and law rather than ancestry.“Homeland” serves as a powerful cue that suggests a mental model of ‘home' and expands it to encompass a nation. This model is accompanied by a set of spatial inferences that evoke familiarity, appeal, and even an intuitive sense. However, it also creates a sense of a confined interior that can be breached by someone from outside.This is rooted in place attachment that can be defined as an affective bond between people and places — an emotional tie that can anchor identity and responsibility. But attachment is not the same thing as ownership. Research on collective psychological ownership shows how groups can come to experience a territory as “ours.” This creates a sense of ownership that can be linked to a perceived determination right. Here, the ingroup is entitled to decide what happens in that place while sometimes feeding a desire to exclude outsiders. When the word “homeland” was placed at the center of statecraft it primed public reasoning from attachment of place through care, stewardship, and shared fate toward property ownership through control, gatekeeping, and exclusion. It turns belonging into something closer to a property claim.What makes the 1990s especially instructive from a geography perspective is that “access” itself was being administered through institutions that are intensely spatial: consulates, ports of entry, employer locations, housing markets, and the micro-geographies of office life. The H-1B expansions was not simply generosity, but a form of managed throughput in a system designed to meet labor demand. And it was paired with political assurances about enforcement and domestic worker protections.Mid-decade legal reforms strengthened enforcement by authorities in significant ways. Mechanisms for faster removals and stricter interior enforcement reinforced the idea that the state could act more decisively within the national space. The federal government found ways to expand legal channels that served economic objectives while also building a governance style increasingly comfortable with interior control. “Homeland” helped supply the conceptual bridge that made that socioeconomic coexistence feel coherent.It continues to encourage a politics of boundary maintenance that determines who counts as inside, what kinds of movement are legible as normal, and which bodies are perpetually “out of place.” If the defended object is a republic, the default language justification is legal and civic. If the defended object is a homeland, the language jurisdiction becomes territorial and affective. That shift changes what restrictions, surveillance practices, and membership tests become thinkable and tolerable over time. HOMELAND'S HOHFELDIAN HARNESSIf “homeland” structures a place of belonging, then “rights” are the legal grammar that tells us what may be done in that place. The trouble is that “rights” are often treated as moral abstract objects floating above context. Legally, they are structured relations among people, institutions, and things. But “rights” can take on a variety of meanings.Wesley Hohfeld, the Yale law professor who pioneered analytical jurisprudence in the early 20th century, argued that many legal disputes persist because the word “right” is used ambiguously.He distinguished four basic “incidents” for rights: claim, privilege (liberty), power, and immunity. Each is paired with a position correlating to another party: duty, no-claim (no-right), liability, and disability. When the police pull you over for speeding you hold a privilege to drive at or below the speed limit (say, 40 mph). The state has no-right to demand you stop for going exactly 40 mph. But if you're clocked at 50 mph, the officer enforces your no-right to exceed the limit which correlates to the state's claim-right. You have a duty to comply by pulling over. If the officer then has power to issue a ticket, you face a liability to have your driving privilege altered (e.g., fined). But you also enjoy an immunity from arbitrary arrest without probable cause.Let's apply that to “homeland” security.If a politician says we must “defend the homeland,” it can mean at least four different things legally:* Claim-Rights: Citizens can demand that the government protect them (e.g., from attacks). Officials have the duty to act — think TSA screening or border patrol.​* Privileges: Federal Agents get freedoms to act without legal blocks, such as stopping and questioning people in so-called high-risk zones, while bystanders have no-right to interfere.​* Powers: Federal Agencies hold authority to change your legal status. For example, they can label you a watchlist risk (e.g., you become a liability). This can then lead to loss of liberties like travel bans, detentions, or asset freezes.​* Immunities: Federal Officials or programs shield themselves from lawsuits (via qualified immunity or classified data rules), effectively blocking citizens' ability to sue.Forget whether these are legitimate or illegitimate, Hohfeld's point is they are different forms of rights — and each has distinct costs. Once “homeland” is the object, the system tends to grow powers and privileges (capacity for overt or covert operations), and to seek immunities (resistance to challenge), often at the expense of others' claim-rights and liberties.Rights are not only relational, but they are also often spatially conditional. The same person can move through zones of legality experiencing different practical rights. Consider border checkpoints, airports, perimeters of government buildings, protest cites, or regions declared “emergency” zones. Government institutions operationalize these spaces as “behavioral geographies” which determines who gets stopped, where scrutiny concentrates, and which movements count as suspicious.The state looks past the abstract bearer of unalienable liberties and due process to see only a physical entity whose movements through space dissolve their Constitutional immunities into a series of observable, trackable traces. Those traces become inputs to enforcement. This is what makes surveillance so powerful. “Homeland” governance is especially trace-hungry because it imagines safety as a property of space that must be continuously maintained.But these traces are behavioral cues and human behavior is never neutral. They are interpreted through normalized cultural and institutional schemas about who “belongs” in which places. Place attachment and territorial belonging can become gatekeeping mechanisms. Empirical work on homeland/place attachment links it to identity processes and self-categorization. Related work suggests that collective psychological ownership — “this place is ours” — can predict exclusionary attitudes toward immigrants and outsiders. In legal terms, those social attitudes can translate into pressure to expand state powers and narrow outsiders' claim-rights.A vocabulary rooted in a ‘republic' tends to emphasize rights as universal claims against the state. This is where we get due process, equal protection, and rights to speech and assembly. A homeland vocabulary tends to emphasize rights as statused permissions tied to membership and territory. Here we find rights of citizens, rights at the border, rights in “emergencies”, and rights conditioned on “lawful presence.” The shift makes some restrictions feel like a kind of protecting of the home. Hence the unaffable phrase, “Get off my lawn.”HOMELAND HIERARCHIES HUMBLEDIf the “homeland” is framed as a place-of-belonging and rights are the grammar of that place, then the current crisis of American democracy boils down to a dispute over the nature of equality. This tension is best understood through the long-standing constitutional debate between anticlassification and antisubordination, which dates back to the Reconstruction era. Anticlassification, often called the “colorblind” or “status-blind” approach, holds that the state's duty is simply to avoid explicit categories in its laws. Antisubordination, by contrast, insists that the law must actively dismantle structured group hierarchies and the “caste-like” systems they produce. When the state embraces a “homeland” logic, it leans heavily on anticlassification to mask a deeper reality of spatial subordination.In what we might call the “Theater of Defense,” agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) increasingly rely on anticlassification principles to justify aggressive interior crackdowns. They frame enforcement as a territorial necessity by protecting the sanctity of the soil itself. A workplace raid or roving patrol, in this view, does not target any specific group. Instead, it simply maintains the “integrity” of the homeland. This reflects what law professor Bradley Areheart and others have described as the “anticlassification turn,” where formal attempts to embody equality end up legitimizing structural inequality.Put differently, the state exercises a Hohfeldian Power to alter individuals' legal status based on their geographic location or “lawful presence.” At the same time, it shields itself from legal challenge by insisting that the law applies equally to everyone who is “out of place.” This claim of territorial neutrality is a dangerous legal fiction. As scholars Solon Barocas and Andrew Selbst have shown in their work on algorithmic systems, attempts at neutral criteria often replicate entrenched biases. Triggers like “proximity to a border” or “behavioral traces” in a transit hub do not produce blind justice. They enable targeted scrutiny and the erosion of immunity for those whose identities fail to match the “belonging” model of the “homeland.” The state circumvents its Hohfeldian Disability, avoiding the creation of second-class statuses, by pretending to manage space rather than discriminate against persons.This shift from a civic Republic to a territorial “homeland” is the primary driver of democratic backsliding. Political scientist Jacob Grumbach captured this dynamic in his 2022 paper, Laboratories of Democratic Backsliding. Analyzing 51 indicators of electoral democracy across U.S. states from 2000 to 2018, Grumbach developed the State Democracy Index. His findings reveal how American federalism has morphed from “laboratories of democracy” into sites of subnational authoritarianism. States with low scores on the index — often under unified Republican control — have pioneered police powers that insulate partisan dominance. We see this in the rise of state-level immigration enforcement units, the criminalization of movement for marginalized groups, and the expansion of a “right to exclude.”These states are not just enforcing the law. They are forging what Yale legal scholar Owen Fiss would recognize as a new caste system. By fixating on “defending” state soil against “infiltrators,” legislatures dismantle the public rights of the Reconstruction era — the right to participate in community life without indignity. Today's backsliding policies transform the nation's interior into a permanent enforcement zone. They reject the Enlightenment ideals of America, rooted in beliefs like liberty, equality, democracy, individual rights, and the rule of law. To fully understand Constitutional history, we best acknowledge that America's universalist creedal definition wasn't solely European. David Graeber and David Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything shows how Enlightenment values of liberty and equality arose from intellectual exchanges with Indigenous North American thinkers. Kandiaronk, a Huron statesman, traveled to Europe in the late 17th century and debated French aristocrats. His critiques were published and circulated widely among European intellectuals, including Voltaire, Diderot, and Rousseau. Graeber and Wengrow point out that before the widely popular publication of these dialogues in 1703, the concept of "Equality" as a primary political value was almost entirely absent from European philosophy. By the time Rousseau wrote his Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men in 1754, it was the central question of the age.Kandiaronk criticized European society's subservience to kings and obsession with property. He contrasted it with the consensual governance and individual agency of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy embodied in their Great Law of Peace — a political order prioritizing the public right to exist without state-sanctioned indignity.The writers of the U.S. Constitution codified a Republic of “unalienable rights,” synthesizing Indigenous/European-inspired liberty with Hohfeldian Disabilities that legally restrained the state from territorial monarchy. Backsliding erases this profound philosophical endeavor. Reclaiming the Republic means honoring the Indigenous critique that a nation's legitimacy rests on its people's freedom, not its fences.We seem to be moving from governance by the governed to protecting an ingroup. In Hohfeldian terms, the state expands its privileges while shrinking the claim-rights of the vulnerable to move and exist safely. This leads to “spatial subordination,” managed through adiaphorization — a concept from social theorist Zygmunt Bauman's 1989 Modernity and the Holocaust. Bauman, a Polish-Jewish survivor who escaped the Nazis' grip on his early life, drew “adiaphora” from the Greek for matters outside moral evaluation. Modern bureaucracies make horrific actions morally neutral by framing them as technical duties, enabling atrocities like the Holocaust without personal ethical torment.As territorial belonging takes precedence, non-belongers are excluded from moral and legal obligations. They become “non-spaces” or “human waste” in the eyes of ICE and DHS. This betrays antisubordination, the “core and conscience” of America's civil rights tradition, as Yale constitutional scholars Jack Balkin and Reva Siegel called it. A democracy can't endure if it permanently relegates any group to legal impossibility. In the “homeland”, immigrants may live, work, and raise families for decades, yet remain mere “traces” to expunge. Weaponized place attachment turns affective bonds into property claims. This empowers the state to “cleanse” those deemed to be “out of place.” Rights become statused permissions, not universal ideals. If immunity from search depends on territorial status, the Republic of laws has yielded to a Heimat — a term the Nazis' usurped for their blood-and-soil homeland…that they then bloodied and soiled.Reversing this demands confronting the linguistic and legal architecture that rendered it conceivable. It's time to rethink the “homeland” frame and its anticlassification crutch. A truer and fairer Republic would commit to antisubordination and the state would be disabled from wielding space for hierarchy. A person's immunity from arbitrary power should be closer to an inalienable right to be “secure in one's person” that holds firm beyond checkpoints or workplace doors…or your front door.Steven Simon was right to feel uneasy with Clinton's wording. “Homeland” planted a seed that sprouted into hedgerows of exceptional powers and curtailed liberties. Are we going to cling to a “homeland” secured by fear and exclusion, forever unstable, or finally become a Republic revered for securing universal law and rights? As long as our rights remain geographically conditional, we all dwell in liability. Reclaiming the Republic, and our freedoms within it, may require transforming the Constitution from a Hohfeldian map of perimeters into a boundless plane of human dignity it aspires to be. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

