Judges are in the news - all over it, in fact.  Donald Trump, arrested and charged, attacks the judge in his case, and the judge is under a microscope.  Deserved?  Meanwhile, a judge is elected in Wisconsin. Many say this is the result of actions other judges took in Washington last year, and judges in Wisconsin react - and find themselves under scrutiny, too.  Most prominently of all, a Supreme Court Justice’s lifestyle collides with disclosure requirements, drawing fire.  How can citizens view these controversies in a reasonably objective light, and what are the standards?  We take a shot at it.

The people of the State of New York have voted in Grand Jury to charge former President Trump with felony counts.  He stands arrested and arraigned.  If you were the District Attorney of New York City, and you had to make the decision whether to pursue this prosecution to this point, what factors should you have considered?  What obligations do you have to the citizens of New York in this matter?  What is your discretion?  Do you agree with DA Bragg’s decision?  Professor Amar will provide you with the background you need to approach these questions and make up your own mind.

The Grand Jury continues its work in New York, as a possible indictment of an ex-president and declared candidate for president awaits his fate.  Meanwhile, investigations and more grand jury proceedings continue in Georgia and Washington on other weighty matters. And the political establishment is worried, so the House Republicans have upped in with a subpoena of the New York City District Attorney, even as he conducts his grand jury investigation.  We don’t want to jump the gun on the virtues and facts surrounding any actual indictment, so instead we look at the many constitutional matters implicated here:  grand juries themselves, secrecy in general, congressional oversight and its limits, campaign finance, “hush money.”  Lots to talk about.

Rumors swirl around the possibility of an indictment of former President Trump, from several sources - New York, Georgia, Washington.  We wait with you, and rather than speculate, we will pounce when and if something happens.  In the meanwhile, we give you some bonus material in the form of a great listener question, and some information about our favorite pastime.

The Mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, delivered a controversial speech at an interfaith breakfast, raising issues of church/state separation, gun control, and the role of religion in governance.  Akhil uses the opportunity for some comparative constitutional analysis, and we look at the worldwide continuum of separationist approaches.  The mayor is quite provocative on school prayer and quite confusing on guns, and we take that up as well.  Meanwhile, we take a question on the judiciary in a far away and yet not so far away land.

Former Vice President Mike Pence has received subpoenas from Special Counsel Jack Smith.  Pence claims that he has grounds to challenge this subpoena; he locates this in the so-called “speech and debate” clause, and some claim that executive privilege is relevant as well.  We examine these clauses and doctrines deeply and offer our own conclusions on this issue.  Speaking of doctrines, the Supreme Court has brought the “major questions” doctrine out once again in the student debt case, and we look at that.  We also take a deeper dive on questions of standing - how do states have the ability to appear in court challenging this presidential action?  It may not surprise you to hear that Akhil wrote a relevant article, over 30 years ago.

This week we take your questions; our listeners are engaged and clever, so Professor Amar is challenged again and again.  How far do his 4th and 5th amendment views extend - do they reach torture?  A fellow law professor asks a deep question about Reconstruction and Women’s suffrage which has deep implications.  And we take a trip back in time to Akhil’s most treasured constitutional moments.  Meanwhile, there’s more on Moore v. Harper and mootness.

People love to talk about the Constitution - that’s why we have a podcast. Sometimes, however, the conventional wisdom is quite unwise, leading to deeply unfortunate national narratives.  Today we address questions such as whether the Constitution was foisted upon an unwitting nation, with the proceedings kept secret for decades.  This is perhaps an old question, but in the news recently, we read of state public school curricula wherein objection is raised to the notion that the Declaration and Constitution are “remarkable.”  So it matters that we understand all these questions - and their answers.  We offer some.  Oh, and speaking of “in the news,” Moore v. Harper is back in the headlines, with questions of whether it will be rendered moot hanging in the air, to the alarm of many.  Professor Amar has a nuanced take on that.

We continue our discussion with Professor Roosevelt of his new book, The Nation That Never Was. We revisit our debate on the Declaration of Independence and specifically, the meaning of “all men are created equal.” This has profound implications, it turns out, for evaluating the 1788 transition from Articles of Confederation to U.S. Constitution, the 1861 secession, and the great Reconstruction moment of the later 1860’s.  Were these all secessions of a sort?  Were they extra-legal?  Were they treasonous?  And finally, what sort of national narrative can we coherently draw from all this?  Profound implications, especially when one considers the arguments and claims of the recent 1619 project, emerge.

***CLE Available*** The newly Republican House is threatening to refuse to raise the debt ceiling, raising the spectre of a US default.  Given the 14th amendment, section 4’s prohibition on “questioning” the debt of the United States, all sorts of constitutional questions and strategies have been raised.  We are fortunate to welcome Professor Jack Balkin, who knows more about this provision and this topic than anyone, to explain the origin of this constitutional provision, and why its history is directly relevant to today’s developments.  Meanwhile, what about the trillion-dollar coin and other mind-blowing approaches to the problem? We’ve got the lowdown on those, too.