Amarica's Constitution

The Legacy of the Harvard Case - Special Guest Jeffrey Brenzel

We return to the affirmative action case, and again former Yale Dean of Undergraduate Admissions, Jeffrey Brenzel, joins us with his peerless expertise.  The fallout of the opinion is enormous ,and we address some of its ramifications, including legacy admissions, donor admissions, private vs. public institutional options, admissions departments’ responses, and much more.  What about the new frontiers of litigation that seem to be emerging, from scholarships designed to address racial disparities to non-race-conscious policies that nevertheless have impact on racial makeup?  Former Dean Brenzel also offers a fascinating critique of the likely responses, showing how what might seem like a powerful response might actually be a foolish way to avoid real impact.

Amara Culpa, Amara Bene

What’s in a name?  This week, it’s “Amar was wrong - Amar was right.”  Two weeks ago it was “bigots” and many made much of that.  So we take the feedback seriously and revisit it - you can judge the result.  Meanwhile, news from Long Island brings the 4th amendment to the fore again, and in a somewhat different way.  Different - how?  Listen and find out how to create a better jurisprudence without amending the Constitution, and the real differences in the lives of the people this would make.  Finally, Akhil has a new article in the popular press, and we introduce that for later elaboration.

Scrutinizing Affirmative Action - Special Guest Jeffrey Brenzel

It’s time to discuss the Affirmative Action cases from Harvard and the University of North Carolina, and we have brought in an expert on college admissions - Jeff Brenzel, the former Dean of Undergraduate Admissions at Yale.  Jeff is so much more than that - he has taught at Yale as a lecturer in philosophy and humanities; is the former head of the Alumni Association, and is a current trustee at Morehouse College, to name some of his many hats.  He offers a perspective that is a perfect supplement to the legal analysis from Professor Amar, as we make our way through 237 pages of Supreme Court opinion, concurrences, and fiery dissents, not to mention Akhil’s scholarship on this subject over the decades.  It’s potentially a morass and we begin to find our way through it, to hopefully understand the stormy present and the uncertain future of college admissions.

The Rights of Bigots

A Colorado website designer refuses to create sites for gay couples’ weddings, going afoul of Colorado’s public accommodations law.  Can she be compelled to author such a site?  The Court has ruled, and we have the analysis.  Along the way, we find ourselves discussing the intricacies of stipulations, and getting into the fine points of how one gets to federal court, even as we consider more mainstream questions as speech vs. conduct, the limits of rights, and some interesting hypotheticals.  Professor Amar, as usual, has his own take on such things.

No Moore ISL

The Supreme Court has ruled in the Independent State Legislature case, Moore v. Harper.  As we have from the beginning, we look at the case from the point of view of the precedents, of the history, the constitutional issues and implications, and the inner dynamics of the Court and beyond.  As an author in a key amicus brief, Professor Amar is on the inside, and now so are you, as we take the opinion apart and explain the sometimes confusing matter of why the case was not rendered moot by later developments - and we look at the strange split among the various advocates on this question.  We compare Chief Justice Roberts’ reasoning with our own from our brief, and look at the importance of a concurrence.  At the end of the day, and of this podcast, you will come away with a thorough understanding of what could have been a disaster for the country but instead is a fine hour for the Court.

Four Clauses, Two Juries

It’s Supreme Court opinion season, and just before this week’s upload came the happy news of the Moore v. Harper decision.  We’ll be back with details on that soon enough, of course.  Prior to that, however, the Court issued some fascinating decisions last week, including in the case of Samia v. United States.  This confrontation clause/Sixth Amendment case happens to hit one of Professor Amar’s many sweet spots; he has written on the subject in numerous forums over years and is a true expert.  You will have a complex set of facts made legible, and a confusing set of key constitutional principles sculpted into an elegant formulation.

Whose Welfare?

The Supreme Court upheld various provisions of the controversial Indian Child Welfare Act last week.  The facts of Haaland v. Brackeen, and some provisions of the Act, raise dramatic questions about questions of best interests of children, of the nature of tribal entities, and of who speaks for whom.  The opinion itself largely sidesteps many of these questions and instead dives into areas which Professor Amar has long offered his expertise - going back nearly 20 years or more.  No wonder, then, that he is cited twice in this case, and now our listeners have the chance to learn from the acknowledged expert on these matters.

The Judgment of History

All eyes are on Miami, where Donald Trump faces justice.  But should it be Miami?  Should it be this judge, who has such a checkered history in this case?  What does the Constitution say about these and other issues this case brings forth?  What about precedents?  It’s just the beginning, but we are ready to take on these and other issues.

I Am Calabresi

In this season of college commencements, our eyes were caught by an honorary degree given to Yale Professor, Federal Judge, and scholar Guido Calabresi. This episode will review his many contributions to America’s constitutional landscape, and to Professor Amar in particular. Prepare for a Paper Chase-like journey through the world of Guido Calabresi as seen through the eyes of Akhil Amar.

Crossfire on the Ceiling - Special Guests Jack Balkin and Saikrishna Prakash

Congress is attempting to pass a bill that would implement a deal that President Biden reached with Speaker McCarthy and House Republicans.  The issues are many - what does the President due if the bill is not passed?  How imminent is the threat of default?  Would a default be constitutional?  Does the Constitution require any action by the President in such a situation?  What does the 14 Amendment, Section 4, say about this?  What does an originalist analysis of the global situation look like? We bring the best experts from both sides of the political aisle for a vigorous but intellectually honest debate on the subject, and in the process, hope to find some areas of agreement and wide areas to enrich our audience.