We the People

President Trump’s revocation of CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta’s press pass and the ongoing lawsuit CNN v. Trump have brought issues relating to press freedom and due process under the Constitution back into the news. On this episode, David French, senior writer at National Review and Katie Fallow, senior attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, break down the latest developments in the CNN case as well as broader First Amendment issues in the courts today – exploring public forum doctrine, the legal battle over the president blocking users on Twitter, Facebook’s proposal to create its own “Supreme Court” to decide how to regulate content, and the potential effects of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange’s prosecution for publishing classified information. Jeffrey Rosen hosts.

After Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigned at the request of President Trump, the president appointed Sessions’ former chief of staff, Matthew Whitaker, to serve as acting attorney general, and a flurry of questions about the legality, constitutionality, and political repercussions of these developments ensued. Constitutional law scholar Steve Vladeck and political scientist Greg Weiner join host Jeffrey Rosen to think through those questions, including: Is Whitaker’s appointment constitutional? What are Congress’ powers to investigate or even subpoena the President or other executive branch officials over Sessions’ departure? How could the President respond? What will happen to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation? Is a constitutional crisis developing, or is this simply the Constitution at work? 

President Trump’s declaration that he could revoke birthright citizenship with an executive order has set off a firestorm of controversy among legal scholars. On this episode, Professors Akhil Amar and Edward Erler debate whether or not the 14th Amendment requires birthright citizenship for all, and dive into the disputed history and original meaning of the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause. Jeffrey Rosen moderates as Amar argues that birthright citizenship is constitutionally required, while Erler asserts that it is not, and that Congress has the power to change it—and should. Check out the Citizenship Clause of our Interactive Constitution: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv/the-citizenship-clause-by-akhil-amar-and-john-harrison/clause/56 

As Americans prepare to head to the polls next week, We the People partnered with Ballotpedia for a rundown of the election law and voting rights issues most relevant to the 2018 midterms. Ballotpedia’s News Editor Sarah Rosier joins election law scholars Franita Tolson and Michael Morley to break down all sides of the legal arguments surrounding voter ID laws, gerrymandering, “signature matching,” the purging of voter rolls, and felon disenfranchisement. Jeffrey Rosen hosts. 

With the 2018 midterm elections fast approaching, this episode delves into the history of congressional elections, from the Founding to today, answering the questions: What did the Founders expect that Congressional elections would look like? What did they look like throughout the 19th and 20th centuries? How did they lead to the political tribalism of the 21st century? And what can the most consequential congressional elections, the ones that realigned and redefined our nation, tell us about the upcoming election? Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by two leading experts on Congress, its history, and congressional elections – Matthew Green of Catholic University and Thomas Mann of UC Berkeley and Brookings. 

In the aftermath of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, debates about the Supreme Court’s legitimacy remain in the public spotlight. Some believe that the Kavanaugh confirmation caused a legitimacy crisis that can only be solved by reform proposals such as court packing and term limits for justices, while others believe the Court has maintained its legitimacy and is still a neutral arbiter of the law.Is the Supreme Court really having a legitimacy crisis? Host Jeffrey Rosen discusses that question and the future of the Court with two constitutional scholars from opposing sides of the Kavanaugh debate – Professor Jennifer Mascott, who testified on Justice Kavanaugh’s behalf at his confirmation hearings, and Professor Melissa Murray, who testified against his nomination. 

Cries of “defamation” came from the White House following the publication of in-depth reporting on President Donald Trump and his finances by The New York Times, but this is not the first time the president has expressed criticism of the press or U.S. libel laws. Adam Liptak of The New York Times and NYU Law Professor Richard Epstein join Jeffrey Rosen to explain what libel is and how laws against libel and slander fit within the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and the free press. Liptak and Epstein also debate media objectivity today and the effect of the heated coverage of the Kavanaugh confirmation battle on the legitimacy of our democratic institutions.

Senators Jeff Flake and Chris Coons join Jeffrey Rosen to discuss their important role in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, including their last-minute agreement to pause the nomination to allow for an FBI investigation of the allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. They also share their hopes and fears for the future of the Senate and the Supreme Court, and how political tribalism today threatens the legitimacy of these American institutions. This conversation, recorded live at The Atlantic Festival in Washington, D.C. earlier this week, was presented in partnership with The Atlantic and generously sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. This episode was engineered by Greg Scheckler and David Stotz, and produced by Jackie McDermott and Scott Bomboy. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Jackie McDermott.

We take a deep dive into the upcoming Supreme Court term, set to begin Monday, October 1, and explore forthcoming cases that involve everything from double jeopardy and excessive fines to cemeteries and endangered frogs. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center and Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, who both filed amicus briefs in many of the cases discussed, and filed jointly in one of this term’s key cases, Gamble v. United States. 

This episode, recorded live in New York City at the Federal Bar Association’s 2018 annual convention, features a debate of the following question: “Should Chevron Be Overturned?” The 1984 Supreme Court decision Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council established a judicial doctrine of deference to certain administrative agency actions commonly known as “Chevron deference.” As wonky as it may sound, Chevron is implicated in important constitutional debates surrounding the modern administrative state and separation of powers. Columbia Law School professors Philip Hamburger and Gillian Metzger explain just what Chevron deference is, why it matters, and whether or not it should be overturned. Lana Ulrich guest hosts.