About this episode

The episode explores the concept of intratextualism in the context of significant Supreme Court cases related to voting and voting districts.

We continue our survey of the Roberts Court’s oeuvre of constitutional cases, with particular emphasis on the series of cases that concerned making rules for voting and for voting districts. These cases make particular use of “intratextualism” - a term coined by Professor Amar that provides tools - and traps - for textual analysis of the Constitution. And as it turns out, it is also valuable on some of the most important themes and cases in the history of the nation, including Brown v. Board and its companion case, Bolling v. Sharpe. A listener’s question takes us down this road, which intersects with our own prior path in fascinating ways. These and more cases are explored as only Professor Amar can. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

People in this episode

Host: Akhil Reed Amar

Topics covered

• constitutional law
• intratextualism
• voting rights
• Supreme Court cases
• historical analysis

Keywords

• intratextualism
• Roberts Court
• voting districts
• constitutional cases
• Brown v. Board
• Bolling v. Sharpe

Mentioned in this episode

Organizations: Roberts Court, njsba.com

Books & works: Brown v. Board, Bolling v. Sharpe

More episodes of Amarica's Constitution

• More Statesmanship, and State Constitutions - Special Guests Steven B. Smith and Vikram D. Amar · September 9, 2026 · 1h 44m
• The Statesman's Constitution - Special Guest Steven B. Smith · September 2, 2026 · 1h 34m
• An Amendment Like Some Others - Special Guest Vikram D. Amar · August 26, 2026 · 1h 21m
• Preclearing the President · August 19, 2026 · 1h 14m
• There You Go Again · August 12, 2026 · 1h 8m
• Dobbs and Bruen Plus Time · August 5, 2026 · 1h 20m

Explore listener stats, chart rankings, contacts and more on the Amarica's Constitution podcast page.