We The People

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 dictates the congressional procedure for certifying electoral college results in a presidential election. The Act was passed in response to the presidential election of 1876—where Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote, but lost the presidency to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes because of contested results in three states—in an effort to avoid future contested elections But a large bipartisan group of election law scholars and politicians across the political spectrum have argued that the law creates more confusion and needs to be reformed. Today on We the People, we’re doing a deep dive into the Electoral Count Act and proposals for fixing it—which have gained traction after the events of January 6, 2021, when members of Congress challenged the electoral slates of several states and some, along with President Trump, asked Vice President Pence not to certify these votes, which would have switched the presidential election results from Joe Biden to Trump.   Joining host Jeff

On January 7 the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a set of cases challenging the Biden administration’s Covid vaccine mandates. Under one mandate, employers with more than 100 employees must require those employees to be vaccinated, or be tested for Covid on a weekly basis. Under the other mandate, any health care facility that participates in Medicare or Medicaid must ensure that all their workers are fully vaccinated. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen are two attorneys who filed amicus briefs in these cases. John Masslon, senior litigation counsel at Washington Legal Foundation, filed an amicus brief arguing against the legality of the mandates, and Deepak Gupta, founding principal of Gupta Wessler and instructor at Harvard’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, filed an amicus brief in support of the legality of the mandates on behalf of the American Public Health Association. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to American

How have poets and poetry—from John Milton to Mercy Otis Warren and Phillis Wheatley—influenced the Constitution and America’s core democratic principles? Join Vincent Carretta, editor of the Penguin Classics editions of the Complete Writings of Phillis Wheatley and professor emeritus of English at the University of Maryland, Eileen M. Hunt, full professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, and Eric Slauter, associate professor and director of the Karla Scherer Center for the Study of American Culture at the University of Chicago, for a discussion exploring the ways poetry has intersected with the Constitution and constitutional ideas throughout American history. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program originally aired on our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. Check it out on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.. We’ll be back next week to kick off another year of lively and civil constitu

In this episode, we look back on the events of 2021 from a constitutional perspective—from a violent mob storming the Capitol in January, to the inauguration of President Biden, and the convergence of a new Supreme Court with the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett; from key Supreme Court cases about religious liberty, voting rights, abortion, and guns, and finally, continuing questions about the scope of individual rights and government power amidst the continuing coronavirus pandemic. As 2021 comes to a close, we look back on how this year will be remembered in constitutional history. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen for the conversation are Adam Liptak, Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times, and Jennifer Mascott, assistant professor of law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.   The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification o

Last spring, President Biden issued an executive order to form the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, a bipartisan commission charged with examining proposals for Supreme Court reform. The commission, made up of more than 30 of the nation’s leading legal scholars and experts on the judiciary, submitted a 294-page report to the president last week.  Some of the proposals examined in the report include court expansion, term limits, and jurisdiction stripping, as well as the Court’s larger role in the constitutional system. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by two members of the commission: Tara Leigh Grove, professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, and Keith Whittington, professor of politics at Princeton University. They lay out the cases for and against each proposal, and discuss the complications involved in implementing any of them.   The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Carson v. Makin, which centers around the free exercise clause, and public funding for religious education. The issue is whether a state—in this case, Maine, violates the First Amendment by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction. In Maine, not all school districts have their own public secondary schools. For students in those districts, the state will pay for them to attend private high schools— unless the private school has a religious affiliation. The petitioners in this case are parents who are seeking that state funding for their son to attend a religious private school.  Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law and co-author of The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State, and Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of La

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: a case challenging Mississippi’s law that bans abortion after 15 weeks. The issue in the case is whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional—and the outcome could challenge the future of Supreme Court precedent on abortion from Roe v. Wade to Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In our last episode, we were joined by two experts to preview the issues in Dobbs. (Be sure to listen to The Dobbs v. Jackson Case –  Part 1 episode if you haven’t already!) Today, they return to help us unpack the oral arguments. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Mary Ziegler, the Stearns Weaver Miller Professor at Florida State University College of Law and author of Abortion and the Law in America: A Legal History, Roe v. Wade to the Present, and O. Carter Snead, professor of law at Notre Dame Law School and director of the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture. The National Constitution Center relies on

