We the People (National Constitution Center)

This week we are sharing an episode from our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. In this episode, prize-winning historians Kate Masur, author of Until Justice Be Done: America’s First Civil Rights Movement, from the Revolution to Reconstruction, and Dylan Penningroth, author of the new book Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights, explore the central role of African Americans in the struggle for justice and equality long before the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.   Resources:  Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America’s First Civil Rights Movement, from the Revolution to Reconstruction (2022)  Dylan Penningroth, Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights (2023)  Article IV, Section 2: Movement Of Persons Throughout the Union, Privileges and Immunities Clause, National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution  14th Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause, National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution  Dylan Penningroth, The Claims of Kinfolk: African American Property and Community in the Nineteenth-Century South (2003)  Kate Masur, An Example for All the Land: Emancipation and the Struggle over Equality in Washington, D.C (2010)  Brief of Professors of History and Law as Amici Curia in Support of Respondents, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard and UNC    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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

This week the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Trump v. United States, a case that asks whether the former president is immune from criminal prosecution for conduct that occurred during his tenure in office. In this episode, Professor John Yoo of Berkeley Law School and Smita Ghosh of the Constitutional Accountability Center join Jeffrey Rosen to preview the arguments in the case, review the founders’ views on executive immunity, and discuss how the Court might decide this crucial case.    Resources:  Trump v. United States (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) Constitutional Accountability Center, Smita Ghosh, et al, Brief of Scholars of Constitutional Law in Support of Respondents, Trump v. United States  Smita Ghosh, “The Founding Fathers Didn’t Think Trump Should Get Immunity Either,” Newsweek, Feb 8, 2024   John Yoo, “The Trump Immunity Case is Weak—But He Doesn’t Need it to Prevail,” Newsweek, Mar 6, 2024   Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982)  Blassingame v. Trump (D.C. Cir. 2023)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on social media @ConstitutionCtr and #WeThePeoplePodcast Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

The National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project brought together three teams of leading constitutional scholars—team libertarian, team progressive, and team conservative—to draft and present their ideal constitutions. The leaders of each team—Caroline Frederickson of team progressive, Ilya Shapiro of team libertarian, and Ilan Wurman of team conservative—joined host Jeffrey Rosen to share the process behind their approach to drafting their constitutions and agreeing on what to include and not to include; the overall structure of their constitutions as well as the specific constitutional ideas they added to and subtracted from the U.S. Constitution; and the similarities and differences between the three constitutions. Team libertarian also included Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute and Christina Mulligan of Brooklyn Law School. Team progressive also included Jamal Greene of Columbia Law School and Melissa Murray of New York University School of Law. Team conservative also included Robert P. George of Princeton University, Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School, and Colleen A. Sheehan of Arizona State University. The project was generously supported by Jeff Yass. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Three decades ago, in the fledgling days of the internet, Congress amended Section V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to grant broader legal protections to websites who host information from third parties. Part of Section 230 of that law (known as the Communications Decency Act) has been referred to as “the 26 words that created the internet,” due to the burgeoning effect it had on online content as internet companies were protected from lawsuits. Two current Supreme Court cases—Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh—ask whether algorithms created by companies like Google or Twitter, which might promote and recommend terroristic or other harmful material, result in the companies being held liable for aiding and abetting the terrorists; or whether, as in the Google case, Section 230 applies to grant immunity to the platforms. In this episode, guests Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami School of Law and Kate Klonick of St. John’s University of Law School break down the arguments in each case before the court. They also discuss the history and purpose of Section 230, why Congress enacted it, and how it’s been interpreted over the years. They also look forward to how this case could impact platforms like Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Twitter and the future of the Internet itself. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.    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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Kristina Arriaga of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Greg Lipper of Americans United for Separation of Church and State discuss the Kim Davis saga and two competing bills in Congress.

Jeffrey Rosen hosts a live conversation at the National Constitution Center with leading journalists—Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of The Atlantic; Michelle Goldberg, op-ed columnist for The New York Times; and Jonah Goldberg, senior editor of the National Review—discussing what James Madison might think of mainstream media today and the effects of social media on modern democracy and politics. The conversation explores everything from Twitter mobs and the threats posed by growing tribalism to Facebook’s proposed “Supreme Court” and the challenges presented by online content regulation. This event was presented in partnership with The Atlantic magazine and generously sponsored by the John S. Templeton Foundation as part of the NCC’s Madisonian Constitution for All Initiative. This episode originally aired on our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, where you can hear live constitutional conversations held here at the National Constitution Center and across America. Questions or comments? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

President Trump and congressional Democrats remain at an impasse over a White House proposal to fund the construction of a southern border wall. The president has said that if Congress decides not to appropriate the funds, then he will “probably” declare a national emergency to circumvent Congress and build the wall. On this episode of We the People, we ask: what would happen if the president decided to declare a national emergency and divert military funds to build the wall? What statutes could he rely on? And would such an action be constitutional? Host Jeffrey Rosen and constitutional law experts Mark Tushnet of Harvard Law and Sai Prakash of University of Virginia Law explore the constitutional clauses, cases, and laws at issue in this hotly contested debate, including the Take Care, Appropriations, and Takings Clauses of the Constitution, the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case, and the National Emergencies Act of 1976 and related statutes.   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Supreme Court has not decided a major Second Amendment case since McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, but the Court may break this silence soon if it decides to grant certiorari in Mance v. Whitaker – a challenge to a law prohibiting interstate handgun sales. In this episode, Cato's Clark Neily, a leading Second Amendment litigator, and Adam Winkler, UCLA Law professor and noted Second Amendment scholar, join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss Mance and other pending cases and debate whether courts have treated the Second Amendment as a “second class right.”  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org

In honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, this episode celebrates King’s life and work, his hopeful vision for America, and his fight to pass landmark civil rights laws and realize the promises of the Constitution. Civil rights and constitutional law experts Michael Klarman of Harvard Law and Theodore M. Shaw of UNC Law join guest host Lana Ulrich to explore King’s constitutional legacy.  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

 A dispute over the firing of a high school football coach who refused to stop praying on the field after games reached the Supreme Court this term; last week, the justices said they would not hear the case until its facts were better established by lower courts. Justice Alito concurred but, joined by three other conservative justices, indicated that he might be sympathetic to Kennedy’s claim that his actions were protected by the First Amendment, should his case eventually return to the Court. Justice Alito also suggested that he and some of his colleagues may be willing to overturn Employment Division v. Smith in order to bolster free exercise and religious exemption claims under the First Amendment. Religion law experts Stephanie Barclay of BYU Law School and Richard Katskee of Americans United for Separation of Church and State discuss Coach Kennedy’s case, whether Smith should be overturned, and how such changes might affect people like public school teachers and coaches. Jeffrey Rosen hosts.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) technically expired on June 30, 1982, the ratification deadline set by Congress, but a renewed push to resurrect and ratify this constitutional amendment gained momentum in 2017, with ratification by Illinois and Nevada. Now, ERA proponents are looking to secure ratification in a  38th state, which would round out the necessary three-fourths majority of the states required to pass an amendment. Two leading voices on either side of the debate over the ERA – Linda Coberly, chair of the national ERA Coalition Legal Task Force, and Inez Stepman, senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum – join host Jeffrey Rosen to detail the potential constitutional, legal, political, and cultural effects of adding the ERA as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