How might a Trump administration effectively ban abortion without actually signing a national abortion ban into law?  Abortion advocates are sounding the alarm over a 1873 law known as the Comstock Act.  Lindsay Langholz joins Christopher Wright Durocher to take a critical look at this zombie law - why it was passed, how it has historically been used, and how an incoming Trump administration might take advantage of this dusty section of the United States Code.  Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Christopher Wright Durocher, Vice President of Policy and ProgramGuest: Lindsay Langholz, Senior Director of Policy and Program, ACSLink: Trump Allies Plan New Sweeping Abortion Restrictions, by Lisa Lerer and Elizabeth Dias Link: Ten Actions Dems Can Take to Protect Abortion Before Trump Takes Office, by Jessica ValentiLink: Comstockery: How Government Censorship Gave Birth to the Law of Sexual and Reproductive Freedom, and May Again Threaten It, by Reva Siegel and Mary ZieglerVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law PodcastEmail the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.orgFollow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube-----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2024.

Kate and Leah speak with Rebecca Nagle, author of By the Fire We Carry: The Generations-Long Fight for Justice on Native Land about the battlefield that is federal Indian law. Then, all three hosts speak with law professors Reva Siegel and Mary Ziegler about their paper for the Yale Law Journal, Comstockery: How Government Censorship Gave Birth to the Law of Sexual and Reproductive Freedom, and May Again Threaten It. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

In this week's episode, Jeremi and Zachary are joined by Sanford Levinson to discuss the 2000 election, the Supreme Court decision that finalized it, and how this decision has had ramifications throughout modern history. Zachary sets the scene with his poem entitled, "The Court Has Stopped the Count" Sanford Levinson, who holds the W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, joined the University of Texas Law School in 1980. Previously a member of the Department of Politics at Princeton University, he is also a Professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas. Levinson is the author of approximately 400 articles, book reviews, or commentaries in professional and popular journals--and a regular contributor to the popular blog Balkinization. He has also written six books: Constitutional Faith (1988, winner of the Scribes Award, 2d edition 2011); Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (1998); Wrestling With Diversity (2003); Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How We the People Can Correct It)(2006); Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (2012); An Argument Open to All: Reading the Federalist in the 21st Century (2015); and, with Cynthia Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and teh Flaws that Affect Us Today (forthcoming, September 2017). Edited or co-edited books include a leading constitutional law casebook, Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking (6th ed. 2015, with Paul Brest, Jack Balkin, Akhil Amar, and Reva Siegel); Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (2016); Reading Law and Literature: A Hermeneutic Reader (1988, with Steven Mallioux); Responding to Imperfection: The Theory and Practice of Constitutional Amendment (1995); Constitutional Stupidities, Constitutional Tragedies (1998, with William Eskridge); Legal Canons (2000, with Jack Balkin); The Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion (2005, with Batholomew Sparrow); Torture: A Collection (2004, revised paperback edition, 2006); and The Oxford Handbook on the United States Constitution (with Mark Tushnet and Mark Graber, 2015). He received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Law and Courts Section of the American Political Science Association in 2010. He has been a visiting faculty member of the Boston University, Georgetown, Harvard, New York University, and Yale law schools in the United States and has taught abroad in programs of law in London; Paris; Jerusalem; Auckland, New Zealand; and Melbourne, Australia. He was a Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton in 1985-86 and a Member of the Ethics in the Professions Program at Harvard in 1991-92. He is also affiliated with the Shalom Hartman Institute of Jewish Philosophy in Jerusalem. A member of the American Law Institute, Levinson was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001. He is married to Cynthia Y. Levinson, a writer of children's literature, and has two daughters and four grandchildren.

Professor Reva Siegel stops by Supreme Myths to talk about Dobbs, originalism, reproductive rights, and more.

As we wrap up Women's History Month, the Equal Rights Amendment is on the cusp of being adopted into the Constitution, if Congress gets its stuff together. It's the product of more than a century of work of women and allies, and I've invited my friend Julie Suk, author of the new book “We the Women: The Unstoppable Mothers of the Equal Rights Amendment” on the podcast to talk about the history of this movement. - Alyssa Praise For We The Women: The Unstoppable Mothers Of The Equal Rights Amendment… “We talk as if only men make constitutions. Julie Suk changes this. She introduces us to the diverse cast of women constitution makers who supported, and opposed, the Equal Rights Amendment over the last century. Their quest showcases concerns missing in standard accounts of the Founding, and shows us how these concerns differed among women and over time. Essential reading for those interested in the future of gender justice.” —REVA SIEGEL, Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor, Yale Law School “Julie Suk's We the Women is a fascinating and nuanced recounting of the history of the ERA. It brings to light the many women who made constitutional equality for women across generations, highlighting complexities not widely known; documents the unending opposition; and showcases the potential of the ERA's meaning for the twenty-first century. It will soon be recognized as the go-to resource for the ERA's long legislative history.” —LOUISE MELLING, Deputy Legal Director, American Civil Liberties Union “Meticulously researched and compulsively readable, We the Women draws important connections between the past and present, making clear how, despite long odds and many obstacles, generations of women have come together to debate and demand the conditions necessary for a more perfect union.” —MELISSA MURRAY, Frederick I. & Grace Stokes Professor of Law, NYU School of Law “In We the Women, Julie Suk shows us that the Equal Rights Amendment at its core was—and still is—about freedom and power. The mothers of the ERA laid the groundwork of the battle waging in this country today, and though this campaign can feel long and arduous, We the Women has left me more hopeful.” —FATIMA GOSS GRAVES, President and CEO, National Women's Law Center --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/alyssa-milano-sorry-not-sorry/message

