Joining the discussion are David Gans, Director at the Constitutional Accountability Center, and Kurt Lash, Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Richmond. They dive into the heated debate over Tennessee's law banning medical transitions for transgender minors. Gans argues this law violates the Equal Protection Clause, while Lash defends its legality. The two scholars dissect the implications of landmark cases like Bostock and Geduldig, scrutinizing legal standards for sex discrimination and the evolving interpretation of the 14th Amendment in relation to transgender rights.

Christopher Cox, a scholar and former U.S. representative, joins Geoffrey Stone, a distinguished professor at the University of Chicago, to delve into Woodrow Wilson's complex legacy. They tackle his inconsistent stances on women's suffrage, free speech, and racial equality, highlighting his administration's harsh suppression of dissent during WWI. The conversation also examines the tensions between national security and individual rights, alongside Wilson's troubling resegregation policies, offering a nuanced perspective on his historical impact.

President-elect Trump’s allies have floated the possibility of suspending Congress in order to use the Recess Appointments Clause to install Cabinet officials without Senate confirmation. In this episode, Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and Thomas Berry of the Cato Institute join Jeffrey Rosen to preview this plan and debate its legal merits.  Resources:  Center for Renewing America, “Brief: On the Article II Recess Appointments Clause” (November 17, 2024)  Ed Whelan, “A Terrible Anti-Constitutional Scheme of Recess Appointments,” National Review (November 12, 2024)  Ed Whelan, “The House Has No Authority to ‘Disagree’ with Senate’s Decision to Remain in Session,” National Review (November 17, 2024)  Edward Whelan, “The Radical Consequences of an Immediate Senate Recess," National Review (November 19, 2024)  Thomas Berry, “Thomas Berry (Cato Institute) on Trump's Recess Appointment Plan,” Volokh Conspiracy (November 15, 2024)  National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning (2014)  Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 76 (April 1, 1788)  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

Join Danielle Allen, a Harvard professor and civics education expert, and Jane Kamensky, president of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation and early American history authority, as they delve into John Adams's influential legacy. They discuss the Adams family's commitment to constitutional principles and civic duty, the need for enhanced civic education in today’s polarized society, and the interplay of faith and governance in early America. The conversation emphasizes storytelling’s role in democracy and the importance of deep reading in fostering civic engagement.

Keith Richotte Jr. is an author and expert on Native American law, while Matthew L.M. Fletcher has written extensively on Indigenous rights. They discuss the complex evolution of Native American law from the Marshall Court to today, addressing the federal government's authority over tribes. They highlight the impact of Justice Scalia’s philosophy and recent positive trends in tribal sovereignty. The conversation also emphasizes the need for integrating Indigenous philosophies into governance and educating justices about Native rights.

Jesse Wegman, a member of The New York Times editorial board and author advocating for abolishing the Electoral College, faces off against Robert Hardaway, a law professor who argues in favor of its preservation. The discussion dives into the complexities of the Electoral College and its alternatives like ranked choice voting. They debate the implications of a national popular vote, potential legal challenges in a contested election, and the constitutional authority of governors in certifying results. Both present compelling arguments about the future of electoral integrity and democracy.

In an engaging discussion, Mary Anne Franks, a George Washington University Law professor, and Alex Morey from FIRE tackle the complexities of free speech on campus, especially amid heated political debates. Keith Whittington, also from Yale, critiques the challenges faculty face regarding expression. Nadine Strossen and Jonathan Turley delve into the legal landscape of free speech, while Kenji Yoshino from NYU highlights the role of social media in moderating discourse. Together, they explore the balance between protecting free speech and addressing harmful narratives.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Glossip v. Oklahoma, a case challenging the constitutionality of Richard Glossip’s conviction and sentencing to death for a 1997 murder. In this episode, Paul Cassell of the University of Utah and Andrea Miller of the Oklahoma Innocence Project join Jeffrey Rosen to recap the oral arguments and debate whether or not Glossip’s conviction should stand in light of newly revealed documents that allegedly suggest prosecutorial misconduct.   Resources:  Glossip v. Oklahoma, Supreme Court oral argument (audio via C-SPAN; transcript)   Brief of Amicus Curiae the Innocence Project in Support of Petitioner Richard Eugene Glossip, Glossip v. Oklahoma    Paul G. Cassell, “Brief of Victim Family Members Derek Van Treese, Donna Van Treese, and Alana Mileto as Amici Curiae in Support of Affirming the Judgment Below,” Glossip v. Oklahoma 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

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Garland v. VanDerStok, a case challenging the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to regulate “ghost guns” under the Gun Control Act. In this episode, Clark Neily of the Cato Institute and Dru Stevenson of the South Texas College of Law join Jeffrey Rosen to recap the oral arguments and debate whether ghost guns—which are untraceable weapons without serial numbers, assembled from components or kits that can be bought online—may be regulated as firearms.   Resources:  Garland v. VanDerStok (oral argument audio via CSPAN; argument transcript)  Dru Stevenson, quoted in: “‘Ghost guns’ in the crosshairs”,  BusinessDay (March 7, 2024)   Drury Stevenson, “Shall Not Be Infringed,” (July 2024)  Clark Neily, quoted in: “Will ‘sigh of relief’ after US supreme court gun ruling be short-lived?,” The Guardian (June 22, 2024)  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 this episode, Anne Applebaum, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and staff writer for The Atlantic, joins to discuss her newest book, Autocracy, Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Rule the World, which explores how autocracies work together to undermine the democratic world, and how democracies should organize to defeat them. She joins Jeffrey Rosen to discuss new threats from autocratic leaders at home and around the world and how liberal democracies should fight these threats. Resources: Anne Applebaum, Autocracy, Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Rule the World (2024)  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