Live at the National Constitution Center

The Supreme Court’s “shadow docket”—cases in which the Court issues emergency orders and summary decisions without oral argument—has been subject to growing scrutiny. Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak of The New York Times and Jennifer Mascott of the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School join Stephen Vladeck of The University of Texas School of Law for a conversation on Vladeck’s new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic, exploring the history and role of the shadow docket and the current debates surrounding the Court’s emergency rulings. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.Additional Resources Stephen Vladeck, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic  Stephen Vladeck, “Texas’s Unconstitutional Abortion Ban and the Role of the Shadow Docket,” Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee  National Constitution Center, “The Supreme Court’s ‘Shadow Docket’,” We the People podcast  Jennifer Mascott, “Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court’s Orders Docket,” George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper  Adam Liptak, “Alito Responds to Critics of the Supreme Court’s ‘Shadow Docket,” The New York Times  Stay Connected and Learn MoreQuestions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

The National Constitution Center and the Federal Judicial Center present a three-part discussion exploring the evolution of judicial independence in America and its critical role in our democracy from the Founding to present day.This episode features two federal judges discussing their experiences upholding judicial independence in the face of contemporary challenges. Clara Altman, deputy director of the Federal Judicial Center, moderates a conversation with Judge R. Guy Cole, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and Judge Sara Lee Ellis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This program is presented in partnership with the Federal Judicial Center.Stay Connected and Learn MoreContinue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

The National Constitution Center and the Federal Judicial Center present a three-part discussion exploring the evolution of judicial independence in America and its critical role in our democracy from the Founding to present day.This episode explores judicial independence and the federal courts in the 20th century and the major milestones that shaped the judiciary, including the crucial role of Chief Justice Taft and key Supreme Court rulings. Moderated by Jeffrey Rosen, this panel features a conversation with scholars Neal Devins and Allison Orr Larsen of William & Mary Law School, Marin Levy of Duke University School of Law. This program is presented in partnership with the Federal Judicial Center.Additional Resources Booth v. United States (1934) Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Fireside Chat No. 9: "On Court-Packing" Edwin Meese, Speech before the American Bar Association (1985) Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Report of the Proceedings of the Federal Judicial Conference of the United States (1964) Amy Gardner and Matt DeLong, "Newt Gingrich's assault on 'activist judges' draws criticism, even from right," The Washington Post Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) United States v. Nixon (1974) Bush v. Gore (2000) Michael Boyd, "Constitutional cases resulting from the 9/11 attacks," Constitution Daily blog Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, Draft Final Report Neal Devins and Allison Orr Larsen, "Circuit Personalities," Virginia Law Review Stay Connected and Learn MoreContinue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

The National Constitution Center and the Federal Judicial Center present a three-part discussion exploring the evolution of judicial independence in America and its critical role in our democracy from the Founding to present day.This episode features a conversation with historians Mary Sarah Bilder of Boston College Law School and Jack Rakove of Stanford University, exploring the founders’ intentions surrounding the establishment of the federal judiciary and the role of the courts during the nation’s formative years. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.  This program is presented in partnership with the Federal Judicial Center.Additional Resources National Constitution Center, "Article III," Interactive Constitution Jack Rakove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution Mary Sarah Bilder, Madison's Hand: Revising the Constitutional Convention James Madison, Notes on the Federal Convention of 1787 Federalist 78 Marbury v. Madison (1803) McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Alexander Bickle, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States Ed. Max Skjönsberg, Catharine Macaulay: Political Writings Wendell Bird, Criminal Dissent: Prosecutions under the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 Stay Connected and Learn MoreContinue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

With the Supreme Court weighing two cases involving Harvard and the University of North Carolina that could end affirmative action in higher education, scholars William B. Allen of Michigan State University and Hasan Kwame Jeffries of The Ohio State University discuss its future. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Additional Resources William B. Allen, “End of Affirmative Action 2023”   William B. Allen, Drew S. Days III, Benjamin L. Hooks, and William Bradford Reynolds, “Is Affirmative Action Constitutional?” AEI Journal on Government and Society   Jonathan Hicks, “Proponents Worry About Supreme Court Review of Affirmative Action,” BET   “Why Conservatives want the Supreme Court to take up Affirmative Action Case,” Yahoo!News   National Constitution Center, “14th Amendment: Citizenship Rights, Equal Protection, Apportionment, Civil War Debt,” Interactive Constitution   National Constitution Center, “Affirmative Action and the 14th Amendment,” Live at the National Constitution   National Constitution Center, “Affirmative Action and the 14th Amendment – Part 1,” We the People podcast   National Constitution Center, “Affirmative Action and the 14th Amendment – Part 2,” We the People podcast   Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)   Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)   Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)   Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) Oral Argument Trasnscript in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College   Oral Argument Trasnscript in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina   Slaughter-House Cases (1873) National Constitution Center, "Civil Rights Act of 1866," Founders' Library: Civil War and Reconstruction National Constitution Center, "Civil Rights Act of 1875," Founders' Library: Civil War and Reconstruction Shelby County v. Holder (2013)  Stay Connected and Learn MoreContinue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