The 27th Annual Frankel Lecture, sponsored by the Houston Law Review at the University of Houston Law Center, focused on the U.S. Supreme Court and explored possible gender bias applied in protecting legal rights. Professor Melissa Murray, a leading expert on constitutional law, reproductive rights and justice, discussed “The Jurisprudence of Masculinity” during the keynote.Murray is the Frederick I. and Grace Stokes Professor of Law and Birnbaum Women's Leadership Network Faculty Director at the New York University School of Law. She focuses her research on the legal regulation of intimate life. Her publication “Cases on Reproductive Rights and Justice” is the first casebook covering reproductive rights and justice.After law school, Murray clerked for Sonia Sotomayor, a then judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and Stefan Underhill of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Murray is a graduate of the University of Virginia and Yale Law School.Commentators for the lecture are:Helen Alvaré, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Robert A. Levy Endowed Chair in Law and Liberty at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School; and Reva Siegel, Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law at Yale Law School.11:49 - Melissa Murray41:03 - Reva Siegel57:03 - Helen Alvaré01:13:10 - Melissa Murray's responseFor more Emphasis Added content, follow us on Instagram and check out our video content on YouTube!

Andrea Armstrong is a law professor at Loyola University and one of the leading experts on the conditions of incarceration in the United States. When invited to talk about an influence on her work, Andrea could have chosen to discuss a fellow scholar. She is a graduate of Yale Law School, and she credits Derrick Bell, Reva Siegel, and Kathleen Cleaver—the only Black female professor she had at Yale—with shaping her thinking about America’s penal system. But Andrea decided to talk about the debt she owes to another, less conventional influence: the human beings caged inside of our jails and prisons. She says nothing has influenced her thinking more than talking to incarcerated people. In fact, incarcerated people have become such an important influence on her work that she regularly pays visits to jails and prisons across the country to survey the conditions and hear from the folks inside. In this conversation, Andrea talks about how the insights of incarcerated people have shaped her worldview and professional agenda, and how listening to them has changed her understanding of the nature of punishment. Primary Sources is a co-production of Public Books and Type Media Center. Our show’s executive producer is Caitlin Zaloom, the founding editor of Public Books. Our producer is DJ Cashmere. Our engineer is Jess Engebretson. Special thanks to Kelley Deane McKinney, the publisher and managing editor of Public Books and Taya Grobow, executive director of Type Media Center. Our theme music is “Kitty in the Window,” composed by Podington Bear (Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 International License). View full episode notes and a transcript here.