For We the People listeners enjoying wine this Valentine’s Day – we’re exploring the still-pending Supreme Court case Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair. This lawsuit was brought by Total Wine & More, a retail liquor giant, and the Ketchums, a family who moved to Tennessee hoping to open a liquor store. Both parties were denied retail liquor licenses because they hadn’t resided in Tennessee long enough. This episode examines a variety of technical but fascinating legal and constitutional questions at issue in the case, including the history of the 21st Amendment, the scope of the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities clause. Two advocates involved in the case, Michael Bindas of the Institute for Justice and John Neiman of the law firm Maynard Cooper, join host Jeffrey Rosen for a wide-ranging discussion about it.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On this Presidents’ Day edition of We the People, political historian Julian Zelizer of Princeton and constitutional law professor Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen to debate the question: Is the presidency too powerful? Starting with the Founding Fathers’ vision for the presidency, they trace the evolution of presidential power through the Progressive Era presidencies of Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson, the move to restrain presidential power in the 1970s during LBJ’s and Richard Nixon’s presidencies, and the uptick in exercises of unilateral presidential power by modern presidents like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. Finally, they share their thoughts on presidential emergency powers and President Trump’s recent declaration of a national emergency to fund construction of the border wall.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Two leading voices from organizations on different sides of today's biggest debates over reproductive rights and abortion laws—Catherine Glenn Foster of Americans United for Life and Dr. Kelli Garcia of National Women's Law Center—join host Jeffrey Rosen to explore the key cases making their way up to the Supreme Court. Garcia and Foster also share their views on landmark abortion precedent like Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and the more recent case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, and predict how precedent might affect the outcomes of challenges to pending abortion laws at the federal level and in states like Louisiana, Tennessee, and Mississippi.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. 

On March 2, President Trump announced his plans to sign an executive order “requiring colleges and universities to support free speech if they want federal research dollars.” Considering whether or not such an order would be constitutional, how it might be enforced, and how it could affect colleges and universities—two experts on campus free speech, Sigal Ben-Porath of the University of Pennsylvania and Adam Kissel, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education at the U.S. Department of Education, join host Jeffrey Rosen. They discuss the state of free speech on campuses across the country, and debate the best ways to tackle challenges to free speech, from speech zones to speech codes to protecting the rights of students and universities alike. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Is it constitutional to execute an inmate who doesn’t remember the crime he committed? Or a person who might suffer excruciating pain during execution? These questions were raised by cases that came before the Supreme Court this term; joining host Jeffrey Rosen to debate them are John Bessler of the University of Baltimore School of Law and Richard Broughton of the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. These two scholars consider the death penalty’s past and present, find points of agreement between death penalty abolitionists and supporters, and predict what the new makeup of the Court will mean for the future of capital punishment.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has submitted the findings from his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, many are wondering, what will happen next? John Yoo of Berkeley Law School and Steve Vladeck of University of Texas Law School detail the possible scenarios and examine how the president and Congress might respond—focusing on potential executive privilege claims by President Trump. They also consider how President Trump might claim executive privilege in other contexts—like the House obstruction inquiry, a possible impeachment probe, attempts to prevent release of notes from his Helsinki meeting with Vladimir Putin, or in pending civil lawsuits against him. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. Note: This podcast was recorded on Wednesday, March 20th, before the news broke (on Friday) that the Mueller report was completed. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Supreme Court heard two partisan gerrymandering cases—one from North Carolina and another from Maryland—this week: Lamone v. Benisek and Rucho v. Common Cause. Examining those cases and how the Court might rule, host Jeffrey Rosen sits down with Nick Stephanopoulos, one of the attorneys in the North Carolina case and a law professor at the University of Chicago, and Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation. These scholars debate whether or not the Supreme Court should be involved in examining partisan gerrymandering claims, and discuss what the Constitution says about gerrymandering. For more information and resources, visit constitutioncenter.org/podcasts. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week, the Department of Justice surprised many by reversing its position on the Affordable Care Act—stating that it agrees with U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor that the ACA is unconstitutional, and won’t defend the law. Judge O’Connor’s December 2018 decision in Texas v. United States held that because the tax penalty that enforced the individual mandate had been reduced to $0 in Congress’s 2017 tax reforms, the rest of the ACA could not stand. The House of Representatives, along with several states, has intervened in the case to defend the ACA. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen to break down this case and the legal and constitutional arguments on both sides are ACA experts Abbe Gluck of Yale University and Tom Miller of the American Enterprise Institute. For more information and resources, visit constitutioncenter.org/podcasts. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

How did a Vietnam War veteran’s request for disability benefits turn into one of the key Supreme Court cases of this term, one with major implications for the future of the administrative state? In this episode, administrative law experts Jonathan Adler of Case Western Law School and Ron Levin of Washington University in St. Louis School of Law explain the issues in this case, Kisor v. Wilkie. They join host Jeffrey Rosen to unpack Kisor and the administrative law deference doctrine, known as “Auer deference,” at the center of the dispute. They also break down other administrative law doctrines like “Chevron” and “Skidmore” deference and the non-delegation doctrine, explaining why they’re so important and at times, controversial. For more information and resources, visit constitutioncenter.org/podcasts.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The indictment of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for conspiracy to hack into a classified government computer has reignited the debate over the question: what is the line between First Amendment-protected journalism and cyber-crime? On this episode, two leading experts on the intersection of the First Amendment and national security–Josh Geltzer of Georgetown University Law Center and Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project—join host Jeffrey Rosen to consider whether Assange’s indictment poses a threat to press freedom. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This episode sheds constitutional light on the Mueller report, focusing on the question of obstruction. We explore what Special Counsel Robert Mueller did and did not conclude about obstruction, explain the “corrupt intent” requirement for an obstruction charge, and grapple with the constitutional question as to whether the president can commit obstruction. Our guests also address the question: in the aftermath of the Mueller report, what should Congress do, and what are the lessons for future Attorneys General in similar situations? Mary McCord, senior litigator at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law Center, and Josh Blackman, associate professor of law at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, join host Jeffrey Rosen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Would adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census—which a lawsuit argues could dissuade people from responding to it—violate the Constitution’s enumeration clause, which requires that an “actual enumeration,” or a counting, of all Americans be performed every ten years? Does it matter how and why the question is added? Tom Wolf, Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, and John Eastman, Professor at Chapman University School of Law, join host Jeffrey Rosen to debate these questions. They discuss the pending Supreme Court case Department of Commerce v. New York, in which numerous states are suing Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross over his decision to add a citizenship question to the census.  Wolf and Eastman consider how Ross’s motive for asking about citizenship on the census might affect how the justices rule on the case, and offer a helpful historical deep dive into the census itself and its inclusion of questions regarding citizenship. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On May 7, host Jeffrey Rosen sat down with Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. to celebrate the opening of the National Constitution Center’s new permanent exhibit – ‘Civil War and Reconstruction: The Battle for Freedom and Equality.’ The exhibit is America’s first devoted to exploring how constitutional clashes over slavery set the stage for the Civil War, and how the nation transformed the Constitution after the war with the addition of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. Professor Gates discussed the new exhibit in addition to his PBS series about Reconstruction and two new books—"Stony the Road: Reconstruction, White Supremacy, and the Rise of Jim Crow" and a young adult book "Dark Sky Rising: Reconstruction and the Dawn of Jim Crow." Gates told the story of the advancements of Reconstruction and the Reconstruction Amendments, how those advancements were thwarted by Jim Crow laws like poll taxes, vagrancy laws, and the rise of hate groups, how the Civil Rights Movement fought against that backlash, and how we are still dealing with many of these issues and challenges today.  If you enjoyed this constitutional conversation, please listen and subscribe to our companion podcast, Live at America's Town Hall, on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Adam Winkler of the University of California, Los Angeles and Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute explore the constitutional debates over gun control and immigration policy. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on our Facebook page and Twitter feed. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People on iTunes. While you’re in the iTunes Store, leave us a rating and review; it helps other people discover what we do. Please also subscribe to Live at America’s Town Hall, featuring conversations and debates presented at the Center, across from Independence Hall in beautiful Philadelphia. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out all of our sibling podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Josh Waimberg and Danieli Evans. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

This week, the National Constitution Center in partnership with The Atlantic launched a new web project: “The Battle for the Constitution”— a year-long exploration of the major issues and controversies surrounding the Constitution today from all sides of the debate. At the Atlantic Ideas Festival yesterday, the NCC and the Atlantic celebrated the project launch with a series of panels featuring scholars, journalists and legislators. They discussed the breaking news of the House’s impeachment inquiry into President Trump, as well as what separation of powers means in U.S. government today. Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO of the NCC, kicked off the discussion in conversation with Martha Jones, professor of history at John Hopkins University, John Malcolm, Vice President for Constitution Government at the Heritage Foundation, and Quinta Jurecic, managing editor at Lawfare. Later, Representatives Lance Gooden (R-TX) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) spoke about their views on the impeachment question and the proper exercise of congressional power. 