On this week’s episode, we preview Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case challenging Mississippi’s law that bans abortion after 15 weeks, which comes before the Supreme Court on December 1. The issue in the case is whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional—and the outcome could challenge the future of Supreme Court precedent on abortion from Roe v. Wade to Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In another recent case, Justice Kavanaugh laid out three criteria for overturning a precedent believed to be wrongly decided. In this episode, we use these criteria to examine the arguments on either side, and then next week we’ll be back with a part two, recapping the oral arguments. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Mary Ziegler, the Stearns Weaver Miller Professor at Florida State University College of Law and author of Abortion and the Law in America: A Legal History, Roe v. Wade to the Present, and O. Carter Snead, professor of law at Notre Dame Law School and director of

November 19, 2021 marks the 158th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. This week’s episode highlights the landmark speech, its historical and constitutional significance, and its continued relevance today. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by historians Kate Masur of Northwestern University and Sean Wilentz of Princeton University. Through a close, line-by-line read of the speech they analyze its rhetoric, highlight its references to other founding documents including the Declaration of Independence, and illuminate its dire historical context memorializing the Civil War’s bloodiest battle at a crucial turning point. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. In honor of the 234th anniversary of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, every dollar you give to support the We the People podcast campaign will be doubled with a generous 1:1 match up to a total of $234,000, made possible

On this week’s episode, We the People examines United States v. Vaello-Madero, a case involving U.S. citizen Jose Luis Vaello-Madero who claims the exclusion of Puerto Ricans from the Supplemental Security Income program violates the Constitution. Vaello-Madero began receiving Supplemental Security Income while living in New York but then moved back to Puerto Rico. When the government found that out, it cut off Vaello-Madero's benefits and sued him because SSI is available in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands, but not in Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Neil Weare, president and founder of Equally American who was raised in the U.S. territory of Guam and previously worked for Guam’s non-voting Delegate Madeleine Bordallo, and Christina D. Ponsa-Kraus, the George Welwood Murray Professor of Legal History at Columbia Law School who was raised in Puerto Rico and specializes in studying the legal issues surrounding Puerto Rico. Weare an

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two challenges to S.B. 8. S.B. 8 bans almost all abortions in the state of Texas by allowing anyone, including people who do not live in the state, to bring a lawsuit in state court against anyone who performs an abortion after six weeks, or helps to make one possible. Leaving enforcement to the populace raised a unique procedural question in this case: who should be sued over the Texas law? In this episode, we unpack that question and the complex issues in these cases, and recap the argument including the questions asked by the Supreme Court justices. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Miriam Becker-Cohen, Appellate Counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center who co-authored briefs in support of the abortion provider Whole Women’s Health and the Biden administration, and Stephen Sachs, the Antonin Scalia Professor of Law at Harvard Law School who has covered these cases for the legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy. Additional resources and transcript ava

On November 3, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in New York State Rifle in Pistol Association Inc. V. Bruen. The case was brought by two men who were denied New York concealed carry permits, along with New York’s National Rifle Association affiliate, against the superintendent of the New York State Police, Kevin Bruen. The lawsuit challenges a provision of New York’s law regarding concealed carry permits—which allow owners to carry guns in public in a concealed manner—requiring anyone who does not automatically qualify for a permit (including some state judges, correctional facilities employees, and others) to show that they have “proper cause” for the permit in order to receive one. On this week’s episode, host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by two legal scholars who filed briefs on opposing sides of the case—Judge J. Michael Luttig who filed in support of Bruen, and David Kopel who filed in support of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. They detail the arguments they made in their brief

On April 9, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14023 forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. The Commission is comprised of a bipartisan group of experts on the Court—from former federal judges and practitioners, to legal scholars and historians—who have been tasked with analyzing arguments and the merits and legality of proposals in the current public debate for and against Supreme Court reform. Last week, after months of research and expert testimony, the Commission released discussion materials in the form of five separate reports. It then held a public hearing to discuss the various topics and reform ideas presented, including whether to enact Supreme Court term limits, increase the number of justices on the Court, or reexamine the Court’s practices and procedures. Its final report is expected on November 14. Two of the scholars who testified before the Commission—Jamal Greene of Columbia Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School—join host Jef

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen recently testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, telling senators that Facebook and Instagram stoke division, harm children, and avoid transparency and any consequences for their damaging effects. Her testimony amplified calls for regulation of the platforms. On today’s episode we consider a variety of proposed reforms, whether they would violate any other laws and whether they would be constitutional. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by internet law experts Jeff Kosseff of the United States Naval Academy and Nate Persily of Stanford Law School. They also consider why it is so difficult to regulate the platforms as well as the unintended consequences that may arise if they are regulated, and unpack prior cases on free speech that influenced the overall approach to Internet regulation from its very beginning, including the passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutionce

