It’s Amarica’s Constitution’s 100th episode, and anniversary celebrations are in the air!  We bring back Professor Steve Calabresi, who returns from the Federalist Society’s Lawyers Convention - which just celebrated its own 40th anniversary.  The occasion was marked by a memorable Rosenkranz Debate, wherein Akhil took on Professor John Yoo on - what else? - the merits and demerits of ISL theory, and the forthcoming case of Moore v. Harper.  Steve Calabresi was present at the debate, and he offers his color commentary .  Of course, Steve was one of the three authors of the amicus brief that has received so much attention, together with our two Amar brothers, and we hear his perspective and his unique contributions.  On top of it all, we celebrate our milestone by launching video, through our new Instagram account, amaricas_constitution, and soon, a TikTok account as well, with highlight clips, photos, and more.

Affirmative action is before the Supreme Court, and two cases - one involving Harvard, and one implicating the University of North Carolina - were recently argued before the Court.  We have pulled out clips from the more than six hours of argument, culled the main arguments, and we present them to you.  Listen to the voices of the justices and the advocates, and hear Akhil’s commentary and analysis.  This is the first of a planned two-podcast series.

The recent brief in the ISL case, Moore v. Harper, was notable in part because it was co-authored not only by our own Professor Amar and his brother, Dean Vik Amar, both well-known Democrats, but also by one of America’s best-known conservatives, Professor Steven Calabresi.  Steve is a co-founder and national chair of the Federalist Society, and importantly, this is not the first time he has crossed the aisle in matters of national import.  He joins our podcast and engages with his close friend, Akhil Amar, on a conversation that spans decades and gives insight in the founding, development, and present of this iconic conservative organization.  Characters from Ed Meese to Guido Calabresi take the stage.  You may be surprised as you learn the inside story from a consummate insider and scholar.

It’s a week since the amicus curiae brief in the case of Moore v. Harper - the ISL case - was filed by Professor Amar, Dean Vik Amar, and Professor Steven Calabresi, and the reaction has been pouring in.  What arguments have been made to attempt to refute the brief?  The answer may surprise you.  Meanwhile, we take you through the remainder of the brief, explaining and expounding, providing backstory, and challenging you to reason along with us.  We suggest that you print out the brief to make it easier to follow along.  It’s a unique opportunity to delve into what may be the most important Supreme Court case of this decade, in advance of the December 7 oral arguments.

Professor Amar and colleagues have weighed in (heavily) on the ISL danger, as they filed a brief with the Supreme Court in the case of Moore v. Harper.  The brief is garnering wide attention with its powerful argument, as well as an innovative format.  We review the background to the case and the brief, and then take you through the argument point by point.  Law and history come together to make the case in this most consequential matter.  Judging from the response, the country is watching.

Amarica’s Constitution is “On the Road” in Alabama for the dedication of the Hugo Black Memorial and Park.  Akhil is the keynote speaker and we record this live podcast at the Symposium that preceded Dedication Day.  For the occasion, we look at the great originalist and see that his moment is now - not only in Alabama, but at the Supreme Court, where case after case tracks his issues, his reasoning, and his method.  Indeed, Black’s greatest cases, including Adamson, Everson, Engel, and Gideon, find continuing relevance today.  Thus informed, we take a look at the coming term’s big cases through the Hugo Black originalist lens.  The audience chimes in with questions; a great time was had by all.

Our judicial Zelig, Felix Frankfurter, continues to grab our spotlight as his biographer, Brad Snyder, joins us again - this time, as a sitting Justice.  The many landmark cases that came Frankfurter’s way on the Supreme Court allow us to contrast his method of jurisprudence - be it “Thayerism,” “judicial restraint,” or something else - with originalism.  This means that Hugo Black, Frankfurter’s colleague on the Court (it’s complicated), takes the stage as well, as we look at case after case and see how these different approaches, and their wielders, fare. 

Do you know who was Franklin Roosevelt's most trusted advisor? Do you know who practically invented the law clerk infrastructure and controlled the clerk assignments to 60% of the justices at once?  Do you know who was a key early reporter for The New Republic? Do you know who was the first Jewish professor at the Harvard Law School?  Who was the sharpest critic of the Supreme Court only to become a Justice of that Court?  Who went to Versailles and advised both Weizmann and T.E. Lawrence? Who fought bitter battles with Harvard's President again and again? These are all the same person:  Felix Frankfurter.  A new and important biography of Justice Frankfurter tells this incredible story, and he joins our podcast today:  Professor Brad Snyder.  Believe it or not, the superlatives you just read only scratch the surface of this Man Who Was Everywhere.  You have to hear it all.

It’s almost the First Monday in October, so the Supreme Court term is upon us.  Those who follow the Constitution may turn to Amarica’s Constitution for their Constitution-listening, and after meeting Amy Howe, founder of SCOTUS Blog, they will turn to that amazing resource for their Court-watching.  So, join us. Meet today’s special guest, Amy Howe; meet SCOTUS Blog; meet the new term; and see why Professor Amar and colleagues regard her as a rock of integrity, completeness, and civic virtue.

Happy Constitution Week!  Our Fifth Amendment journey takes us in a somewhat unexpected direction, as we pit Abraham Lincoln against the Supreme Court on the Fifth as well as on several other areas of contested constitutional law.  Then it’s back to the near future as we look at how today’s Fifth confusion could be tomorrow’s clarity - and we look at the Court to see if there are five votes for a new Fifth.  Then we top it all off with an exciting - very exciting - announcement.