The National Constitution Center’s initiative, ‘A Madisonian Constitution for All,’ is launching an essay series where leading scholars explore what James Madison, the “father of the Constitution”, might think about the presidency, Congress, courts, and the media today. This week, two of the authors celebrate the launch of the series by diving into all things presidential – how the office was conceived of at the Founding, evolved throughout history, was impacted by the rise of political parties and partisanship, and increasingly expanded its power. They also give their takes on the current impeachment investigation. Scholars Sai Prakash and Sean Wilentz, authors of the ‘Madisonian Constitution for All’ essays on the presidency, join host Jeffrey Rosen.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On July 6th, the National Constitution Center hosted a panel to present the reports of teams participating in the Center’s Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy project. The project brings together three teams of leading experts— conservative, libertarian, and progressive—to identify institutional, legal, and technological reforms that might address current threats to American democracy.  Team conservative is comprised of Sarah Isgur, Jonah Goldberg, and David French—all of The Dispatch. Team libertarian includes Clark Neily and Walter Olson of the Cato Institute, and Ilya Somin of the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. Team progressive is comprised of Edward Foley of The Ohio State University and Franita Tolson of USC Gould School of Law.  The three team leaders—Sarah Isgur, Clark Neily, and Ned Foley—presented their reports and discussed their various suggested reforms, including those on which they agree and disagree about. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderated.   Learn more about the Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy initiative and read the full reports on the National Constitution Center’s website. Read the reports: Sarah Isgur, David French, and Jonah Goldberg, Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy: Team Conservative Clark Neily, Walter Olson, and Ilya Somin, Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy: Team Libertarian Edward B. Foley and Franita Tolson, Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy: Team Progressive The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. 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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

How do judges manage the personal challenges that their role often requires them to face, including unconscious bias, chronic stress, exposure to emotionally-charged circumstances, and public pressure and scrutiny? Current and former judges join in candid conversations about how they have managed these challenges and how they have approached their work.    The first panel features moderator Michael Lewis, best-selling author of ‘Moneyball’ and ‘The Big Short’ and host of the podcast ‘Against the Rules’, in conversation with Justice Eva Guzman of the Supreme Court of Texas and Judge Charles Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.    The second panel is moderated by National Constitution Center President Jeff Rosen, who sits down with Executive Director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute and former U.S. District judge for the Northern District of California Jeremy Fogel, former Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court Carlos Moreno, and former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Deanell Reece Tacha. This program was presented in partnership with the Berkeley Judicial Institute, and this episode was originally published on our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

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 gun control. They also unpack the Supreme Court’s brief ruling declining to intervene at this time, its reasoning, and how it compares to other recent emergency rulings like the COVID-19 cases and the eviction moratorium. Kate Shaw is a professor at Cardozo Law and a co-host of the Supreme Court podcast Strict Scrutiny. Sarah Isgur is staff writer at The Dispatch and co-host of the legal podcast Advisory Opinions. This episode was recorded just before the Justice Department announced that it will sue the state of Texas over this law—although our guests provide some pre-emptive speculation on what such a lawsuit may look like.

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.org.

Last week, the Supreme Court issued an order in a case—Merrill v. Milligan—about voting district maps in Alabama. After the 2020 census, Alabama drew new maps for seven districts, which would determine the seats in the House of Representatives. Of those seven, one district has a majority Black population. A lower court ordered Alabama to redraw the maps so that two districts have majority Black populations, finding that the current plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, temporarily put that ruling on hold, with Chief Justice Roberts siding with the three liberal justices. So—what does it all mean for voting rights in Alabama, and for the Voting Rights Act itself? In this episode we dig into the issues surrounding Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how its interpretation could affect voting across the country. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen are Rick Hasen, Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of California, Irvine, and co-director of the Fair Elections and Free Speech Center; and Matthew Clark, executive director of the Alabama Center for Law & Liberty.   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 by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. 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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

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 available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Investigations into several leading big tech companies – including Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon – began on Tuesday as the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the role of such companies in the decline of the news industry. Prior to the hearings, host Jeffrey Rosen sat down with anti-trust law experts Mark Jamison of the American Enterprise Institute and Barry Lynn of the Open Markets Institute to ask: if these investigations lead to increased government regulation—what might the consequences be–for big tech, antitrust law, and for the Constitution?  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

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 briefs as well as what’s at stake in this case, and debate how to interpret the text, history, and meaning of the Second Amendment in light of whether the Court should uphold the New York law. Additional resources and transcripts available at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, historians Rick Atkinson, author of The British Are Coming: The War for America, Lexington to Princeton, 1775-1777; Mary Beth Norton, author of 1774: The Long Year of Revolution; and Rosemarie Zagarri, author of Revolutionary Backlash: Women and Politics in the Early American Republic, join Jeffrey Rosen to explore the events leading to the first shots of the American Revolution, the battles themselves, and the colonists’ response to this pivotal moment in history. Resources Rick Atkinson, The British Are Coming: The War for America, Lexington to Princeton, 1775-1777  (2019)  Mary Beth Norton, 1774: The Long Year of Revolution (2020)  Rosemarie Zagarri, Revolutionary Backlash: Women and Politics in the Early American Republic (2008)  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

Benjamin Franklin is well known as a Founding Father and an innovative inventor, scientist, and diplomat. But did you know he had a major and often unsung role at the Constitutional Convention? Historians H.W. Brands, author of The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin, and Ed Larson, author of Franklin & Washington: The Founding Partnership, join host Jeffrey Rosen on this week’s episode. They illuminate Franklin’s involvement in drafting and debating the Constitution during the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia—as host of the Constitutional Convention and one of the Convention’s most-respected delegates—as well as his vision for America’s future. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

National Constitution Center president Jeffrey Rosen is joined by U.S. Senator Chris Coons, Neal Katyal, David Frum and David Leonhardt to break down a busy end to the Supreme Court’s term.

