April 20, 2017
In this episode Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and his guest Joseph Tartakovsky, Nevada Deputy Solicitor General and the Claremont Institute's James Wilson Fellow in Constitutional Law, discuss religious discrimination issues within Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer.
This case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 19th. The issue before the Court involves the Missouri Department of Natural Resources denial of a state grant to resurface a playground at a child-learning center in Missouri solely because a church operates the center. The church argued that its exclusion from a state run program, whose purpose is to assist non-profit organizations with obtaining rubber playground surfaces, is a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against religious institutions. Meanwhile, the state argued that there is no constitutional violation because the church can still run its learning center, and the state constitution forbids government aid to educational institutions that have a religious affiliation.
Additionally, Dr. Eastman was joined by Professor Anthony T. Caso to take a look at what Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court may mean for our efforts to roll back the administrative state and restore the constitution’s limitations on executive power. Professor Caso is the Director of our Constitutional Jurisprudence Clinic at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law.
April 13, 2017
On April 7th, Claremont Review of Books Senior Editor William Voegeli joined Deutsche Welle's Ben Bathke to discuss his latest CRB piece, entitled "The Democratic Party’s Identity Crisis."
April 10, 2017
After Democrats successfully blocked Judge Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court nomination from advancing in the Senate, Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, joined "McIntyre in the Morning" to discuss the Republicans' vow to use the nuclear option.
March 31, 2017
During the Obama administration we watched the government's willingness to enforce its preferences in the lives of citizens increase exponentially in almost every arena. In this podcast Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and his guests will take up two cases arguing against this unconstitutional interference: Murr v. Wisconsin, a property rights case; and Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., a transgender bathroom case.
John Groen, lead counsel for the Murr family in Murr v. Wisconsin, and General Counsel and Senior Attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation joins us in this town hall. The Murrs challenge a legal precedent instituted in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York (1978), which made it nearly impossible for property owners to win compensation when state regulations take their property. The Center filed a brief supporting the Murrs' argument that regulations that effectively hold private property hostage require just compensation under the Constitution.
On March 6 the Supreme Court vacated and remanded our second case back to the 4th Circuit after President Trump rescinded the guidance that added protections for transgender students to Title IX. Dr. Eastman is joined by Stephanie Taub, Counsel with First Liberty Institute, to discuss Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., and its return to the 4th Circuit. In 2015 a transgender student in Virginia sued the school district for access to the men's bathroom. The 4th Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision granting access, and the School Board appealed to the Supreme Court, asking whether the federal statute's reinterpretation by a low-level bureaucrat was entitled to deference, and whether the Department's reinterpretation of Title IX should be given effect. The Center filed a brief on behalf of the National Organization of Marriage in support of the school board.
March 21, 2017
Claremont Institute Senior Fellow Dr. John Eastman joined Gurvey's Law to discuss court challenges to President Trump's recent executive order on immigration, and whether or not they are politically-motivated.
March 6, 2017
President Trump's address before Congress conveyed a very different tone than his inaugural or campaign speeches.
Instead of focusing on what he sees as the country's disastrous condition, he touted improvements he says are coming. Now the question is whether Congress will agree with his plans. Right now, both sides are meeting on healthcare reform.
Charles Kesler, Dengler-Dykema Distinguished Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College and editor of the Claremont Review of Books
Caroline Heldman, associate professor of politics at Occidental College and co-author of ‘Rethinking Madam President: Are We Ready for a Woman in the White House?’ (Lynne Rienner Pub, 2007)
March 6, 2017
Author and Senior Editor of the Claremont Review of Books, William Voegeli joined the Sons of Lincoln to discuss his books: Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State (Encounter Books, 2010); and The Pity Party: A Mean-Spirited Diatribe Against Liberal Compassion (Broadside Books, 2014).Voegeli also discussed the growing entitlement state, President Trump's first few weeks in office, the liberal mind, and more!
March 2, 2017
In this podcast Dr. John C. Eastman, Founding Director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and his guest, Andrew C. McCarthy, a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, discuss the issues surrounding the Constitutional rights of non-citizens who are located outside of the United States. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Hernández v. Mesa on February 21, and President Trump’s Executive Order on immigration continues to be a hot topic of discussion. We tackle the questions at issue in both of these cases in this town hall.
In Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the Supreme Court blurred the line that determines when Constitutional protections apply to an individual who is not physically located within the borders of the United States. The Court determined that Constitutional protections extend to individuals based on “objective factors and practical concerns, not formalism.” In Hernández v. Mesa, three teenage boys were found in the concrete culvert separating El Paso, Texas and Juarez, Mexico by U.S. Border Agent Jesus Mesa. He caught one of the boys while the other two ran for the Mexican side of the culvert. While standing on U.S. soil, Agent Mesa shot Hernández, who was on Mexican soil. The Court is asked to decide whether they want the courts below to apply a formal or a functional analysis to cases asking what Constitutional protections individuals like Hernández enjoy.
The national conversation regarding President Trump’s executive order (EO) suspending entry into the U.S. from seven countries with ties to terrorism raises similar questions. On January 27, the President issued his order, and on February 3, Judge James Robart issued a nation-wide temporary restraining order to halt its implementation. The Ninth Circuit allowed the temporary restraining order to stand. The case now has three paths: appeal to the Supreme Court, reconsideration by the full Ninth Circuit, or back to Judge Robart to consider the merits of the case.
January 23, 2017
Charles Kesler, Senior Fellow at The Claremont Institute and Editor of the Claremont Review of Books, on President Trump's Inauguration.