We the People

Last week, the Department of Justice surprised many by reversing its position on the Affordable Care Act—stating that it agrees with U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor that the ACA is unconstitutional, and won’t defend the law. Judge O’Connor’s December 2018 decision in Texas v. United States held that because the tax penalty that enforced the individual mandate had been reduced to $0 in Congress’s 2017 tax reforms, the rest of the ACA could not stand. The House of Representatives, along with several states, has intervened in the case to defend the ACA. Joining host Jeffrey Rosen to break down this case and the legal and constitutional arguments on both sides are ACA experts Abbe Gluck of Yale University and Tom Miller of the American Enterprise Institute.For more information and resources, visit constitutioncenter.org/podcasts.Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Supreme Court heard two partisan gerrymandering cases—one from North Carolina and another from Maryland—this week: Lamone v. Benisek and Rucho v. Common Cause. Examining those cases and how the Court might rule, host Jeffrey Rosen sits down with Nick Stephanopoulos, one of the attorneys in the North Carolina case and a law professor at the University of Chicago, and Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation. These scholars debate whether or not the Supreme Court should be involved in examining partisan gerrymandering claims, and discuss what the Constitution says about gerrymandering.For more information and resources, visit constitutioncenter.org/podcasts.Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has submitted the findings from his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, many are wondering, what will happen next? John Yoo of Berkeley Law School and Steve Vladeck of University of Texas Law School detail the possible scenarios and examine how the president and Congress might respond—focusing on potential executive privilege claims by President Trump. They also consider how President Trump might claim executive privilege in other contexts—like the House obstruction inquiry, a possible impeachment probe, attempts to prevent release of notes from his Helsinki meeting with Vladimir Putin, or in pending civil lawsuits against him. Jeffrey Rosen hosts.Note: This podcast was recorded on Wednesday, March 20th, before the news broke (on Friday) that the Mueller report was completed.Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Is it constitutional to execute an inmate who doesn’t remember the crime he committed? Or a person who might suffer excruciating pain during execution? These questions were raised by cases that came before the Supreme Court this term; joining host Jeffrey Rosen to debate them are John Bessler of the University of Baltimore School of Law and Richard Broughton of the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. These two scholars consider the death penalty’s past and present, find points of agreement between death penalty abolitionists and supporters, and predict what the new makeup of the Court will mean for the future of capital punishment. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

On March 2, President Trump announced his plans to sign an executive order “requiring colleges and universities to support free speech if they want federal research dollars.” Considering whether or not such an order would be constitutional, how it might be enforced, and how it could affect colleges and universities—two experts on campus free speech, Sigal Ben-Porath of the University of Pennsylvania and Adam Kissel, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education at the U.S. Department of Education, join host Jeffrey Rosen. They discuss the state of free speech on campuses across the country, and debate the best ways to tackle challenges to free speech, from speech zones to speech codes to protecting the rights of students and universities alike.Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Two leading voices from organizations on different sides of today's biggest debates over reproductive rights and abortion laws—Catherine Glenn Foster of Americans United for Life and Dr. Kelli Garcia of National Women's Law Center—join host Jeffrey Rosen to explore the key cases making their way up to the Supreme Court. Garcia and Foster also share their views on landmark abortion precedent like Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and the more recent case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, and predict how precedent might affect the outcomes of challenges to pending abortion laws at the federal level and in states like Louisiana, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. 

On this Presidents’ Day edition of We the People, political historian Julian Zelizer of Princeton and constitutional law professor Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School join host Jeffrey Rosen to debate the question: Is the presidency too powerful? Starting with the Founding Fathers’ vision for the presidency, they trace the evolution of presidential power through the Progressive Era presidencies of Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson, the move to restrain presidential power in the 1970s during LBJ’s and Richard Nixon’s presidencies, and the uptick in exercises of unilateral presidential power by modern presidents like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. Finally, they share their thoughts on presidential emergency powers and President Trump’s recent declaration of a national emergency to fund construction of the border wall. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

For We the People listeners enjoying wine this Valentine’s Day – we’re exploring the still-pending Supreme Court case Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair. This lawsuit was brought by Total Wine & More, a retail liquor giant, and the Ketchums, a family who moved to Tennessee hoping to open a liquor store. Both parties were denied retail liquor licenses because they hadn’t resided in Tennessee long enough. This episode examines a variety of technical but fascinating legal and constitutional questions at issue in the case, including the history of the 21st Amendment, the scope of the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities clause. Two advocates involved in the case, Michael Bindas of the Institute for Justice and John Neiman of the law firm Maynard Cooper, join host Jeffrey Rosen for a wide-ranging discussion about it. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) technically expired on June 30, 1982, the ratification deadline set by Congress, but a renewed push to resurrect and ratify this constitutional amendment gained momentum in 2017, with ratification by Illinois and Nevada. Now, ERA proponents are looking to secure ratification in a  38th state, which would round out the necessary three-fourths majority of the states required to pass an amendment. Two leading voices on either side of the debate over the ERA – Linda Coberly, chair of the national ERA Coalition Legal Task Force, and Inez Stepman, senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum – join host Jeffrey Rosen to detail the potential constitutional, legal, political, and cultural effects of adding the ERA as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

 A dispute over the firing of a high school football coach who refused to stop praying on the field after games reached the Supreme Court this term; last week, the justices said they would not hear the case until its facts were better established by lower courts. Justice Alito concurred but, joined by three other conservative justices, indicated that he might be sympathetic to Kennedy’s claim that his actions were protected by the First Amendment, should his case eventually return to the Court. Justice Alito also suggested that he and some of his colleagues may be willing to overturn Employment Division v. Smith in order to bolster free exercise and religious exemption claims under the First Amendment. Religion law experts Stephanie Barclay of BYU Law School and Richard Katskee of Americans United for Separation of Church and State discuss Coach Kennedy’s case, whether Smith should be overturned, and how such changes might affect people like public school teachers and coaches. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.