We continue our discussion of the deep issues raised in the case of US v. Skrmetti. Last time we observed the Court wrestling with questions of whether the Tennessee law banning gender dysphoria treatments in minors was a form of sex discrimination. Later in the argument the Court addressed the question of whether transgender individuals, or some related group, constituted a so-called “suspect classification” and therefore laws purporting to affect that group would be subject to close examination (“Scrutiny”) by the Court. In this episode we listen, and react to, those arguments as the Court itself did. Professor Vik Amar returns to join Akhil in this task, and rightly so, since the “brothers in law” have written several recent posts on the deep questions raised by this and other recent cases. This has resulted in a new unifying theory which they begin to articulate in this episode. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The Supreme Court’s term is long since complete, but we turn back the clock and take a deep dive into one of the major cases of the term, United States v. Skrmetti. This case addressed questions of gender dysphoria treatment and transgender rights, but fundamentally, it was a case about the law of equality, say the brothers Amar. Yes, Vik Amar is back as a guest, and our two experts go back and listen to the oral argument and react to the Justices and the advocates as they present. It turns out that this is an excellent case for learning about how the law attempts to implement the equality promises of the Constitution, and you will hear the Justices engage in this action, or inaction. Our experts add more than their take on the arguments - they have theories that go beyond anything said in Court that day or written in the opinions that followed. This is part one of a multi-part summer treat from Amarica’s Constitution. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

We pay tribute this week to a titan in the field whom you may not have heard of. Professor Richard Fallon, the Joseph Story Professor of Law at Harvard, passed away last week. As you will hear from his collaborator and friend, our guest Professor Michael Dorf, Dick Fallon had a deep impact in the law and the academy, and did so with grace, class, and integrity. The parallels between his career and Professor Amar’s are striking, but so is the divergence in their constitutional approaches. And this makes for a fascinating and instructive episode as we probe, rather deeply, the nature of these divergences and how they appear in various places in the law. Meanwhile this also brings us back to a fundamental matter for this podcast, namely, the nature of and validity of originalism as opposed to or in concert with other methods of interpreting and understanding the constitution and applying it in today’s, and tomorrow’s, America. That America must now, sadly, go on without Dick Fallon, but it will do so informed by his career and his greatness. We are fortunate to have Michael Dorf to show us why this is so. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD 8) was the House manager of the second Trump impeachment in the Senate; is an outstanding constitutional scholar; a long-time law professor; a renowned author; a driving force behind the January 6th committee; and the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. For the great privilege of interviewing him, we need all the tools a great interviewer would have. It is therefore appropriate that we also interview Sam Tanenhaus, the biographer, in a new and magisterial work, of William F. Buckley, perhaps the best known and most fearlessly non-partisan in his selection of interview subjects. Sam Tanenhaus has written the definitive work on Buckley, whose Firing Line project was in some ways an inspiration for our own podcast. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The Birthright Citizenship case reached the Supreme Court - sort of. The Court ruled on the executive branch’s request for a stay in response to nationwide injunctions issued by three different circuit courts, where the executive order purporting to alter more than a century’s practice regarding the Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship was blocked by these courts. In doing so the Court declined - that is, the majority declined - to address the merits. Still, the nationwide injunction issue was addressed - at least for now.. Akhil takes the Court to task for avoiding the merits, and he offers numerous ways by which this could have been - should have been - done. He also presents a new approach that litigants in these cases might consider as they deal with various tactics the government may employ in the service of an executive order they may not expect to be upheld. Along the way Akhil offers some suggestions for consequences that might be faced by the executive officials, maybe not in our government as currently functioning, but at least in theory. There’s a lot here even if what is most notable for many of us is what the Court has left hanging. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The end of the term arrives, and the Court is busy. We begin our dive into the cases with Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case involving inclusive books in a school, parental guidance of religious education, opt-outs, advance notification, and issues of gender and sexual education. Professor Amar goes beyond the case with an overall theory of religious accommodation; indeed, he goes beyond this into questions of parental rights and how it may interact with first amendment law. We also have some announcements of future events. And as always, CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The US enters a violent part of the world once again, as Iran’s nuclear facilities are bombed. The President orders this without consulting Congress; indeed without asking for, much less receiving a declaration of war. Does the Constitution require this? What has past practice been? What was true at the founding? Has it changed over the centuries? Many twists and turns to the reasoning emerge as we explore this largely indefinite area of Constitutional Law. Meanwhile, Akhil gives a speech on the Revolution and the Constitution which sounds surprisingly relevant at this time. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from

Former Justice Breyer returns to Amarica’s Constitution with reflections on his long-time colleague and, yes, his friend, in a rare opportunity to hear about relationships on the Court. Meanwhile, former Souter clerk and current Professor at Penn Carey Law School, Kermit Roosevelt, looks back on the clerkship as well as at the threads that have emerged in the law and in his career from Justice Souter’s insights and methodology. And Nadine Strossen, long-time president of the ACLU as well as dear friend to Justice Souter explores many of the first amendment and other cases that Justice Souter had profound things to say, often in dissent. This is a powerhouse episode, but a tender one. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.