Remember the Alamo Heights

We continue to trace the historical origins of the constitution’s approach to religion in American government and American life.  We take you on a tour around Europe at the time of the Reformation and for centuries beyond, all the way to American migration.  All this is remarkably relevant to recent events, as the Alamo Heights/Ten Commandments case comes to a head. Meanwhile, Sarah Isgur returns for a third helping - or is it grilling? - as we continue to discuss her recent book and it finds its way onto the best-seller list.  Individual justices are discussed along with much more.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The President has picked a fight with the Bishop of Rome, Pope Leo X.  Putting aside some of the distasteful elements of language and hubris, we ask where this fits in with notions of church and state in a democracy.  What is the constitutional doctrine - is it “separation?” Where does it come from, historically and legally?  A general theory of such things can help us make sense - well, maybe not of everything that is said these days, but perhaps of the numerous cases that are percolating to and arriving at the Supreme Court.  And in a special treat, we continue our conversation with Sarah Isgur on her new book, Last Branch Standing, and look more deeply at the patterns of judicial behavior that have emerged from several of the justices, among other things.

This week it’s Attorney Cecilia Wang’s turn, as she appears before the Supreme Court to defend birthright citizenship in the Trump v. Barbara case, and we continue to analyze clips of the oral argument.  Meanwhile, we are joined by the host of the popular Advisory Opinions podcast: Sarah Isgur, who has written a new book that will be published, well, today.  Last Branch Standing takes us inside the Supreme Court from the life of a clerk to a tour of the Court’s history to a statistical analysis of voting patterns on the Court - which are far more complex than is commonly thought.  You can’t help but know more after this episode than you did coming in! CLE credit available from podcast.njsba.com.

Trump v. Barbara - the birthright citizenship case - reaches the Supreme Court, and we are there.  Akhil and Andy are at the oral argument, and immediately afterwards we stand outside the courthouse and you hear (and see, from the linked video) the emotions that affected not only your hosts, but no doubt the justices themselves as the case unfolded. Then it’s off to the audiotape, as we play the clips of the Justices and the advocates, and Akhil does his Howard Cosell imitation, analyzing the arguments as you hear them.  Given the Professor’s status as the author of an amicus brief in the case, a brief the Solicitor General chose to take on in his own reply brief, the perspective this episode offers our audience - you - is unique.  So with the arguments of the advocates; the questions of the justices; and the knowledge of the amicus, you will know as much as anyone and be in the best position to assess the case as a whole - after listening to this special episode and those to follow. And as always, CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

On the eve of the oral argument in Trump v. Barbara, we offer you a listener’s guide to the spectacle.  What is the essence of the argument?  What are the hard questions for Solicitor General Sauer, representing Trump?  What should Attorney Wang, ACLU attorney for petitioners, be prepared to answer?  What should the audience be listening for - clues to how the argument is going?  We provide all this and more, so you can put yourself in the seat of a Supreme Court law clerk, listening to the argument, preparing to offer your thoughts to your justice.  Professor Amar, as an amicus who has submitted a brief to the Court, is your guide.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Akhil and Andy visit a high school in Garden City, NY, to speak with outstanding high school students about Born Equal.  In the process, we trace one of America’s great credos - “All Men Are Created Equal” - from the Founding, all the way to Lincoln - and beyond, to the fourteenth amendment; and finally to birthright citizenship and next week’s momentous Supreme Court case, Trump v. Barbara.  The students’ great questions help show the way.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

We’ve been mentioning the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, and Professor Amar’s amicus brief in the case.  Now we begin to analyze it in depth.  We begin with the structure of the brief; why is it so different from most such briefs?  Why is it uniquely wide-ranging?  How can it cover many aspects of the case with a strict word limit - what is it about the way it is done that allows this when other briefs - well-executed briefs - cannot cover as much ground?  And then, what is the outline of the argument?  We also show where you can go from here; where you can find expansion and discussion beyond the brief.  Or you can come back here in subsequent weeks when we will expand on the outline of the argument presented here.  

Amarica’s Constitution has joined with two other great podcasts! We’re still ourselves, but today we bring all three podcasts together to look at a recent case, Mirabelli v. Bonta, which brings substantive due process back to center stage.  And because we are who we are, we take a look ourselves at some more aspects of - what  else? - the birthright citizenship case.  Learn what the future holds for our listeners, as we bring you what we always have, and more.  Attorneys and judges can gain CLE credit from podcast.njsba.com.

In this shorter-than-usual episode, you are now a Supreme Court clerk getting ready for the Trump v. Barbara case.  What do you do?  What do you read? We guide you. And as we think about what will happen when the argument begins, we give you a taste in this unusual episode.

The Court has ruled Trump’s so-called reciprocal tariffs unconstitutional.  Vik Amar, who offered important theories that appeared prominently in the opinion, joins us to explain the Major Questions Doctrine, why it applies to this case, and even more importantly, why it attempts to support significant structural features of the Constitution.  We pay particular attention to the concurring opinion by Justice Gorsuch, which offers the most in-depth theoretical explanation for this Doctrine and attempts to lay a foundation for its future use.  Meanwhile, the significance of the opinion as a rebuke to Trump, and as a reassertion of the Court’s credibility,  is also discussed.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.