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.Date                    Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Mar 16 2020 | Application (19A1027) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 16, 2020 to June 15, 2020, submitted to Justice Alito.Mar 19 2020 | Application (19A1027) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until June 15, 2020.Jun 15 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 20, 2020)Jun 25 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 20, 2020 to August 19, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.Jun 26 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 19, 2020, for all respondents.Jul 14 2020 | Brief amici curiae of Roman Catholic Diocese of Jackson and Roman Catholic Diocese of Biloxi filed.Jul 14 2020 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Thomas Dobbs, et al.Jul 17 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law & Justice filed.Jul 20 2020 | Brief amici curiae of 375 Women Injured By Second and Third Trimester Late Term Abortions and Melinda Thybault, Individually and Acting on Behalf of 336,214 Signers of The Moral Outcry Petition filed.Jul 20 2020 | Brief amici curiae of The States of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia filed.Jul 20 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of Illinois Right to Life filed.Jul 20 2020 | Brief amici curiae of American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, et al. filed.Jul 20 2020 | Brief amici curiae of Inner Life Fund and Institute for Faith and Family filed.Jul 20 2020 | Amicus brief of Robin Pierucci, M.D., and Life Legal Defense Foundation submitted.Aug 19 2020 | Brief of respondents Jackson Women's Health Organization, et al. in opposition filed.Sep 02 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.Sep 02 2020 | Reply of petitioners Thomas Dobbs, et al. filed. (Distributed)Sep 22 2020 | Rescheduled.Oct 05 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2020.Oct 05 2020 | Rescheduled.Oct 13 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/16/2020.Oct 14 2020 | Rescheduled.Oct 22 2020 | Supplemental brief of petitioners Thomas Dobbs, et al. filed. (Distributed)Oct 26 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/30/2020.Oct 26 2020 | Supplemental brief of respondents Jackson Women's Health Organization, et al. filed. (Distributed)Oct 26 2020 | Supplemental brief of respondents Jackson Women's Health Organization, et al. filed (33.1 format).Oct 29 2020 | Rescheduled.Nov 02 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/6/2020.Nov 04 2020 | Rescheduled.Nov 09 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/13/2020.Nov 10 2020 | Rescheduled.Nov 16 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/20/2020.Nov 18 2020 | Rescheduled.Nov 30 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/4/2020.Dec 01 2020 | Rescheduled.Dec 07 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/11/2020.Dec 09 2020 | Rescheduled.Jan 04 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.Jan 11 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/15/2021.Jan 19 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.Feb 12 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.Feb 22 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/26/2021.Mar 01 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/5/2021.Mar 15 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/19/2021.Mar 22 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/26/2021.Mar 29 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/1/2021.Apr 12 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/16/2021.Apr 19 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/23/2021.Apr 26 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/30/2021.May 10 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/13/2021.May 17 2021 | Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.May 26 2021 | Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.Jun 01 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Jackson Women's Health Organization, et al.Jun 04 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including July 22, 2021. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 13, 2021.Jun 09 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Thomas Dobbs, et al.Jul 19 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Cleveland Lawyers for Life filed.Jul 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of David Boyle filed.Jul 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Jewish Prolife Foundation, The Coalition for Jewish Values, Rabbi Yacov David Cohen, Rabbi Chananya Weissman, and Bonnie Chernin (President, Jewish Life League) filed.Jul 22 2021 | Brief of petitioners Thomas Dobbs, et al. filed.Jul 22 2021 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)Jul 22 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Alabama Center for Law and Liberty filed.Jul 22 2021 | Brief amici curiae of 375 Women Injured By Second And Third Trimester Late Term Abortions and Abortion Recovery Leaders filed.Jul 23 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Right to Life Committee and Louisiana Right to Life Federation filed.Jul 26 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Jewish Coalition For Religious Liberty filed.Jul 26 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Catholic Medical Association, National Association of Catholic Nurses-USA, Idaho Chooses Life and Texas Alliance for Life filed.Jul 26 2021 | Brief amici curiae of African American, Hispanic, Roman Catholic and Protestant Religious and Civil Rights Organizations and Leaders filed.Jul 26 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Senators Josh Hawley, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz filed.Jul 26 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Trinity Legal Center filed.Jul 26 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Thomas More Society filed.Jul 26 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Melinda Thybault, Founder of The Moral Outcry Petition, et al. filed.Jul 27 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed.Jul 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Other Religious Organizations filed.Jul 27 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of LONANG Institute filed.Jul 27 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.Jul 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of 22 State Policy Organizations filed.Jul 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Connie Weiskopf and Kristine L. Brown filed.Jul 27 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor Kurt T. Lash filed.Jul 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Robin Pierucci, M.D., and Life Legal Defense Foundation filed.Jul 27 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Priests for Life filed.Jul 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Amicus Curiae Hannah S., John S. and Marlene S filed.Jul 28 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Center for Medical Progress and David Daleiden filed.Jul 28 2021 | Brief amici curiae of European Legal Scholars in support of neither party filed.Jul 28 2021 | Brief amici curiae of 396 State Legislators from 41 States filed.Jul 28 2021 | Brief amici curiae of 141 International Legal Scholars filed.Jul 28 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Prolife Center at the University of St. Thomas filed.Jul 28 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Mary Kay Bacallao Advocating for Unborn Children as Persons in support of neither party filed.Jul 28 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor Randy Beck filed.Jul 28 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Christian Legal Society and Robertson Center for Constitutional Law filed.Jul 28 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Center for Religious Expression filed.Jul 28 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Center for Family and Human Rights filed.Jul 28 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Concerned Women for America filed.Jul 28 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Foundation for Moral Law, Lutherans for Life filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Americans United for Life filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Ethics and Public Policy Center filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Family Research Council filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Human Coalition Action and Students for Life of America filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Lee J. Strang filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Biologists in support of neither party filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Professors Mary Ann Glendon and O. Carter Snead filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Monique Chireau Wubbenhorst, M.D., M.P.H., et al. filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Commissioner Andy Gipson, Former Representative and Chair of Mississippi House Judiciary B Committee filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Care Net, a National Affiliation Organization of 1,200 Pregnancy Help Centers, and Alpha Center, a South Dakota Registered Pregnancy Help Center filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Reason for Life filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Illinois Right to Life, et al. filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Jonathan English filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Intercessors for America including its Intercessor Prayer Partners filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of 228 Members of Congress filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Governor Henry McMaster and Eleven Additional Governors filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The European Centre for Law and Justice filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Catholic Bioethics Center, et al. filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Professor Stephen G. Gilles filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Scholars of Jurisprudence John M. Finnis and Robert P. George filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of States of Texas, et al. filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The American Cornerstone Institute and its founder Dr. Benjamin S. Carson filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Advancing American Freedom, Inc., et al. filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Democrats for Life of America Five Democratic Legislators from Five Individual State Legislatures filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Women Legislators, The Susan B. Anthony List filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Christian Medical & Dental Associations filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc. filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Maureen L. Condic, Ph.D. and the Charlotte Lozier Institute filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of American College of Pediatricians and Association of American Physicians & Surgeons filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of CatholicVote.org Education Fund filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Heartbeat International, Inc. filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Rep. Steve Carra and 320 State Legislators from 35 States filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Foundation to Abolish Abortion, et al. filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of World Faith Foundation and Institute for Faith and Family filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of March for Life Education and Defense Fund filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Elliot Institute filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Texas Right to Life filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Center for Law and Justice and Bioethics Defense Fund filed.Jul 29 2021 | Amicus brief of Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, et al. not accepted for filing. (August 03, 2021 - Correct service required; to be printed).Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, et al. filed.Jul 29 2021 | Amicus brief of Pacific Justice Institute not accepted for filing. (August 03, 2021 - Correct service required; to be printed)Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Justice Institute filed.Jul 29 2021 | Amicus brief of Joseph W. Dellapenna not accepted for filing. (August 03, 2021 - Correct service required; to be printed)Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Joseph W. Dellapenna filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amici curiae of 240 Women Scholars and Professionals, and Prolife Feminist Organizations filed.Jul 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Good Counsel, Inc. filed.Aug 03 2021 | Amicus brief of 240 Women Scholars and Professionals, and Prolife Feminist Organizations submitted.Sep 13 2021 | Brief of respondents Jackson Women's Health Organization, et al. filed.Sep 16 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Anthony Hawks filed.Sep 17 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Experts, Researchers, and Advocates Opposing the Criminalization of People Who Have Abortions filed.Sep 17 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Advocates for Youth, Inc. and Neo Philanthropy, Inc. d/b/a We Testify filed.Sep 17 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Freedom From Religion Foundation, Center for Inquiry, and American Atheists filed.Sep 17 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Cecilia Fire Thunder; et al. filed.Sep 20 2021 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, December 1, 2021.Sep 20 2021 | Amicus brief of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, et al. not accepted for filing. (September 21, 2021) (corrected efiling to be submitted)Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, et al. filed.Sep 20 2021 | Amicus brief of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, et al. not accepted for filing. (September 21, 2021 - corrected brief to be printed and submitted)Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, et al. filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, American Humanist Association, Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice, and Interfaith Alliance Foundation filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, et al. filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Scholars of Court Procedure filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Yale Law School Information Society Project filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, and Organizations Representing the Interests of Asian American and Pacific Islander Women filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Reproductive Justice Scholars filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Local Governments filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Catholics for Choice, et al. filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Campaña Nacional por el Aborto Libre, Seguro y Accesible and other Puerto Rican Organizations filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The Autistic Self Advocacy Network and The Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Birth Equity Organizations and Scholars filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of The American Civil Liberties Union and The American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Organizations of Women Lawyers-Women Lawyers on Guard Inc., Women's Bar Association of the District of Columbia and National Association of Women Lawyers et al. filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Social Science Experts filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Economists filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars Lee C. Bollinger, et al. filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Abortion Care Network, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Medical Students for Choice, National Abortion Federation, Physicians for Reproductive Health and Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of American Historical Association and Organization of American Historians filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of LGBTQ Organizations filed. (9/24/21 - Corrected brief to be reprinted and submitted).Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of LGBTQ Organizations filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of International and Comparative Legal Scholars filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Equal Protection Constitutional Law Scholars Serena Mayeri, Melissa Murray, and Reva Siegel filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Organizations Dedicated to the Fight for Reproductive Justice Mississippi in Action, et al. filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of European Law Professors filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Howard University School of Law Human and Civil Rights Clinic filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of States of California, et al. filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of YWCA USA, Girls Inc., Supermajority Education Fund, and United State of Women filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of United Nations Mandate Holders filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Human Rights Watch, Global Justice Center, and Amnesty International filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of California Women's Law Center filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Scott Pyles filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Leaders, et al. filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Over 500 Women Athletes, The Women's National Basketball Players Association, et al. filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Legal Voice, Asian Pacific Institute On Gender-based Violence, et at. filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Women's Law Center, et al. filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Feminist Majority Foundation, Abortion Access Front, C.A. Goldberg, PLLC, The National Organization For Women Foundation, The Southern Poverty Law Center, We Engage, Professor David S. Cohen, and Krysten Connon filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of 236 Members of Congress filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, et al. filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of 547 Deans, Chairs, Scholars, et al. filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of 896 State Legislators filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of American Society for Legal History and Other Scholars filed.Sep 20 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.Sep 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Abortion Funds and Practical Support Organizations filed.Sep 27 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.Oct 04 2021 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.Oct 12 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED.Oct 13 2021 | Reply of petitioners Thomas Dobbs, et al. filed.Oct 18 2021 | The time for oral argument is allotted as follows: 35 minutes for petitioners, 20 minutes for respondents, and 15 minutes for the Acting Solicitor General.Oct 19 2021 | Motion for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for enlargement of time for oral argument out of time filed by Hannah S.Oct 29 2021 | CIRCULATEDNov 01 2021 | Motion for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for enlargement of time for oral argument out of time DENIED.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

An earlier Postscript explained what was at stake for concealed carry laws in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court – and guessed at what the oral arguments might reveal. Now that arguments have been heard in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, three legal scholars join the podcast to analyze the oral argument. Even if you are not a SCOTUS junky -- this conversation is important because 80 million (or 25% of) Americans may have their democratically crafted gun laws overturned by the decision of 9 justices. Jacob D. Charles is the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. His extensive public-facing scholarship includes a new piece in the Washington Post's Monkey Cage, “Supreme Court justices sounded suspicious of New York's gun law. Here's what might come next.” Eric Ruben is an assistant professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center fellow. Working at the intersection of criminal law, legal ethics, and the Second Amendment, his scholarship has been published in law reviews such as California, Duke and Georgetown as well as public facing outlets like The Atlantic, New York Times, Vox, Jurist, The Conversation, and Scotusblog. He organized -- and contributed scholarship to the 2021 Brennan Center Report, Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). Among his numerous law review articles is “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) in which he and Reva Siegel interrogate the impact of gun rights on free speech. Recently, he has been a guest on the podcast Strict Scrutiny, contributed to the New York Times and NPR reporting of the case. Joseph and Eric's recent op ed, “No, courts don't treat the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right': The latest gun-rights case may hinge on some conservatives' sense of victimhood” just appeared in the Washington Post. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

An earlier Postscript explained what was at stake for concealed carry laws in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court – and guessed at what the oral arguments might reveal. Now that arguments have been heard in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, three legal scholars join the podcast to analyze the oral argument. Even if you are not a SCOTUS junky -- this conversation is important because 80 million (or 25% of) Americans may have their democratically crafted gun laws overturned by the decision of 9 justices. Jacob D. Charles is the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. His extensive public-facing scholarship includes a new piece in the Washington Post's Monkey Cage, “Supreme Court justices sounded suspicious of New York's gun law. Here's what might come next.” Eric Ruben is an assistant professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center fellow. Working at the intersection of criminal law, legal ethics, and the Second Amendment, his scholarship has been published in law reviews such as California, Duke and Georgetown as well as public facing outlets like The Atlantic, New York Times, Vox, Jurist, The Conversation, and Scotusblog. He organized -- and contributed scholarship to the 2021 Brennan Center Report, Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). Among his numerous law review articles is “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) in which he and Reva Siegel interrogate the impact of gun rights on free speech. Recently, he has been a guest on the podcast Strict Scrutiny, contributed to the New York Times and NPR reporting of the case. Joseph and Eric's recent op ed, “No, courts don't treat the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right': The latest gun-rights case may hinge on some conservatives' sense of victimhood” just appeared in the Washington Post. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. 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

