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.

This week we continue with clips from the oral argument in the immunity case (Trump v. United States).  Most of this week’s clips come from attorney Dreeben (representing the Special Counsel, and therefore the people of the United States), and some of the Justices have at him, sometimes in way Professor Amar finds wrong-headed or worse.  Our own argument is brought to bear upon these controversies, and a consistent way of addressing these questions emerges.  Clarity on the argument emerges.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The nine Justices heard arguments on ex-president Trump’s attempt to claim a sweeping immunity from criminal liability and prosecution.  We present clips from the argument and our commentary, including some historical analysis of claims that Benjamin Franklin spoke in favor of such a thing (spoiler:  NO), and many other claims which we had predicted in recent weeks.  There is clear acceptance of some of the arguments we have made by many of the Justices, but questions remain to be sure, and we begin to address them in this first part of a planned two-episode arc of clip and comment.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

As we close in on oral argument in the Trump v. United States case wherein Trump asserts some sort of permanent presidential immunity, we close out our preparatory analysis.  Impeachment’s relationship to criminal prosecution is explored.  Some founding-era conversations involving, for example, John Adams, inform our discussion.  Does the concept of double jeopardy play a role? Our hope is that these episodes prepare you for the oral argument with a comprehensive theory of how no one is held above the law even as a powerful executive sits high in We the People’s government.  CLE credit is available after listening from podcast.njsba.com.