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 on the speaker’s specific intent. Genevieve Lakier of the University of Chicago and Gabe Walters of FIRE join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss.  Resources: Brief of Amicus Curiae Foundation for Individuals Rights and Expression in Support of Petitioner and Reversal, Counterman v. Colorado  Brief of First Amendment Scholars Evelyn Douek, Genevieve Lakier, and Eugene Volokh in Support of Respondent, Counterman v. Colorado  Oral argument in Counterman v. Colorado, April 19, 2023 (Audio by C-SPAN; transcript) 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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Michael Rappaport of the University of San Diego and David Strauss of the University of Chicago discuss how Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump could change the Constitution. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and Live at America’s Town Hall on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by David Stotz and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

As the Supreme Court approaches the home stretch of the 2020-2021 term, it’s released some opinions with unanimous decisions and others with split votes composed of unusual alignments of justices. Supreme Court experts Kate Shaw, cohost of the podcast Strict Scrutiny and professor at Cardozo Law, and Jonathan Adler, contributing editor of National Review and professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, join host Jeffrey Rosen to recap those decisions and detail why they’re important, as well as what to look out for in the rest of the outstanding cases still left in this term, and new cases in the next. Some terms that will be helpful to know this week: Textualism: a method of interpreting laws and/or the Constitution whereby the plain text is used to determine the meaning, and/or a set of techniques used by judges and justices to determine the application of a statute through close consideration of its text. Stare decisis: Latin for “to stand by things decided.” The doctrine of adhering to precedent i.e. cases previously decided. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The case that may determine if former White House Counsel Don McGahn must testify before Congress – about whether President Trump obstructed justice during the Mueller investigation – is being argued on appeal tomorrow, January 3rd. And, three other cases concerning requests for President Trump’s financial records – issued by Congress and, separately, by a New York State grand jury – will be heard by the Supreme Court in early 2020. All of these cases involve subpoenas – written orders compelling an individual or organization to produce evidence or to testify – and raise important questions about the power of Congress and the states to investigate the president and his aides. Guests Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law and Andy Grewal of Iowa Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to explain all four cases: These three cases will be heard by the Supreme Court in March 2020: Trump v. Mazars: The House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a subpoena requesting that President Trump’s accounting firm Mazars USA turn over financial records of President Trump and several of his business entities. The committee states that it's investigating whether and how to legislate on presidential financial disclosure requirements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the committee’s subpoena is valid. Trump v. Deutsche Bank: The House Committee on Financial Services and the House Intelligence Committee issued subpoenas requesting that President Trump’s creditors, Deutsche Bank and Capital One, release documents related to President Trump’s, his family’s, and his business’s finances. The committees state that they’re investigating whether and how to legislate on the practices of financial institutions and potential presidential conflicts of interest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the subpoenas. In this case and Mazars, the Trump administration is arguing (among other things) that the subpoenas exceed the committees’ powers and do not serve a “legitimate legislative interest.” Trump v. Vance: Cyrus Vance, district attorney of the County of New York, issued a state of New York grand jury subpoena requesting nearly 10 years’ worth of the president’s financial papers and his tax returns for an inquiry into whether the President or his businesses violated New York law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the subpoenas. This case differs from the other two because the subpoena was issued by a state, not federal, authority. The McGahn case 4.Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. Donald F. McGahn II: The House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena calling for former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify before the committee on whether President Trump obstructed justice in Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. U.S. District Judge Ketanji Jackson ruled that McGahn must testify, and the Trump administration’s appeal of that decision will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia tomorrow. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Earlier this month, President Biden voiced support for getting rid of the filibuster, looking to ease the path of voting rights legislation in Congress. But Senators Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema opposed the change. The legislation has been stalled, and debate over the filibuster runs high once again.  Joining host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the history, constitutionality, and calls for reform of the filibuster are two of the nation’s leading experts on congressional power and practices. Josh Chafetz is a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center, and Jay Cost is the Gerald R. Ford nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. His newest book is James Madison: America's First Politician. 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 by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support.   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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On the eve of the 2024 presidential election, Jesse Wegman, member of The New York Times editorial board and author of Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College, and Robert Hardaway, professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and author of Saving the Electoral College: Why the National Popular Vote Would Undermine Democracy, join Jeffrey Rosen to debate the Electoral College and preview potential legal challenges that might arise in the aftermath of the election. This program was originally streamed live as part of the NCC’s America’s Town Hall series on October 29, 2024.   Resources:  Robert Hardaway, Saving the Electoral College Why the National Popular Vote Would Undermine Democracy (2019)  Jesse Wegman, Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College (2020)  Electoral College, Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3, Interactive Constitution  National Popular Vote  Ranked Choice Voting  Article I, Section III, The Senate, Interactive Constitution  Cass Sunstein, “On Jan. 6, Will Vice President Harris Certify the Election?,” Wall Street Journal, Oct. 25, 2024  Gary Lawson and Jack Beerman, “Congressional Meddling In Presidential Elections: Still Unconstitutional After All These Years; A Comment On Sunstein,” April 2023  “The Very Real Scenario Where Trump Loses and Takes Power Anyway,” Politico, Oct. 20, 2024  Moore v. Harper (2023) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

In honor of the anniversary of the ratification of the Constitution, June 21, and the upcoming Independence Day holiday on July 4 – today’s episode celebrates the influence of the Declaration of Independence on the Constitution and constitutional movements throughout history. We explore how the Declaration influenced the drafting of the Constitution itself; the abolitionist movement and Abraham Lincoln’s conception of a new birth of freedom after the Civil War; the Seneca Falls Convention and the campaign for women’s suffrage; the Progressive movement and the New Deal;,Dr. King and the Civil Rights revolution; through to the modern conservative originalist movement as well as progressivism today. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Danielle Allen – James Bryan Conant University Professor at Harvard and author of the book 'Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality' – and Ken Kersch – professor of political science at Boston College and author of 'Conservatives and the Constitution: Imagining Constitutional Restoration in the Heyday of American Liberalism'. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Jeffrey Rosen talks about his new book, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America, followed by a panel discussion on the influence of classical writers and thinkers on the founding generation. Panelists include University of Chicago Professor Eric Slauter, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist George Will; and Melody Barnes, executive director of UVA’s Karsh Institute of Democracy. This program was recorded live on February 9, 2024.   Resources:  Jeffrey Rosen, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America (2024)  Cicero, The Tusculan Disputations   Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics   Melody Barnes, et al, ed., Community Wealth Building and the Reconstruction of American Democracy (2020)  Karsh Institute of Democracy, University of Virginia    Eric Slauter, The State as a Work of Art: The Cultural Origins of the Constitution (2009)  Thomas Jefferson’s Recommended Reading   George Will, Statecraft as Soulcraft: What Government Does (1984)  George Will, The Conservative Sensibility (2019)  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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.   You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

On May 2, Politico published a leaked draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in the pending case Dobbs v. Women’s Health Organization. The draft opinion in Dobbs overrules the precedents Roe v. Wade andPlanned Parenthood v. Casey, which hold that women have the constitutional right to seek pre-viability abortions. In this episode, professors Mary Ziegler of UC Davis Law School and O. Carter Snead of Notre Dame Law School join once again to unpack the constitutional reasoning in Justice Alito’s draft, and the implications for the future of abortion rights in America and the future of Court as an institution in the aftermath of the leaked opinion. Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Last year, we had two episodes about this case, before and after oral arguments, so be sure to listen to those if you haven’t – available here: Part 1 and Part 2. 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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

How should impeachment be carried out, according to the Constitution? This episode explores the constitutional process of impeachment, from investigation and passage of articles of impeachment by the House of Representatives, to the Senate trial, and the aftermath. Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, who served on the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment, and Gene Healy, author of Indispensable Remedy: The Broad Scope of the Constitution’s Impeachment Power detail the constitutional framework under which impeachment has been carried out in the past, how those precedents compare to what’s happening today, and what might happen next. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Last week the Supreme Court announced that it adopted a formal code of ethics, endorsed by all nine Justices. In this episode, Professor Daniel Epps of Washington University School of Law and Professor Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law join Jeffrey Rosen to break down the Supreme Court ethics code and explore questions about how it will be applied and enforced.  Resources:   Supreme Court of the United States, Statement of the Court Regarding the Code of Conduct, Nov. 13, 2023  Daniel Epps and Will Baude, “Easy Win,” Divided Argument (podcast)   Steve Vladeck, “One and a Half Cheers for the Supreme Court,” One First substack, Nov. 16, 2023.  Steve Vladeck, “Opinion: The Supreme Court code of conduct misses this big thing,” CNN, Nov. 14, 2023   Steve Vladeck, “An Article III Inspector-General,” One First substack, Oct. 19, 2023.  Epps, Daniel and Trammell, Alan M., “The False Promise of Jurisdiction Stripping” (March 8, 2023). Columbia Law Review, Forthcoming.     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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.   You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

