We The People

In a special Independence Day episode, scholars Akhil Amar of Yale Law School and Peter Onuf of the University of Virginia join host Jeffrey Rosen for a discussion on the historical legacy of founding father Thomas Jefferson, America’s third president and principal author of the Declaration of Independence. In a National Constitution Center event a few months ago, Professor Amar announced his intention to “break up with” Thomas Jefferson; and in this episode of We the People, we explore why he’s decided to break up with Jefferson—including his actions and views on slavery—and what aspects of Jefferson's legacy deserve defense. Professors Amar and Onuf also explore the positive and negative aspects of his legacy and influence on the country, as well as recommendations on how to understand and study Jefferson today.   Resources: Akhil Amar, The Words That Made Us: America’s Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840 (2021) Peter Onuf, The Mind of Thomas Jefferson (2007) Peter Onuf and Annette Gordon-Reed,

This week, NCC President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen moderated a panel live from the Aspen Ideas Festival featuring three of America’s leading legal scholars: former deputy solicitor general and Georgetown Law Professor Neal Katyal, Stanford Law Professor Pam Karlan, and Clark Neily of the Cato Institute. During the program, they discussed the major decisions from the Supreme Court’s most recent term, including Allen v. Milligan, in which the Court upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; Moore v Harper, where the Court rejected the independent state legislature theory; Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, in which the Court struck down affirmative action programs in higher education as violating equal protection; and more.  Resources: Aspen Ideas Festival 2023: Supreme Court Review Moore v. Harper (2023) Allen v. Milligan (2023) Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on

This week, the Supreme Court handed down a major decision relating to elections in America in the Moore v. Harper case. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court rejected the independent state legislature theory, finding that the Elections Clause does not give state legislatures exclusive power over elections, and upholding the power of judicial review in electoral cases, including redistricting decisions. In this episode of We the People, guests Judge Michael Luttig and Professor Evan Bernick join to break down the Moore decision – including why the Court decided to reject the independent state legislature theory; why conservative Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented; and what this means for the future of judicial review of election laws. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Resources: Moore v. Harper (2023) Judge Michael Luttig, “The Court Is Likely to Reject the Independent State Legislature Theory: And that offers hope for American democracy”, The Atlantic, April 13, 2023 Judge Michael Luttig, “There Is Abso

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court handed down a major voting rights decision in the Allen v. Milligan case. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and found that Alabama’s 2022 congressional map likely violated Section 2. This comes as a surprising victory for voting rights and the Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) test after a series of other Supreme Court cases that have narrowed the scope of the Voting Rights Act, including the Brnovich v. DNC case in 2021 and Shelby County v. Holder in 2013. The decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh along with the liberal justices. In this episode, Jason Torchinsky of Holtzman Vogel and Rick Hasen of UCLA School of Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to break down the Allen decision; discuss why Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh voted with the liberal justices to uphold the Gingles framework; what other conservative justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch wrote in dissent; and what thi

Last week, former President Donald Trump was indicted by the U.S. government for allegedly retaining, mishandling, and concealing classified documents after he left office. Charged with 37 criminal counts—including many that stem from the Espionage Act—Trump appeared in a Miami federal court on Tuesday and pled not guilty to the charges brought against him. In this episode, legal experts Oona Hathaway of Yale Law School and Jamil Jaffer of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University join to break down the legal and constitutional significance of the federal indictment. They also discuss potential outcomes of the prosecution, including effects on the upcoming 2024 presidential election; how these charges intersect with other charges being brought against President Trump in other courts including charges brought by the Manhattan district attorney in New York for allegedly falsifying business documents; how other countries around the world deal with heads of state who have been charged with breaking

As ChatGPT and other generative AI platforms have taken off, they’ve demonstrated exciting possibilities about the potential benefits of artificial intelligence; while at the same time, have raised a myriad of open questions and complexities, from how to regulate the pace of AI’s growth, to whether AI companies can be held liable for any misinformation reported or generated through the platforms. Earlier this week, the first ever AI defamation lawsuit was filed, by a Georgia radio host who claims that ChatGPT falsely accused him of embezzling money. The case presents new and never-before answered legal questions, including what happens if AI reports false and damaging information about a real person? Should that person be able to sue the AI’s creator for defamation? In this episode two leading First Amendment scholars—Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law and Lyrissa Lidsky of the University of Florida Law School—join to explore the emerging legal issues surrounding artificial intelligence and the First Amendment. They d

Earlier this year, the National Constitution Center hosted an event in Miami, Florida, featuring a series of meaningful conversations about the Constitution with speakers of diverse perspectives. In this episode, we’re sharing one of those programs with you: A conversation with four leading constitutional experts about the NCC’s Constitution Drafting Project, the amendment process, Article V, and the future of constitutional reform. The four scholars are: Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School, Caroline Fredrickson of Georgetown Law, David French of the New York Times, and Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Additional Resources National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, a