Tomiko Brown-Nagin, author of Civil Rights Queen: Constance Baker Motley and the Struggle for Equality, and Elizabeth Cobbs, author of Fearless Women: Feminist Patriots from Abigail Adams to Beyoncé explore key influential women throughout history and how these women inspired constitutional change. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.This program is made possible through the generous support of the McNulty Foundation in partnership with the Anne Welsh McNulty Institute for Women's Leadership at Villanova University.Additional Resources Tomiko Brown-Nagin, Civil Rights Queen: Constance Baker Motley and the Struggle for Equality Tomiko Brown-Nagin, “Identity Matters: The Case of Judge Constance Baker Motley,” Columbia Law Review Tomiko Brown-Nagin, Courage to Dissent: Atlanta and the Long History of the Civil Rights Movement Elizabeth Cobbs, Fearless Women: Feminist Patriots from Abagail Adams to Beyoncé Q&A, “Elizabeth Cobbs”, C-SPAN Muller v. Oregon (1908) National Constitution Center, "The Legality of Abortion Pills," We the People podcast Brandon Burnette, "Comstock Act of 1873 (1873)," First Amendment Encyclopedia   Stay Connected and Learn MoreContinue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

The U.S. Supreme Court decides some of the most challenging and important constitutional and statutory issues facing America through its interpretive methodologies. In this episode, we explore the various approaches to constitutional interpretation and key doctrines—including originalism, textualism, and the major questions doctrine—through the lens of recent Supreme Court cases with Solicitors General Ben Flowers of Ohio and Caroline Van Zile of Washington, D.C. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program is presented in partnership with the Center for Excellence in Governance at the National Association of Attorneys General.Additional Resources “The Major Questions Doctrine,” Congressional Research Service Steven Calabresi, “On Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation,” Constitution Daily blog “Textualism,” Cornell Law School: Legal Information Institute Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services (2021) Biden v. Nebraska Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022 Missouri v. Biden National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2022) West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022)  Stay Connected and Learn MoreContinue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

In this episode we explore the concepts of civic virtue and citizenship in democratic societies. Joining the conversation are: Christopher Beem, author of The Seven Democratic Virtues: What You Can Do to Overcome Tribalism and Save Our Democracy; Richard Haass, author of The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens; and Lorraine Pangle, author of Reason and Character: The Moral Foundations of Aristotelian Political Philosophy. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.  This program is made possible through the generous support of Citizen Travelers, the nonpartisan civic engagement initiative of Travelers.Additional Resources Richard Haass, The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens Christopher Beem, The Seven Democratic Virtues: What You Can Do to Overcome Tribalism and Save Our Democracy Christopher Sheilds, "Aristotle," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Robert Pasnau, "Thomas Aquinas," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Lorraine Pangle, Reason and Character: The Moral Foundations of Aristotelian Political Philosophy Lorraine and Thomas Pangle, The Learning of Liberty: The Educational Ideas of the American Founders Lorraine Pangle, The Political Philosophy of Benjamin Franklin Scotty Hendricks, "Ben Franklin's 13 Guidelines for Living a Good Life," Big Think Xenophon, Memorabilia Eve Browning, "Xenophon," Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Federalist 10 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics George Washington, First Annual Message to Congress (1790) Adam Harris, "George Washington's Broken Dream of a National University," The Atlantic National Constitution Center, "Lessons from Tocqueville in America," Live at the National Constitution Center Stay Connected and Learn MoreContinue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

The National Constitution Center and the National Association of Attorneys General host a bipartisan conversation with Dan Schweitzer, director and chief counsel of the National Association of Attorneys General Center for Supreme Court Advocacy; Lindsay See, solicitor general of West Virginia; and Barbara Underwood, solicitor general of New York, exploring the history of the office of the solicitor general, the role of state solicitors in litigating cases before the Supreme Court, and some of the landmark cases they have litigated. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.  This program is presented in partnership with the Center for Excellence in Governance at the National Association of Attorneys General.Additional Resources Lydia Wheeler,State Solicitors General to Have Big Week at US Supreme Court, Bloomberg Law New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2022) New York v. New Jersey West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022) National Constitution Center, "Domestic Violence Laws and Gun Rights," We the People podcast Trump v. New York (2020) Department of Commerice v. New York (2019) Dawson v. Steager (2018)  Stay Connected and Learn MoreContinue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

The National Constitution Center and the Center for Constitutional Design at Arizona State University present a comparative discussion of how democracies amend their constitutions, at home and around the world. A panel of distinguished scholars, including Wilfred Codrington of Brooklyn Law School, Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and Rosalind Dixon of the University of New South Wales, survey the constitutional amendment process around the world to cast light on our debates in the U.S. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program is presented in partnership with the Center for Constitutional Design at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law. Additional Resources Jeffrey Sutton, Who Decides: States as Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation National Constitution Center, Interactive Constitution, Article V Rosalind Dixon and David Landau, "Tiered Constitutional Design," George Washington Law Review Donald Lutz, "Toward a Theory of Constitutional Amendment," The American Political Science Review John Dinan, The American State Constitutional Tradition John Kowal and Wilfred Codrington, The People's Constitution: 200 Years, 27 Amendments, and the Promise of a More Perfect Union The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company (1895) Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (1949) Florida Constitution Revision Commission National Constitution Center, "The Proposed Amendments," Constitution Drafting Project Switzerland's Constitution of 1999 with Amendments through 2014 Rosalind Dixon and Felix Uhlmann, "The Swiss Constitution and a weak-form unconstitutional amendment doctrine?" International Journal of Constitutional Law  Stay Connected and Learn MoreContinue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.