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.

Jeff Bezos emasculated the Washington Post; now he has virtually killed it. Why? And what does this mean for the nation? What is the importance of major newspapers to the American constitutional system? We bring you the great Ruth Marcus, former deputy editorial page editor, long-time columnist, with over 40 years at the Post, to offer an in-depth, insider perspective on this shocking set of events. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

It’s becoming apparent that the theory that Professor Amar put forth 40 years ago in a now-famous law review article, Of Sovereignty And Federalism, is being taken seriously by more and more legislatures, newspapers, and the general public. Therefore, we bring the two leading experts on this – Professor Akhil Amar, and his brother Professor Vik Amar - together to go over the background, theory, and intricacies of this important development. It’s a master class that takes you back to an earlier master class we had, on the venerable and crucial case of McCulloch v. Maryland. What does this have to do with converse 1983? You’ll find out. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

In a wide-ranging episode, we finish looking back - and in doing so, we look into the near future as well. The birthright citizenship case will be heard in oral argument on April 1, and we go back to our reaction to the executive order. Unitary executive matters are awaiting court rulings; we look back at our back and forth with Steven Calabresi. Meanwhile, audience questions on court term limits and the virtues of virtue are addressed, and there are more tidbits to enjoy.

The look back over our five years of drama, humor, reason, and illogic continues, as perhaps the most notorious opinion of the five year period - the Trump immunity case - reappears in a clip, along with a revisit with Justice Breyer. Meanwhile, the oral argument in Wolford v. Lopez did, in fact, prompt the Professors Amar to write in SCOTUSblog.com, and we go even further here, with clips from that oral argument and answers to the justices that didn’t find their way into the record, but now, hopefully, enter the public discourse. CLE credit is available as usual for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.