An earlier Postscript explained what was at stake for concealed carry laws in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court – and guessed at what the oral arguments might reveal. Now that arguments have been heard in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, three legal scholars join the podcast to analyze the oral argument. Even if you are not a SCOTUS junky -- this conversation is important because 80 million (or 25% of) Americans may have their democratically crafted gun laws overturned by the decision of 9 justices. Jacob D. Charles is the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. His extensive public-facing scholarship includes a new piece in the Washington Post's Monkey Cage, “Supreme Court justices sounded suspicious of New York's gun law. Here's what might come next.” Eric Ruben is an assistant professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center fellow. Working at the intersection of criminal law, legal ethics, and the Second Amendment, his scholarship has been published in law reviews such as California, Duke and Georgetown as well as public facing outlets like The Atlantic, New York Times, Vox, Jurist, The Conversation, and Scotusblog. He organized -- and contributed scholarship to the 2021 Brennan Center Report, Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). Among his numerous law review articles is “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) in which he and Reva Siegel interrogate the impact of gun rights on free speech. Recently, he has been a guest on the podcast Strict Scrutiny, contributed to the New York Times and NPR reporting of the case. Joseph and Eric's recent op ed, “No, courts don't treat the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right': The latest gun-rights case may hinge on some conservatives' sense of victimhood” just appeared in the Washington Post. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

An earlier Postscript explained what was at stake for concealed carry laws in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court – and guessed at what the oral arguments might reveal. Now that arguments have been heard in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, three legal scholars join the podcast to analyze the oral argument. Even if you are not a SCOTUS junky -- this conversation is important because 80 million (or 25% of) Americans may have their democratically crafted gun laws overturned by the decision of 9 justices. Jacob D. Charles is the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. His extensive public-facing scholarship includes a new piece in the Washington Post's Monkey Cage, “Supreme Court justices sounded suspicious of New York's gun law. Here's what might come next.” Eric Ruben is an assistant professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center fellow. Working at the intersection of criminal law, legal ethics, and the Second Amendment, his scholarship has been published in law reviews such as California, Duke and Georgetown as well as public facing outlets like The Atlantic, New York Times, Vox, Jurist, The Conversation, and Scotusblog. He organized -- and contributed scholarship to the 2021 Brennan Center Report, Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). Among his numerous law review articles is “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) in which he and Reva Siegel interrogate the impact of gun rights on free speech. Recently, he has been a guest on the podcast Strict Scrutiny, contributed to the New York Times and NPR reporting of the case. Joseph and Eric's recent op ed, “No, courts don't treat the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right': The latest gun-rights case may hinge on some conservatives' sense of victimhood” just appeared in the Washington Post. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

An earlier Postscript explained what was at stake for concealed carry laws in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court – and guessed at what the oral arguments might reveal. Now that arguments have been heard in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, three legal scholars join the podcast to analyze the oral argument. Even if you are not a SCOTUS junky -- this conversation is important because 80 million (or 25% of) Americans may have their democratically crafted gun laws overturned by the decision of 9 justices. Jacob D. Charles is the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. His extensive public-facing scholarship includes a new piece in the Washington Post's Monkey Cage, “Supreme Court justices sounded suspicious of New York's gun law. Here's what might come next.” Eric Ruben is an assistant professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center fellow. Working at the intersection of criminal law, legal ethics, and the Second Amendment, his scholarship has been published in law reviews such as California, Duke and Georgetown as well as public facing outlets like The Atlantic, New York Times, Vox, Jurist, The Conversation, and Scotusblog. He organized -- and contributed scholarship to the 2021 Brennan Center Report, Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). Among his numerous law review articles is “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) in which he and Reva Siegel interrogate the impact of gun rights on free speech. Recently, he has been a guest on the podcast Strict Scrutiny, contributed to the New York Times and NPR reporting of the case. Joseph and Eric's recent op ed, “No, courts don't treat the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right': The latest gun-rights case may hinge on some conservatives' sense of victimhood” just appeared in the Washington Post. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. 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

An earlier Postscript explained what was at stake for concealed carry laws in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court – and guessed at what the oral arguments might reveal. Now that arguments have been heard in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, three legal scholars join the podcast to analyze the oral argument. Even if you are not a SCOTUS junky -- this conversation is important because 80 million (or 25% of) Americans may have their democratically crafted gun laws overturned by the decision of 9 justices. Jacob D. Charles is the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. His extensive public-facing scholarship includes a new piece in the Washington Post's Monkey Cage, “Supreme Court justices sounded suspicious of New York's gun law. Here's what might come next.” Eric Ruben is an assistant professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center fellow. Working at the intersection of criminal law, legal ethics, and the Second Amendment, his scholarship has been published in law reviews such as California, Duke and Georgetown as well as public facing outlets like The Atlantic, New York Times, Vox, Jurist, The Conversation, and Scotusblog. He organized -- and contributed scholarship to the 2021 Brennan Center Report, Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). Among his numerous law review articles is “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) in which he and Reva Siegel interrogate the impact of gun rights on free speech. Recently, he has been a guest on the podcast Strict Scrutiny, contributed to the New York Times and NPR reporting of the case. Joseph and Eric's recent op ed, “No, courts don't treat the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right': The latest gun-rights case may hinge on some conservatives' sense of victimhood” just appeared in the Washington Post. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

An earlier Postscript explained what was at stake for concealed carry laws in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court – and guessed at what the oral arguments might reveal. Now that arguments have been heard in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, three legal scholars join the podcast to analyze the oral argument. Even if you are not a SCOTUS junky -- this conversation is important because 80 million (or 25% of) Americans may have their democratically crafted gun laws overturned by the decision of 9 justices. Jacob D. Charles is the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. His extensive public-facing scholarship includes a new piece in the Washington Post's Monkey Cage, “Supreme Court justices sounded suspicious of New York's gun law. Here's what might come next.” Eric Ruben is an assistant professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center fellow. Working at the intersection of criminal law, legal ethics, and the Second Amendment, his scholarship has been published in law reviews such as California, Duke and Georgetown as well as public facing outlets like The Atlantic, New York Times, Vox, Jurist, The Conversation, and Scotusblog. He organized -- and contributed scholarship to the 2021 Brennan Center Report, Protests, Insurrection, and the Second Amendment. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). Among his numerous law review articles is “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) in which he and Reva Siegel interrogate the impact of gun rights on free speech. Recently, he has been a guest on the podcast Strict Scrutiny, contributed to the New York Times and NPR reporting of the case. Joseph and Eric's recent op ed, “No, courts don't treat the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right': The latest gun-rights case may hinge on some conservatives' sense of victimhood” just appeared in the Washington Post. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The American media has been focused on the Supreme Court's upcoming abortion cases but a decision in a critical Second Amendment case could overturn public safety laws for 25% of Americans. Next week, the Court will hear arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a challenge to a 1911 New York State law that limits carrying guns outside the home. New York is a “may issue” state in which applications for concealed carry are not automatically granted but reviewed to determine if the person has “proper cause” to conceal a gun. We've not seen a Second Amendment case since Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008 and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010 -- and this case will be heard by a Court that now has 3 conservative appointments made by former President Donald Trump. Two Second Amendment scholars join the podcast to go wide and deep on the astonishing implications for our laws. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored Free Speech Beyond Words: The Surprising Reach of the First Amendment (NYU, 2017) with Mark Tushnet and Alan K. Chen and The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). His recent “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) with Reva Siegel interrogates the impact of gun rights on free speech. Jacob D. Charles, the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and his public-facing scholarship includes work with CNN, NPR, Politifact, NewsWeek, and Mother Jones. “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The American media has been focused on the Supreme Court's upcoming abortion cases but a decision in a critical Second Amendment case could overturn public safety laws for 25% of Americans. Next week, the Court will hear arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a challenge to a 1911 New York State law that limits carrying guns outside the home. New York is a “may issue” state in which applications for concealed carry are not automatically granted but reviewed to determine if the person has “proper cause” to conceal a gun. We've not seen a Second Amendment case since Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008 and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010 -- and this case will be heard by a Court that now has 3 conservative appointments made by former President Donald Trump. Two Second Amendment scholars join the podcast to go wide and deep on the astonishing implications for our laws. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored Free Speech Beyond Words: The Surprising Reach of the First Amendment (NYU, 2017) with Mark Tushnet and Alan K. Chen and The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). His recent “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) with Reva Siegel interrogates the impact of gun rights on free speech. Jacob D. Charles, the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and his public-facing scholarship includes work with CNN, NPR, Politifact, NewsWeek, and Mother Jones. “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The American media has been focused on the Supreme Court's upcoming abortion cases but a decision in a critical Second Amendment case could overturn public safety laws for 25% of Americans. Next week, the Court will hear arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a challenge to a 1911 New York State law that limits carrying guns outside the home. New York is a “may issue” state in which applications for concealed carry are not automatically granted but reviewed to determine if the person has “proper cause” to conceal a gun. We've not seen a Second Amendment case since Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008 and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010 -- and this case will be heard by a Court that now has 3 conservative appointments made by former President Donald Trump. Two Second Amendment scholars join the podcast to go wide and deep on the astonishing implications for our laws. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored Free Speech Beyond Words: The Surprising Reach of the First Amendment (NYU, 2017) with Mark Tushnet and Alan K. Chen and The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). His recent “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) with Reva Siegel interrogates the impact of gun rights on free speech. Jacob D. Charles, the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and his public-facing scholarship includes work with CNN, NPR, Politifact, NewsWeek, and Mother Jones. “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. 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

