The Two Ships That Shaped America: The Mayflower, the White Lion, and the History of the Nation

The Two Ships That Shaped America: The Mayflower, the White Lion, and the History of the Nation

Every law student engages with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Civil War Amendments in the Constitutional Law course. Few, however, know the story of two seventeenth-century ships that sailed from Europe and landed in America and subsequently shaped the way in which the Founders and their successors understood the nation’s history. Professor David S. Reynolds explores this history in his most recent book, Two Ships: Jamestown 1619, Plymouth 1620, and the Struggle for the Soul of America. Two Ships tells the story of the arrival of the White Lion in 1619, which brought the first enslaved Africans to Virginia, and of the Mayflower in 1620, which carried the Pilgrims to Plymouth. As Reynolds recounts, the ships became dueling symbols in the American imagination. In his discussion with Associate Dean Rodger Citron, Reynolds tells the story of each vessel’s voyage and explains how they became linked in the history of the colonies and then the United States. As Reynolds explains, one of the most striking features of Two Ships is how the history of the two ships has been cast and recast in response to the political and cultural context of each era. The discussion concludes with Reynolds’ thoughts on what this history means for the United States as we approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

The Civil Rights History of New York Times v. Sullivan

Every law student learns about New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in their Constitutional Law course. In 1964, the Supreme Court revised First Amendment law by holding that a public officialmust show “actual malice” in order to prevail on a libel claim—that is, the public official must show that a defamatory statement was false and that the speaker made the statement knowing that it was false or “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” But not every student knows the fascinating civil rights history behind this seminal case. Professor Samantha Barbas recounts that history in Actual Malice: Civil Rights and Freedom of the Press in New York Times v. Sullivan [https://samanthabarbas.com/actual-malice/], published in 2023. In this podcast with Associate Dean Rodger Citron, Barbas discusses the research that inspired her to write the book, the historical context in which Sullivan and other libel cases were litigated, and Justice William Brennan’s role in writing the opinion for a unanimous court.

The Major Questions Doctrine, the Tariffs Case, and the Civil Service: A Conversation with Professor Peter M. Shane

The Supreme Court’s decision this year in the tariffs case, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, involved an important test of the scope of the President’s power. Professor Peter Shane discusses the Court’s ruling setting aside President Donald Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by a six-three vote. Significantly, Professor Shane explains, the Court engaged in an extensive debate over the application of the major questions doctrine (MQD). Under the MQD, as Professor Shane has written, government officials who undertake novel, “unheralded” administrative initiatives of unusual economic and political significance must be able to cite statutes that authorize their initiatives “clearly.” In Learning Resources, three justices in the majority said the MQD applies and supports ruling against the President andthree said the MQD was not needed for such a ruling. Ultimately, seven justices wrote opinions in the case, and much of the discussion was about the MQD.  The conversation then turns to an article Professor Shane recently wrote in the Washington Monthly about how the Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources could be applied to a legal challenge to a recent change in civil service rules by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that could enable the at-will firing of any government career professional whose work affects government policymaking. (See How the Supreme Court’s TariffRuling Could Save the Civil Service | Washington Monthly [https://washingtonmonthly.com/2026/03/18/how-the-supreme-courts-learning-resources-ruling-could-save-the-civil-service/].) It’s an intriguing suggestion, and the discussion concludes with Professor Shane explaining how the Court could rule in such a case.

All Hail Hanna: Berk v. Choy and Choosing Between Federal and State Law

The Erie doctrine delights Civil Procedure professors and often bedevils law students. On this Touro Law Review podcast, Touro’s Civil Procedure faculty explore and explain the doctrine in their discussion of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Berk v. Choy. Professor John Quinn summarizes the case, Professor Laura Dooley explains Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s concurring opinion, and Professor Deseriee Kennedy discusses the aims of the Erie doctrine and how Berk furthers them. Professor Rodger Citron moderates the discussion, in which the professors also talk about how they plan to use Berk when teaching Civil Procedure.

The President's Removal Power: A Discussion with Professor Ilan Wurman

On January 21, 2026, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Trump v. Cook, one of two cases pending before the Court involving challenges to the President’s exercise of his Article II removal power. Cook arises from President Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, which, thus far, has been preliminarily enjoined by a federal district court in Washington, D.C. The district court stated, “Cook has made a strong showing that her purported removal was done in violation of the Federal Reserve Act's ‘for cause’ provision.” The other removal case before the Supreme Court is Trump v. Slaughter, which involves the termination of Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter of the Federal Trade Commission and was argued before the Court in December 2025. The issue in this case is whether the President has the authority to dismiss Commissioner Slaughter “at will” – that is, for any reason, including a policy disagreement – despite Congress’s restricting the President’s authority to remove a commissioner and a 1935 Supreme Court decision upholding that restriction. The cases raise interesting and important questions about separation of powers doctrine, the President’s removal power, and Congress’s role in creating administrative agencies. Perhaps the most important question in Cook is whether, if at all, the Federal Reserve differs from other agencies regarding the President’s removal power. Professor Ilan Wurman discusses the issues raised by both cases in this podcast discussion with Associate Dean Rodger Citron. Among other things, Wurman explains why he believes the Federal Reserve is not different from other agencies but discusses why a number of justices – perhaps a majority – may not agree with him.