We The People

In 1852, the Ladies Anti-Slavery Society of Rochester, New York, invited Frederick Douglass to give a July Fourth speech. Douglass opted to speak on July 5 instead, and, addressing an audience of about 600, he delivered one of his most iconic speeches that would become known by the name “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” This episode explores Douglass’ oration on racial injustice and the broken promises of equality and liberty laid out in the Declaration of Independence. David Blight, Pulitzer Prize-winning Douglass biographer, and Lucas Morel, an expert on Douglass and African American history and politics, join host Jeffrey Rosen. They discuss the context and content of the speech, which Blight calls “the rhetorical masterpiece of abolition.” They also explore Douglass’ views of the Declaration of Independence—including that the principles expressed in the Declaration are eternal, but America does not live up to them in practice—as well as the Constitution. Finally, they reflect on what Douglass can

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) will remain in place, ruling that the Trump administration’s attempts to rescind DACA were “arbitrary and capricious.” This episode details the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, and the partial dissents by Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh, and how the case arose including the history of DACA under the Obama and Trump administrations. Constitutional law scholars Leah Litman, who co-hosts the podcast Strict Scrutiny, and Jonathan Adler, who blogs for the Volokh Conspiracy, join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and two related cases, holding that an employer who discriminates against or fires an individual for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This episode explores this landmark decision with Joshua Matz, a constitutional lawyer who wrote a key amicus brief in support of the employees in these cases, and Dr. Matthew Franck of Princeton University. They dive into the “weeds” of Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion, the dissenting opinions by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh, and the reasoning behind them—then take a step back and examine the “forest” view of how this ruling may affect LGBTQ people as well as religious groups and others more broadly. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last Friday, the National Constitution Center hosted a two-part national Town Hall program on policing, protests, and the Constitution. The wide-ranging discussions covered qualified immunity for police officers, the history of racial inequality, protests and the First Amendment, and more. Part two of the discussion features Monica Bell of Yale Law School, David French of The Dispatch, Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and Theodore Shaw of the University of North Carolina School of Law. Part one is a keynote conversation featuring Judge Theodore McKee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and you can listen to that here https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/live-at-ncc-policing-protests-constitution-part-1/id83213431?i=1000477612011 Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Listen and subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center here https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/live-at-americas-town-hall/id1037423300 Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitu

Last Friday, the National Constitution Center hosted a two-part national Town Hall program on policing, protests, and the Constitution. This episode—which originally aired on our companion podcast Live at the National Constitution Center—features National Constitution Center President Jeffrey Rosen’s keynote conversation with Judge Theodore McKee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Their wide-ranging discussion covered qualified immunity for police officers, the history of racial inequality, protests and the First Amendment, and more. In part two, leading scholars touch on those topics further, and you can listen to that episode here https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/live-at-ncc-policing-protests-constitution-part-2/id83213431?i=1000477612012 Listen and subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center here https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/live-at-americas-town-hall/id1037423300 Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, Twitter added a fact-check message to President Trump's tweets about voter fraud and vote by mail, and a notice that one of his tweets about recent protests violated Twitter’s policy against glorifying violence. In response to the fact-check, the President signed an executive order aimed at limiting the legal protections given to online platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This episode explores Section 230—what does it say and how has it influenced speech online?—and the potential consequences of the executive order. It also takes a broader look at content regulation on Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms, and how that squares with First Amendment values. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by digital speech experts Professor Kate Klonick and David French.  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Coronavirus has presented difficulties in holding presidential primaries this spring and will continue to pose challenges for the general election. Some states have responded by implementing vote by mail (although those decisions have brought logistical challenges like those that Pennsylvania currently faces) while some that have not are facing lawsuits. The U.S. Supreme Court also recently issued a ruling about voting in Wisconsin in April, RNC. v. DNC, which involved questions about counting absentee ballots amidst the risks that in-person voting might present. This episode explores those cases as well as the latest news surrounding how Americans will vote in the midst of the pandemic, and, broadly, what the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent require. Election law experts Ned Foley and Michael Morley join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments by teleconference, and the National Constitution Center recapped those arguments live on C-SPAN with advocates on either side of each case. On this week’s episode we’re sharing the recap for the cases Colorado Dept. of State v. Baca and Chiafalo v. Washington, about "faithless electors" and the electoral college. Those cases ask whether states can penalize or remove a presidential elector because they refused to vote for the candidate who won their state's popular vote. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by David Kopel, the research director of the Independence Institute who wrote a brief in support of the “faithless electors,” and Paul Smith, vice president of litigation and strategy at the Campaign Legal Center who wrote a brief in support of the states. Hear more argument recaps on We the People and our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. This week’s episode of Live at the National Constitution Center features the argument recap of the c