As the Supreme Court term nears its end, the Court has issued a series of decisions in many blockbuster cases, including overturning Chevron deference, upholding a law disarming domestic violence offenders and applying obstruction laws to January 6 prosecutions. Sarah Isgur of The Dispatch and Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal join Jeffrey Rosen to review the Supreme Court’s most important decisions from this term so far.   Resources:  Fischer v. United States (2024)  Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)  United States v. Rahimi (2024)      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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard the case New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. the City of New York which centers around a New York City gun regulation prohibiting residents from taking their guns to second homes and shooting ranges outside the city. After New York’s NRA affiliate and some gun-owning residents challenged the regulation, New York changed it – raising the question of whether this case is now “moot.” Explaining the “mootness” issue and diving into the legal and practical implications of the case – Second Amendment experts Darrell Miller of the Duke Center for Firearms Law and Clark Neily of Cato join host Jeffrey Rosen. They discuss the history, text, and tradition of the Second Amendment, what the right to “bear arms” really means, and how the Court should decide its first major Second Amendment case in almost a decade. Here’s some vocabulary that may be helpful to know this week:  Mootness: A case becomes moot if the controversy that was present at the start of litigation no longer exists.  Judicial review doctrines: A judicial review test is what courts use to determine the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. There are three main levels in constitutional law:  Strict scrutiny: For a law to survive a court’s review under strict scrutiny, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Intermediate Scrutiny: A level down from strict scrutiny. The law must be substantially related to an important government interest. Rational basis: The most deferential kind of review. The law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Special thanks to the Duke Center for Firearms Law. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Michael Gerhardt from the University of North Carolina School of Law and Clark Neily from the Institute for Justice join our Jeffrey Rosen to discuss a timeless topic among constitutional law scholars: When is it appropriate for the courts to strike down laws passed by a legislature?

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.

The National Constitution Center's Jeffrey Rosen is joined by constitutional experts Bruce Ackerman and Louis Fisher to discuss a hot topic: the roles of the President and Congress in conducting America’s foreign policy.

Ilya Shapiro and Scott Gaylord join us to debate one of the more interesting cases in front of the Supreme Court this term: the right of Texas to ban state-issued license plates that feature the Confederate flag.

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. The case is about Joseph Kennedy, a Christian high school football coach in Washington state who regularly prayed before games. Eventually a majority of the players joined in as well, and one player’s parent complained that he felt pressured to pray as well. Kennedy lost his job after refusing to comply with school district’s orders to stop.  Nicole Garnett of Notre Dame Law School and Rachel Laser of Americans United for Separation of Church and State join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the case; the questions raised around the limits of free speech, free exercise of religion, and the separation of church and state in schools; and how the Court might rule based on its prior jurisprudence—from the Lemon v. Kurtzmann test to the Abington v. Schempp case—and some justices’ questioning of it. Listen to "Football, Faith, and the First Amendment" from January 31, 2019. 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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

In the newest installment of our Ask Jeff podcast series, the National Constitution Center’s president, Jeffrey Rosen, answers visitor questions about the Bill of Rights

The National Constitution Center's Jeffrey Rosen is joined by federal judges Jed Rakoff and Michael Baylson to debate the public misconceptions and systemic failings of America’s criminal justice system.

The upcoming Supreme Court case New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. the City of New York could be the first major Second Amendment case in almost a decade. It centers around a New York City regulation prohibiting residents from taking their guns to second homes and shooting ranges outside the city, even when the guns are unloaded and separated from ammunition. New York’s NRA affiliate and some gun-owning residents challenged the regulation, but, in the midst of litigation, New York City changed it – raising the question of whether the case was now “moot”. And, Senate Democrats filed a controversial brief addressed to the Supreme Court warning that they might pursue structural reform of the Court if they don’t like the outcome in this case. Detailing the twists and turns of the case and its potential impact on the Second Amendment – Adam Winkler of UCLA Law School and Ilya Shapiro of the CATO Institute join host Jeffrey Rosen.   Here’s some vocabulary that may be helpful to know this week:   Mootness: A case becomes moot if the conflict, or the law at issue, that was present at the start of litigation no longer exists.   Judicial review doctrines: A judicial review test is what courts use to determine the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. There are three main levels in constitutional law:   Strict scrutiny: For a law to survive a court’s review under strict scrutiny, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest Intermediate Scrutiny: A level down from strict scrutiny. The law must be substantially related to an important government interest. Rational basis review: The most deferential kind of review to the legislature. A law only has to be “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government interest.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

September 17 is Constitution Day in the United States, celebrating the day that members of the Constitutional Convention signed the document in Philadelphia in 1787. As a part of the National Constitution Center’s 2022 celebrations, we hosted a panel live at the NCC in Philadelphia called “Originalism: A Matter of Interpretation.” Emily Bazelon of The New York Times Magazine, Rich Lowry of the National Review, Steven Mazie of The Economist, and Ilan Wurman of Arizona State University joined host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss whether the Constitution should be interpreted according to its original meaning, and if the Supreme Court is consistent in applying principles of originalism in its decisions.   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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

A panel of experts dives into what early American founding figures—including Thomas Jefferson, John and Abigail Adams, George Washington, Mercy Otis Warren, and Phyllis Wheatley—learned from the Greeks and Romans, from their early education through adulthood, and how that knowledge came to influence founding documents such as the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and the scope and shape of the American republic. They also explore the founders’ philosophical understanding of passion versus reason, the meaning of “happiness,” and how ancient philosophy continued to influence American democracy throughout turbulent times including the Civil War. Historians and authors Caroline Winterer and Carl Richard and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas Ricks joined National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen. This program originally aired on our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. Check it out on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to catch up on the live constitutional conversations we hosted in 2020. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library Questions or comments? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Allen Dickerson and Anthony Johnstone debate the controversy over non-profits being forced to release the names of anonymous donors. Jeffrey Rosen of the National Constitution Center hosts this conversation.

Best-selling author Michael Lewis discusses his new book, Who Is Government?: The Untold Story of Public Service, with Jeffrey Rosen. As government programs face political headwinds, Lewis and his favorite writers examine the human stories of the heroic civil servants who make government work and why their contributions matter.  This conversation was originally streamed live as part of the NCC’s America’s Town Hall series on March 26, 2025.  Resources Michael Lewis, ed., Who Is Government? The Untold Story of Public Service (2025) Michael Lewis, “The free‑living bureaucrat,” The Washington Post (March 2025) Michael Lewis, “Directions to a journalistic gold mine,” The Washington Post (Nov. 2024) Michael Lewis, The Premonition: A Pandemic Story (2022) Michael Lewis, The Fifth Risk (2018) CURE ID Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation and Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center for Justice explore recent court rulings about the right to vote in America. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Josh Waimberg and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen. Many thanks and best wishes to Danieli Evans, who leaves the Center this month.

The National Constitution Center’s Jeffrey Rosen talks with Ilya Somin from George Mason University and the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Elizabeth B. Wydra about four big Supreme Court cases, including decisions on vanity license plates and church signs.

Rick Hasen from the University of California-Irvine and John Eastman from Chapman University break down the biggest issues about voting rights and the Constitution, as the Supreme Court considers one case and more cases are in front of federal judges.

