Amarica's Constitution

It’s Constitution Week, and Akhil is “booked;” not only with events of the week, but on his book tour.  Our series on scholars, schools, and scholarship resumes, then, with a comprehensive look at the entire ecosystem of books.  What is the author’s process, and what happens after a book is written?  How does a book, and an author, gain authority in a world of ubiquitous social media?  And how does this take us to discussions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments?  We all believe we have a book in us, so this inside look speaks to all.

Texas has brazenly - or boldly, depending on your point of view - thrown down a gauntlet on abortion with their new law purporting to ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected.  The Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the law prior to its effective date, so the nation holds its breath wondering where abortion rights, long treasured by many, will head.  Meanwhile, the law deputizes the citizenry and takes enforcement out of the hands of state officials.  What’s going on?  Is this vigilantism?  Is this a rogue, unconstitutional adventure?  Is Roe v. Wade dead already?  Professor Amar is your guide to what is really happening.

Suppose there is a controversial issue of constitutional law.  Where does one go for authoritative exposition? We continue what is essentially a discussion of expertise and authority.  How do you know whom to trust?  Who has the right answers?  How might we go about finding out these things?  We continue to look at these questions in several arenas:  scholars, scholarship, and schools.  Interesting sidelights abound, as usual, and a Friendly detour finds an unusual consensus in the “who’s the best” category.

What do Willie Mays and Laurence Tribe have in common?  Andy and Akhil start with an Amar citation from Clarence Thomas in a case last term and branch off into a discussion of scholars’ rankings, the fourth amendment, legal realism, scholarship and schools, books vs. articles, and a dizzying array of other topics.  This potpourri launches a series on the inside of the academic world as well as a look at the recently concluded SCOTUS term.

We return to our look at all the sitting Supreme Court justices with the final two - Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.  This necessarily involves revisiting the confirmation process, particularly in the case of Justice Kavanaugh, where Professor Amar played a role in print and in the witness chair.  How have the first years of his tenure, along with Justice Barrett’s, played out in light of some of the events of those confirmations?  The early returns are fascinating.

Neal Katyal, now at the peak of the Supreme Court bar, reviews many of the big issues the Supreme Court will face in the new term, as well as some just past.  Abortion, affirmative action, and cases involving a tension between legitimate governmental action and religious organizations are all discussed from the unique perspective of this remarkable litigator, professor, author, and television commentator.

After teasing it for months, Neal Katyal, perhaps our nation’s finest Supreme Court advocate, joins Amarica’s Constitution.  The dramatic rise of a truly great lawyer is a fascinating story, including the case that launched Neal into Supreme Court practice - Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.  Later he would become Acting Solicitor General and then move into John Roberts’ old chair as the head of the Supreme Court appellate office at Hogan Lovells, Georgetown Law Professor, nationally-known media personality, author including sometimes co-author with Professor Amar, and even a TV actor. There’s too much to tell in one episode, so Neal will return next week for analysis of some of today and tomorrow’s most compelling legal issues.

In these days of Zoom, Professor Amar’s testimony before The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States looks a lot like the old TV show, the Hollywood Squares, and Akhil is in the center square.  This is fitting, because his proposal for 18-year terms of active en banc service on the Court is front and center in these hearings.  Akhil and Andy review the work done in advance of this testimony, recapitulate the major arguments in the proposal, and look at the Q&A that followed in depth, along with the arguments of other panelists.

We continue to profile, recap, analyze, and learn from the nine Supreme Court Justices.  This week our focus turns to those justices appointed by Trump, and the seat that would be Garland’s instead went to Neil Gorsuch.  Akhil looks at cases old and new to find the highs and lows in Justice Gorsuch’s jurisprudence, and this justice who studied in two countries and clerked for two SCOTUS members, who calls neither of them his great influence, comes under our microscope.

We continue our Supreme Court series as the term has comes to a close.  Akhil profiles the “middle three” Justices:  Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan.  Their backgrounds, their finest, and their not-so-finest moments are described and analyzed.  If a Justice seems destined to spend decades in dissent, can she leave a legacy?  We look at some who did.  Lots of law, lots of cases in this episode for SCOTUS/con-law nerds.