Season 5, Episode 29 (Show 238): Skrmetti Skirmish – Special Guest Vikram D. Amar
August 6, 2025
We continue examining the deep issues in US v. Skrmetti. Professor Vik Amar returns in part two, as the oral argument takes a turn.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
We continue our discussion of the deep issues raised in the case of US v. Skrmetti. Last time we observed the Court wrestling with questions of whether the Tennessee law banning gender dysphoria treatments in minors was a form of sex discrimination. Later in the argument the Court addressed the question of whether transgender individuals, or some related group, constituted a so-called “suspect classification” and therefore laws purporting to affect that group would be subject to close examination (“Scrutiny”) by the Court. In this episode we listen, and react to, those arguments as the Court itself did. Professor Vik Amar returns to join Akhil in this task, and rightly so, since the “brothers in law” have written several recent posts on the deep questions raised by this and other recent cases. This has resulted in a new unifying theory which they begin to articulate in this episode.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 5, Episode 28 (Show 237): Geduldigging Your Grave at Oral Argument – Special Guest Vikram D. Amar
July 30, 2025
US v. Skrmetti is dissected beginning to end with the help of our guest, Professor Vik Amar, in part one of a deep dive into this important case.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
The Supreme Court’s term is long since complete, but we turn back the clock and take a deep dive into one of the major cases of the term, United States v. Skrmetti. This case addressed questions of gender dysphoria treatment and transgender rights, but fundamentally, it was a case about the law of equality, say the brothers Amar. Yes, Vik Amar is back as a guest, and our two experts go back and listen to the oral argument and react to the Justices and the advocates as they present. It turns out that this is an excellent case for learning about how the law attempts to implement the equality promises of the Constitution, and you will hear the Justices engage in this action, or inaction. Our experts add more than their take on the arguments – they have theories that go beyond anything said in Court that day or written in the opinions that followed. This is part one of a multi-part summer treat from Amarica’s Constitution.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 5, Episode 27 (Show 236): Fallon’s Doctrine – Special Guest Michael Dorf
July 23, 2025
The passing of a great constitutional scholar, Richard Fallon, brings a tribute from Professor Amar and our guest, Professor Michael Dorf, a friend and close colleague, along with an appraisal and review of his impact on the world of constitutional law.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
We pay tribute this week to a titan in the field whom you may not have heard of. Professor Richard Fallon, the Joseph Story Professor of Law at Harvard, passed away last week. As you will hear from his collaborator and friend, our guest Professor Michael Dorf, Dick Fallon had a deep impact in the law and the academy, and did so with grace, class, and integrity. The parallels between his career and Professor Amar’s are striking, but so is the divergence in their constitutional approaches. And this makes for a fascinating and instructive episode as we probe, rather deeply, the nature of these divergences and how they appear in various places in the law. Meanwhile this also brings us back to a fundamental matter for this podcast, namely, the nature of and validity of originalism as opposed to or in concert with other methods of interpreting and understanding the constitution and applying it in today’s, and tomorrow’s, America. That America must now, sadly, go on without Dick Fallon, but it will do so informed by his career and his greatness. We are fortunate to have Michael Dorf to show us why this is so.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 5, Episode 26 (Show 235): Firing Line, Then and Now – Special Guests US Rep. Jamie Raskin, and Author Sam Tanenhaus
July 16, 2025
We interview probably the greatest constitutional expert in Congress today, Representative Raskin. And fittingly, we chat with Sam Tanenhaus, the biographer of one of the greatest interviewers of all time, William F. Buckley.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD 8) was the House manager of the second Trump impeachment in the Senate; is an outstanding constitutional scholar; a long-time law professor; a renowned author; a driving force behind the January 6th committee; and the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. For the great privilege of interviewing him, we need all the tools a great interviewer would have. It is therefore appropriate that we also interview Sam Tanenhaus, the biographer, in a new and magisterial work, of William F. Buckley, perhaps the best known and most fearlessly non-partisan in his selection of interview subjects. Sam Tanenhaus has written the definitive work on Buckley, whose Firing Line project was in some ways an inspiration for our own podcast.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 5, Episode 25 (Show 234): Speaking the Law
July 9, 2025
The Supreme Court is heard from in the birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Casa – or are they?
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
The Birthright Citizenship case, Trump v. Casa, reached the Supreme Court – sort of. The Court ruled on the executive branch’s request for a stay in response to nationwide injunctions issued by three different circuit courts, where the executive order purporting to alter more than a century’s practice regarding the Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship was blocked by these courts. In doing so the Court declined – that is, the majority declined – to address the merits. Still, the nationwide injunction issue was addressed – at least for now.. Akhil takes the Court to task for avoiding the merits, and he offers numerous ways by which this could have been – should have been – done. He also presents a new approach that litigants in these cases might consider as they deal with various tactics the government may employ in the service of an executive order they may not expect to be upheld. Along the way Akhil offers some suggestions for consequences that might be faced by the executive officials, maybe not in our government as currently functioning, but at least in theory. There’s a lot here even if what is most notable for many of us is what the Court has left hanging.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)
Show Notes:
Season 5, Episode 24 (Show 233): Children, Indoctrination, and Ideas
July 2, 2025
The Supreme Court issued a number of highly anticipated opinions last week. We take up the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor, concerning parental rights and religious education.
CLE Credit Available for this episode from podcast.njsba.com.
The end of the term arrives, and the Court is busy. We begin our dive into the cases with Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case involving inclusive books in a school, parental guidance of religious education, opt-outs, advance notification, and issues of gender and sexual education. Professor Amar goes beyond the case with an overall theory of religious accommodation; indeed, he goes beyond this into questions of parental rights and how it may interact with first amendment law. We also have some announcements of future events.
(LAWYERS AND JUDGES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION CREDIT by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.)