Civics In A Year

The Center for American Civics
  • 4.0 (3)
  • COURSES

What do you really know about American government, the Constitution, and your rights as a citizen? Civics in a Year is a fast-paced podcast series that delivers essential civic knowledge in just 10 minutes per episode. Over the course of a year, we’ll explore 250 key questions—from the founding documents and branches of government to civil liberties, elections, and public participation. Rooted in the Civic Literacy Curriculum from the Center for American Civics at Arizona State University, this series is a collaborative project supported by the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership. Each episode is designed to spark curiosity, strengthen constitutional understanding, and encourage active citizenship. Whether you're a student, educator, or lifelong learner, Civics in a Year will guide you through the building blocks of American democracy—one question at a time.

  1. 1D AGO

    Why America Made Christmas A Federal Holiday

    A holiday can be more than a date off work; it can be a quiet pact about what a free people hold in common. We dig into Christmas as both a religious feast and a civic tradition, exploring why Congress recognized it in 1870 and how that choice still shapes American public life. With Dr. James Stoner of LSU, we trace the legal and cultural threads that turned a holy day into a shared civic rhythm—touching the Constitution’s “Sundays excepted” clause, early fights over Sunday mail, and the way new technology like the telegraph altered the balance between constant commerce and communal rest. We walk through the expansion of federal holidays and what that reveals about democratic change, from Decoration Day and Armistice Day to Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Juneteenth. Along the way, we examine court decisions that let nativity scenes share space with reindeer and trees, clarifying why mixed displays pass constitutional muster. We also confront the paradox of commercialization: how retail seasons inverted Advent’s old timetable yet helped translate Christmas into a cultural practice legible in public spaces without state endorsement of belief. By the end, we offer a clear takeaway for a pluralist republic approaching America 250: government should not manufacture virtue, but it can avoid standing in the way of the institutions and customs—families, congregations, neighborhoods—that cultivate generosity and civic friendship. If our calendar is a mirror, it reflects more than markets and laws; it reflects our choices about rest, memory, and the freedoms that let diverse traditions flourish side by side. If this conversation gave you fresh perspective, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review so more listeners can find it. What should our civic calendar honor next? Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum! School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership Center for American Civics

    30 min

  2. 2D AGO

    Inside The Sixth Amendment: Rights That Shape Justice

    Power decides what counts as fair—unless people do. That’s the heartbeat of our conversation with Professor Esther Hong, a scholar of youth and adult carceral systems and a former appellate advocate, as we unpack how the Sixth Amendment still guards legitimacy in a justice system dominated by plea deals. We walk through the core rights—speedy and public trial, impartial jury, notice of charges, assistance of counsel, confrontation, cross-examination, and compulsory process—and trace how they became binding on the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. We explore why Gideon v. Wainwright is more than the right to counsel; it’s a landmark in incorporation that shaped modern criminal procedure. From there, we look squarely at the rise of plea bargaining and the Supreme Court’s recognition in Lafler and Frye that real-world fairness requires effective counsel during negotiations. Even when trials are rare, those trial-centered rights still set the terms of negotiation and keep the state’s burden high. Juries get special focus through Duncan v. Louisiana: ordinary citizens serve as a deliberate check on concentrated power, especially in serious cases where liberty hangs in the balance. We also examine the confrontation right through Crawford v. Washington, which re-centered live, adversarial testing of testimonial statements and rejected convictions built on untested accusations. Along the way, we push back on myths from televised trials, noting that many cases move fast, often without juries, and sometimes without counsel, while the Sixth Amendment continues to function as a constitutional North Star. If you want a clear, grounded tour of how counsel, juries, and confrontation still shape fairness—and how incorporation brought these protections into everyday state practice—this conversation offers both legal insight and practical context. Subscribe, share with a friend who loves law and policy, and leave a review telling us which Sixth Amendment right you think needs the strongest protection right now. Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum! School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership Center for American Civics

    18 min

  3. 2D AGO

    What Gideon v. Wainwright Teaches About Rights, Funding, And Real Justice

    A single Supreme Court decision promised that no one would face the power of the state without a lawyer. The more complex question: who pays, who shows up, and how do we make that promise real? We sit down with Professor Sarah Mayeux, a legal historian at Vanderbilt University and author of Free Justice, to trace how Gideon v. Wainwright redefined the right to counsel—and why the work of building public defense still challenges courts and communities today. We start with the legal arc that led to 1963: early cases guaranteeing counsel in death penalty and federal trials, and a Warren Court ready to move from “special circumstances” to a clear rule for state felony prosecutions. Professor Mayeux brings a fresh lens, placing Gideon in a Cold War era where the United States staked its identity on individual rights and fair process, contrasting itself with totalitarian regimes. That cultural backdrop helps explain the Court’s rhetoric and its conviction that counsel is fundamental to American justice. From there, we dive into implementation. Gideon never ordered states to create public defender offices or set caseload limits; it declared a right and left the machinery to politics. Some states were prepared with established defender systems; others retrofitted private legal aid groups with public dollars or experimented with panel appointments. We examine the gains—more offices, more trained defenders, stronger advocacy—and the gaps that persist: chronic underfunding, excessive caseloads, rural deserts, and uneven quality across counties. The conversation draws a sharp distinction between constitutional doctrine and the budgets, staffing pipelines, and independence safeguards that determine whether a right is meaningful day to day. If you care about criminal justice reform, indigent defense, and how rights become reality, this is a grounded, practical guide to where progress has been made and where it stalls. Listen for a roadmap to better policy: enforceable caseload standards, stable statewide funding, independent defender governance, and investment in investigators and support staff. If the promise of Gideon matters to you, subscribe, share the episode with someone who needs to hear it, and leave a review telling us where your community should start. Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum! School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership Center for American Civics

