Name just about any modern constitutional controversy—abortion, civil forfeiture, gun rights, immigration, etc.—and chances are that the Fourteenth Amendment is playing a big part. After all, if you are suing a state or local government under the federal constitution, you’re usually making a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. But you can’t fully appreciate the Amendment’s modern significance without delving into its origins. In Episode One, we do just that, but by way of a story you’ve probably never heard before—through the story of a little known American hero named John Rock:
 
It’s February 1, 1865. President Lincoln has just signed the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery. But a crowd of reporters and onlookers have gathered instead at the Supreme Court to witness John Rock, a Boston attorney, sworn in to the Supreme Court bar. The moment was as dramatic and historic as they come; John Rock was the first African-American to admitted to argue cases before the Court, and he was sworn in before some of the very same justices who had ruled just a few years earlier in Dred Scott that blacks could never be citizens.

Ep 1 - Before the Fourteenth: John Rock and the Birth of Birthright Citizenship

At the close of the Civil War, some 4 million slaves became free. But almost immediately after hostilities ceased, leaders in the ex-Confederate states began to impose a series of laws, the Black Codes, that re-instituted slavery in all but name. Just as swiftly, a wave of terrorist violence swept across the South, targeting blacks seeking education, economic independence, and a voice in civic and political life—and also whites with Union sympathies. In Washington, D.C., Republican leaders grappled with another problem: When the Southern states rejoined the Union, they would do so with more political power than they'd enjoyed prior to secession—the consequence of each African-American now counting as five-fifths, rather than three-fifths, of a person.

Ep 2 - The Fight for the Fourteenth

The Privileges or Immunities Clause was meant to be one of the key liberty-protecting provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Clause says: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” That sounds like a big deal, right? It’s not. The Clause has been virtually read out of the Constitution, and for people trying to vindicate their civil rights in court, it’s been of little practical use. That story—the near redaction of the Clause—begins with the Slaughterhouse Cases, which the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1873.

More resources here: https://ij.org/sc_long_podcast/all-but-redacted-the-privileges-or-immunities-clause/

Ep 3 - All But Redacted: The Privileges or Immunities Clause

In 1873, the Supreme Court said that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects a right to “use the navigable waters of the United States”—and not much else. But in the nearly 150 years since, the Court has never examined what the right to use the navigable waters means in practice. On this episode: a pair of brothers from Stehekin, Washington, try to change that.

Ep 4 - The Navigable Waters

After the Civil War, what many Americans needed most was protection from violence. That’s what the Equal Protection Clause was meant to guarantee, but today the Clause does entirely different work. On this episode: a tour of the history and meaning of the Clause and how African-style hair braiders use it today to protect their right to earn an honest living.

For more resources: https://ij.org/sc_long_podcast/episode-5-tangled-the-equal-protection-clause/

Ep 5 - Tangled: The Equal Protection Clause

Before the government can take away your life, liberty, or property, it must first give you due process: fair and meaningful procedure. On this episode, we trace the history of due process from 1215 to today. And we head to Harris County, Texas, which operates the the third-largest jail in the country, to see why federal courts say its system of money bail violated that ancient guarantee.

Ep 6 - Procedural Due Process

In 1842, the city of New Orleans prosecuted Father Bernard Permoli, a Catholic priest, for conducting an open casket funeral. A violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment? The Supreme Court said no: The protections in the Bill of Rights did not bind state and local governments.
Then in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment is ratified, and it incorporated the Bill of Rights against the states–or did it? On this episode, the failure of incorporation after Reconstruction.

Bound By Oath by IJ

Ep 7 - Incorporation, the Lack Thereof

If the government is going to take away life, liberty, or property, the due process of law requires it to follow fair procedures. But, according to the Supreme Court, that’s not all that due process requires. The government also must have a good reason to take life, liberty, or property. On this episode, we head to Akron, Ohio where city officials have shut down a privately run homeless community—without a good reason.

Ep 8 - Substantive Due Process

On January 22, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in an IJ case, Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue. At issue is a Montana school choice program that allowed families to send their children to private schools, including religious ones. The Montana Supreme Court said the program violated the state’s Blaine Amendment, a relic of 19th-century anti-Catholic hysteria that lives on today in 37 states constitutions, and struck the program down in 2018. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, will consider whether discriminating against religious options violates the First Amendment. On this podcast, we take a look at the history of Blaine Amendments, school choice, and one-size-fits-all schooling.

https://ij.org/case/montana-school-choice/

Special Episode - Espinoza v. Montana

Prohibitions on excessive fines date back at least as far as Magna Carta in 1215, and the U.S. Constitution has barred excessive fines since 1791. But the Supreme Court has only recently begun to interpret what the Excessive Fines Clause means, and it wasn't until 2019 that the Court said the Clause applies to the states.

On this episode: the story of how the Supreme Court finally began to incorporate the Bill of Rights rights against the states and the history of excessive fines.

Ep 9 - Excessive Fines

Why is it so hard to sue officials who violate the Constitution? Season 2 of Bound By Oath is coming soon.

Season 2 Coming Soon

In 2014, two members of a joint state-federal fugitive task force beat up an innocent college student, James King, after mistaking him for a suspect who looked nothing like him. The officers had James prosecuted for resisting arrest, which a jury quickly threw out. Then, in 2015, he sued the officers for violating his rights. In 2020, James’ suit reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where the question the Court faced was a narrow one: Can he even sue the officers in the first place?

On Season 2 of Bound By Oath, we’ll explore why it is so hard to sue government officials who violate the Constitution.

Bound By Oath by IJ

Popular tracks