The American media has been focused on the Supreme Court's upcoming abortion cases but a decision in a critical Second Amendment case could overturn public safety laws for 25% of Americans. Next week, the Court will hear arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a challenge to a 1911 New York State law that limits carrying guns outside the home. New York is a “may issue” state in which applications for concealed carry are not automatically granted but reviewed to determine if the person has “proper cause” to conceal a gun. We've not seen a Second Amendment case since Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008 and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010 -- and this case will be heard by a Court that now has 3 conservative appointments made by former President Donald Trump. Two Second Amendment scholars join the podcast to go wide and deep on the astonishing implications for our laws. Joseph Blocher is the Lanty L. Smith '67 Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law and one of the attorneys who helped write the brief for DC in Heller. He co-authored Free Speech Beyond Words: The Surprising Reach of the First Amendment (NYU, 2017) with Mark Tushnet and Alan K. Chen and The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller (Cambridge University Press, 2018) with Darrell Miller in 2018 (New Books interview here). His recent “When Guns Threaten the Public Sphere: A New Account of Public Safety Regulation Under Heller” (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol 116, 2021) with Reva Siegel interrogates the impact of gun rights on free speech. Jacob D. Charles, the Executive Director & Lecturing Fellow at the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law. His work on the Second Amendment has appeared in numerous law journals and his public-facing scholarship includes work with CNN, NPR, Politifact, NewsWeek, and Mother Jones. “Securing Gun Rights By Statute: The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Outside the Constitution,” (forthcoming, University of Michigan Law Review) interrogates the non-constitutional gun rights that create broad powers for gun owners beyond the Second Amendment. Daniella Campos assisted with this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Air Date 10/09/2020 Today we take a look at the future of abortion rights and the broader reproductive justice movement in the face of a conservative super-majority on the Supreme Court Be part of the show! Leave us a message at 202-999-3991 or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com  Transcript BECOME A MEMBER! (Get AD FREE Shows & Bonus Content) SHOW NOTES Ch. 1: How The GOP Ended Up Hating Abortion - AJ+ - Air Date 8-4-19 Republicans and their base used to be more supportive of abortion rights than Democrats. Now, they're pushing for abortion restrictions with an aim to overturn Roe v. Wade. Why did the GOP turn its back on abortion rights? Ch. 2: Body of Law Beyond Roe - On the Media - Air Date 12-13-19 Activist and scholar Loretta Ross explains the tenets of reproductive justice and how they expand the frame beyond Roe and abortion; Reva Siegel of Yale Law School describes the framework of ProChoiceLife. Ch. 3: Everyone Loves Someone Who Had an Abortion - National Network of Abortion Funds - Air Date 4-16-20 Access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion, largely depends on where you live and how much money you have. Abortion funds are taking the hassle and harassment out of healthcare by helping people all across our network access and fund abortions. Ch. 4: 'It is time to have a national law to protect the right of a woman's choice': Warren - ABC News - Air Date 2-7-20 Candidates weigh in on current abortion laws and President Donald Trump's campaign promise to shift the Supreme Court to the right. Ch. 5: What Happens When You Restrict Abortion? - AJ+ - Air Date 10-8-19 Restricting abortion access doesn't have the same impact on everyone. It adversely affects people of color and low-income residents more. But why and how? We traveled to the place with the largest percentage of Black residents in the U.S. to find out. Ch. 6: The Shadows of a Revolution - Capitalism Hits Home with Dr. Harriet Fraad and Julianna Forlano - Air Date 5-31-20 Lost abortion rights and no paid maternity or family leaves keep women from advancing at work as they take time to care for children. Abortion and family leaves are sites of the revolutionary struggle for America's personal and family life. VOICEMAILS Ch. 7: "One Person, One Vote" is our saddest and scariest myth - Lance FINAL COMMENTS Ch. 8: Final comments on the zombie talking point of us living in a republic rather than a democracy MUSIC (Blue Dot Sessions): Opening Theme: Loving Acoustic Instrumental by John Douglas Orr  Voicemail Music: Low Key Lost Feeling Electro by Alex Stinnent Closing Music: Upbeat Laid Back Indie Rock by Alex Stinnent   Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Support the show via Patreon Listen on Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Spotify | +more Check out the BotL iOS/Android App in the App Stores! Follow at Twitter.com/BestOfTheLeft Like at Facebook.com/BestOfTheLeft Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Review the show on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher and Facebook!

The Equal Rights Amendment is on the cusp of being adopted into the Constitution, if the Senate gets its stuff together. It’s the product of more than a century of work of women and allies, and I’ve invited my friend Julie Suk, author of the new book “We the Women: The Unstoppable Mothers of the Equal Rights Amendment” on the podcast to talk about the history of this movement. - Alyssa Praise For We The Women: The Unstoppable Mothers Of The Equal Rights Amendment… “We talk as if only men make constitutions. Julie Suk changes this. She introduces us to the diverse cast of women constitution makers who supported, and opposed, the Equal Rights Amendment over the last century. Their quest showcases concerns missing in standard accounts of the Founding, and shows us how these concerns differed among women and over time. Essential reading for those interested in the future of gender justice.” —REVA SIEGEL, Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor, Yale Law School “Julie Suk’s We the Women is a fascinating and nuanced recounting of the history of the ERA. It brings to light the many women who made constitutional equality for women across generations, highlighting complexities not widely known; documents the unending opposition; and showcases the potential of the ERA’s meaning for the twenty-first century. It will soon be recognized as the go-to resource for the ERA’s long legislative history.” —LOUISE MELLING, Deputy Legal Director, American Civil Liberties Union “Meticulously researched and compulsively readable, We the Women draws important connections between the past and present, making clear how, despite long odds and many obstacles, generations of women have come together to debate and demand the conditions necessary for a more perfect union.” —MELISSA MURRAY, Frederick I. & Grace Stokes Professor of Law, NYU School of Law “In We the Women, Julie Suk shows us that the Equal Rights Amendment at its core was—and still is—about freedom and power. The mothers of the ERA laid the groundwork of the battle waging in this country today, and though this campaign can feel long and arduous, We the Women has left me more hopeful.” —FATIMA GOSS GRAVES, President and CEO, National Women’s Law Center --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/alyssa-milano-sorry-not-sorry/message