    19 min

  4. 5D AGO

    Chickens, Wheat, And The Commerce Clause

    A chicken counter, a wheat field, and a school-zone arrest shouldn’t define the reach of federal power—but they do. We unpack how a few pivotal cases turned the Commerce Clause from a narrow trade rule into the engine of modern regulation, and where the Court has since tried to tap the brakes without stalling the system. We start with Schechter Poultry’s unanimous stand against federal micromanagement of a local butcher, then pivot to Wickard v. Filburn, where the justices embraced the aggregation principle: if lots of people act locally, the nationwide market moves, and Congress can act. That shift greenlit much of the New Deal order and still underwrites environmental rules, labor standards, and agriculture policy. We track the federalism pushback that followed, culminating in United States v. Lopez, which declared that guns near schools are a safety concern, not economic activity, and thus beyond the commerce power. From there, we navigate Gonzales v. Raich, where the Court treated homegrown marijuana as part of a broader market Congress aimed to suppress, showing that goods and markets remain squarely within reach even when activity looks local. We close with NFIB v. Sebelius and the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate: Congress cannot force people into commerce to regulate them under the Commerce Clause, but a tax can achieve similar aims. Along the way, we highlight the competing logics—macroeconomic effects versus state police powers—and the practical politics that shape how Congress drafts laws to survive review. If you’ve ever wondered why federal rules can touch your farm, your storefront, or your clinic, this story explains the path from text to doctrine to daily life. Subscribe for more sharp constitutional deep dives, share this episode with someone who loves a good legal plot twist, and tell us: where should the line between commerce and control be drawn? Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum! School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership Center for American Civics

    20 min

  5. 5D AGO

    What Citizens United Actually Changed About Political Speech

    Think you know Citizens United? The headlines got the heat, but the holding was far narrower than the myth. We walk through the real story—what the Court protected, what it left alone, and why the biggest shift in campaign money came from a different case altogether. We start with the foundation set by Buckley v. Valeo, where the Court split campaign finance into two buckets: contributions to candidates, which can be limited to deter corruption, and independent expenditures, which are protected political speech. From there, we explain how McCain–Feingold tried to fence off the final days before elections by forcing certain speakers—non-media corporations—to route messages through PACs, all while keeping disclosure rules in place. That’s the backdrop for Citizens United, a case about a group wanting to release a film critical of a presidential candidate near an election. The majority framed that as core political speech and rejected a law that singled out specific speakers during the most crucial window for voters. Here’s the twist: the ruling did not grant corporations unlimited power to bankroll candidates or say that “money is speech.” Coordination still turns spending into a restricted contribution, and contribution caps remain intact for direct support. The real engine of super PAC dominance was SpeechNow.org v. FEC, a lower court decision that treated donations to independent-expenditure-only committees as uncapped. That interpretation, left unchallenged, opened the floodgates for unlimited money just outside campaign walls while preserving the legal fiction of “no coordination.” Along the way, we explore disclosure, the media exemption, Justice Stevens’s time-place-manner argument, and Justice Thomas’s concerns about chilling speech. We also dig into how super PACs operate in practice, why transparency matters for voter trust, and where smart reforms could land—tightening coordination definitions, stress-testing contribution limits to outside groups, and strengthening real-time disclosures. If you’ve wondered why elections feel louder and pricier than ever, and where the law drew—and blurred—the lines, this breakdown gives you the map. If this helped clarify the difference between Citizens United and SpeechNow, follow the show, share with a friend who loves politics, and leave a quick review to tell us what case we should tackle next. Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum! School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership Center for American Civics

    13 min

  6. 6D AGO

    How Supreme Court Rulings Reshaped The Second Amendment

    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

    14 min

  7. DEC 17

    From Bakke To SFFA: How The Supreme Court Shaped Diversity In College Admissions

    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

    16 min

  8. DEC 16

    When Free Exercise Meets Compulsory Education In Wisconsin v. Yoder

    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

    14 min
See All (126)

Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

4
out of 5
3 Ratings

About

What do you really know about American government, the Constitution, and your rights as a citizen? Civics in a Year is a fast-paced podcast series that delivers essential civic knowledge in just 10 minutes per episode. Over the course of a year, we’ll explore 250 key questions—from the founding documents and branches of government to civil liberties, elections, and public participation. Rooted in the Civic Literacy Curriculum from the Center for American Civics at Arizona State University, this series is a collaborative project supported by the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership. Each episode is designed to spark curiosity, strengthen constitutional understanding, and encourage active citizenship. Whether you're a student, educator, or lifelong learner, Civics in a Year will guide you through the building blocks of American democracy—one question at a time.

Information

  • Creator
    The Center for American Civics
  • Years Active
    2K
  • Episodes
    126
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © 2025 Civics In A Year
  • Show Website
    Civics In A Year

You Might Also Like