Constitutional Chats Presented By Constituting America Cathy Gillespie

The Constitution dictates every 10 years we undergo a Census to count how many people live in each state.  Based off these population numbers, congressional seats are then apportioned.  States who lost population might lose a seat and states who grew may gain a seat or two since we can only have 435 total seats in the U.S. House.  This brings up an obvious question: who gets to redraw congressional districts after apportionment and can they redraw those districts for a political benefit?  This is where gerrymandering comes into play.  According to our guest expert, “gerrymandering” is drawing districts that are perceived to be unfair in their representation.  To further complicate the issue, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 placed restrictions on how these districts are redrawn and subsequent Supreme Court decisions have further altered this process.  The current Supreme Court case Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP has the potential to challenge again how districts are redrawn. It’s a complicated issue but we are grateful to have as our guest Mark Braden, an attorney with BakerHostetler who specializes in election law and voting issues to help us navigate this issue.

City Councils all across the country have been tackling an issue that has bipartisan concern: how to tackle homeless populations within their cities.  Grants Pass, OR., is one such city.  Grants Pass is in the middle of the Supreme Court case Johnson v. Grants Pass that is challenging that city’s ability to levy civil and criminal punishments to deter homeless encampments.  A Supreme Court decision is expected this summer.  To help our student panel understand the broad implications of this Supreme Court case and the “strait jacket” put on cities by lower courts to enforce their ordinances, we are delighted to welcome Thomas Jipping, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation for this timely chat.

Trial by jury and fair court proceedings bound by constitutional restraint are bedrock principles of our federal government.  Imagine being charged with a crime by a federal agency except the agency handles the entire court proceedings with a judge on its payroll.  The Securities and Exchange Commission was created by a 1934 act in response to the Great Depression and Stock Market Crash of 1929.  In 2008, in response to the financial crisis, its powers were significantly expanded through the Dodd Frank Act.  Under that legislation, the SEC was allowed to have in-house court proceedings with administrative law judges it hires.  As such, prosecutorial, judicial, enforcement and punishment power is all held within a singular agency.  A current Supreme Court case, SEC v. Jarkesy, is challenging that power.  Join our all-star student panel and our special guest, Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, as we discuss this case, its ramifications and the caution George Washington gave us when he spoke against unfair quasi-courts.

In February of this year, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Ohio v. EPA.  This case challenges the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to enforce the Good Neighbor Plan which aims to curb pollution carried by the wind into neighboring states. As usual, legal proceedings can easily become confusing as a lawsuit makes its way to the Supreme Court.  Fortunately, we are welcoming back Steve Bradbury, a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation, to help us unravel this case as we discuss the background and ramifications of this lawsuit.

Federally, we have 536 elected positions between Congress and the President.  We then have 2.8 million federal employees.  How do we limit the power among the unelected officials we have in our federal government?  To tackle this very important question, the Supreme Court introduced the Chevron Doctrine (also called the Chevron Deference) as a result of the 1984 Supreme Court case Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.  To help us understand the complexities of the Chevron Doctrine, how the powers of unelected officials have grown over the years and how current cases before the Supreme Court may affect these powers, we are happy to welcome to our discussion Jack Fitzhenry, Legal Fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

Presidential immunity is in the news a lot lately.  It derives from a notion that all three branches of government retain powers to execute their duties under the constitution.  But there is also a tradition in our country that no one is above the law.  In a nation that follows established law, not following those laws can lead to anarchy or distrust in the government.  We have a lot to unpack with this very timely and relevant topic. To help us do so alongside our student panel, we are delighted to welcome fan-favorite guest Adam Carrington, associate professor of politics at Hillsdale College.