This week, the Supreme Court continued to hear oral arguments by teleconference, and the National Constitution Center recapped those arguments live on C-SPAN with advocates on either side of each case. Today we’re sharing the recap for Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru—which raises the question of whether two former teachers who taught at Catholic schools fall under the "ministerial exception,” and thus are unable to sue their employers for alleged employment discrimination. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Sunu P. Chandy, Legal Director of the National Women’s Law Center, and UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh to explain the case and recap the argument.   The National Constitution Center recapped all of the Supreme Court's remote arguments live on C-SPAN. You can watch the rest of those recaps on our YouTube channel at YouTube.com/constitutioncenter or hear more in the coming weeks on this podcast and our companion podcast Live at the National Constitution Center.  Questions or comments about the

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments by teleconference, allowing the public to listen in, in real time, for the first time in history. On Monday, the Court heard United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com—a case about whether Booking.com can trademark its name. Immediately following the argument, host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by three experts who filed briefs on different sides of the case—Corynne McSherry of Electronic Frontier Foundation, professor Rebecca Tushnet of Harvard Law School, and Margaret Duncan of Loyola University Chicago School of Law—to recap the argument, explain the case, and reflect on a historic moment for the Court. The National Constitution Center collaborated with C-SPAN to broadcast this conversation live. The National Constitution Center recapped all of the arguments heard this past week live on C-SPAN. You can watch the rest of those recaps on our YouTube channel at YouTube.com/constitutioncenter. The Supreme Court will hear additional arguments next Monda

The coronavirus pandemic has seriously impacted the criminal justice system—as prisons experience severe outbreaks, states release nonviolent offenders, trials experience delays, and some jurisdictions halt arrests for misdemeanors to keep jail populations down. On this episode, criminal justice experts Emily Bazelon and Paul Cassell weigh in on those and other changes affecting criminal justice systems around the country, and potential long-term impacts. They also explain defendants’ rights under the Constitution as well as victims’ rights, and detail some recent lawsuits filed, both on behalf of prisoners arguing that being detained in the midst of a pandemic violates the Eighth Amendment’s protection from cruel and unusual punishment claims, and by victims requesting notification of perpetrators’ release. Bazelon is the author of Charged: The Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration and Cassell is a former federal judge who now specializes in victims’ rights and is a law profes

As the United States seems to begin to flatten its curve of new coronavirus cases, President Trump has claimed he has the authority to reopen the economy and the nation. Evaluating that claim in relation to both presidential power under Article II and state power under the 10th Amendment—professors John Yoo and Alison LaCroix join host Jeffrey Rosen. They give their takes on the president’s claims and conduct in the midst of coronavirus and evaluate what he can and can’t do in light of the system of separation of powers and federalism; comment on whether the president can or should withdraw from the World Health Organization, suspend immigration, and support citizen protests against governors; and place these contemporary debates in historical context. A term that will be helpful to know for this week—federalism. Federalism is the constitutional division of power between U.S. state governments and the federal government. Professors Yoo and LaCroix detail the history of federalism and how it’s evolved from the

