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

On this week’s episode, We the People examines United States v. Vaello-Madero, a case involving U.S. citizen Jose Luis Vaello-Madero who claims the exclusion of Puerto Ricans from the Supplemental Security Income program violates the Constitution. Vaello-Madero began receiving Supplemental Security Income while living in New York but then moved back to Puerto Rico. When the government found that out, it cut off Vaello-Madero's benefits and sued him because SSI is available in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands, but not in Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories.Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Neil Weare, president and founder of Equally American who was raised in the U.S. territory of Guam and previously worked for Guam’s non-voting Delegate Madeleine Bordallo, and Christina D. Ponsa-Kraus, the George Welwood Murray Professor of Legal History at Columbia Law School who was raised in Puerto Rico and specializes in studying the legal issues surrounding Puerto Rico. Weare and Ponsa-Kraus explain the case, recap its oral argument at the Supreme Court, and walk us through the history of how Puerto Rico and its residents have been treated under the Constitution and by the U.S. government.Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.

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.

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.

On April 9, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14023 forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States. The Commission is comprised of a bipartisan group of experts on the Court—from former federal judges and practitioners, to legal scholars and historians—who have been tasked with analyzing arguments and the merits and legality of proposals in the current public debate for and against Supreme Court reform. Last week, after months of research and expert testimony, the Commission released discussion materials in the form of five separate reports. It then held a public hearing to discuss the various topics and reform ideas presented, including whether to enact Supreme Court term limits, increase the number of justices on the Court, or reexamine the Court’s practices and procedures. Its final report is expected on November 14. Two of the scholars who testified before the Commission—Jamal Greene of Columbia Law School and Michael McConnell of Stanford Law School—join host Jeffrey Rosen on this week’s episode to discuss the Commission, which reforms they are evaluating have bipartisan support and might be achievable—and whether they should and can be enacted.The work of the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project—which both Greene and McConnell participated in as well—was also cited in both the Commission materials and in expert testimony. Visit https://constitutioncenter.org/debate/special-projects/constitution-drafting-project for more info.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.

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

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

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

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

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