We the People

In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that law enforcement’s use of a geofence warrant, which collected identity and location data from mobile phone users, violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Professor Orin S. Kerr of Stanford University unpacks the decision in Chatrie v. United States and explores what it means for the future of the Fourth Amendment, privacy, and government surveillance in the digital age. Julie Silverbrook, chief content and learning officer at the National Constitution Center, moderates. 

Resources 

Stay Connected and Learn More 

⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate 

In this episode, prize-winning author and historian Fergus M. Bordewich discusses his latest book, Centennial: The Great Fair of 1876 and the Invention of America’s Future, which explores the story of the nation’s 100th birthday and the first world’s fair. Bordewich traces the lives of President Rutherford B. Hayes, the inventor Alexander Graham Bell, railroad magnate Tom Scott, and the African American sculptor Edmonia Lewis—revealing a country striving to live up to the promise of the founders while bracing for the tidal wave of the 20th century. Thomas Donnelly, lead scholar at the National Constitution Center, moderates. 

Resources 

Stay Connected and Learn More 

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

When Americans think about the Declaration of Independence, we tend to remember its most famous words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” and its promise of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But to fully understand the Declaration we also need to read the section most Americans skip: its 27 grievances against King George III. For the founding generation, these grievances were not simply a list of complaints. They were central to the Declaration’s argument, laying out the case for how the King and Parliament had violated their rights and why independence had become necessary. Historian Rosemarie Zagarri explores what the grievances meant in 1776, what they reveal about the colonists’ understanding of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and how reading them more closely can deepen our understanding of the Declaration as a constitutional argument and a justification for revolution. Julie Silverbrook, chief content and learning officer at the National Constitution Center, moderates. 

Resources 

Stay Connected and Learn More 

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

The Supreme Court's latest term featured landmark decisions on executive power, birthright citizenship, voting rights, and more. But beyond the headlines, what did the term tell us about the Roberts Court itself? In this episode, Masha Hansford and Jonathan Adler examine the justices' opinions to explore the defining decisions, shifting coalitions, and influential concurrences and dissents that shaped the term. Together, they consider the Court's institutional role, the distinct jurisprudence of its individual justices, and what this term may signal for the future of constitutional law.  Julie Silverbrook, chief content and learning officer at the National Constitution Center, moderates.

Resources 

Stay Connected and Learn More 

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

In this episode, Nadine Strossen, New York Law School professor emerita and former president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Jacob Mchangama, the founder and executive director of The Future of Free Speech, discuss the history, enduring debate, and ongoing importance of free expression in our changing world. Julie Silverbrook, chief content and learning officer at the National Constitution Center, moderates. 

This program is part of the NCC Across America series and is presented in partnership with the City of Asylum Bookstore in Pittsburgh, PA. It was recorded on July 21, 2026. 

Resources 

Stay Connected and Learn More 

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

In this episode, legal scholars Michael Ramsey and Jed Shugerman the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, which address the president’s authority to remove members of the executive branch. They trace the history of presidential removal power from the founding era through the Court’s 1935 landmark Humphrey’s Executor decision to the present day and explore what Slaughter and Cook may mean for the future of executive power. Thomas Donnelly, lead scholar at the National Constitution Center, moderates. 

Resources 

Stay Connected and Learn More 

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

In this episode, legal scholars Jonathan Adler, Greg Garre, Katherine Mims Crocker, and Howard Wasserman discuss the state of civil discourse inside the Supreme Court and in public debate about the Court. Julie Silverbrook, chief content and learning officer at the National Constitution Center, moderates. This conversation was recorded live in Philadelphia on July 7, 2026, as part of the National Constitution Center’s 2026 Supreme Court Review, which is presented in partnership with the Center on the Structural Constitution at Texas A&M University School of Law. The program featured three panels with scholars of differing perspectives examining the Court’s 2025–2026 term, its approach to executive power, and civil discourse surrounding the Court. 

Resources 

Stay Connected and Learn More 

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

In this episode, legal scholars Gillian Metzger, Julian Mortenson, and Ilya Somin discuss the Supreme Court’s approach to executive power in recent decisions. Thomas Donnelly, lead scholar at the National Constitution Center, moderates. This conversation was recorded live in Philadelphia on July 7, 2026, as part of the National Constitution Center’s 2026 Supreme Court Review, which is presented in partnership with the Center on the Structural Constitution at Texas A&M University School of Law. The program featured three panels with scholars of differing perspectives examining the Court’s 2025-2026 term, its approach to executive power, and civil discourse within and concerning the Court. 

Resources

Stay Connected and Learn More 

⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

In this episode, Richard Epstein and Martha Jones discuss the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Trump v. Barbara, which struck down President Trump’s Executive Order on birthright citizenship. At issue in the case was whether the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born to parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States. The Court concluded that it did. Thomas Donnelly, lead scholar at the National Constitution Center, moderates. 

Resources 

Stay Connected and Learn More 

⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

In this episode, David Blight, Robert P. George, and Annette Gordon-Reed explore the enduring ideas at the core of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution—including equality, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and government by consent—and examine how those principles have been debated, interpreted, and contested over time. Moderated by Thomas Donnelly, lead scholar at the National Constitution Center, the conversation invites audiences to engage deeply with the ideas that launched a nation and to consider how our shared constitutional story continues to unfold. 

This conversation was recorded live in Philadelphia on June 8, 2026, as part of the NCC’s America’s Town Hall series. It is presented in partnership with the Organization of American Historians and the Sandra Day O’Connor Institute. 

Resources 

Stay Connected and Learn More

Donate