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear its May oral arguments over the phone, allowing the public to listen in live for the first time. On this episode, host Jeffrey Rosen first interviews Marcia Coyle, chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal, to discuss that change and other adjustments the Court has made due to the coronavirus pandemic. Coyle is also the new Supreme Court correspondent for the National Constitution Center’s blog Constitution Daily. Next, Jeff is joined by appellate lawyer Jaime Santos and Case Western Law professor Jonathan Adler to dive into the substance of the cases recently decided, and those being argued in May. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Responses to the coronavirus pandemic may be posing a danger to democracies around the world—as fault lines in constitutional systems are exposed and some authoritarian leaders attempt to grab broad powers. Two experts on constitutional and international law — Professor Kim Lane Scheppele of Princeton University and Professor Deborah Pearlstein of Cardozo Law School — join host Jeffrey Rosen to explore the governmental challenges raised by COVID-19 in the United States and around the world. Scheppele – one of the foremost experts on Hungary – sheds light on the country’s dangerous recent slide into authoritarianism, made worse by a “draconian” emergency law passed under the guise of combatting coronavirus. And Pearlstein shares insights from her recent work on how the outbreak can impede elections and how Congress should begin preparing for election 2020.  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Some of Americans’ civil liberties—like the freedom to assemble in public, the right to travel, the ability to purchase a gun at a gun store or visit a reproductive health clinic, the freedom to exercise religion by going to church, and more— are typically exercised in person. As states enforce the stay-at-home orders necessary to prevent the spread of coronavirus, how will those rights be impacted? And what will happen to them after the crisis is over? This episode explores those questions as First Amendment experts Lata Nott and David French join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Congress and the courts depend on meeting in-person, so how can they adjust to the coronavirus outbreak and the public health measures necessary to stop its spread – like social distancing – while continuing to meet their constitutional functions? Host Jeffrey Rosen explores that question with Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, who’s worked since the aftermath of 9/11 on emergency-preparedness recommendations for all three branches of government, and lawyer and podcast host Ken White, who sheds light on how the pandemic is affecting his clients and the courts more broadly. They share insight into what’s keeping Congress from meeting virtually, how courts will deal with suspended arguments, what might happen to incarcerated people in the midst of the pandemic, continuing concerns about presidential succession, and more—in a wide-ranging conversation on how the U.S. government functions during a national emergency, and what reforms may be necessary to ensure it can continue to function in futur

What are the powers of local, state, and federal governments to manage a public health crisis? What legal and constitutional rights do Americans maintain? Jeffrey Rosen explores that question and more with public health law experts Polly Price of Emory University School of Law and Ed Richards of Louisiana State University Law Center. Starting with the history of quarantines prior to and during the Founding era, they explain how the government combatted diseases when, as Ed puts it, “The colonies were basically fever-ridden swamps.” Drawing examples from public health responses to outbreaks of yellow fever and the 1918 influenza pandemic through the AIDS epidemic and SARS, they answer questions including: What restrictions can government authorities enact under the Constitution during a pandemic—from quarantines to isolation measures, to shutting down private businesses? How do the powers of state and federal governments interact during emergency scenarios? Would it be constitutional for the government to impo

A challenge to the Louisiana abortion law that requires doctors performing abortions to have hospital admitting privileges was heard by the Supreme Court last week. Julie Rikelman of the Center for Reproductive Rights, who argued on behalf of the abortion providers in June Medical Services v. Russo, and Catherine Glenn Foster of Americans United for Life, who authored an amicus brief on behalf of Members of Congress on the opposing side of the case, joined host Jeffrey Rosen on this week’s episode. They presented the arguments on both sides of the case — diving into the facts, considering whether admitting privilege requirements are prudent and whether the “undue burden” standard established by the 2016 Supreme Court case Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt is workable, and explaining how they think this case might impact the lives of women. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Richard Cordray, the first Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from 2012-2017, and Ilya Shapiro, the co-author of an amicus brief in support of Seila Law, joined host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case. This case, which the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in on Tuesday, is a challenge to the constitutionality of the leadership structure of the CFPB, and its outcome could affect the future of the agency as a whole. The CFPB is a regulatory agency responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector. Currently, the president can only fire the CFPB director “for cause,” i.e. only for wrongdoing, not for a policy disagreement. This lawsuit asks whether that restriction violates presidential power and the separation of powers, and, if it does, can it be struck down without invalidating the entire Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB? This episode explores those questions and more. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at

The controversy over the sentencing of President Trump’s former associate Roger Stone has raised larger questions about the role of the Department of Justice, presidential power, and the rule of law including: Should the president be able to influence sentencing in individual cases? What level of control should he have over DOJ? And, more broadly, how should the president exercise power? Host Jeffrey Rosen dives into those questions with Professor John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, and Professor Kim Wehle, former assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. Need a refresher on the Stone sentencing controversy? Here’s a timeline of events from ABC News. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.