We the People

Can the federal government compel a U.S.-based email provider to turn over its records as part of a criminal investigation when those records are located outside of the country?The United States v. Microsoft case pending before the Supreme Court could have big implications for law enforcement, consumer privacy and the business operations of many companies that do business overseas.The Microsoft case deals with a specific question: If a U.S. provider of email services must comply with a probable-cause-based warrant (issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703) by disclosing in the United States electronic communications within that provider’s control, even if the provider has decided to store that material abroad.Joining us to discuss these important issues are two leading experts on the case.Benjamin Battles is the solicitor general of Vermont, which filed an amicus brief with 34 other states and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico in support of the federal government in United States v. Microsoft.Vivek Krishnamurthy is a Clinical Instructor in Harvard Law School's Cyberlaw Clinic. He specializes in the international aspects of internet governance and on the human rights challenges associated with offering new internet-based services in different legal environments around the world.Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.orgThe Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

Alicia Hickok and Eugene Volokh join National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss a major Supreme Court case about public-union dues.The Supreme Court is considering arguments in a case that could have a huge effect on public-section unions and their membership. The case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) will be heard on February 26 at the Court. The question in front of the nine Justices is if public-sector “agency shop” arrangements -- payments that workers represented by a union must pay even if they are not dues-paying members -- should be invalidated under the First Amendment.The Supreme Court said in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) that government employees who don’t belong to a union can be required to pay for union contract negotiating costs that benefit to all public employees, including non-union members.The Abood decision has been challenged in court several times, and an evenly divided Court couldn’t decide a similar case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, in 2016.  This time, a full Court will consider the issue.Alicia Hickok is a Partner at the law firm Drinker Biddle and a Lecturer in law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She wrote an amicus brief in the Janus case on behalf of the Rutherford Institute, siding with Janus’s position. Eugene Volokh is Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA Law School. He co-wrote an amicus brief in Janus with Will Baude siding with the union.Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.orgAnd don't forget to take our new podcast survey at constitutioncenter.org/surveyThe Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joins National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen for a wide-ranging conversation in celebration of the 25th anniversary of her appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.In the 75-minute interview, Justice Ginsburg talks about the #MeToo movement, confessed her affection for Millennials, discussed the Supreme Court cases she’d like to see overturned, and told some personal stories about the progress women’s rights have made—while reminding the audience of just how recently gender discrimination in American law seemed not only normal but entrenched. The event took place in Philadelphia on February 12, 2018, in partnership with the University of Pennsylvania Law School as the Owen J. Roberts Memorial Lecture in Constitutional Law.

In this episode, we’re answering questions that you, our listeners, have been asking about the Constitution, with the National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen.We’ve been collecting your questions over the past few months from social media, our weekly newsletter Constitution Weekly, and email.For starters, here were some of the questions discussed in this podcast:Why is the Ninth Amendment so important to understanding the Constitution? What are the unenumerated rights provided for in the Constitution and what were the big arguments about them in the past 100 years? What is the basis for the idea of the separation of church and state as understood by the Founders? And what are the theories of interpreting the Constitution that most apply to you?Jeffrey Rosen is president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates the discussion.Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.orgAnd don't forget to take our new podcast survey at constitutioncenter.org/surveyThe Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE. 

In anticipation of the 150th anniversary of the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, on Feb. 24, we look at the history of presidential impeachments, the interpretation of the Impeachment Clause, and the application to current day controversies.Joining us to discuss this important historical episode are two of America’s leading scholars on the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson.Keith Whittington is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University. He co-wrote the IC explainers on the Impeachment Clause with Neil Kinkopf. David O Stewart is a writer, historian, and former appellate lawyer. He is the author of many books including Impeached: The Trial of President Andrew Johnson and the Fight for Lincoln’s Legacy. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates the discussion.Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.orgAnd don't forget to take our new podcast survey at constitutioncenter.org/surveyThe Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

On January 20, 2017, President Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States. In the year since he took office, a variety of novel constitutional issues have arisen, from the interpretation of the Emoluments Clauses, to the constitutionality of Executive Orders on immigration, and even the meaning of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. In this episode, we look at the past year of the Trump presidency and what it means for our Constitution. Joining us to discuss the past year of constitutional debates are two of America’s leading scholars of constitutional law.Josh Blackman is an Associate Professor of Law at the South Texas College of Law in Houston who specializes in constitutional law, the United States Supreme Court, and the intersection of law and technology. He filed an amicus brief in the CREW v. Trump and DC and Maryland v. Trump lawsuits on behalf of another legal scholar, Seth Barrett Tillman.Lisa Manheim is an associate professor of law at the University of Washington School of Law and co-author of a recently published book, intended for lawyers and non-lawyers alike, called The Limits of Presidential Power: A Citizen’s Guide to the Law. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.orgAnd don't forget to take our new podcast survey at constitutioncenter.org/surveyThe Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE. 

The relationship between the federal  government and the states is currently at the center of controversies about sports gambling, marijuana use and sanctuary cities policies. In the past year, these and related issues have come before federal courts, including the Supreme Court. In December 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Christie v. NCAA, a case that examines whether a federal law that prohibits the modification or repeal of state gambling laws violates the Tenth Amendment and the anti-commandeering doctrine that bars the federal government from imposing certain costs on local government. The anti-commandeering doctrine is also at the heart of several federal lawsuits about the legal status of sanctuary cities. And Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision to reverse marijuana prosecution guidelines for federal attorneys in states with legal recreational marijuana has broad potential constitutional implications. Joining Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, to discuss these questions are two leading national constitutional experts. Michael Dorf is Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell Law School. Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.orgAnd don't forget to take our new podcast survey at constitutioncenter.org/survey

This week, we look at the case Hargan v. Garza, a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of undocumented immigrantthat asks if the federal government can deny access to an abortion for pregnant undocumented teens.As of January 11, 2018, the Supreme Court was considering the case in private conference.Joining us to discuss this important question are two of America’s leading experts on constitutional and family law.Catherine Glenn Foster is President and CEO of Americans United for Life. She served as Counsel of Record for amicus curiae Alliance Defending Freedom’s Amicus Brief in Planned Parenthood v. Abbott, which defended Texas’ healthcare regulations around abortion clinics.Leah Litman is Assistant Professor of Law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. She co-authored Petitioner’s Brief in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt case, which successfully challenged Texas’ healthcare regulations around abortion clinics.Jeffrey Rosen is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Constitution Center, the only institution in America chartered by Congress “to disseminate information about the United States Constitution on a nonpartisan basis.” He is also a professor at The George Washington University Law School, and a contributing editor for The Atlantic.  Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.orgAnd don't forget to take our new podcast survey at constitutioncenter.org/survey

In the Gill case this year, the Supreme Court might determine the constitutional future of partisan gerrymandering.Scholars and advocates have been discussing the arguments at the heart of the case – as well as those involved in related cases heading toward the Supreme Court.At a December event at the National Constitution Center, Caroline Fredrickson, president of the American Constitution Society, Nolan McCarty, professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University, and David Wasserman, house editor for The Cook Political Report, explored the practical effects of gerrymandering, including its impact on polarization and competitive elections. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates this discussion.To learn more about this week's topic, visit our podcast resources page to explore show notes, guest bios, related Interactive Constitution essays, and more.Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org

Franklin Foer, national correspondent for The Atlantic, explores how tech platforms like Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google have transformed the way we think and produced a new culture of misinformation that is trampling values such as privacy, autonomy, and individuality. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates this discussion, hosted at the Center in November 2017.