In an exhausting week, the Court released a number of long-awaited cases, and we had a consequential presidential debate. We look at several cases that many believe have profound implications for the administrative state; the opinions in SEC v. Jarkesy, and Loper Bright v. Raimondo clearly have the effect of increasing the role of courts and juries, among other things. We look at the opinions, the underlying themes, and the impact. Meanwhile, following the debate, questions of presidential succession of several types, and of the vice president, are everywhere; these happen to be areas of Prof. Amar’s expertise, and so we address them. NOTE: The Presidential Immunity case, Trump v. US, came down after we taped this episode; we have some early but important resources for you on this as well. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

As the end of the term approaches the deluge of major cases has begun. Two big cases - the eagerly awaited sequel to the Bruen case - Rahimi - features an orgy of originalist theorizing and opining. Meanwhile, in Moore v. US - a case where Professor Amar and his team had an amicus brief - the tax power was upheld, but reading the opinion one might wonder if the same Court had sat for this case. We take a look at the opinions and give our own take on these impactful cases, even as we brace ourselves for many more in the week or so to come.

Akhil is in Boston this week and reminds us that the history of the American Revolution, where Boston is so pivotal, contains myriad lessons that provide insight into the student protests of today - so we look at this subject in some detail. Meanwhile, the Court issued opinions in two prominent cases, and Akhil seems to be reluctant to take “yes” for an answer in one of them, so we take another look at issues of standing. Does Akhil convince you of the correctness of his approach? Finally, the bump stock gun case, a statutory interpretation case, is lamented by many; we take a quick look at why it doesn’t have to be the last word on this matter. CLE credit is available after listening by visiting podcast.njsba.com.

The Court is taking its time on major opinion, which gives us a moment to turn to other matters. Ethics remain in the news; the Court’s annual financial disclosures contain a number of surprises - maybe not so surprising. There’s a lot to say there, and we have some proposals to improve the situation. President Biden takes a position on a pardon, and we take a position on that. Our listeners continue to provide great input on an ongoing conversation, and we take it seriously. CLE is available after listening from podcast.njsba.com.

The verdict is in: guilty x 34. A jury of Trump’s peers had its say, but the ex-president couldn’t leave it at that, of course. On the legitimate side, the appeals are expected to begin soon. On the Trump bombastic side, he blasted every institution in the legal system for having the audacity to do their duty. Particularly in the case of the ordinary citizens of the jury, this bears examination, and so we do. We also preview some of the likely appellate issues, lay out the expected path through the courts, and take some interesting listener’s questions. CLE is available after listening at podcast.njsba.com.

The nation has been riled by campus unrest surrounding events in the Middle East. Terms like “freedom of speech,” “academic freedom,” “right to protest,” “conduct vs. speech,” and issues of hate speech, offensive speech, safety, and more have arisen. We start our look at this situation where we always begin: with the Constitution. This episode aims to lay out the history, background, constitutional provisions, interpretations, cases, and overall approach to these matters, so we can then look at what is actually happening and be in a position to offer opinions and possible prescriptions. CLE credit is available after listening by visiting podcast.njsba.com.

More than three years after the January 6, 2021 disastrous events, we remarkably are just now first learning of a complex series of events with profound ethical implications for Justice Alito. Like his fellow justice, Clarence Thomas, Justice Alito’s wife’s actions, possibly political in nature, have placed the Justice in a position where his own actions are being widely questioned. We take it one step at a time and offer our analysis, even if we don’t entirely agree with each other on this one.

Donald Trump’s New York trial - where a conviction would be federal pardon-proof - has proceeded apace. we are pleased to bring a report to you from the trial itself, introducing you to one of Professor Amar’s star students in the process. Are there constitutional issues stemming from the trial? You bet, and we address some of them. Meanwhile, a number of listeners have asked similar questions recently, so we take that family of questions on, and sure enough, there’s a lot to discuss there as well. CLE credit is available from pdcast.njsba.com after listening.