Last week, Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito gave a speech responding to criticism of the Supreme Court’s emergency docket levied by, among others, his fellow Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. On this week’s episode, we explain what types of cases comprise the Court’s the emergency docket—sometimes referred to as the “shadow docket,” a term coined by scholar Will Baude—and whether the Court’s approach to emergency decision-making has changed in recent years, and why. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by law professors Jennifer Mascott of George Mason Law School and Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas Law School, both of whom testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee at its hearing about the shadow docket this week. They illuminate current debates surrounding the shadow docket and detail some recent decisions that have drawn increased scrutiny to the Court’s emergency rulings, including in COVID-related cases, the Texas abortion case, and in challenges to some of President Trump’s immigratio

Monday, October 4, will be the first day of oral arguments in the new 2021-22 Supreme Court term. On this week’s episode, Supreme Court journalists Kimberly Atkins Stohr of Boston Globe Opinion and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal join host Jeffrey Rosen to preview the forthcoming term’s blockbuster cases on issues including abortion, religion, guns, free speech, state secrets, and more. Cases discussed include: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Houston Community College System v. Wilson Carson v. Makin City of Austin, Texas v. Regan Nat’l Advertising of Texas United States v. Vaello-Madero Hemphill v. New York United States v. Tsarnaev United States v. Zubaydah Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Doe Ramirez v. Collier Shinn v. Ramirez Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or

Three judges from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals joined host Jeffrey Rosen for a live panel held on September 17, Constitution Day, the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. They shared an inside look into some of their rulings that then became blockbuster Supreme Court cases. Judge Cheryl Ann Krause discussed her ruling in the case involving a cheerleader who was punished for a Snapchat, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. Judge Stephanos Bibas spoke on his decision in one of the major Trump campaign challenges to the 2020 election results, Donald Trump for President, Inc v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And Judge Marjorie Rendell shared insight into her decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the case spurred by the city barring Catholic Social Services (CSS) from placing children in foster homes because CSS refused to allow same-sex couples to be foster parents. The judges also reflected on their work more broadly, their efforts to find compromise among colleagues with differin

September 17 is Constitution Day—the anniversary of the framers signing the Constitution in 1787. This week’s episode dives into what happened after the Constitution was signed—when it had to be approved by “we the people,” a process known as ratification—and the arguments made on behalf of the Constitution. A major collection of those arguments came in the form of a series of essays, today often referred to as The Federalist Papers, which were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay using the pen name Publius and published initially in newspapers in New York. Guests Judge Gregory Maggs, author of the article “A Concise Guide to The Federalist Papers as a Source of the Original Meaning of the United States Constitution,” and Colleen Sheehan, professor and co-editor of The Cambridge Companion to The Federalist, shed light on the questions: What do The Federalist Papers say? What did their writers set out to achieve achieve by writing them? How do they explain the ideas behind the Constitutio

Last week, the Supreme Court declined to temporarily halt, and thus allowed to go into effect, a new Texas law that bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy—effectively banning most abortions in the state. The law is unusual in that, instead of enacting criminal penalties as a method of enforcement, it enables others to sue anyone who violates the law for money damages. On this week’s episode, host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by constitutional law scholars Kate Shaw and Sarah Isgur to explain what exactly the Texas law says, the motivations and legal theory behind it, and why it was structured the way it was specifically in order to be hard to challenge—given that it directly violates constitutional precedents like Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which protect the constitutional right to abortion pre-viability (around 22-24 weeks). Shaw and Isgur also consider whether the type of enforcement mechanism that makes this Texas law unique might be replicated in other states for abortion restrictions or

Legal battles over masks in schools are being fought across the country—in states including Arkansas, California, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma, Nevada and Texas—and the U.S. Department of Education recently announced a civil rights investigation into mask mandate bans in several states.  This week’s episode explores lawsuits brought against governors who took action to try to ban  local mask mandates in schools, as well as challenges to state school mask mandates brought by people who say their individual rights were violated. We also address broader questions raised by this debate regarding the balance of power in America, and whether the Supreme Court might intervene. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Charles C. W. Cooke, senior writer for National Review, and professor Jennifer Selin of the University of Missouri.  Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.o