Last week the Supreme Court handed down two nearly unanimous decisions in cases involving the First Amendment. One was an 8-1 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts in Ramirez v. Collier, in which the Court sided with a death row inmate who claimed he had the right to have the religious leader of his choice touch him and pray audibly for him in the execution chamber. The other opinion was 9-0 in Houston Community College v. Wilson, where the Court held that a legislative censure issued by a community college board did not violate the free speech rights of the respondent, another trustee on the board, in an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch. First Amendment experts Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School and Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the opinions’ impact on how we interpret and understand religious freedom and freedom of speech in America. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. 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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

In June, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Moore v. Harper, a case out of North Carolina about the power of state courts to review election regulations set by state legislatures. At the heart of the case is the so-called “independent state legislature” theory, which has gained popularity in some limited circles. The Supreme Court will now directly address it when it hears arguments in the case next term. Joining us to examine the arguments for and against the independent state legislature theory is Vikram Amar, dean of Illinois College of Law and co-author of an article in the Supreme Court Review that’s critical of the theory; and Jason Torchinsky, partner at Holtzman Vogel, and author of an amicus brief in Moore v. Harperon the side of North Carolina, on behalf of the National Republican Redistricting Trust. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.  Check out What is the “Independent State Legislature Doctrine”? – Part 1 from March 2022. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. 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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Charles Cooke of the National Review, Melody Barnes of the University of Virginia, and Sean Wilentz of Princeton University explore the debate about the core values of the American Idea—liberty, equality, democracy, and federalism—throughout American history and model the way in which Americans of different perspectives can come together in the spirit of civil dialogue. This program was recorded live on February 9, 2024.    Resources:  Sean Wilentz, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln (2008)  Sean Wilentz, The Politicians and the Egalitarians: The Hidden History of American Politics (2016)  Charles Cooke, The Conservatarian Manifesto: Libertarians, Conservatives, and the Fight for the Right’s Future   Charles Cooke, “The American System Works, and It Will Work If Trump Wins Again” (2023)   Melody Barnes, Corey D.B. Walker and Thad M. Williamson, “Introduction: can we make American democracy work?” In Community Wealth Building and the Reconstruction of American Democracy (2020)  Melody Barnes (and others), “Hate-fueled violence is ripping apart our cities and nation. We need to stop it.,” USA Today (2022)  Melody Barnes and Caroline Janney, “Opinion: In a civil war, accountability must precede healing,” The Washington Post (2021)  Melody Barnes, “Opinion: It’s time for Sally Hemings to show us the unvarnished Thomas Jefferson,” The Washington Post (2018)  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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. Donate

This past term, the Supreme Court handed down two major decisions about Native American law. In Arizona v. Navajo Nation, the Court ruled 5-4 that a treaty did not require the U.S. Government to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Navajo Nation; and in Haaland v. Brackeen, the Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). In this episode, Native American law experts Professor Marcia Zug of the University of South Carolina Law School and Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute join to help unpack these key Native American law cases. They also dive more deeply into one specific member of the Court—Justice Neil Gorsuch—and his unique stance toward how the Constitution applies to issues relating to Native American tribes—from his dissent in Haaland, to his majority opinion in the McGirt v. Oklahoma case from 2020, and more. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Resources: Arizona v. Navajo Nation (2023) Haaland v. Brackeen (2023) McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) Marcia Zug, “ICWA’s Irony”, American Indian Law Review (2021) Tim Sandefur, Brief Amici Curiae of Goldwater Institute in Support of State of Texas and Brackeen, Haaland v. Brackeen Adam Liptak, “Justice Neil Gorsuch Is a Committed Defender of Tribal Rights”, The New York Times (June 15, 2023) John Dossett, “Justice Gorsuch and Federal Indian Law”, American Bar Association (Sept. 1, 2017) 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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Kenji Yoshino of the New York University School of Law and Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law preview the new Supreme Court term that begins on October 5.

The 2019-2020 Supreme Court term recently ended with a series of blockbuster opinions involving presidential subpoenas, religious liberty, abortion, the Electoral College and more. Supreme Court experts Kate Shaw of Cardozo Law School and Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute join host Jeffrey Rosen to recap those opinions and more. They also weigh in on Chief Justice Roberts’ efforts to put the institutional legitimacy of the Court front and center in this historic term. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Adam Liptak of The New York Times and Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago discuss the future of free speech in a special Freedom Day episode. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on our Facebook page and Twitter feed. Please subscribe to We the People on iTunes. While you’re in the iTunes Store, leave us a rating and review—it helps other people discover what we do. Please also subscribe to Live at America’s Town Hall, featuring conversations and debates presented at the Center, across from Independence Hall in beautiful Philadelphia. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out all of our sibling podcasts at iTunes.com/Panoply. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit—we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Josh Waimberg, Lana Ulrich, and Danieli Evans. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Earlier this month, President Trump was indicted in federal court in Washington, D.C. for conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential elections. Judge J. Michael Luttig joins Jeffrey Rosen for a conversation about the constitutional and historical questions raised by the indictment. Resources:  Jeffrey Rosen, “The Founders Anticipated the Threat of Trump,” Wall Street Journal (Aug. 4, 2023)  “Former federal judge J. Michael Luttig on Jan. 6 indictment and American democracy,” Washington Post (Aug. 9, 2023)  Indictment, United States of America v. Donald Trump, Department of Justice (Aug. 1, 2023)  “How to Prevent Another January 6th,” We the People podcast (June 16, 2022)  “The Mob, the Capitol, and the Constitution” We the People podcast (Jan. 7, 2021)    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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.      You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.  

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 question are: Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School, Caroline Fredrickson of Georgetown Law, Kermit Roosevelt of Penn Law, Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times, and Charles Cooke of the National Review. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Resources: Kermit Roosevelt III, The Nation That Never Was: Reconstructing America’s Story (2022) Akhil Reed Amar, The Words That Made Us: America’s Constitutional Conversation, 1760–1840 (2021) Caroline Fredrickson, “A Constitution of Our Own Making,” Washington Monthly (2021) Jamelle Bouie, “We Had to Force the Constitution to Accommodate Democracy, and It Shows” New York Times (Oct. 2022) Charles C. W. Cooke, National Review, “America’s Founding Changed Human History Forever” (July 4, 2016) 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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and the two nations have been at war since. This week, two experts in constitutional law and international affairs join us to unpack the causes of this war, what potential implications for the core principles of liberal democracy and constitutionalism might be, and whether international law has any power to stop the fighting. Kim Lane Scheppele, the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International Affairs in the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs, and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University, and Jeffrey Kahn, professor of law and Gerald J. Ford Research Fellow at Southern Methodist University, join Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center. The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. 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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

