We the People

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.

At the end of March, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law House Bill 1557, also called the “Parental Rights in Education Bill.” Critics of the bill have referred to it as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Controversy has surrounded the bill since its inception. President Biden referred to it as “hateful,” but supporters say the bill is limited in scope and has been misinterpreted.Constitutional law experts Joshua Matz of Kaplan Hecker & Fink and Eugene Volokh of UCLA School of Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the debate over the bill and others like it.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.

As Russia continues to wage war on Ukraine, more horrifying news of its impact on civilians has been exposed, including graphic images of purported war crimes and other atrocities being committed against Ukrainian citizens.Some international leaders have called for tougher sanctions against Russia, and others have expelled Russian diplomats from their countries.But what else can be done? Does international law play a role in ending the conflict and bringing Russia to justice? Can Russian President Vladimir Putin be tried for war crimes, or any other international crimes, such as the crime of aggression? And if so, how?International law experts Philippe Sands of University College London and Ryan Goodman of NYU Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the possibilities and limitations of international law in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, as well as the relevance of the origins of international criminal law, dating back to the Nuremberg trials in 1945 and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson’s role in its development.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 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.

This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is currently a judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals. Questions for Judge Jackson ranged from her judicial philosophy and methodology of constitutional interpretation; to her experience as a public defender and years as a trial court judge; to questions about various constitutional topics, from the First Amendment to the Fourth Amendment and other issues that may come before the Court for review.Lisa Tucker, associate professor of law at Drexel University, and Melissa Murray, Frederick I. and Grace Stokes Professor of Law at NYU Law, join host Jeffrey Rosen to recap what we learned about Judge Jackson through four days of questioning by the committee. 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.

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.

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 February 28, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, a case concerning the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The outcome of the case has the potential to deal a significant blow to the federal government’s ability to enact climate regulations. Joining us to examine the arguments on either side is Jonathan Adler, inaugural Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and founding director of the Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law; and Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. 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 honor of President’s Day, this episode of We the People covers memorable writings and speeches from former presidents that help make up some of the foundational texts and ideas of our nation. In particular, we’ll take a close look at the words of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison as they reveal the former presidents’ thoughts the challenges of creating a nation; on the role public opinion plays in governance; on happiness and its pursuit and how that factors into the role government should play in our everyday lives; and more. Nancy Isenberg, Professor of history at Louisiana State University and co-author of Madison and Jefferson and The Problem of Democracy: The Presidents Adams Confront the Cult of Personality; and Colleen Sheehan, professor of politics at Arizona State and author of The Mind of James Madison: The Legacy of Classical Republicanism and James Madison and the Spirit of Republican Self-Government, join host Jeffrey Rosen for an illuminating discussion.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.

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.