Air Date 10/9/2020 Today we take a look at the future of abortion rights and the broader reproductive justice movement in the face of a conservative super-majority on the Supreme Court Be part of the show! Leave us a message at 202-999-3991 Transcript BECOME A MEMBER! (Get AD FREE Shows & Bonus Content) EPISODE SPONSORS: Ground News  IF YOU’RE GOING TO SHOP AMAZON: Amazon USA | Amazon CA | Amazon UK SHOW NOTES Ch. 1: How The GOP Ended Up Hating Abortion - AJ+ - Air Date 8-4-19 Republicans and their base used to be more supportive of abortion rights than Democrats. Now, they’re pushing for abortion restrictions with an aim to overturn Roe v. Wade. Why did the GOP turn its back on abortion rights? Ch. 2: Body of Law Beyond Roe - On the Media - Air Date 12-13-19 Activist and scholar Loretta Ross explains the tenets of reproductive justice and how they expand the frame beyond Roe and abortion; Reva Siegel of Yale Law School describes the framework of ProChoiceLife. Ch. 3: Check Your Blindspot - Powered by Ground News America's favorite political gameshow that uses the Blindspot feature of Ground News to test contestants' political blindspots and media literacy. Ch. 4: Everyone Loves Someone Who Had an Abortion - National Network of Abortion Funds - Air Date 4-16-20 Access to reproductive healthcare, including abortion, largely depends on where you live and how much money you have. Abortion funds are taking the hassle and harassment out of healthcare by helping people all across our network access and fund abortions. Ch. 5: Voting Is Not Enough: Register Voters & Re-Register Purged Voters in Battleground States via @fieldteam_6 - Best of the Left Take action! Click the title and/or scroll down for quick links and resources from this segment. For more, visit Bestoftheleft.com/2020Action. Ch. 6: 'It is time to have a national law to protect the right of a woman’s choice': Warren - ABC News - Air Date 2-7-20 Candidates weigh in on current abortion laws and President Donald Trump's campaign promise to shift the Supreme Court to the right. Ch. 7: What Happens When You Restrict Abortion? - AJ+ - Air Date 10-8-19 Restricting abortion access doesn’t have the same impact on everyone. It adversely affects people of color and low-income residents more. But why and how? We traveled to the place with the largest percentage of Black residents in the U.S. to find out. Ch. 8: The Shadows of a Revolution - Capitalism Hits Home with Dr. Harriet Fraad and Julianna Forlano - Air Date 5-31-20 Lost abortion rights and no paid maternity or family leaves keep women from advancing at work as they take time to care for children. Abortion and family leaves are sites of the revolutionary struggle for America's personal and family life. VOICEMAILS Ch. 9: "One Person, One Vote" is our saddest and scariest myth - Lance FINAL COMMENTS Ch. 10: Final comments on the zombie talking point of us living in a republic rather than a democracy TAKE ACTION! Volunteer with FieldTeam6.org/actions  EDUCATE YOURSELF & SHARE Right-Wing Group Seeks to Purge Up to 800,000 Voters in Pennsylvania, A Key Battleground State (The Intercept) Republicans Are Trying to Kick Thousands of Voters Off the Rolls During a Pandemic (Mother Jones) Block the Vote: Voter Suppression in 2020 (ACLU) Wisconsin Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Voter Purge, Mail-In Ballot Cases (WPR) Written by BOTL Communications Director Amanda Hoffman  MUSIC (Blue Dot Sessions): Opening Theme: Loving Acoustic Instrumental by John Douglas Orr  Voicemail Music: Low Key Lost Feeling Electro by Alex Stinnent Closing Music: Upbeat Laid Back Indie Rock by Alex Stinnent   Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Support the show via Patreon Listen on Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Spotify | +more Check out the BotL iOS/Android App in the App Stores! Follow at Twitter.com/BestOfTheLeft Like at Facebook.com/BestOfTheLeft Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Review the show on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher and Facebook!

In celebration of the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment on August 18th and its certification on the 26th—this episode dives into the story of the 19th Amendment from its roots among abolition and the Civil War and Reconstruction through its ratification, the fight for the Equal Rights Amendment, and beyond. 19th Amendment experts and historians Reva Siegel and Laura Free explain when and why the word “male” was first introduced into the Constitution, how the right to vote radically changed women’s position within the family, and how we can and should expand the our constitutional story to include the many diverse groups who advocated for suffrage.  Learn more about the National Constitution Center’s new exhibit The 19th Amendment: How Women Won the Vote and check out its online interactive content here https://constitutioncenter.org/experience/exhibitions/feature-exhibitions/women-and-the-constitution-feature-exhibit Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In celebration of the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment on August 18th and its certification on the 26th—this episode dives into the story of the 19th Amendment from its roots among abolition and the Civil War and Reconstruction through its ratification, the fight for the Equal Rights Amendment, and beyond. 19th Amendment experts and historians Reva Siegel and Laura Free explain when and why the word “male” was first introduced into the Constitution, how the right to vote radically changed women’s position within the family, and how we can and should expand the our constitutional story to include the many diverse groups who advocated for suffrage.  Learn more about the National Constitution Center’s new exhibit The 19th Amendment: How Women Won the Vote and check out its online interactive content here https://constitutioncenter.org/experience/exhibitions/feature-exhibitions/women-and-the-constitution-feature-exhibit Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Nearly half a century after Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to undermine or overturn the landmark ruling. It's an unnerving time for reproductive rights across the U.S., but it's not new: social movements, politics, and courts have lead us here. Legal experts Melissa Murray, Reva Siegel, and Kate Shaw trace the evolution of reproductive rights in their new book, Reproductive Rights and Justice Stories. They join Rebecca Traister (Writer at large, New York Magazine) in this new episode of Brennan Center Live.

Nearly half a century after Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to undermine or overturn the landmark ruling. It’s an unnerving time for reproductive rights across the U.S., but it’s not new: social movements, politics, and courts have lead us here. Legal experts Melissa Murray, Reva Siegel, and Kate Shaw trace the evolution of reproductive rights in their new book, Reproductive Rights and Justice Stories. They join Rebecca Traister (Writer at large, New York Magazine) in this new episode of Brennan Center Live.

On this week’s episode of the Waves, Christina, June, and Marcia take on Gwyneth Paltrow’s Netflix show The Goop Lab. Next, the panel discusses Donald Trump’s appearance at March for Life—the first time a sitting president attended the annual anti-abortion event. Finally, the panel dives into a 1,000-word job description for a “household manager/cook/nanny” posted by a single working mom in Menlo Park that went viral. In Slate Plus this week, is it sexist that the Washington Post suspended its reporter Felicia Sonmez for tweeting about the 2003 rape allegation against Kobe Bryant in the hours after his death? Other items discussed on the show: “The March for Life Was a March for Trump,” by Christina Cauterucci in Slate “What antiabortion advocates get wrong about the women who secured the right to vote,” by Reva Siegel and Stacie Taranto in the Washington Post  “An Interview With the Woman Who Wrote the Viral 1,000-Word Job Listing for a ‘Household Manager/Cook/Nanny’,” by Ruth Graham in Slate “The Remembering Kobe Bryant Edition” of Slate’s Hang Up and Listen podcast “How Media Outlets Are Acknowledging (and Not Acknowledging) Kobe Bryant’s Rape Case,” by Christina Cauterucci in Slate Recommendations:  June: Season 10 of Vera, the ITV and BritBox’s detective drama. Marcia: “A Short History of Abortion-Related Boycotts,” by Cynthia Greenlee in Rewire.News. Christina: “The Darkness Where the Future Should Be,” by Michelle Goldberg in the New York Times. Send your comments and recommendations on what to cover to thewaves@slate.com. And please call in with your “Is It Sexist” questions at 973-826-0318. This podcast was produced by Lindsey Kratochwill. Production assistance by Rachael Allen and Rosemary Belson. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this week’s episode of the Waves, Christina, June, and Marcia take on Gwyneth Paltrow’s Netflix show The Goop Lab. Next, the panel discusses Donald Trump’s appearance at March for Life—the first time a sitting president attended the annual anti-abortion event. Finally, the panel dives into a 1,000-word job description for a “household manager/cook/nanny” posted by a single working mom in Menlo Park that went viral. In Slate Plus this week, is it sexist that the Washington Post suspended its reporter Felicia Sonmez for tweeting about the 2003 rape allegation against Kobe Bryant in the hours after his death? Other items discussed on the show: “The March for Life Was a March for Trump,” by Christina Cauterucci in Slate “What antiabortion advocates get wrong about the women who secured the right to vote,” by Reva Siegel and Stacie Taranto in the Washington Post  “An Interview With the Woman Who Wrote the Viral 1,000-Word Job Listing for a ‘Household Manager/Cook/Nanny’,” by Ruth Graham in Slate “The Remembering Kobe Bryant Edition” of Slate’s Hang Up and Listen podcast “How Media Outlets Are Acknowledging (and Not Acknowledging) Kobe Bryant’s Rape Case,” by Christina Cauterucci in Slate Recommendations:  June: Season 10 of Vera, the ITV and BritBox’s detective drama. Marcia: “A Short History of Abortion-Related Boycotts,” by Cynthia Greenlee in Rewire.News. Christina: “The Darkness Where the Future Should Be,” by Michelle Goldberg in the New York Times. Send your comments and recommendations on what to cover to thewaves@slate.com. And please call in with your “Is It Sexist” questions at 973-826-0318. This podcast was produced by Lindsey Kratochwill. Production assistance by Rachael Allen and Rosemary Belson. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A majority of Americans polled by CSPAN last year couldn't name a Supreme Court case. Of those who could, Roe v. Wade was by far the most familiar, with 40 percent able to name it. (Only five percent could name Brown v. Board of Education.) And since it was decided in 1973, a majority — roughly 70 percent — have consistently said they want Roe upheld, albeit with some restrictions on legal abortion. But what do we really know about Roe? Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has often said she wishes it had been another case that the Supreme Court heard as the first reproductive freedom case instead. It was Susan Struck v. Secretary of Defense, and it came to the high court during the same term as Roe.  The year was 1970, and the Air Force (like the other branches of the military) had a regulation banning female service members from having a family. If a servicewoman got pregnant, she would get discharged. Captain Susan Struck was a nurse serving in Vietnam, and she challenged the decision in court with Ginsburg as her lawyer. However, the court never heard the case because the Air Force changed their policy first. For this week's show, we partnered with The Guardian (read their story here) to learn more about Susan Struck’s fight and its bigger lessons for reproductive freedom and for women in the workplace.  Our producer Alana Casanova-Burgess and The Guardian's health reporter Jessica Glenza spoke to Struck about the difficult decision she made to give her baby up for adoption in order to fight the regulation. Plus, we hear why legal scholars think this case "deserves to be honored by collective memory," and how Ginsburg's arguments to the Supreme Court differed from what the justices decided in Roe.  Then: - Slate's Dahlia Lithwick explains the threats to reproductive rights in the court right now; - Neil Siegel of Duke Law School puts the Struck case in context and discusses what better questions we could be asking about women's equality; - activist and scholar Loretta Ross explains the tenets of reproductive justice and how they expand the frame beyond Roe and abortion; - and Reva Siegel of Yale Law School tells the story of how abortion was discussed before 1973, including during the Women's Strike of 1970. And she describes the framework of ProChoiceLife, which expands the idea of what pro-life policy is. She is also the co-editor of Reproductive Rights and Justice Stories.  Read The Guardian’s print version here, and share your story with Jessica Glenza if you were a woman serving in the military before 1976. Music by Nicola Cruz, Kronos Quartet, and Mark Henry Phillips

