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.