On Presidents Day 2024, NCC President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen launched his new book at the NCC in conversation with Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of The Atlantic. They discuss The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America. This program was recorded live on February 19, 2024, and presented in partnership with The Atlantic.  Resources:  Jeffrey Rosen, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America (2024)  Cicero, The Tusculan Disputations  (ca. 45 BC)  The Quill Project   The King James Bible (1611)  Pythagoras, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy   The Webster-Hayne Debates   Trump v. Anderson  “Should President Trump Be Allowed on the 2024 Ballot?,” We the People podcast (Jan. 11, 2024)  “Rhetoric of Freedom,” The Atlantic (Sept. 1999)  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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Trump has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime authority, to summarily deport suspected members of a Venezuelan gang. He also invoked a Cold War-era statute to deport a student activist at Columbia University. In this episode, Adam Cox of New York University and Ilya Somin of George Mason University join to discuss the scope of the president’s deportation power and to evaluate whether the administration violated the due process or speech rights of the deportees.  Resources  Adam Cox and Cristina Rodríguez, The President and Immigration Law (2020)  Ilya Somin, Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom (2021)  Adam Cox and Ahilan Arulanantham, “Explainer on First Amendment and Due Process Issues in Deportation of Pro-Palestinian Student Activist(s),” Just Security (March 12, 2025)  Ilya Somin, “The Case Against Deporting Immigrants for ‘Pro-Terrorist’ Speech,” Volokh Conspiracy (March 10, 2025)  Ilya Somin, “What Just Happened: The “Invasion” Executive Order and Its Dangerous Implications” Just Security (January 28, 2025)  Adam Cox, “The Invention of Immigration Exceptionalism,” Yale Law Review (November 2024)  Bridges v. Wixon (1945) Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block new congressional maps in North Carolina and Pennsylvania from going into effect. Both states’ maps had been redrawn by state courts, overriding maps that had been enacted by the states’ Republican legislatures. This means that the 2022 congressional elections in both states will proceed using the court-drawn maps. Despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene, four of the justices indicated they’re ready to address the doctrine at the heart of the cases: the independent state legislature theory. To unpack all that’s at stake—and explain what that theory is and what effect, if implemented, it could have on the power of state courts to review actions by state legislatures in regulating elections—Jeffrey Rosen moderates a conversation with two constitutional law experts: Vikram Amar, dean and Iwan Foundation Professor of Law at Illinois College of Law and co-author of Constitutional Law: Cases and Materials; and Evan Bernick, assistant professor at the Northern Illinois University College of Law and co-author of The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit.   The National Constitution Center relies on support from listeners like you to provide nonpartisan constitutional education to Americans of all ages. Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. 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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

In this episode, Joyce Lee Malcolm, author of The Times That Try Men’s Souls: The Adams, the Quincys, and the Families Divided by the American Revolution—and How They Shaped a New Nation, and Eli Merritt, author of Disunion Among Ourselves: The Perilous Politics of the American Revolution, explore the origins and clashing ideologies during the American Revolution, how loyalists and patriots feared civil war, and how the founders’ fears of demaguges influenced their approach to constitutional design and politics. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was streamed live on December 13, 2023.   Resources: Eli Merritt, Disunion Among Ourselves: The Perilous Politics of the American Revolution Joyce Lee Malcolm, The Times That Try Men's Souls: The Adams, the Quincys, and the Battle for Loyalty in the American Revolution The Declaration of Independence Eli Merrit, "Why demagogues were the Founding Fathers' greatest fear," LA Times   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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Jeffrey Rosen is joined by public health law experts Polly Price of Emory University School of Law and Ed Richards of Louisiana State University Law Center to discuss key questions about the coronavirus and the Constitution. 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 also 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 impose the kind of lockdown that has occurred in China or Italy, and, if so, would the Supreme Court intervene? And what might happen next? Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen leads a special panel discussion with Federal Judges Association President Judge J. Michelle Childs of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and past president of the Federal Judges Association; Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida; and Judge Stephen R. Bough of the U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri. The judges explore threats to the judicial branch and the importance of judicial independence and civic education in maintaining the rule of law. This program was presented in partnership with the Federal Judges Association.  Resources  Michelle Childs, Justice Jackson Lecture: “The Republic is Safe as Long as the Courts Remain Open” (April 1, 2025)  Code of Conduct for United States Judges  John Roberts, 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary (December 2024)  Federal Judges Association Civics Challenge Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

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.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, atbit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Today on We the People, we’re sharing a conversation from a private event hosted by the National Constitution Center this week in Coral Gables, Florida, recorded with permission from the speakers. In it, President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen moderates a conversation with five experts about two of the biggest issues before the Supreme Court this term: abortion and guns. Those five experts are: Melissa Murray of NYU Law, Akhil Amar of Yale Law School, Clark Neily of the Cato Institute, Kimberly Atkins Stohr of The Boston Globe, and David French of The Dispatch. 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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

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 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 by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. 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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Portland has seen more than 60 consecutive days of protests since the killing of George Floyd. The protests escalated when federal forces were deployed in Portland to protect its federal courthouse, angering protestors and local officials who said they did not ask for the federal deployment. On Wednesday, Oregon Governor Kate Brown announced that federal officials will soon begin withdrawing from the city, although they remained as of Thursday morning. On today’s episode, we’ll discuss the rapidly evolving situation in Portland—exploring the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights of protestors; the president’s power to deploy federal forces in the states to protect federal property, and the limits on that power; and more. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by John Inazu, an expert on the First Amendment right of assembly, and Bobby Chesney, an expert on the president’s power to deploy federal forces. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On January 17, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce—two cases that ask whether the Court should overturn the landmark Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council case. In this episode, guests Christopher Walker of Michigan Law School and Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institue join to recap the arguments in both cases and to explore the future of Chevron and the administrative state. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.   Resources: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript)  Relentless v. Department of Commerce (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript)  Christopher Walker, Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo   Timothy Sandefur, Amicus Brief of Goldwater Institute in Support of Petitioners, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo   Chevron U.S.A. Inc., v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) 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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Picking up on some of the themes of last week’s episode, historians Lindsay Chervinsky and Craig Bruce Smith discuss how George Washington conceived of civic virtue, honor, and public service both as a general and as president. They explain why, during the Revolution, “without Washington there was no army” and, how, later, President Washington was considered by many to be “the embodiment of the nation.” Smith and Chervinsky offer a holistic portrayal of Washington — the good and the bad — and contemplate his constitutional legacy as the creator of a powerful executive branch and the first president to peacefully transfer power. Washington’s birthday is this Saturday, February 22. Correction: In this episode, Jeff mistakenly said that Alexis Coe’s book You Never Forget Your First: A Biography of George Washington includes a claim that Washington “likely engaged in premarital sex - nonconsensual sex - with an enslaved woman.” Instead, Coe actually quotes a letter written about Washington that describes his possible premarital sex with a “Cirprian Dame,” and explains what that term might have meant. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In this episode: The Espionage Act of 1917, one of the most contentious statutes relating to the First Amendment, is back in the news following the indictment of President Donald Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents. What is the Espionage Act and how has it been used over time? Legal scholar Heidi Kitrosser, author of Reclaiming Accountability: Transparency, Executive Power, and the U.S. Constitution, and political historian Sam Lebovic, author of State of Silence: The Espionage Act and the Rise of America’s Secrecy Regime, explore the origins, history, and constitutional legacy of this World War I-era law. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was streamed live on December 4, 2023.   Resources: ·      Sam Lebovic, State of Silence: The Espionage Act and the Rise of America's Secrecy Regime ·      Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 (1917-1918) ·      Defense Secrets Act of 1911 ·      The Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) ·      Schenck v. United States (1919) ·      Heidi Kitrosser, Reclaiming Accountability: Transparency, Executive Power, and the U.S. Constitution ·      Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19 (1941) ·      Heidi Kitrosser and David Schulz, “A House Built on Sand: The Constitutional Infirmity of Espionage Act Prosecutions for Leaking to the Press” ·      United States v. Morison (4th Cir. 1988) ·      Heidi Kitrosser, “The Espionage Act After the Mar-a-Lago Indictment,” Lawfare ·      United States v. Morison (4th Cir. 1988)     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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Last week, historians Martha Jones and Lisa Tetrault joined National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for a conversation exploring the history and legacy of the 19th Amendment. The discussion highlighted the untold stories of women from all backgrounds who fought for women's suffrage and equality for all—as well as the work still left to do after the Amendment's ratification was won. Martha Jones is author of the new book Vanguard: How Black Women Broke Barriers, Won the Vote, and Insisted on Equality for All. Lisa Tetrault is author of The Myth of Seneca Falls: Memory and the Women's Suffrage Movement, 1848-1898. This conversation originally aired on our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. Listen and subscribe here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/live-at-americas-town-hall/id1037423300 This program was presented as part of the 19th Amendment: Past, Present, and Future symposium presented in partnership with All in Together, the George & Barbara Bush Foundation, the LBJ Presidential Library, the National Archives, The 19th, and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. It’s part of the National Constitution Center's Women and the Constitution initiative—a yearlong celebration of the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In part two of our discussion on abortion and the Constitution – David French of National Review and reproductive rights historian Mary Ziegler of Florida State College of Law join host Jeffrey Rosen. French and Ziegler break down the recent Supreme Court decision in Box v. Planned Parenthood, and the related legal debates surrounding “fetal dignity” and fetal rights. Exploring Justice Thomas’ concurrence in Box – French explains why he thinks Thomas is once again “throwing down the gauntlet” on the constitutional underpinnings of abortion rights. Next, these experts explore the history and resurgence of the “fetal personhood” movement, which asserts that fetuses have certain constitutional rights, including the right to life. French and Ziegler trace the movement’s history and analyze the strategies of states like Alabama and Georgia that have passed new laws attempting to protect the personhood of the fetus. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Eric Posner from the University of Chicago and Jonathan Rauch from the Brookings Institution tackle an urgent constitutional debate: If speech is perceived to be insulting or indecent, is it permissible for government to regulate its expression?

