Supreme Betrayal: How the Supreme Court and Constitutional Law Have Failed America

We use a recent decision by the Fifth Circuit upholding a Texas statute requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms as a jumping off point to discuss not only the religion clauses but a much more general problem of constitutional theory, which we frame as a problem of federalism but actually ranges much more broadly: What body of people gets to make decisions that gov...

We discuss the slush fund kerfuffle with Professor Smauel Bagenstos, who served as general counsel to the Department of Health and Human Services and has written a forthcoming article on slush funds. One theme is that Trump’s lawyers got a decent way toward giving J6 rioters access to federal funds in a way consistent with the formal law but muffed it at the level of detail. Another is that it’s r...

In our second episode on the Callais decision we turn to criticism, though only after doing our best to identify some things in the decision that might be correct. Among our concerns are whether the Court was right in saying that things have changed (for the better) since 1965, whether the opinion was a reasonable application of the Court’s prior decision to refrain from federal judicial regulatio...

In the first of two episodes about the Callais decision we speculate about its immediate impact on the 2026 elections, with Mark trying to minimize that impact and Mike arguing that it’s likely to be significant. Then we provide a detailed explanation of the historical background of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, emphasizing the ways in which it was initially interpreted (a combination of generosity...

Today we take up a challenge to our views about the tension between democratic self-governance and the contemporary form of judicial that Mark draws from the scholarship of political scientists including Robert Dahl. Dahl’s challenge, in a shorthand, is that American politicians, speaking for we the people, like that form of judicial review—that it has democratic credentials. Other political scien...

In this episode we get to the heart of Mike’s book, his argument that judicial review as practiced today can’t be justified because justification requires a foundation in good constitutional theories—and none of the theories on offer are good enough. After a minor skirmish over what’s good enough, we take up a feature of Mike’s account that he finds attractive—that deconstitutionalizing everything...

We begin our second episode on Mike's new book Why the Constitution Cannot Save Us by discussing different ideas of popular constitutionalism, with Mike restating his concern that popular constitutionalism can misdirect our attention from what really matters--whether policies are good or bad--to unproductive discussions of what the Constitution "really" means and Mark restating his sense that the...

We try to sell some books!—Mike’s forthcoming The Constitution Cannot Save Us and Mark’s Who Am I to Judge? Mike describes his book and then we talk about the role of law clerks in writing Supreme Court opinions today because the topic actually gets us to the core disagreement between us, about the failings of constitutional theory and the role of judgment and craft in justifying the power the Cou...

We take on the decision invalidating President Trump’s tariffs. Mike offers what he calls a democratic defense of a decision that would have, in his terms, preserved the status quo and let the tariffs go into effect, and offers a backup explanation that doing so would be more likely to generate a productive dialogue between Congress and the President possibly resulting in more precise delegations...

Pretty much everyone who looks into the matter knows that courts don’t enforce statutory, constitutional, or international law limits on the deployment of US military forces overseas. What are we to make of that fact? That we don’t need judicially enforceable limits on this sort of policy choice to get along reasonably well? That the limits work “behind the scenes” to affect the choices political...

After telling the semi-salacious story of the attempted assassination of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field in 1889 we explore the implications of the Supreme Court case that dealt with the attempt for the possibility of state prosecutions of ICE and CBP officers for the killings of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti. That leads us to a discussion of the costs and benefits of using the rhetoric of...

Could Senator Mark Kelly successfully be prosecuted for sedition? Not under current law as developed by the Supreme Court. Tushnet presses Seidman on his opposition to the Court’s invocation of the Constitution to prevent democratically elected governments from enacting whatever policies the people want—even in connection with speech restrictions. Seidman sticks to his guns and says that, though p...

Our guest is David Luban, a distinguished legal philosopher who has written widely about military law and ethics. We use the Trump administration's drone strikes on "drug boats" as the vehicle for talking about the tension--such as it may be--between law and hierarchical authority, for example when ordinary soldiers are instructed that they must disregard unlawful orders. As usual with us, we try...

We have a conversation with Genevieve Lakier about the First Amendment and the courts in our current situation. She defends recourse to the courts; we are as usual more skeptical. We go into some aspects of the political economy of major media, emphasizing the problems created by media consolidation and the difficulty of dealing with those problems not merely because of the normative issues we rai...

After some reflections on how the oral arguments in the tariff case affect our expectations about what the Court might do, we turn to the Court’s pending decision in a case challenging the constitutionality of the key remaining provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. We offer what we hope are some more in-depth and analytic comments on the doctrines in play in the case and (as usual!) highlight t...

We continue our speculation about constitutionalism after Trump (after some mundane observations about the 2025 elections), by broadening our lens to include some thoughts about what progressives might do to present appealing visions of an egalitarian and multicultural society that’s part of our heritage. We disagree a bit about the level at which the conversation should be pitched and then turn t...

Our conversation with Richard Re focuses on his Foreword to the Harvard Law Review’s annual Supreme Court Review. The Foreword argues that the Roberts Court today is a conservative version of the Warren Court whose decisions are as supported today or perhaps even better supported today by a political majority as were the Warren Court’s decisions. We suggest that his argument is a domesticated vers...

If we manage to extricate ourselves from our current constitutional plight, what might things look like? Or, alternatively, what sorts of constitutionally inflected policies should Democrats offer as part of their political effort to defeat Trumpism? We argue pretty forcefully against what we call “restorationism,” a program that would simply reinstitute the constitutional agenda that MAGA constit...

We talk about the Jimmy Kimmel episode, a small victory in the fight against Trumpism. We range more widely, though, in identifying no fewer than five groups who have competing First Amendment interests in having Kimmel on or off the airwaves, which makes figuring out what the First Amendment “means” in this setting. We emphasize the interests of broadcasters in choosing what to air and the intere...

Why are the birthright citizenship cases both not such a big deal and a big deal? After going through the arguments for the Trump administration’s position in some detail (the arguments against it are so obvious that we don’t spend much time on them), we situate the cases in the administration’s larger policy and ideological agendas: from a policy point of view they aren’t that big a deal, but fro...

Our conversation with Will Baude covers his ideas about originalism as "our law" and the implications of his position for a constitution--ours, perhaps--that isn't normatively attractive overall.

We pick up after our summer break with a recap of our arguments about constitutional theory. Then we discuss the pending Supreme Court decision about President Trump’s power to impose tariffs, getting into some weeds that most popular commentary avoids, including a lot of detail about the major questions doctrine.

Today we apply our way of thinking about the Constitution—what we’ve been calling constitutional theory—to a topic that isn’t usually discussed in those terms even though it gets a lot of attention: constitutional criminal procedure, focusing on police practices like stop-and-frisk and on the Miranda warnings. As usual our questions are about the connection between judicial (and political and bure...

This current events episode uses ICE arrests of public officials and protestors as the vehicle for a discussion of jury nullification as a constitutional or political practice. We begin with the story of abolitionist interference with the renditions—a word in the news again—of fugitives from enslavement as authorized by the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. We use jury nullification to explore the oppositi...

Joseph Fishkin and William Forbath join us to discuss their book The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution. We talk about what their book's title describes, why they think it matters to describe it as a "constitutional" position rather than a "mere" set of policy prescriptions, the importance of historical traditions in thinking about the political use of the word "constitutional," the advantages and disadv...