The ground under the Second Amendment keeps shifting—and the story is bigger than a single case. With Professor Nelson Lund of George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, we walk through the decisions that rewrote the playbook: Heller’s recognition of an individual right, McDonald’s incorporation against the states, Bruin’s insistence on a history-and-tradition test, and Rahimi’s controversial turn toward preventive disarmament for those deemed dangerous. Along the way, we unpack why courts once avoided the Second Amendment, how the Fourteenth Amendment became the vehicle for applying it to state laws, and why lower courts swung from broad deference to tighter scrutiny and back again.

We dig into the mechanics of constitutional tests—what counts as a historical analogue, when modern public safety claims carry weight, and how a single sentence in a majority opinion can steer years of litigation. Professor Lund explains why Rahimi, despite its popular appeal, may blur the very standard Bruin tried to clarify, reviving the kind of judicial balancing that Heller warned against. That tension sets the stage for what comes next, because the doctrine is no longer just about muskets and militia; it is about how courts translate old principles to new realities without letting policy preferences masquerade as history.

Looking forward, we preview two cases with outsized impact: Hawaii’s rule that bars carry on private property without explicit permission, and the federal prohibition on firearm possession by unlawful drug users. Both raise high-stakes questions about practical self-defense, public safety, and the limits of historical reasoning. If you care about constitutional law, public policy, or teaching these issues in the classroom, this conversation offers a clear map of where the law has been—and the signals to watch as the Court charts the road ahead. If the episode resonates, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review to help others find thoughtful legal analysis.

Professor Lund recommends The Heritage Guide to the Constitution for more, including the section on the Second Amendment that he authored.

More from Professor Lund Here

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

What happens when a single swing opinion steers higher education for decades—and then the Court changes course? We unpack the legal journey from Bakke’s fragmented ruling to the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions decision, tracing how Justice Powell’s narrow vision of “holistic” diversity took root, evolved in Grutter and Gratz, and ultimately ran into a stricter equal protection and Title VI jurisprudence. Along the way, we break down why quotas were off-limits, how individualized review became the gold standard, and where the latest majority says universities went too far.

With Dr. Beienberg, we revisit the key legal hooks—strict scrutiny, compelling interest, and narrow tailoring—and the uneasy alliance between academic freedom and constitutional limits. We examine the arguments that shaped the field: diversity as an educational benefit versus remediation for generalized discrimination; the role of federal funding under Title VI; and the competing opinions from O’Connor, Roberts, Sotomayor, Jackson, Thomas, and Gorsuch. The Asian American claims at the center of SFFA make the human stakes concrete, raising hard questions about zero-sum admissions, opaque ratings, and what “holistic” truly means when opportunities are finite.

Looking forward, we map practical, race-neutral strategies that universities can pursue without running afoul of the Court: expanding class sizes, rethinking testing, leveraging percent plans, strengthening need-based aid, recruiting across underserved regions, and valuing first-generation and socioeconomic indicators. The message is clear: if diversity remains a goal, institutions must prove that their means are lawful, measurable, and tightly fitted to that end. Subscribe, share, and tell us where you stand on the future of admissions—what solutions would you trust to balance fairness, opportunity, and excellence?

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

A tiny truancy fine opened a constitutional door that still shapes classrooms today. We unpack Wisconsin v. Yoder, the 1972 Supreme Court case where Old Order Amish parents won a free exercise exemption from compulsory high school, and explore how that ruling moved from a narrow carve-out to a live wire in public education. Along the way, we surface the question Justice Douglas couldn’t let go: when parental faith guides a child’s schooling, what room is left for the child’s own future?

We start with the facts on the ground: Amish families who embraced eighth grade but resisted two more years they believed would erode their religious community. The Court’s opinion praised a law-abiding, self-sufficient tradition and concluded Wisconsin lacked a compelling reason to force attendance to sixteen. That framing elevated parental religious liberty while leaving students’ independent interests largely unaddressed, assuming the teenagers’ preferences matched their parents and that practical training would suffice for adult choices beyond the community.

Then the ground shifts. For years, lower courts treated Yoder as an outlier. Now, with Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court reads Yoder as a broad principle: parents may seek relief when school content threatens their religious teaching. That move transforms Yoder from a rural attendance dispute into a modern template for curricular opt-outs, from LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks to other contested topics. We examine what this means for teachers, administrators, and families trying to keep classrooms coherent and inclusive while respecting sincere faith claims. Can schools offer meaningful alternatives without hollowing out core learning? How do we prevent opt-outs from stigmatizing students or shrinking the civic curriculum?

We close by mapping a path forward. Evidence-based pedagogy, transparent communication, and narrowly tailored accommodations can honor religious liberty while protecting student learning and dignity. The hard part is the child-centered question at the heart of this story: safeguarding a young person’s horizon of choice. If this conversation helps you see the stakes—and the nuances—more clearly, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review with your take on where the line should be drawn.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics