In the aftermath of the Civil War, the Disqualification Clause was adopted to ensure that former officials and soldiers in the Confederacy would be barred from serving in public office.And for the first time in 153 years, an elected official has been disqualified for future office for his role in an insurrection: a New Mexico county commissioner who marched to the Capitol on January 6, 2021.Voters have filed lawsuits against Trump, arguing that the former president’s role in inciting his followers to disrupt the election certification makes him an insurrectionist, and therefore, disqualified from becoming president again. What does all this mean for Trump and his 2024 presidential candidacy?
Gag orders are usually put in place to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial by limiting inflammatory statements. What happens when it's the defendant making the inflammatory statements and that defendant is a current candidate and former President of the United States?
On August 14, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis announced that the grand jury had returned a criminal indictment against Trump and eighteen other defendants for what they did in the days and weeks after the 2020 election. The story told by the indictment is that this group were part of a criminal enterprise that worked towards one singular goal: overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia.One of the people indicted is former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. He is trying to get his case tried in federal court instead of Georgia state court. In his petition, Meadows cites a 1899 case about margarine. Yes, margarine.
19th century "zombie" laws are shambling into the abortion debate. The Comstock Act of 1873 made it illegal to send “obscene, lewd or lascivious,” “immoral,” or “indecent” material through the mail. Does that include abortion pills?Comstock Zombies
On April 4th (that’s tomorrow as I record this) former President Trump is expected to be arraigned in a Manhattan court room. He was indicted by a New York grand jury last week but the exact charges against him remain unknown until he appears in court. On Thursday last week, Elizabeth Joh and I recorded an episode all about the Manhattan District Attorney’s investigation into Trump’s alleged hush money payments and the New York grand jury deliberations. About an hour after we finished that recording, the grand jury indictment was announced. All the reporting so far has indicated that the charges and circumstances around the alleged crimes conform to everything we discussed on March 30th last week, so I thought releasing this was still valuable even though it’s a developing story.
New York's 3rd Congressional District elected a newcomer named George Santos in November of 2022. Since the election, it was revealed that Santos lied about nearly everything on his resume. What does the Constitution say about lies, punishing lies, and punishing someone who lies to get elected? Time to find out!
It’s been established law that it is wrong for businesses to discriminate against customers because of their race or ethnic background, but what if a business owner refuses to serve someone because of their sexual orientation? And what if that business owner asserts that serving a gay customer violates their first amendment rights?
How the Dormant Commerce Clause tries to stop states from passing laws that put an undue burden on interstate commerce and what that means for states that wish to forward specific ethical agendas. Plus, what's going on with student debt relief: who filed a lawsuit against it and why.
When the FBI executed a search warrant on his home, Trump and his lawyers filed their complaints in a district where they thought they’d get sympathetic treatment from Judge Aileen Cannon, who Trump appointed. The assignment of a particular judge is not up to Trump, but in this case, he got lucky, and Cannon was assigned. How did Trump’s gamble on getting his case in front of Judge Cannon work out? Let’s find out.
The official court order that permitted the search of Mar-a-Lago was made public, and even though much of it was redacted, there is a lot of information about what the government was looking for and which crimes the DOJ are investigating .
In the final week of the most recent term, the Supreme Court decided to limit one constitutional right (abortion) and expand another constitutional right (guns). But there were other cases decided that week, which were also important and marked this as one of the most historically significant terms in over 100 years. So what happened in those other cases and why are they so important?
What have we learned from the January 6th Committee hearings and what does is mean for a potential Justice Department investigation of Trump?
The Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision has overturned Roe v. Wade and revoked the right to abortion, a Constitutionally guaranteed right we have had for about 50 years. What happens now?
The recent mass shootings and a New York gun carrying permit case awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court calls for an examination of the current interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Heller decision from 2008 is the foundation of modern thought on the subject, but that decision is based on guessing what law makers thought hundreds of years ago.
The January 6th committee investigation uncovered unhinged texts from Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, that implicated her in the riot on the Capitol. The release of the Trump White House records that led to the discovery of the texts was an issue that was decided by the Supreme Court. In an 8-1 decision the Court ordered the records released. The lone dissenter was Clarence Thomas. What are the ethical rules for conflicts of interest and the appearance of impartiality on the Supreme Court?Plus, a new district court judge throws out the mask mandate.
On May 2, 2022 a draft majority opinion written by Justice Alito was leaked to the press. His draft opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturns Roe v. Wade and puts many other constitutional rights the court has guaranteed under the 14th Amendment under threat.
Trump's improper dealing with Ukraine was what led to his first impeachment. While most of us were focused on the domestic political implications of Trump's actions, the country of Ukraine was put into jeopardy in a way that many didn't fully realize until the recent Russian invasion. Time to revisit the first Trump impeachment now that we know more about who was on the other end of that phone line and the imminent danger they were in.
A school district in Tennessee voted to ban the graphic novel Maus from their curriculum. Because of a case called Pico (1982) the school board's stated objection to the material had to be very carefully worded as to not violate the First Amendment. Now a number of bills limiting the teaching of Critical Race Theory and the 1619 Project are also making their way through state legislatures. What can the government do about the books in the school library and the classroom and what does the Constitution say about it?Plus we talk about the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.
What two rulings about COVID vaccine mandates tell us about the future of the Administrative State under this configuration of the Supreme Court. Plus updates on Texas abortion rights, Executive Privilege in the Jan 6 investigations, and Breyer!
Supreme Court cases from Mississippi and Texas are challenging long upheld precedents that established abortion rights. Reproductive rights, and many others, are not explicitly referenced in the Constitution, but are considered fundamental because of the presence of the word "liberty" in the 14th Amendment.
ncooty
It is truly insane that some people are so dedicated to lowering the bar for the presidency.
ncooty
@2:00: As is often the case, Prof. Joh seems to present a confused picture of the role of law by blurring the lines between (a) legislation and (b) common conceptualizations of morality. She often refers to common feelings that something is wrong (i.e., an intuitive sense of injustice) rather than referring to laws. Does she imagine courts are free-wheeling arbiters of morality? Many times, what she (like many uneducated people) casts as a bad judicial decision is better understood as a failure of legislation.
Hanaconda
I can see a legal solution here: all pork produced under lacking welfare standards must be labelled as "Unethical Pork" in order to be sold in California.
ncooty
Part of what must be confounding about this case for conservatives is that is cuts against their core ethos of "might makes right", which often manifests as "one vote per dollar" vs. "one vote per person". Then again, they are masters of double-think: self-proclaimed victims of constraints on their oppression of others. In a way, this case is part of conservatives' long-running argument against the legitimacy of democracy (going back to Burke and the monarchists). That is, what makes California's law wrong in their view is that it relies on collective action, which they view as illegitimate.
ncooty
Interesting discussion, but badly framed. Prof. Joh acts as if the court's (and the judicial branch's) mandate is to do what's best for the country. That is not the case. The mandate of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws, and, when the law is unclear, the 9th and 10th amendments require that deference be given to the states. This is a fundamental question about judicial philosophy, so it's frustrating that Prof. Joh seems to have fumbled it so badly.