In this special bonus episode, Melissa and Kate are joined by co-editor Reva Siegel to discuss their book "Reproductive Rights & Justice Stories," in a conversation moderated by Rebecca Traister and hosted by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

ABOUT THIS EPISODE Talk of implicit bias has moved far beyond its origin in psychology. It's spread to law journals, it informs training in many workplaces (including one famous coffeeshop chain (https://news.starbucks.com/press-releases/starbucks-to-close-stores-nationwide-for-racial-bias-education-may-29)), and it's entered popular discourse. Does that ubiquity carry risks? What balls are we potentially taking our eyes off of when we focus on implicit bias? These are the kinds of issues addressed in my conversation with Jonathan Kahn, the James E. Kelley Chair in Tort Law at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law, and author of the book Race on the Brain. LINKS --Jonathan Kahn's Mitchell Hamline webpage (https://mitchellhamline.edu/biographies/person/dr-jonathan-kahn/) --Race on the Brain: What Implicit Bias Gets Wrong About the Struggle for Racial Justice, by Jonathan Kahn (https://www.amazon.com/Race-Brain-Implicit-Struggle-Justice/dp/0231184247) --Project Implicit (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/) --"How the GI Bill left out African Americans," by David Callahan (Demos) (https://www.demos.org/blog/11/11/13/how-gi-bill-left-out-african-americans) --Racism Without Racists, by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (https://www.amazon.com/Racism-without-Racists-Color-Blind-Persistence/dp/1442276231/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=FVYNRHR64CMPPEK2PX0X) --"The American civil rights tradition: Anticlassification or antisubordination?" by Jack Balkin and Reva Siegel (https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/Faculty/Siegel_TheAmericanCivilRightsTraditionAnticlassificationOrAntisubordination.pdf) --"Chief Justice out to end affirmative action," by Jeffrey Toobin (CNN) (https://www.cnn.com/2013/02/28/opinion/toobin-roberts-voting-rights-act/index.html) --"Sotomayor accuses colleagues of trying to 'wish away' racial inequality," by Robert Barnes (Washington Post) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sotomayor-accuses-colleagues-of-trying-to-wish-away-racial-inequality/2014/04/22/e5892f90-ca49-11e3-93eb-6c0037dde2ad_story.html?utm_term=.703dbfd627fa) Special Guest: Jonathan Kahn.

Session IV

When interpretations and rules depend on what’s true about the world (so, all the time), judges have to reach conclusions about those truths. But courts are not exactly like administrative agencies or legislatures, and they depend on adversarial parties to contest the truth. The Supreme Court, in particular, has come to rely on an elite bar to organize and present facts and studies. Having been through our usual vetting process of successfully appearing on the Colbert Report, Alli Larsen is ready for the big time and joins us to discuss how courts deal with the problem of factiness (which is the ivory tower version of truthiness). Alli’s appearance on the Colbert Report (01:02). The pronunciation of “amicus” (05:24). The main topic (10:36). This show’s links: Alli Larsen’s faculty profile and writing Alli on the Colbert Report discussing amicus briefs and factfinding Before you write in, yes, the Dan Quayle story is false, but is that really the point? Oral Argument 74: Minimum Curiosity (guest Amanda Frost) Rowe v. Gibson Alli Orr Lasen, The Amicus Machine Alli Orr Larsen, The Trouble with Amicus Facts Alli Orr Larsen, Factual Precedents Amanda Frost, The Limits of Advocacy Brianne Gorod, The Adversarial Myth: Appellate Court Extra-Record Factfinding Glossip v. Gross (death penalty) Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (violent video games) About the Brandeis Brief Gonzales v. Carhart Reva Siegel, The Right’s Reasons: Constitutional Conflict and the Spread of Woman-Protective Antiabortion Argument Gregory Klass and Kathryn Zeiler, Against Endowment Theory: Experimental Economics and Legal Scholarship Joseph Kearney and Thomas Merrill, The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court William Eskridge Jr., Politics Without Romance: Implications of Public Choice Theory for Statutory Interpretation Special Guest: Alli Larsen.

The Supreme Court this week handed down a series of landmark non-decisions. We talk with PhD candidate and commentator Anthony Kreis about the confusing, hopeful, exciting, promising, uncertain, and evolving state of marriage equality. In the wake of a (so far) uniform wave of appellate court decisions striking down gay-marriage bans, the Supreme Court steps in and … lets them stand without taking them up for decision. Why? And what is the state of law? What is likely to happen, and what are local officials to do? (And if you’re in a position to hire a Visiting Assistant Professor or Fellow, you’d be crazy not to try to hire Anthony.) This show’s links: About Anthony Kreis, his CV, and his twitter feed Anthony Kreis, Marriage Equality in State and Nation Amy Howe, Today’s Orders: Same-Sex Marriage Petitions Denied (summarizing the cert denials and containing links to the SCOTUSblog pages for the decisions striking down marriage bans in the Seventh (Posner’s “Go figure” decision), Tenth (also here), and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeals) Latta v. Otter, the Ninth Circuit case handed down on Tuesday of this week and striking down marriage bans in Nevada and Idaho Loving v. Virginia and amazing audio of the oral argument McLaughlin v. Florida Last term’s gay marriage decisions: United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry Description of and links to audio of oral arguments in the several Sixth Circuit cases challenging marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee Linda Greenhouse and Reva Siegel, Before Roe v. Wade: Voices that Shaped the Abortion Debate Before the Supreme Court’s Ruling (see especially beginning at p.303 about whether Roe is to blame for the ensuing political conflict over abortion and what that might say about how courts should approach gay marriage) A recent Pew survey on, among other things, whether homosexuality is sinful Heather Hollingsworth, Koster Won’t Appeal Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, reporting that the Missouri AG won’t appeal a state trial court ruling requiring recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states Geoff Pender, State’s Gay Marriage Ban’s Days Appear Numbered (about Mississippi) Some background on homosexuality and Catholicism Margaret Fosmoe, Notre Dame, Saint Mary’s Extend Benefits to Same-Sex Spouses Doug Richards, Handel: Gay Parents “Not in the Best Interest of the Child” (interview transcript showing the rhetoric around the 2010 Georgia gubernatorial primary, including this gem: “Why is marriage between one man and one woman? (Laughs). Are you serious?”) James Oleske, Jr., The Evolution of Accommodation: Comparing the Unequal Treatment of Religious Objections to Interracial and Same-Sex Marriages Dahlia Lithwick and Sonja West, Stop Draggin’ My Heart Around: The Supreme Court Is Harming people with Its Inscrutable Gay Marriage Actions. South Carolina v. Condon, order of the South Carolina Supreme Court barring probate judges from issuing marriage license, notwithstanding the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Bostic, until the federal district court in South Carolina takes action (in response to AG Alan Wilson’s petition) Saikrishna Pakrash, The Executive’s Duty to Disregard Unconstitutional Laws Kansas Supreme Court’s temporary injunction blocking issuance of same-sex marriage licenses Lyle Denniston, Gay Marriage and Baker v. Nelson Catherine Thompson, GOP Nominee for Wisconsin AG Says He Would Defend Interracial Marriage Ban Center for Reproductive Rights, What if Roe Fell? (see especially pages 8-9 on the repeal implications of a federal finding of unconstitutionality) Christian Turner, Roles Special Guest: Anthony Kreis.