More Perfect

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission is one of the most polarizing Supreme Court cases of all time. So what is it actually about, and why did the Justices decide the way they did? Justice Anthony Kennedy, often called the “most powerful man in America,” wrote the majority opinion in the case. In this episode, we examine Kennedy’s singular devotion to the First Amendment and look at how it may have influenced his decision in the case. 

The key voices:

• Kai Newkirk, 99 Rise 
• Michael Boos, vice president and general counsel of Citizens United 
• Jim Bopp, lawyer, The Bopp Law Firm
• Marcia Coyle, chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal
• Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, a contributing editor of The Atlantic, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution
• Jeffrey Toobin, writer and contributor to The New Yorker and CNN
• Michael Dorf, professor of law at Cornell University and former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy
• Alex Kozinski, circuit judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy**

The key cases:

• 2010: Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commision

The key links:

• Citizens United
• "Money Unlimited," by Jeffrey Toobin

Correction: A earlier version of this episode misstated the date of the last day of the 2009 term. 

Additional music for this episode by:

 Gyan Riley 

Kevin MacLeod 
"Bad Ideas (distressed)"
Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Special thanks to Justin Levitt, Guy-Uriel Charles, William Baude, Helen Knowles, and Derek John. 

Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation.

Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

**This episode was taped prior to The Washington Post's reporting on Judge Alex Kozinski which was published on December 8, 2017. 

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission is one of the most polarizing Supreme Court cases of all time. So what is it actually about, and why did the Justices decide the way they did? Justice Anthony Kennedy, often called the “most powerful man in America,” wrote the majority opinion in the case. In this episode, we examine Kennedy’s singular devotion to the First Amendment and look at how it may have influenced his decision in the case. 

The key voices:

• Kai Newkirk, 99 Rise 
• Michael Boos, vice president and general counsel of Citizens United 
• Jim Bopp, lawyer, The Bopp Law Firm
• Marcia Coyle, chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal
• Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, a contributing editor of The Atlantic, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution
• Jeffrey Toobin, writer and contributor to The New Yorker and CNN
• Michael Dorf, professor of law at Cornell University and former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy
• Alex Kozinski, circuit judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and former clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy**

The key cases:

• 2010: Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commision

The key links:

• Citizens United
• "Money Unlimited," by Jeffrey Toobin

Correction: A earlier version of this episode misstated the date of the last day of the 2009 term. 

Additional music for this episode by:

 Gyan Riley 

Kevin MacLeod 
"Bad Ideas (distressed)"
Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

Special thanks to Justin Levitt, Guy-Uriel Charles, William Baude, Helen Knowles, and Derek John. 

Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation.

Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

Should the U.S. Supreme Court be the court of the world? In the 18th century, two feuding Frenchmen inspired a one-sentence law that helped launch American human rights litigation into the 20th century. The Alien Tort Statute allowed a Paraguayan woman to find justice for a terrible crime committed in her homeland. But as America reached further and further out into the world, the court was forced to confront the contradictions in our country’s ideology: sympathy vs. sovereignty. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Jesner v. Arab Bank, a case that could reshape the way America responds to human rights abuses abroad. Does the A.T.S. secure human rights or is it a dangerous overreach?

The key voices:

• Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., son of activist Ken Saro-Wiwa Sr.
• Dolly Filártiga, sister of Joelito Filártiga
• Paloma Calles, daughter of Dolly Filártiga
• Peter Weiss, lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights who represented Dolly Filártiga in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala
• Katherine Gallagher, lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights
• Paul Hoffman, lawyer who represented Kiobel in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum
• John Bellinger, former legal adviser for the U.S. Department of State and the National Security Council
• William Casto, professor at Texas Tech University School of Law
• Eric Posner, professor at University of Chicago Law School
• Samuel Moyn, professor at Yale University
• René Horst, professor at Appalachian State University

The key cases:

• 1984: Filártiga v. Peña-Irala
• 2013: Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum
• 2017: Jesner v. Arab Bank

The key links:

• Center for Constitutional Rights

Additional music for this episode by Nicolas Carter.

Special thanks to William J. Aceves, William Baude, Diego Calles, Alana Casanova-Burgess, William Dodge, Susan Farbstein, Jeffery Fisher, Joanne Freeman, Julian Ku, Nicholas Rosenkranz, Susan Simpson, Emily Vinson, Benjamin Wittes and Jamison York. Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., who appears in this episode, passed away in October 2016.

Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation.

Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

Should the U.S. Supreme Court be the court of the world? In the 18th century, two feuding Frenchmen inspired a one-sentence law that helped launch American human rights litigation into the 20th century. The Alien Tort Statute allowed a Paraguayan woman to find justice for a terrible crime committed in her homeland. But as America reached further and further out into the world, the court was forced to confront the contradictions in our country’s ideology: sympathy vs. sovereignty. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Jesner v. Arab Bank, a case that could reshape the way America responds to human rights abuses abroad. Does the A.T.S. secure human rights or is it a dangerous overreach?

The key voices:

• Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., son of activist Ken Saro-Wiwa Sr.
• Dolly Filártiga, sister of Joelito Filártiga
• Paloma Calles, daughter of Dolly Filártiga
• Peter Weiss, lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights who represented Dolly Filártiga in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala
• Katherine Gallagher, lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights
• Paul Hoffman, lawyer who represented Kiobel in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum
• John Bellinger, former legal adviser for the U.S. Department of State and the National Security Council
• William Casto, professor at Texas Tech University School of Law
• Eric Posner, professor at University of Chicago Law School
• Samuel Moyn, professor at Yale University
• René Horst, professor at Appalachian State University

The key cases:

• 1984: Filártiga v. Peña-Irala
• 2013: Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum
• 2017: Jesner v. Arab Bank

The key links:

• Center for Constitutional Rights

Additional music for this episode by Nicolas Carter.

Special thanks to William J. Aceves, William Baude, Diego Calles, Alana Casanova-Burgess, William Dodge, Susan Farbstein, Jeffery Fisher, Joanne Freeman, Julian Ku, Nicholas Rosenkranz, Susan Simpson, Emily Vinson, Benjamin Wittes and Jamison York. Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., who appears in this episode, passed away in October 2016.

Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation.

Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

The Supreme Court may not have been conceptualized as a co-equal branch of the federal government, but it became one as a result of the political maneuvering of Chief Justice John Marshall. The fourth (and longest-serving) chief justice was "a great lover of power," according to historian Jill Lepore, but he was also a great lover of secrecy. Marshall believed, in order for the justices to confer with each other candidly, their papers needed to remain secret in perpetuity. It was under this veil of secrecy that the biggest heist in the history of the Supreme Court took place. 

The key voices:

• Jill Lepore, professor of American history at Harvard University

The key links:

• "The Great Paper Caper," The New Yorker (2014)
• Felix Frankfurter, Supreme Court justice 1939 to 1962

Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation.

Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. 

The Supreme Court may not have been conceptualized as a co-equal branch of the federal government, but it became one as a result of the political maneuvering of Chief Justice John Marshall. The fourth (and longest-serving) chief justice was "a great lover of power," according to historian Jill Lepore, but he was also a great lover of secrecy. Marshall believed, in order for the justices to confer with each other candidly, their papers needed to remain secret in perpetuity. It was under this veil of secrecy that the biggest heist in the history of the Supreme Court took place. 

The key voices:

• Jill Lepore, professor of American history at Harvard University

The key links:

• "The Great Paper Caper," The New Yorker (2014)
• Felix Frankfurter, Supreme Court justice 1939 to 1962

Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation.

Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. 

For nearly 200 years of our nation’s history, the Second Amendment was an all-but-forgotten rule about the importance of militias. But in the 1960s and 70s, a movement emerged — led by Black Panthers and a recently-repositioned NRA — that insisted owning a firearm was the right of each and every American. So began a constitutional debate that only the Supreme Court could solve. That didn’t happen until 2008, when a Washington, D.C. security guard named Dick Heller made a compelling case.

The key voices:

• Adam Winkler, professor at UCLA School of Law, author of Gunfight
• Jill Lepore, professor of American history at Harvard University
• Stephen Halbrook, attorney specializing in Second Amendment litigation
• Bobby Seale, co-founder of the Black Panther Party
• John Aquilino, former spokesman of the National Rifle Association
• Joseph P. Tartaro, president of the Second Amendment Foundation
• Sanford Levinson, professor at the University of Texas Law School 
• Clark Neily, vice president for criminal justice at the Cato Institute, represented Dick Heller in District of Columbia v. Heller
• Robert Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute, helped finance Dick Heller’s case in District of Columbia v. Heller
• Alan Gura, appellate constitutional attorney, argued District of Columbia v. Heller on behalf of Dick Heller
• Dick Heller, plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller
• Joan Biskupic, author of American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia 
• Jack Rakove, professor of history and political science at Stanford University 

The key cases:

• 2008: District of Columbia v. Heller

The key links:

• Black Panther Party protest the Mulford Act at the California State Capitol in Sacramento

Special thanks to Mark Hughes, Sally Hadden, Jamal Greene, Emily Palmer, Sharon LaFraniere, Alan Morrison, Robert Pollie, Joseph Blocher, William Baude, Tara Grove, and the Oakland Museum of California.

Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation.

Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

For nearly 200 years of our nation’s history, the Second Amendment was an all-but-forgotten rule about the importance of militias. But in the 1960s and 70s, a movement emerged — led by Black Panthers and a recently-repositioned NRA — that insisted owning a firearm was the right of each and every American. So began a constitutional debate that only the Supreme Court could solve. That didn’t happen until 2008, when a Washington, D.C. security guard named Dick Heller made a compelling case.

The key voices:

• Adam Winkler, professor at UCLA School of Law, author of Gunfight
• Jill Lepore, professor of American history at Harvard University
• Stephen Halbrook, attorney specializing in Second Amendment litigation
• Bobby Seale, co-founder of the Black Panther Party
• John Aquilino, former spokesman of the National Rifle Association
• Joseph P. Tartaro, president of the Second Amendment Foundation
• Sanford Levinson, professor at the University of Texas Law School 
• Clark Neily, vice president for criminal justice at the Cato Institute, represented Dick Heller in District of Columbia v. Heller
• Robert Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute, helped finance Dick Heller’s case in District of Columbia v. Heller
• Alan Gura, appellate constitutional attorney, argued District of Columbia v. Heller on behalf of Dick Heller
• Dick Heller, plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller
• Joan Biskupic, author of American Original: The Life and Constitution of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia 
• Jack Rakove, professor of history and political science at Stanford University 

The key cases:

• 2008: District of Columbia v. Heller

The key links:

• Black Panther Party protest the Mulford Act at the California State Capitol in Sacramento

Special thanks to Mark Hughes, Sally Hadden, Jamal Greene, Emily Palmer, Sharon LaFraniere, Alan Morrison, Robert Pollie, Joseph Blocher, William Baude, Tara Grove, and the Oakland Museum of California.

Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation.

Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

“It is an invidious, undemocratic, and unconstitutional practice,” Justice John Paul Stevens said of gerrymandering in Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004). Politicians have been manipulating district lines to favor one party over another since the founding of our nation. But with a case starting today, Gill v. Whitford, the Supreme Court may be in a position to crack this historical nut once and for all.

Up until this point, the court didn’t have a standard measure or test for how much one side had unfairly drawn district lines. But “the efficiency gap” could be it. The mathematical formula measures how many votes Democrats and Republicans waste in elections — if either side is way outside the norm, there may be some foul play at hand. According to Loyola law professor Justin Levitt, both the case and the formula arrive at a critical time: “After the census in 2020, all sorts of different bodies will redraw all sorts of different lines and this case will help decide how and where.”

The key voices:

• Moon Duchin, Associate Professor at Tufts University
• Justin Levitt, Professor of Law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles

The key cases:

• 2004: Vieth v. Jubelirer
• 2017: Gill v. Whitford

The key links:

• “A Formula Goes to Court” by Mira Bernstein and Moon Duchin
• “Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap” by Nicholas Stephanopoulos and Eric McGhee 

Special thanks to David Herman.

Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation.

Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell. 

“It is an invidious, undemocratic, and unconstitutional practice,” Justice John Paul Stevens said of gerrymandering in Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004). Politicians have been manipulating district lines to favor one party over another since the founding of our nation. But with a case starting today, Gill v. Whitford, the Supreme Court may be in a position to crack this historical nut once and for all.

Up until this point, the court didn’t have a standard measure or test for how much one side had unfairly drawn district lines. But “the efficiency gap” could be it. The mathematical formula measures how many votes Democrats and Republicans waste in elections — if either side is way outside the norm, there may be some foul play at hand. According to Loyola law professor Justin Levitt, both the case and the formula arrive at a critical time: “After the census in 2020, all sorts of different bodies will redraw all sorts of different lines and this case will help decide how and where.”

The key voices:

• Moon Duchin, Associate Professor at Tufts University
• Justin Levitt, Professor of Law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles

The key cases:

• 2004: Vieth v. Jubelirer
• 2017: Gill v. Whitford

The key links:

• “A Formula Goes to Court” by Mira Bernstein and Moon Duchin
• “Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap” by Nicholas Stephanopoulos and Eric McGhee 

Special thanks to David Herman.

Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation.

Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.