On April 18, a federal judge in Florida struck down the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s mask requirement on airplanes, trains, buses, and other public transportation. In a 59-page opinion, Judge Mizelle stated that the CDC had exceeded its legal authority under relevant federal law, including the 1944 Public Health Services Act, and failed to follow administrative procedure rules. The decision further vacated the mask mandate on a nationwide basis. The U.S. Department of Justice plans to appeal the decision.  Michael Dorf of Cornell Law School and Adam White of the American Enterprise Institute join us for a discussion about the legal arguments on both sides of the decision, and a broader debate about nationwide injunctions—when a single district court judge blocks a law or government regulation on a national scale. Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

The National Constitution Center is launching a multi-year initiative exploring the history and meaning of the First Amendment, anchored by the magnificent 50-ton First Amendment tablet newly installed at the Center overlooking Independence Mall. The giant tablet was previously engraved, fabricated and erected in 2007 at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. After the Newseum closed in 2019, the Freedom Forum donated the tablet to the Center. In conjunction with the initiative, Jeffrey Rosen is joined by First Amendment experts Robert Post and Keith Whittington to discuss the origins of the First Amendment, its importance in American society, and several of the most important Supreme Court cases centering around free speech. Robert Post is a Sterling Professor of Law at Yale Law School and author of Citizens Divided: A Constitutional Theory of Campaign Finance Reform. Keith Whittington is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University and the author of Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech.   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 by the John Templeton Foundation! Visit www.constitutioncenter.org/we-the-people to donate, and thank you for your crucial support. 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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Christopher Beem, author of The Seven Democratic Virtues: What You Can Do to Overcome Tribalism and Save Our Democracy; Richard Haass, author of The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens; and Lorraine Pangle, author of Reason and Character: The Moral Foundations of Aristotelian Political Philosophy, discuss the concepts of civic virtue and citizenship in democratic societies. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was originally streamed live on March 30, 2023, as part of our America’s Town Hall series.  This program was made possible through the generous support of Citizen Travelers, the nonpartisan civic engagement initiative of Travelers. Resources: Richard Haass, The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens Christopher Beem, The Seven Democratic Virtues: What You Can Do to Overcome Tribalism and Save Our Democracy Lorraine Pangle, Reason and Character: The Moral Foundations of Aristotelian Political Philosophy Lorraine and Thomas Pangle, The Learning of Liberty: The Educational Ideas of the American Founders 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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear argument in a key consolidated case about the First Amendment and donor disclosure laws. Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rodriquez asks whether a policy of the California attorney general’s office that requires charities to disclose the names and addresses of their major donors violates the First Amendment. Cindy Lott, Associate Professor of Professional Practice at Columbia University and Academic Program Director for Nonprofit Management Program at the School of Professional Studies, and Brian Hauss, a staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, discuss this case and its potential implications for nonprofit organizations, campaign finance, free speech, and more. 

Legendary Supreme Court reporter Lyle Denniston reflects on the Court, the Constitution, and his long career. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitterusing @ConstitutionCtr. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at [email protected]. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. Today’s show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

On May 23, the Supreme Court issued its opinion upholding a South Carolina congressional map against a challenge from the NAACP. In Alexander v South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the Court found that the South Carolina legislature had conducted a partisan gerrymander, permissible under the Court’s precedents, and not an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In this episode, two leading election and voting rights scholars, Joshua Douglas of the University of Kentucky College of Law, and Derek Muller of the University of Notre Dame Law School, join Jeffrey Rosento discuss the Alexander v. NAACP majority opinion, as well as the concurrence and dissent, and review what this decision means for the future of racial gerrymandering cases.   Resources: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024) Joshua Douglas, The Court v. The Voters: The Troubling Story of How the Supreme Court Has Undermined Voting Rights (2024) Joshua Douglas, “Today’s Supreme Court is Anti-Voter,” Washington Monthly (May 28, 2024) Derek Muller, “The Long Shadow of the Elections Clause,” Election Law Blog (May 29, 2024)  Derek Muller, “Faith in Elections,” 36 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol’y 641 (2022)   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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Last month, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Secretary of State determined that President Trump “engaged in an insurrection” after taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and that he is therefore disqualified from serving as president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In this episode, professors Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston and Gerard Magliocca of the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law dive into the meaning and purpose of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the arguments for and against Trump’s eligibility to run for a second term this fall. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.   Resources:  Jeffrey Rosen, “The Supreme Court’s Election Dilemma,” WSJ (Jan. 5, 2024)  Gerard Magliocca, “Background as Foreground: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and January Sixth,” (Dec. 21, 2022)  Gerard Magliocca, “Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” (July 20, 2021)  Gerard Magliocca, “What the Supreme Court Should Not Do in Trump’s Disqualification Case,” NY Times (Jan. 5, 2024)   Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, “Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section Three,” (Sept. 19, 2023)   Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, “Is the President an ‘Officer of the United States’ for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment?” (Dec. 20, 2021)   Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, Amicus Brief in Support of Trump in Trump v. Anderson  Griffin’s Case (1869)   The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)   Bradwell v. Illinois (1873)   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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Historians Ned Blackhawk and Brenda Child join for a conversation on Blackhawk’s national bestseller, The Rediscovery of America: Native Peoples and the Unmaking of U.S. History, which just won the National Book Award. They explore five centuries of U.S. history to shed light on the central role Indigenous peoples have played in shaping our nation’s narrative. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was streamed live on November 1, 2023.  Resources:   Ned Blackhawk, The Rediscovery of America: Native Peoples and the Unmaking of U.S. History    Brenda Child, Away From Home: American Indian Boarding School Experiences, 1879-2000  Brenda Child, Boarding School Seasons: American Indian Families, 1900-1940  Claudio Saunt, Unworthy Republic: The Dispossession of Native Americans and the Road to Indian Territory  Jeffrey Ostler, Surviving Genocide: Native Nations and the United States from the American Revolution to Bleeding Kansas  Eric Foner, The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution  Ned Blackhawk, Violence over the Land: Indians and Empires in the early American West  Brenda Child, Holding Our World Together: Ojibwe Women and the Survival of Community  Brenda Child, My Grandfather's Knocking Sticks: Ojibwe Family Life and Labor on the Reservation  Brenda Child and Brian Klopotek, Indian Subjects: Hemispheric Perspectives on the History of Indigenous Education  Michael Witgen, Seeing Red: Indigenous Land, American Expansion, and the Political Economy of Plunder in North America    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, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.   You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.