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. 

Recently, the Supreme Court seemingly put an end to the legal battle over whether President Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking people on Twitter by instructing the lower court to declare the case moot. Justice Thomas authored a separate concurring opinion that expanded on the language of the Court’s decision to discuss the power of social media platforms over free speech. This week, we discuss that opinion and the potential broader impacts of this case—now known as Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute due to the change in administrations—on the future of the First Amendment. Katie Fallow, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute who led litigation of this case since its inception, and Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA Law, joined host Jeffrey Rosen.Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

This week we dive into the fascinating history of global constitutionalism and declarations of independence. Linda Colley of Princeton University, author of the new book The Gun, The Ship, and the Pen: Warfare, Constitutions, and the Making of the Modern World, and David Armitage of Harvard University author of The Declaration of Independence: A Global History, join host Jeffrey Rosen. They explain how constitutions from around the world are intertwined with warfare, globalism and travel, writing, media and communication technologies, and more; and highlight stories of constitution-making by figures from Catherine the Great to George Washington and beyond.Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.

In the midst of March Madness, the Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in NCAA v. Alston. The case is an antitrust challenge to the NCAA’s rules on compensation for athletes, brought by college basketball and football players including Shawne Alston, a former West Virginia University running back who argues that college athletes are being exploited. The NCAA argues that maintaining the amateur status of college athletes actually fosters consumer choice between amateur and professional sports. Thomas Nachbar, professor of law at the University of Virginia School of Law who authored a brief in support of the NCAA, and Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at the Open Markets Institute who co-authored a brief on behalf of Shawne Alston, join host Jeffrey Rosen to explore both sides of the case. They also explore the case's potential implication for the future of antitrust across industries, detail past Supreme Court decisions involving the NCAA, 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.

On March 23, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid. Broadly, the case pits the rights of unions to communicate with workers who work and largely live on site versus the rights of business owners to keep people off of their private property. More specifically, the case asks whether California’s Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which allows union organizers to be granted temporary access to speak to agricultural employees on worksites—which are largely private property—amounts to a taking of property without just compensation that violated the Fifth Amendment. Hugh Baran and Robert McNamara joined Jeffrey Rosen to explain both sides of the case. McNamara, a senior staff attorney at Institute for Justice, filed an amicus brief in support of Cedar Point Nursery while Hugh Baran, staff attorney and Skadden Fellow at National Employment Law project, filed an amicus brief in support of the chair of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, Victoria Hassid. A term that will be helpful to know for this week: “Taking”: The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution says: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” A taking is when the government seizes private property for public use. Typically, a “just compensation” is determined by an appraisal of the property’s fair market value. Courts have broadly interpreted the Fifth Amendment to allow the government to seize property if doing so will increase the general public welfare. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In honor of Women’s History Month, this week we highlight women constitutional visionaries from landmark eras in our nation’s history—sharing the legendary contributions of women to the founding; the fight for abolition, the right to vote, and the 19th Amendment; the civil rights and equal rights movements; and more. Martha Jones, author of Vanguard: How Black Women Broke Barriers, Won the Vote, and Insisted on Equality for All, and Lisa Tetrault, author of The Myth of Seneca Falls: Memory and the Women's Suffrage Movement, 1848-1898, join host Jeffrey Rosen.Additional resources and transcript available at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.Questions or comments? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

As the world reflects on the anniversaries of COVID-19 lockdowns this week, this episode recaps the variety of constitutional issues sparked by the pandemic. Joshua Matz—a lawyer and partner at Kaplan Hecker and Fink LLP who successfully defended a Kentucky coronavirus-related public health order before the U.S. Supreme Court—and Adam White, a professor at George Mason Law and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who has studied COVID-19-related constitutional issues—join host Jeffrey Rosen. They explore how the pandemic has fueled debates over governmental power to handle public health crises while balancing individual rights and liberties; the First Amendment rights of religious institutions in the face of shutdowns and other orders; state versus federal power; how courts ruled on voting rights issues during the 2020 election in the midst of the pandemic; how COVID-19 has affected inmates, immigrants, detainees and the criminal justice system, and more.Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library.Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Lange v. California. The case asks whether a police officer violated the Fourth Amendment when he entered the garage of a person suspected of a misdemeanor crime without a warrant while in “hot pursuit” of him. Professor Jeffrey Fisher of Stanford University, who argued the case on behalf of Arthur Lange, and professor Donald Dripps of the University of San Diego Law School, a Fourth Amendment and criminal procedure expert, join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the case and its potential implications for policing, privacy, the Fourth Amendment, and more.Some terms that will be helpful to know for this week (definitions adapted from Legal Information Institute):-Warrantless entry: when a police officer enters a private residence without a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate that would allow the police officer to search a specified place for evidence even without the occupant’s consent-Hot pursuit: exception to the general rule that police officers need a warrant before they can enter a home to make an arrest. Current case law states that if a felony has just occurred and an officer has chased a suspect to a private house, the officer can forcefully enter the house in order to prevent the suspect from escaping or hiding or destroying evidence.-Exigent circumstances: exceptions to the general requirement of a warrant under the Fourth Amendment searches and seizuresAdditional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-libraryQuestions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On March 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. The case centers on two of Arizona’s election rules: 1. Arizona does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct and 2. its ballot-collection law permits only certain persons (family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers, and elections officials) to handle another person’s completed early ballot. The DNC challenged the rules, arguing that both discriminate against racial minorities in Arizona. On appeal, the Supreme Court will consider whether both policies violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965—which prohibits nationally any election laws or policies that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color”—and whether the second violates the 15th Amendment—which states that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Chris Kieser of Pacific Legal Foundation, who wrote a brief in support of Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, and Sean Morales-Doyle of the Brennan Center, who wrote a brief in support of the DNC, explore the case and its potential implications in conversation with Jeffrey Rosen.Resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-libraryQuestions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

In commemoration of Black History Month, this week we’re sharing the courageous stories and legendary lives of African American constitutional visionaries throughout history—including well-known figures like Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Ida B. Wells, W.E.B. DuBois, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X, as well as some lesser-known but groundbreaking figures like Monroe Trotter and Pauli Murray. We highlight their fights to bring about constitutional change, from abolition and suffrage to the civil rights and voting rights movements and beyond. Judge Theodore McKee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and professor Theodore M. Shaw of UNC Law, former director-counsel of the NAACP, join host Jeffrey Rosen.Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-libraryQuestions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.