About this episode
The Trump v. Anderson lead balloon continues to smolder. This episode looks at the areas wherein the concurring Justices took issue with the per curiam, and they are many. Indeed, the three Justices who concurred only in the judgment disagree with the scope of the per curiam as well as its particulars, and their concurrence reads more like a dissent. Can we find areas of agreement with ourselves and the concurrences? What can we learn from all this? CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.
Get every episode summarized
Each time Amarica's Constitution publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
Hosts & guests
No transcript yet
This episode has not been transcribed. Request it and it moves to the front of the queue.
More episodes
More from Amarica's Constitution
The Statesman's Constitution - Special Guest Steven B. Smith
Amarica's Constitution
An Amendment Like Some Others - Special Guest Vikram D. Amar
Amarica's Constitution
Preclearing the President
Amarica's Constitution
There You Go Again
Amarica's Constitution