The Supreme Court upheld various provisions of the controversial Indian Child Welfare Act last week.  The facts of Haaland v. Brackeen, and some provisions of the Act, raise dramatic questions about questions of best interests of children, of the nature of tribal entities, and of who speaks for whom.  The opinion itself largely sidesteps many of these questions and instead dives into areas which Professor Amar has long offered his expertise - going back nearly 20 years or more.  No wonder, then, that he is cited twice in this case, and now our listeners have the chance to learn from the acknowledged expert on these matters.

All eyes are on Miami, where Donald Trump faces justice.  But should it be Miami?  Should it be this judge, who has such a checkered history in this case?  What does the Constitution say about these and other issues this case brings forth?  What about precedents?  It’s just the beginning, but we are ready to take on these and other issues.

In this season of college commencements, our eyes were caught by an honorary degree given to Yale Professor, Federal Judge, and scholar Guido Calabresi. This episode will review his many contributions to America’s constitutional landscape, and to Professor Amar in particular. Prepare for a Paper Chase-like journey through the world of Guido Calabresi as seen through the eyes of Akhil Amar.

Congress is attempting to pass a bill that would implement a deal that President Biden reached with Speaker McCarthy and House Republicans.  The issues are many - what does the President due if the bill is not passed?  How imminent is the threat of default?  Would a default be constitutional?  Does the Constitution require any action by the President in such a situation?  What does the 14 Amendment, Section 4, say about this?  What does an originalist analysis of the global situation look like? We bring the best experts from both sides of the political aisle for a vigorous but intellectually honest debate on the subject, and in the process, hope to find some areas of agreement and wide areas to enrich our audience.

The Court treated us to an assortment of nude pictures this week.  The occasion was a copyright case featuring the works of Andy Warhol and the photography of Lynn Goldsmith, and the persona of the late artist Prince.  To enlighten us on the intricacies and melodies of copyright law and history, we bring the premier scholar in the field to our podcast - Professor James Boyle of Duke.  The result is a far-ranging discussion ranging from Plato to Creative Commons, the latter an achievement due in no small part to Professor Boyle’s efforts.  As for the case, it might be more important than the Court wants it to be, and we will tell you why.

Justice Thomas remains in the news, as items old and new - from his ward’s private school tuition to his wife’s employment - appear on almost a daily basis.  Friends of the Justice are quoted implying an effort to hide some of these transactions from public view.  An infamous Supreme Court case, Shelby County, creeps back in.  To help untie this web of questions, we are privileged to have Professor Kathleen Clark, a widely-recognized expert with an overwhelming resumé and Professor Amar’s seal of approval.  The discussion is predictably energized.

King Charles III has sat in St. Edwards' Chair, been anointed with oil, and enjoyed all manner of pomp.  Akhil finds important echoes of the elevation of another III - George - back at the time of the American founding.  In a busy week, we also note the release of Justice John Paul Stevens' private papers, with implications for important cases including - surprise! - Moore v. Harper.  Finally, the New York Times has a lengthy, lead article about a controversial law school, and we offer our take on that.

The North Carolina courts are having fun with Moore v. Harper, reversing their prior rulings as their new (Republican) judges took the bench.  We’ve previously considered what the Supreme Court might do with the NC Court reconsidering things - what about now that this decision has come down?  Would this be “judicial restraint,” and what exactly is that frequently heard meme all about, anyway?  We also take note of important dates on the academic calendar and that leads to all sorts of insights on college admissions, the meritocracy, and somehow that takes us back to the Supreme Court again.

The Supreme Court issued a stay in the Mifepristone case, so everyone goes back to their corner - for now, anyway.  They’ll be back.  And when they are, the issue of standing may well be front and center.  We grab this opportunity to give you a primer on standing, starting with the Constitution, tracking the Court’s recent strange path on this issue - and then we hear the Amar approach.   Our listeners should be in a position to see the Mifepristone case clearly, as well as have a firm basis to keep from falling down on standing.

The Judiciary continues to occupy the headlines, from the judge in Trump’s trial to judges and justices at the district and circuit level who somehow impact the lives of the whole nation.  And Justice Thomas keeps knocking at the ethics door.  We take it a step at a time, trying to be thorough.  Everyone, it seems, wants to be more than they seem.  So this time we look in some depth at judges being doctors, plaintiffs choosing judges, and regional judges offering national injunctions, while touching on some of these other areas as well.