The verdict is in: guilty x 34.  A jury of Trump’s peers had its say, but the ex-president couldn’t leave it at that, of course.  On the legitimate side, the appeals are expected to begin soon.  On the Trump bombastic side, he blasted every institution in the legal system for having the audacity to do their duty.  Particularly in the case of the ordinary citizens of the jury, this bears examination, and so we do.  We also preview some of the likely appellate issues, lay out the expected path through the courts, and take some interesting listener’s questions.  CLE is available after listening at podcast.njsba.com.

The nation has been riled by campus unrest surrounding events in the Middle East.  Terms like “freedom of speech,” “academic freedom,” “right to protest,” “conduct vs. speech,” and issues of hate speech, offensive speech, safety, and more have arisen.  We start our look at this situation where we always begin: with the Constitution.  This episode aims to lay out the history, background, constitutional provisions, interpretations, cases, and overall approach to these matters, so we can then look at what is actually happening and be in a position to offer opinions and possible prescriptions. CLE credit is available after listening by visiting podcast.njsba.com.

Exploration of the ethical implications of Justice Alito's response to controversial events, including his wife's actions. Delving into judges' involvement in political issues and the delicate balance of judicial impartiality. Analyzing the controversy surrounding a specific flag displayed by a Supreme Court Justice and the impact on community reactions. Neighborhood conflicts and legal education credits, along with discussions on interpreting symbolism and navigating political expressions in judicial settings.

Professor Amar's star student joins the podcast to discuss constitutional issues from Trump's trial. They address family questions, explore college campus protests, and highlight the intricacies of presidential pardons and self-pardons.

This week we continue with clips from the oral argument in the immunity case (Trump v. United States).  Most of this week’s clips come from attorney Dreeben (representing the Special Counsel, and therefore the people of the United States), and some of the Justices have at him, sometimes in way Professor Amar finds wrong-headed or worse.  Our own argument is brought to bear upon these controversies, and a consistent way of addressing these questions emerges.  Clarity on the argument emerges.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The nine Justices heard arguments on ex-president Trump’s attempt to claim a sweeping immunity from criminal liability and prosecution.  We present clips from the argument and our commentary, including some historical analysis of claims that Benjamin Franklin spoke in favor of such a thing (spoiler:  NO), and many other claims which we had predicted in recent weeks.  There is clear acceptance of some of the arguments we have made by many of the Justices, but questions remain to be sure, and we begin to address them in this first part of a planned two-episode arc of clip and comment.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

As we close in on oral argument in the Trump v. United States case wherein Trump asserts some sort of permanent presidential immunity, we close out our preparatory analysis.  Impeachment’s relationship to criminal prosecution is explored.  Some founding-era conversations involving, for example, John Adams, inform our discussion.  Does the concept of double jeopardy play a role? Our hope is that these episodes prepare you for the oral argument with a comprehensive theory of how no one is held above the law even as a powerful executive sits high in We the People’s government.  CLE credit is available after listening from podcast.njsba.com.

As oral argument in the Trump immunity case draws closer, we continue our discussion of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. Do so-called “official acts” during a president’s tenure in office raise special considerations? Constitutional text seems to offer an easy way out of the case - but does it, really -  and historical precedents enter the conversation.  Ultimately, some basic principles of immunity emerge, which leaves us with a much richer understanding of the many issues than a bland look the text alone would  Meanwhile, a listener’s question takes us abroad for a change, and developments in Arizona remind us of several of our podcast’s recurring themes.  CLE credit is available by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.

Former President Trump is making an extraordinary claim to the Supreme Court: that he is immune from criminal prosecution for crimes he may have committed while president. The Court has agreed to hear arguments on this proposition on April 25.  We begin the preparation by posing the questions and taking them on. Professor Amar is an expert on Presidential immunities.  Our analysis goes through originalism as well as precedent.  This and subsequent episodes form an oral amicus brief of sorts - another “master class,” if you will.  We also take a listener’s question seriously as we address the Comstock Act and related issues. CLE credit is available at podcast.njsba.com.

Legal expert Professor Amar discusses standing in the Supreme Court case on FDA regulation of Mifepristone. Insights from the EverScholar program and musings on the Trump gag order. A wide-ranging episode with CLE available.