As Americans look forward to celebrating Independence Day this holiday weekend, this week’s episode dives into the Declaration of Independence. We trace where its words and its ideals came from and how it went on to influence state constitutions, the U.S. Constitution, and other key American texts—including President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School, author of The Words That Made Us: America’s Constitutional Conversation 1760-1840, and Steven G. Calabresi of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

The Supreme Court recently released decisions from some of the most highly-anticipated cases of this term. Jess Bravin, who covers the Supreme Court for The Wall Street Journal, and Marcia Coyle, chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal and contributor to the National Constitution Center’s blog Constitution Daily, join host Jeffrey Rosen to recap those decisions and highlight the role, approach and legal philosophy of each individual justice in this blockbuster term.Marcia, Jess, and Jeff discuss cases including: Fulton v. City of Philadelphia in which the Court held that the refusal of Philadelphia to contract with Catholic Social Services (CSS) for the provision of foster care services unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Mahanoy Area School District in which the Court sided with a student whose initials are B.L., ruling that the school district’s decision to suspend B.L. from the cheerleading team for posting to social media vulgar language and gestures critical of the school violates the First Amendment. California v. Texas in which the Court held that the plaintiffs in the case lack standing to challenge the Affordable Care Act’s minimum essential coverage provision—essentially protecting the ACA from its latest challenge. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.Questions or comments available at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On June 19, 1865, Union soldiers, led by Major General Gordon Granger, arrived in Galveston, Texas, with news that the Civil War had ended and that the enslaved were now free. President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation had been issued over two years earlier, and the South had surrendered in April 1865, ending the Civil War. So why did it take so long for Texans to hear the news of their freedom? Why do we celebrate Juneteenth as Emancipation Day? And how did emancipation finally become a reality under the Constitution and throughout the nation?We answer those questions and more on this week’s episode featuring Martha Jones, author of 'Vanguard: How Black Women Broke Barriers, Won the Vote, and Insisted on Equality for All,' and Lucas Morel, author of 'Lincoln and the American Founding.' Jones and Morel trace the story of the fight for freedom and equality in America from the Declaration of Independence through the founding of the country and the Constitution; the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation; the ratification of the 13th Amendment; and beyond. They also highlight some of the fascinating figures and movements that shaped Black American politics and history. Jeffrey Rosen hosts.Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

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.

Last week, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer joined National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for a live online program to discuss the Constitution, civility, the Court, and more. In a wide-ranging conversation, the justice discusses how he goes about making decisions, shares some stories and life lessons from his time on the bench, and shares some of his favorite books and authors. He also explains why civic education is so important today, why people need to reach across the political divides more than ever, and why he's optimistic about the future of America. Finally, he answers questions from the audience and describes how he’s been spending his time during the pandemic (including Zooming with his law clerks and meditating).This conversation was one of our constitutional classes broadcast live to learners of all ages. All of the classes from the past school year were recorded and can be watched for free at https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.  Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks (with narrow exceptions for medical emergencies or “severe fetal abnormality,” but not for instances of rape or incest). The case could lead the Supreme Court to once again question its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade (and later cases like Planned Parenthood v. Casey) which held that there was a constitutional right to seek an abortion under the 14th Amendment and that the government could not place an undue burden on the right prior to the “viability” of the fetus, or the ability of an unborn child to survive outside the womb. This week’s episode focuses on two big questions: Does the Constitution indeed protect the right to choose abortion—and if so, when? And in the new abortion challenge, Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization, will the court uphold Roe v. Wade or narrow the decision in some way, revising the viability standard? Our guests unpack these questions and more, explaining the arguments on all sides as well as relevant legal terms—including “substantive due process,” “natural law,” and “stare decisis.” Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Leah Litman, assistant professor at Michigan Law and co-host of the podcast Strict Scrutiny, and Teresa Stanton Collett, professor and director of the Prolife Center at University of St. Thomas School of Law.Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library

In the wake of the 2020 election, a host of new laws that deal with voting have been proposed across the country by both states and the federal government. Election law experts Rick Hasen, professor at UCI Law and author of Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy, and Derek Muller, election law professor at Iowa Law, join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss whether or not the proposed bills are constitutional; explain how the election system is structured under our Constitution and state, federal, and local laws; and more.Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

This week’s episode previews New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett, which could become a major Second Amendment and gun rights case. This lawsuit was brought by two New York state residents who were denied licenses to carry firearms outside of the home, AKA “concealed carry” permits, because they had failed to show "proper cause" to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense and did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished them from the general public. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, and Clark Neily, who was co-counsel in the major gun rights case District of Columbia v. Heller, to explore the case, debate whether New York’s controversial concealed carry law is constitutional, examine the surprising history of similar laws, and more. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

The Facebook Oversight Board—a recently-developed court of sorts that independently reviews Facebook’s decisions and policies—issued a major ruling this week, upholding the company’s initial decision to ban President Trump indefinitely, but calling on the company to come to a final decision on its suspension of Trump and similar cases with greater detail. The board also requested that Facebook clarify its policies on political leaders, do some additional fact-finding, and report back with more on its decision and rationale in six months—when the board will reconsider the ban. Host Jeffrey Rosen considered the impact of the decision for the future of digital speech with two experts who have done path-breaking work on the Facebook Oversight Board: Kate Klonick, assistant professor of law at St. John’s Law School who spent a year embedded with the Oversight Board as it was being developed, and Nate Persily, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and co-director of the Stanford Program on Democracy and the Internet.Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

After a high school student with initials B.L. posted a snap on the social media app Snapchat complaining about sports and school, she was suspended from the cheerleading team. She sued the school for violating her First Amendment rights and appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court; the court heard arguments in the case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., this week, which could become the court’s first major ruling on student speech in decades. On this week’s episode, we recap the oral argument in the case, as our guests explain the arguments on both sides. Host Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Will Creeley, Legal Director at Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE) who authored an amicus brief on behalf of B.L., and Francisco Negrón, Chief Legal Officer at the National School Boards Association who joined a brief on behalf of the school district. They discuss how the court might apply the leading precedent, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)—in which the court famously wrote that students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate at the schoolhouse gate,” but that schools could punish student speech if it substantially disrupts the educational process—to this case, and whether and to what extent schools can regulate student speech online.Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.