Season 6, Episode 28 (Show 290): Dobbs and Bruen Plus Time
August 5, 2026
Our review of the Roberts Court’s important constitutional cases has arrived at two of the biggest: Dobbs and Bruen.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
As we make our way through the 20 most constitutionally significant cases of the Roberts court, this episode takes us through two cases that have continued to have resonance with the American people and with the justices. Dobbs saw an infamous leak, a momentous decision, powerful electoral impact, and ongoing questions that echo back to an important limiting concurrence. Bruen brought a controversial methodology to questions of gun rights, caused mayhem at the lower courts, and spawned a number of subsequent cases that seek to clarify and perhaps recover from this sweeping opinion. We take you back – and forward – as we examine these cases on our way to an overall accounting of the Roberts Court.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Subscribe to “Amarica’s Constitution” by clicking “Subscribe” or “Follow” after selecting your preferred podcast app below.
Season 6, Episode 27 (Show 289): Faces of Intratextualism
July 29, 2026
The 20 most important constitutional cases of the Roberts Court are once again our subject, and a particular theme emerges – intratextualism.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
We continue our survey of the Roberts Court’s oeuvre of constitutional cases, with particular emphasis on the series of cases that concerned making rules for voting and for voting districts. These cases make particular use of “intratextualism” – a term coined by Professor Amar that provides tools – and traps – for textual analysis of the Constitution. And as it turns out, it is also valuable on some of the most important themes and cases in the history of the nation, including Brown v. Board and its companion case, Bolling v. Sharpe. A listener’s question takes us down this road, which intersects with our own prior path in fascinating ways.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 6, Episode 26 (Show 288): The Surprising Score
July 23, 2026
We recap not only the Court’s term, but the Roberts Court as a whole, looking at major cases over almost 20 years. The whole picture is perhaps different from what you might expect.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
The SCOTUS term is behind us, and we take a look back – not just at this term, but at the entirety of the Roberts Court. What are the most important constitutional cases of its time? Where do the justices line up on the important cases – that is, how often are they in the majority; how often is the opinion right-leaning, as many believe is usually the case, and how many are left-leaning? How often is the Court “clearly wrong” according to Professor Amar? And where does Professor Amar come out in terms of his alignment with the Court? The cases may be familiar, but our own look at this suggests to us that you may well be surprised when it all gets added up. We also have some listeners’ questions, and they turn out to be more far-ranging than you might have expected.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 6, Episode 25 (Show 287): Dissenting from the Dissents
July 16, 2026
In Trump v. Barbara, the dissents made policy arguments. We look at why that’s not enough – even if they were correct – and how that fits into a general theory of dissents.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
How could the vote in Trump v. Barbara have been as close as it was? Many have been bewildered by the vote in this case, given the strength of the arguments in Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion, the long history of birthright citizenship, the statutory history, and the clear text of the 14th amendment. We try to understand this by looking at how the dissents took an aberrant and incorrect approach to the very act of dissenting. To do this, we have to look at a general theory of dissents at the Supreme Court – and so we do. Meanwhile, a foreign nation’s holiday is celebrated, as well it should be given this nation’s role in our own achievement of independence.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 6, Episode 24 (Show 286): Unitary Duality – Guests Steven Calabresi and Vikram Amar
July 8, 2026
The Unitary executive theory took center stage in two cases at the end of the term; we bring you leading experts as we analyze the opinions and the state of the law.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
The Supreme Court ruled in two cases framing Unitary Executive theory. So it’s entirely appropriate that we have two great experts on the topic joining us. Steve Calabresi literally wrote the book on this theory, and perhaps it’s not surprising that he is more pure than the Court itself. Meanwhile, Vik Amar has seen his theories concerning non-delegation and Congressional lock-in come up again and again this term – and here we see it again; if the agencies were meant by Congress to preserve its role in exercising certain powers, how can it reclaim those powers when the independence of the agencies is eliminated? Meanwhile, Akhil, cited in the Slaughter case, reviews the originalism involved in the opinions, and puts the cases in an overall perspective of sorts. All in all, an impressive resource for you to draw on.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Subscribe to “Amarica’s Constitution” by clicking “Subscribe” or “Follow” after selecting your preferred podcast app below.
Season 6, Episode 23 (Show 285): Lincoln’s Promise Kept
July 2, 2026
Birthright citizenship is reaffirmed, and so is Lincoln’s legacy, as the Court decides Trump v. Barbara. We take you through the opinion to find the themes worth finding.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
America gets a 250th birthday present from the Supreme Court as Chief Justice John Roberts authors an opinion for the ages in Trump v. Barbara. The Court went big and decided on the basis of the Constitution, not merely the Congressional statutes, that Abraham Lincoln’s wish for the nation, birthright citizenship, which gives rise to the chance for birth equality and therefore the “new birth of freedom” Lincoln bequeathed us, will live on – and will have its best chance to endure. We look deeply into the opinion to find the great themes the Chief Justice, joined by four women, sounds. And what about the arguments made on this podcast in recent months? Can they be found in the opinion, and if so, do they strengthen it? Join us for a close look.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)