Amarica's Constitution

Crime Means Punishment

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 principles of immunity emerge, which leaves us with a much richer understanding of the many issues than a bland look the text alone would  Meanwhile, a listener’s question takes us abroad for a change, and developments in Arizona remind us of several of our podcast’s recurring themes.  CLE credit is available by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.

Immunity Therapy

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 originalism as well as precedent.  This and subsequent episodes form an oral amicus brief of sorts - another “master class,” if you will.  We also take a listener’s question seriously as we address the Comstock Act and related issues. CLE credit is available at podcast.njsba.com.

No Standing Any Time

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 recent EverScholar program led by Akhil and others; and the Trump gag order gives rise to some musings as well. There’s a lot for everyone in this episode, including CLE available from podcast.njsba.com.

History Will Judge

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 media’s latest interesting directions, including takes on Justice Breyer’s new book and seeds planted by Professor Amar bearing fruit.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com

Dissenting in Concurrence

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 ourselves and the concurrences?  What can we learn from all this?  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

 

What the Concurrences Should Have Said

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 through the logic and illogic we find.  Can we locate common ground among justices who claim to be unanimous but in fact significantly diverge?  And how do we address our own position, which seems to lie firmly opposed to the entire Court?  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

Happy Anniversary Mr. Lincoln from the Court

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 veritable patchwork of error.  The autopsy begins.

Staking our Claim

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 look at how another case we had a brief in, Moore v. US, seemed to be possibly influenced by our brief by beginning our long-promised clip-based analysis of that oral argument. So a whole lot in a compact episode.  CLE is available from podcast.njsba.com.

What the Oral Argument Should Have Said - Part 2

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 questions of the nature of the Presidential Election and the closely related Electoral College, to the persistent irritant of "officer" and "office" questions.  As in the prior episode, Professor Amar “slows everything down” to allow you and hopefully the Court avoid sweet-sounding but flawed paths.  This episode is posted 8 days early for this reason. Continuing legal education credit is available; visit podcast.njsba.com after listening.

What the Oral Argument Should Have Said

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 lines of argument; and the danger that the Court may be headed for another debacle on the scale of Bush v. Gore. Professor Amar “slows everything down” so the sometimes subtle misdirection that a fast-paced oral argument can induce is neutralized, creating  clarity that we can only hope some Justice or some clerk sees in time.  This episode is posted 4 days early for this reason, and next week’s will follow later this week as well.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com beginning Monday, February 12.