The 14th Amendment wrote the Declaration of Independence's promise of freedom and equality into the Constitution. Ratified after the Civil War, this amendment transformed the Constitution forever and is at the core of a period that many scholars refer to as our nation’s “Second Founding.” Even so, the 14th Amendment remains the focus of many of today’s most important constitutional debates (and Supreme Court cases). In many ways, the history of the modern Supreme Court is largely a history of modern-day battles over the 14th Amendment's meaning. So many of the constitutional cases that Americans care about today turn on the 14th Amendment.

Shortly after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the Founding generation added the Bill of Rights—the Constitution’s first 10 amendments. These amendments guarantee many of our most cherished liberties, including the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to a jury trial. After the Constitutional Convention, the absence of a bill of rights emerged as a key part of the debates over ratification. Anti-Federalists—those who opposed the Constitution —pointed to the missing bill of rights as a fatal flaw in the new document. Several states ratified the Constitution with an understanding that amendments would be promptly added by the new government. This module will explore the origins of the Bill of Rights, explain its importance to the debate over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and walk through the specific rights enshrined in each of the first 10 amendments.

Article II of the Constitution establishes the executive branch of the national government, headed by a single President. Article II outlines the method for electing the President, the scope of the President’s powers and duties, and the process of removing one from office. The President’s primary responsibility is to carry out the executive branch’s core function—namely, enforcing the nation’s laws. From the debates over how to structure the Presidency at the Constitutional Convention to modern debates over executive orders, this module will explore the important role of the President in our constitutional system.

Article III of the Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the national government, which is responsible for interpreting the laws. At the highest level, the judicial branch is led by the U.S. Supreme Court, which consists of nine Justices. In the federal system, the lower courts consist of the district courts and the courts of appeals. Federal courts—including the Supreme Court—exercise the power of judicial review. This power gives courts the authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed (and actions taken) by the elected branches. The Constitution also promotes the principle of judicial independence—granting federal judges life tenure (meaning that they serve until they die, resign, or are impeached and removed from office).

Is the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion a roadmap for how this court could overturn landmark cases in the future?

A leaked draft opinion in a Supreme Court case about abortion reveals that a majority of the justices were, at the time of this draft's release, in favor of overturning the precedent set in Roe v Wade that protected abortion access.

In our recent episode on judicial precedent, we talked about how the Supreme Court interprets the law, and how precedent gives that interpretation power, ensuring the law is applied equally to everyone. We also talked about how and why the Supreme Court might reconsider, modify, or overturn its own precedent. In this episode, we look at how the draft opinion treats precedent, and how that differs from the way the Supreme Court has treated precedent in the past, including in decisions about abortion. And we talk about the impact this could have, should this draft opinion become final, both on the Supreme Court, and on society.

We talk to Nina Varsava, a law professor at University of Wisconsin, Madison who studies judicial precedent, and wrote the article, "Precedent on Precedent," and Rachel Rebouche, a law professor at Temple University who specializes in family law, health care law, and comparative family law, and has written about the potential impact of overturning Roe v Wade.

Video and discussion questions about US v. New York Times and freedom of the press.

Teachers can use this lesson as a supplemental resource in their federalism unit, their Supreme Court unit, or their civil rights and civil liberties unit to help students understand how some rights apply to the states and others don’t. This lesson includes a video from Sal in which he describes the basic concept of selective incorporation, a video about McDonald v. Chicago in which Kim interviews Alan Gura and Elizabeth Wydra about the facts and outcome of the case, and practice questions aligned to the new AP Government and Politics exam.

The blocking of a majority-Black congressional district in Alabama. OSHA regulations requiring vaccinations or a negative COVID test result. A law in Texas banning abortions after six weeks. All of these controversial issues were decided not through the tried-and-true method of a hearing in the Supreme Court, but rather through a system called "the shadow docket," orders from the court that are (often) unsigned, inscrutable, and handed down in the middle of the night. Professor Stephen Vladeck takes us through this increasingly common phenomenon.

Justices are talking more than ever - but what are they saying?

Oral arguments at the Supreme Court are a window into the personalities, beliefs, and behavior of justices. They allow advocates to engage directly with the highest court in the land. And over the last two decades, as country has become increasingly partisan, they've started to sound very different. We talk about how, why, and what's up with all the interrupting.

Helping us break it down is Tonja Jacobi, professor of law and the Sam Nunn Chair of Ethics and Professionalism at Emory School of Law. She also recently talked to us about Supreme Court ethics in the context of the recent news about gifts that justices have been receiving from wealthy political friends. We talk about several of Jacobi's studies on oral arguments, check them out:

Justice, Interrupted: The Effect of Gender, Ideology and Seniority at Supreme Court Oral Arguments

The New Oral Argument: Justices as Advocates

Supreme Court Interruptions and Interventions: The Changing Role of the Chief Justice.

Think that the Supreme Court doesn't apply to your day-to-day life? Think again!The decisions the Court makes today, as well as its decisions in the past, have a real and lasting impact on the way Americans live their lives.This activity describes 10 situations encountered in the daily life of an American teen. Take a look at each scenario, and then choose the related Supreme Court decision that directly impacts our rights and freedoms as citizens of the United States.

On December 18, 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down one of its most controversial decisions when it upheld the government’s decision to intern all persons of Japanese ancestry (both alien and nonalien) on the grounds of national security. Over two-thirds of the Japanese in America were citizens and the internment took away their constitutional rights. In this lesson, students evaluate the consequences of past events and decisions related to the Supreme Court case Korematsu v. United States (1944). They consider the challenges involved when trying to balance civil liberties and national security during threatening times and reflect on the lessons learned about civil liberties from the justices in the Korematsu case.

An activity where the class gets to vote on hypothetical speech cases in schools based on precedent from six real Supreme Court cases.