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. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges 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. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The Birthright Citizenship case 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. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.