History figures in two recent posts on the teaching of Constitutional law in American law schools. The first is Teaching Constitutional Law Historically, by Jack M. Balkin, Yale Law School:
This short essay explains why I teach the introductory constitutional law course historically. It explains the advantages of a historical approach and the problems of canon formation inherent in an introductory course, which for many students, is the only constitutional law course they will ever take. A historical approach is also a great way to bring constitutional theory into the introductory course, including debates about originalism and the uses of history in constitutional interpretation.
The historical approach helps students learn to think about constitutional law from both internal and external perspectives; each perspective is essential to learning constitutional law, and each enriches the other. A historical approach also helps students understand the nature of constitutional revolutions, including the current changes wrought by the Roberts Court. Finally, a historical approach can help students understand the current moment of democratic backsliding in the United States and the country's periodic episodes of constitutional rot and constitutional renewal.
The second, in which the Warren Court figures, is The Enduring Crisis in Teaching Constitutional Law, by Patrick J. Sobkowski, Marquette University:
Constitutional law is in crisis. The 6-3 conservative majority of the Supreme Court has generally produced the desired results of the current Republican Party. This has led to calls of illegitimacy, activism, and partisanship from left liberal and progressive scholars and politicians. In 2024, Jesse Wegman published an opinion essay in the New York Times documenting these criticisms from progressive law professors. In this essay, I argue that there is not much unique about the current crisis. Rather, the political nature of cases is a result of "juristocracy," which knows no party. In light of this, I provide important context and argue for more principled views on the current Supreme Court on the part of liberals and progressives. Finally, I propose several suggestions for progressives who teach constitutional law while strongly disagreeing with the results.--Dan Ernst