The Supreme Court’s “shadow docket”—cases in which the Court issues emergency orders and summary decisions without oral argument—has been subject to growing scrutiny. Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak of The New York Times and Jennifer Mascott of the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School join Stephen Vladeck of The University of Texas School of Law for a conversation on Vladeck’s new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic, exploring the history and role of the shadow docket and the current debates surrounding the Court’s emergency rulings. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Additional Resources Stephen Vladeck, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic  Stephen Vladeck, “Texas’s Unconstitutional Abortion Ban and the Role of the Shadow Docket,” Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee  National Constitution Center, “The Supreme Court’s ‘Shadow Docket’,” We the

The National Constitution Center and Khan Academy are partnering to create a free online Constitution 101 course premised on a simple, radical act: bringing together genuine experts who genuinely disagree about the most important constitutional issues facing our nation today; and use their examples to model thoughtful, respectful civil dialogue. In this special episode of We the People, host Jeffrey Rosen sits down with Khan Academy founder and CEO Sal Khan, in a one-on-one conversation to discuss the state of civics in America today, in light of the recent Nation’s Report Card data showing a nationwide decline in civics and history scores; explain how the NCC and Khan Academy partnership and the Constitution 101 course can improve outcomes in civics education nationwide; the role of AI like Khanmigo in education and teaching about the Constitution and civil dialogue; and much more.  Resources: Jeffrey Rosen and Sal Khan, TIME, “How We Can Repair Our Democracy and Build a More Perfect Union” NCC/Khan Ac

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently weighing two cases involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina that could end affirmative action in higher education. The National Constitution Center hosted a live program on May 4, 2023, featuring a conversation between constitutional law experts William B. Allen of Michigan State University and Hasan Kwame Jeffries of The Ohio State University. They discuss the history of affirmative action, the current cases before the Court, how the Court might rule in them, and how the outcome of the two cases could affect the future of affirmative action programs across the country. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Resources: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (Oral Argument Transcript; audio hosted by C-SPAN) Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (Oral Argument Transcript; audio hosted by C-SPAN) William B. Allen, “End of Affirmative Action 2023”   Interview with Hasan Kwame Jeffries, “Why Conservatives want the Supreme Court t

Last year's Supreme Court term was one of the most significant in recent history with landmark decisions and cases about abortion, guns, religious liberty, the administrative state, and more. In this episode, veteran Supreme Court reporter and CNN Legal Analyst, Joan Biskupic, joins to unpack these recent developments and to discuss her new book, Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court's Drive to the Right and its Historic Consequences. She and host Jeffrey Rosen have a reporter's chat and compare notes to discuss the evolution of the Court over the past 30 years, from the Reagan years through the Rehnquist Court, up to the Robert’s Court and what lies ahead.    Resources:   -       Joan Biskupic, Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court's Drive to the Right and its Historic Consequences (2023) -       Jeffrey Rosen, “Big Chief,” The New Republic (July 2012) -       Jeffrey Rosen, “Disgrace,” The New Republic (Dec. 23, 2004)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard a case about a Colorado man, Billy Ray Counterman, who was sentenced to over four years in prison for stalking due to threatening Facebook messages that he sent to a singer named C.W. Counterman argued that the charges violated his speech rights and that his messages were not “true threats,” which is a kind of speech not protected under the First Amendment. The issue in the case is whether or not his messages actually constituted under “true threats” (or if conduct like stalking should be distinguished); and if so, how should courts determine what a “true threat” is? In this episode, we dive into the facts and issues in the Counterman v. Colorado case, the history of “true threats” doctrine under the First Amendment, and recap the oral arguments, including whether the justices might decide that “true threats” should be determined by an objective test, such as if a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat of violence; or whether they might find that it depends

Earlier this year, the National Constitution Center hosted an event in Miami, Florida, featuring a series of meaningful conversations about the Constitution with speakers of diverse perspectives. In this episode, we’re sharing one of those conversations with you. During an evening keynote program, five great constitutional experts were asked an important question: Should we break up with the founders? In other words, should we still look to the drafters of the Declaration and Constitution—from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison to George Washington—despite their moral and philosophical hypocrisies, such as ownership of enslaved people, or do they still have something to teach us? And was the original Constitution a flawed but meaningful attempt to realize the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, one made more perfect by Reconstruction—or is the original Constitution so fatally flawed by the original sin of slavery that it does not deserve respect? The five scholars you’ll hear discuss and debate this que

