How the Hell To Teach Constitutional Law in 2025: Twenty Questions and No Answers

Constitutional law professors across the country are starting to prepare their syllabi for the upcoming year. At my school, we have two three-credit courses -- one on structure and one on rights. Other schools have a single four-credit course, and there are other variations as well. Regardless of how the course is taught, I am sure that many folks are struggling like I am to come up with a coherent and correct way to teach the material in the Age of Trump and the Roberts Court.

I have little wisdom to offer other than a series of questions I think we all need to think about. In future posts, I might try to address some of these but for now, "just the questions," not the answers. This list, of course, is not meant to be comprehensive, which is actually sad, given its length.

1) Do we teach that we are living in unique times with a unique President raising unique separation of powers, federalism, and rights issues? If so, how do we deal with pro-MAGA students?

2) Do we raise the question whether we are in or facing a constitutional crisis? How do we do that without sounding partisan? 

3) Do we teach gerrymandering issues at all now that the federal courts are completely out of that business?

4) How much history of the abortion issue should we teach? Just Roe and Dobbs? What about Casey's discussion of precedent and Dobbs' overturning of that part of Casey? 

5) How much history of affirmative action should we teach? Can we speculate about what universities might do about essays about race without discussing the non-constitutional issues raised by Title VI and Trump's war on elite schools?

6) How much time should we spend on Section 3 Disqualification, if it all, given that it is a non-issue going forward?

7) The Commerce Clause has been quiet for a while, so how much time do we spend on pre-1990 cases?

8) If, like me, you start with Marbury, should you teach Trump v. United States right after? Rule of law or rule of men (people)?

9) Is there time to teach any of the military detention cases from Milligan to Boumediene?

10) How do we teach the tension between Griswold/Obergefell and the purely historical analysis in Dobbs?

11) Should we teach old substantive due process cases like Michael H., given that the main combatants in that and other cases were Justice Scalia arguing with Justices Kennedy and O'Connor, and does any of that matter anymore?

12) Is there time to do justice to the dormant commerce clause?

13) Is there time to do justice to standing?

14) Is there time to do justice to the political question doctrine?

15) The Second Amendment is now Heller to McDonald to Bruen to Rahami. That's a lot of material. Teach all four?

16) What do we do with the dozens of important lower court opinions struggling with the cases in number 15?

17)  For most of us, how do we teach originalism seriously since the Roberts Court has killed it as a substantive matter but relies on it as a rhetorical matter?

18) If you still think originalism does matter substantively, do you teach how to do good history?

19) If the First Amendment is part of your course, is it worth spending more than a few minutes on the Establishment Clause, which is barely, if it all, relevant to the Court?

20) How much time, if any, should we spend on the Federalist Society's role in generating the reversal of so many precedents across constitutional law and for sponsoring all six current GOP justices?

--Eric Segall