Part 2: If Not Viability, Then What?

Part 2: If Not Viability, Then What?

Up next

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl Reprise

Last week, the Supreme Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act in a case called Haaland v. Brackeen. The decision comes almost exactly 10 years after the Supreme Court ruled in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, which planted the seed for last week’s big ruling. ...

  Show more

Off the Record, On the Stand

Recently, On the Media’s Micah Loewinger was called to testify in court. He had reported on militia groups who’d helped lead the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Now the government was using his work as evidence in a case against them. Micah wanted nothing to do with it — he w ...

  Show more

Recommended Episodes

Religious Exemptions From the Founding to Today
Live at the National Constitution Center

The Supreme Court today continues to vigorously debate the scope of religious exemptions—which allow individuals or organizations to be exempt from following certain laws that they say burden their religious beliefs—in high-profile cases such as Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (20 ...  Show more

Federal Judges on Major Supreme Court Cases
Live at the National Constitution Center

We’re back with new episodes sharing our fall programming! On September 17—Constitution Day, the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution—three judges from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals joined host Jeffrey Rosen for a panel. The judges shared an inside look into some o ...  Show more

What Is Project 2025? with Strict Scrutiny
Getting Better with Jonathan Van Ness

The Destiny’s Child of constitutional law (aka Strict Scrutiny) is back on Getting Curious to help us digest and dissect all the wack-a-doodle nonsense that is: Project 2025. Leah Litman & Kate Shaw from the hit podcast Strict Scrutiny sat down with JVN to really parse out the MA ...  Show more

Anthony Michael Kreis, "Rot and Revival: The History of Constitutional Law in American Political Development" (U California Press, 2024)
New Books in Intellectual History

One of the great divides in American judicial scholarship is between legal scholars who take the justices at their word and assume that those words define the law and political scientists who dismiss all judicial arguments as smokescreens for partisan bias or wider political forc ...  Show more