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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oral arguments are scheduled for this Thursday in the Trump v. Anderson case, concerning the possible disqualification of former President Trump from the ballot in Colorado, and with a myriad of questions surrounding Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment at stake.  We have something new to offer, as the distinguished historian, Professor Ted Widmer, joins us to add his considerable expertise to the oh-so-timely topics of John B. Floyd and the conspiracy to prevent the certification of Abraham Lincoln’s election with the aim to prevent his inauguration and otherwise cripple the Union during the Secession Winter. This was of course integral to our amicus brief in the case, and this podcast offers additional support for its theses.  We also review the promised “20 questions” that the brief explored - the perfect review or reference as the Court faces this vital case that has gripped the nation.  CLE Credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

Oral arguments are approaching in the Trump v. Anderson case, and the nation is talking about little else.  At the Harvard Law School, Professor Amar is invited to debate a former US Attorney General and Federal Judge, Michael Mukasey, who also submitted an amicus brief in the case together with Bill Barr and Ed Meese, among others.  We analyze the debate - and the brief.  And in that brief, Akhil identifies what he considers to be an egregious error, which is telling not only in its fatal weakening of the particular argument, but in the way it calls into question the entirety of their brief, and how it points the way to needed reforms in the legal ecosystem as a whole.  This is an indispensable episode.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The legal world is abuzz with the impending oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson in a couple of weeks.  In the forefront are the powerful arguments and compelling history that are introduced in the amicus brief from the Professors Amar.  We continue to delve into the principal lines of reasoning in the brief, and how they take the starch out for some of the tropes that were found in the media.  When you take the history one step at a time it is hard to escape the obvious parallels with the actions and inactions of ex-President Trump, and how they precisely align with the concerns the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had that prompted them to advocate for and ultimately author, pass, and successfully ratify Section Three.  Will the Court see it this way?  Time will tell, but follow the discussion as we take you through it.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

The “brothers-in-law” Vik and Akhil Amar have filed an amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson et al.  The brief contains a dramatic historic episode that you almost certainly knew nothing about, and which is highly relevant - perhaps decisive - to the case.  Prepare to be amazed by this story of the “First Insurrection,” which preceded and was distinguishable from the Civil War itself, and which makes clear the certain intent of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment - and the course the Supreme Court should take in this case. This, and the episodes to follow, may be the most important episodes we have offered in the more than three years of this podcast. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.