Last Friday, judges in Texas and Washington state handed down conflicting decisions on the legality of abortion medication pills. In Texas, a district judge invalidated the FDA’s decades-old approval of the widely used drug mifepristone. Late this Wednesday, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit partially overruled that decision by allowing mifepristone to remain available, but temporarily prevented it from being sent to by mail and limited its approved use to the first seven weeks of pregnancy. Meanwhile, in Washington state, a district judge ordered the FDA to not rollback mifepristone’s approval while litigation over the drug is ongoing. Together, the two cases create a legal debacle for the FDA, which the Justice Department has asked the Washington court to provide guidance on. Eventually, the cases may go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thomas Jipping of The Heritage Foundation and Rachel Rebouché of the Temple University Beasley School of Law join to discuss whether mailing mifepristone violates the Com

Earlier this week, on Tuesday, April 4, former President Donald Trump was indicted in a Manhattan court on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels. President Trump pleaded not guilty. This indictment is legally and constitutionally significant as it is the first indictment of a president in American history. In this episode, David French, an opinion columnist at The New York Times and co-host of Advisory Opinions, and Kimberly Wehle, professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law and a legal analyst at ABC News, join to help break down the legal charges against former president Trump as well as the broader legal significance of this case. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.   Resources   “District Attorney Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Indictment of Former President Donald J. Trump,” (Apr. 4,2023)        People v. Trump, Indictment  People v. Trump, Statement of Facts David French, “What You Need to Know About the Trump Cha

In January 2023, the Israeli government under newly re-elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proposed a series of legal reforms that set off a wave of protests and calls of a constitutional crisis. The reforms seek to empower the Israeli legislature, known as the Knesset, to override decisions of the Supreme Court of Israel as well as to control the appointment of justices to the Court, and to limit the power of the Court to review administrative acts. Large-scale rallies and protests across Israel ensued; the protestors and critics, including many lawyers and academics, argue that the reforms undermine judicial independence and threaten Israeli democracy. In this week’s episode, Professor Yuval Shany of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Professor Tom Ginsburg of the University of Chicago join to explain the current situation in Israel and unpack the debate over the proposed reforms; discuss the similarities and differences between the American and Israeli constitutional systems; and how and why the

Last week, the North Carolina Supreme Court agreed to re-hear a case that found the state’s redistricting maps unconstitutional under the state’s constitution. The outcome of this decision could affect another case already before the U.S. Supreme Court, Moore v. Harper—a challenge to a decision striking down North Carolina’s redistricting that involves the “independent state legislature” doctrine. Why did the North Carolina Supreme Court strike down the maps in the first place, and why is it revisiting that decision now? Will the U.S. Supreme Court still decide the Moore case and rule on the independent state legislature theory? And what standards should be used to decide whether redistricting maps are politically gerrymandered? To discuss these questions and address the latest developments in these crucial gerrymandering cases, Misha Tseytlin of the law firm Troutman Pepper and Guy-Uriel Charles of Harvard Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen.  Resources   Moore v. Harper, (oral argument: video via C-SPAN;

Earlier this month, in United States v. Rahimi, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down as unconstitutional a decades-old law barring people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. The ruling comes on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen last term, which held that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry guns outside the home. Bruen also created a new history-and-tradition test for determining whether gun-control regulations are constitutional, which has led some lower courts to now rule differently on challenges to gun laws—including the Fifth Circuit. In this episode, two scholars and experts on the Second Amendment— Amy Swearer of the Heritage Foundation and Adam Winkler of UCLA School of Law—join to break down the Rahimi decision, which the U.S. Supreme Court may review in a future term, and explore the new landscape of Second Amendment law after Bruen. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderat

March is women’s history month—and in commemoration of the celebration, this week we hosted a conversation exploring the story of the pursuit of women’s rights in early America. Sara Chatfield, assistant professor of political science at the University of Denver and author of Her Own Name: The Politics of Women’s Rights Before Suffrage, and Nicole Evelina, bestselling novelist, biographer, and poet, and author of America’s Forgotten Suffragists: Virginia and Francis Minor, join to explore the different aspects and dimensions of the fight for women’s rights in the 19th and 20th centuries—from economic and property rights, to women’s suffrage and the right to vote. They dig into the origins and consequences of laws guaranteeing married women’s property rights and how and why these laws changed over time, as well as the story of married couple Virginia and Francis Minor, which exemplified a partnership devoted to securing broader rights for women—from property rights to suffrage, through a case brought by the Mi

This week the Supreme Court heard two separate legal challenges to a student loan forgiveness program proposed by the Biden administration: Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown. The plan aims to cancel up to $20,000 of student debt for low-to middle-income families, and was rolled out last August during the tail end of the COVID-19 pandemic. It relied on the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (or the HEROES Act), a law passed after 9/11 that gives the secretary of education the power to make changes to student loan programs during a national emergency. At the heart of the challenges to the plan are major questions surrounding the scope of presidential power; the doctrine of “standing”—or who can bring a lawsuit in court; and whether certain issues are of such “vast economic and political significance” that they should be left to the legislative branch and not decisions of federal agencies. William Araiza of Brooklyn Law School and Anastasia Boden of the Cato Insti