Amarica's Constitution

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...

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 s...

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 th...

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 prin...

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 ori...

The Supreme Court heard the case on the legality of FDA regulation of Mifepristone. Issues of standing seemed to dominate, so Professor Amar treats us to a master class on standing - in this case, and its recent evolution. He also suggests that at least one Justice might benefit by attending. In a wide-ranging episode, we also share excitement and some new scholarly insights that emerged from the...

We round up our analysis of the opinion in Trump v. Anderson with Justice Barrett’s concurrence.  All of this has raised many questions, particularly in light of the Court’s errant reasoning and other shenanigans.  And it turns out that many of the best questions come from you, our audience!  So we turn to those as well, both about Section 3, and other matters as well.  We also look at the news me...

The Trump v. Anderson lead balloon continues to smolder.  This episode looks at the areas wherein the concurring Justices took issue with the per curiam, and they are many.  Indeed, the three Justices who concurred only in the judgment disagree with the scope of the per curiam as well as its particulars, and their concurrence reads more like a dissent.  Can we find areas of agreement with ourselve...

The concurrence by three Justices (as opposed to that of Justice Barrett) in Trump v. Anderson concurs only in the judgment.  We look at different types of concurrences and why a Justice might choose one type or the other; and as for this one, we find much to dissent with.  We dissect the arguments and now with the benefit of a week since the opinion, we “slow it down” and take you carefully throu...

The Court has ruled in Trump v. Anderson, and a strange day it was.  An announcement on a Sunday of opinion on Monday; no justices present; metadata weirdness, and worst of all, a unanimous opinion that is unanimously wrong.  Concurrences that are dissents.  A nearly 250 year old electoral college system that somehow escaped the Justices.  Notorious cases cited with approval.  The opinion is a ver...

We’re back, and still waiting for the opinion in Trump v. Anderson, which gives us a chance to highlight important new evidence that has come to light - thanks in large part to Professor Amar’s great law student team.  It fatally undermines what seemed likely to be the reasoning the opinion was going to take.  Will it matter?  This is related to the role amici play in the Court ecosystem, and we l...

As promised, we return in very short order with the completion of our analysis and response to the oral argument in Trump v. Anderson - before the Court has ruled. Again, key clips from the argument are played and dissected. The previous Part I episode concentrated on arguments concerning self-execution of Section Three; this episode reviews many of the other issues addressed by the Court, from qu...

EARLY UPLOAD - The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson on Thursday, and we were so alarmed by the errant direction they took that we decided to take to the air early. Here are key clips from the argument dissected - exposed, really - to reveal the mistaken representations of the meaning of certain cases; the ignoring of key facts which then distort others; the absence of key li...

Oral arguments are scheduled for this Thursday in the Trump v. Anderson case, concerning the possible disqualification of former President Trump from the ballot in Colorado, and with a myriad of questions surrounding Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment at stake.  We have something new to offer, as the distinguished historian, Professor Ted Widmer, joins us to add his considerable expertise t...

Oral arguments are approaching in the Trump v. Anderson case, and the nation is talking about little else.  At the Harvard Law School, Professor Amar is invited to debate a former US Attorney General and Federal Judge, Michael Mukasey, who also submitted an amicus brief in the case together with Bill Barr and Ed Meese, among others.  We analyze the debate - and the brief.  And in that brief, Akhil...

The legal world is abuzz with the impending oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson in a couple of weeks.  In the forefront are the powerful arguments and compelling history that are introduced in the amicus brief from the Professors Amar.  We continue to delve into the principal lines of reasoning in the brief, and how they take the starch out for some of the tropes that were found in the media.  Whe...

The “brothers-in-law” Vik and Akhil Amar have filed an amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson et al.  The brief contains a dramatic historic episode that you almost certainly knew nothing about, and which is highly relevant - perhaps decisive - to the case.  Prepare to be amazed by this story of the “First Insurrection,” which preceded and was distinguishable from the Civil War itself, and which makes...

The months of discussion of Section Three on Amarica's Constitution now make their way to Washington, as cert has been granted in Trump v. Anderson.  Amicus briefs will pour in - including the brothers Amar's brief.  We present some of the approach the brief will take, and we look at the nine Justices, taking account of their jurisprudential history and styles, and discuss how an intellectually ho...

The nation awaits the Supreme Court’s seemingly inevitable review of the Section Three case from Colorado, and perhaps Maine as well.  Media around the world is weighing in with editorials and op-Ed’s; a smorgasbord of legal, political, and predictive arguments from professors, editors, elected officials, and others with their own range of expertise.  We continue our attempt to help you make sense...

The Colorado Supreme Court opinion on disqualifying Donald Trump, though long anticipated, landed like a tornado.  Op-eds, pundits, academics, officials - all are weighing in.  It’s a victory for democracy - no, it’s antidemocratic.  Section Three is a dead letter - no, it’s self-executing.  Trump is out - no, this helps him.  America is reaffirmed - no, there will be violence in the streets. Libe...

The administrative state is up for grabs, some say, in the case of SEC v. Jarkesy, which was argued before the Supreme Court recently.  We have another “clip” episode, with Akhil weighing in on attorneys and justices alike.  It’s particularly appropriate in this case, because so much of the case concerns juries and the 7th amendment - which, by the way, Akhil has written extensively on.  That’s pr...

The question of Donald Trump's disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is before the courts.  Last week the Colorado Supreme Court heard appeals of the District Court rulings.  As they consider their decision, we have the privilege of hearing from the nation's two leading experts on the subject, the author of The Sweep and Force of Section Three - the universally acknowledged defini...

There is no shortage of tributes to the just passed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and rightly so, and this first female Justice richly deserves praise and memory.  We aim to offer a tribute by taking her seriously as a Justice of ideas as well as the frequently mentioned deeply human remarkable woman she was. Fortunately, Akhil’s career has been intertwined with Justice O’Connor’s in a remarkable b...

Donald Trump’s disqualification for the Presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is on the docket for the Colorado Supreme Court next week.  We have brought the two leading experts on the history of this clause to our podcast. They have written extensively on the 38th-40th Congresses who passed and first acted under the amendment; on John Bingham, the “James Madison” of the Fourteenth; and...

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in US v. Rahimi, a significant gun case, and we get to work.  We have pulled clips from the argument so you can hear the justices and advocates in their own words, and Akhil comments after each clip.  The case is important in itself, with wide implications regarding permissible gun regulation, and it also touches on a number of key methodological points that...