OUR GUEST
Former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
CO-MODERATOR
Host and Moderator-in-Chief
CO-MODERATOR
Chief Content Officer of Open to Debate
This week:
- New episode: Justice Stephen G. Breyer shares how pragmatists and textualists civilly disagree behind closed doors
- Listen to our past debates about the Supreme Court
- Your Sunday reading list
Fireworks. Backyard barbecues. Parades.
But as we celebrate this July 4th, let’s take time to honor not just the birth of a nation, but the founding of enduring ideals that shaped our democracy. The Declaration of Independence announced our freedom, but it was the Constitution — hammered out through passionate disagreement and principled compromise — that gave it structure, meaning, and resilience.
That legacy is alive today, perhaps nowhere more vividly than behind the closed doors of the U.S. Supreme Court, where the great contest of ideas continues, shaping how our most fundamental principles are interpreted and applied.
It’s in this spirit that we bring you a wide-ranging conversation with Justice Stephen G. Breyer, one of the longest-serving justices of our time, where he reflects on his career, his judicial philosophy of pragmatism and his hopes for the future of constitutional interpretation. Moderator-in-Chief John Donvan and I had the privilege of visiting Harvard Law School to sit down with Justice Breyer in person. Together, we explored the themes of his new book, and we took a rare look into the internal culture of the Court — a place where textualists and pragmatists, though often on opposite ends of legal philosophy, engage with one another through civility, deep intellectual rigor, and mutual respect. It’s the kind of principled dialogue we champion at Open to Debate, and one we believe is more essential than ever — in our courts, our institutions, and in everyday life.
We hope you’ll take a moment during the holiday to listen, to discuss, and to explore some of our adjacent Supreme Court debates below, including a look at a debate that examines the merits of originalism as a judicial philosophy, a recent live debate in our Unresolved format about the future of the Supreme Court, a Webby-nominated mock trial around the abortion pill, and others in our library.
Most of all, we hope you have a joyful and meaningful Independence Day weekend, filled with reflection, gratitude, and celebration.
More soon,
Lia Matthow
Chief Content Officer
What’s Been Happening at the Supreme Court? Listen to These Debates
We keep a close eye on what the Supreme Court is discussing here at Open to Debate. From major cases affecting the country to discussions about what the Court’s future could look like, they are at the foreground of nationwide debates. For more Supreme Court debates, listen to these below.
The Hopkins Forum: The Future of the Supreme Court
Our Guests:
Ambassador Jeff Flake, Former Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law at Columbia Law School; Supreme Court Commentator
Cristina Rodríguez, Former Co-Chair of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States; Professor at Yale Law School
The Honorable Jeff Sessions, Former U.S. Attorney General and Senator
Mock Trial: Should the Courts Restrict Access to the Abortion Pill?
Petitioner: Julia Kaye, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project
Respondent: Catherine Glenn Foster, Senior Fellow in Legal Policy at the Charlotte Lozier Institute
Should SCOTUS Focus on the Original Meaning of the Constitution?
Arguing YES: Randy Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law
at the Georgetown University Law Center and Faculty Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution
Arguing NO: Thomas Colby, John Theodore Fey Research Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School
Plaintiff: Charles “Chip” Miller, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Free Speech
Defendent: Rylee Sommers-Flanagan, Founder and Executive Director of Upper Seven Law
We Should Expand the Supreme Court
Arguing YES: Dahlia Lithwick, Legal Commentator and Host of Slate‘s “Amicus” Podcast, and Tamara Brummer, Political Organizer and Strategist
Arguing NO: Akhil Reed Amar, Professor of Law at Yale University, and Carter Phillips, Supreme Court & Appellate Litigator
Mock Trial: Is Trump Guilty in the January 6th Case?
Prosecutor: Lanny Davis, Attorney and Former Presidential Advisor
Defense Attorney: Sara Azari, Criminal Defense Lawyer; Legal Analyst for NewsNation
Has Citizens United Undermined Democracy?
Arguing YES: Francesca Procaccini, Assistant Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School, and Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Professor of Law at Stetson University
Arguing NO: Floyd Abrams, Senior Counsel at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, and Eric Wang, Partner at The Gober Group; pro bono Senior Fellow at the Institute for Free Speech
WEEKLY POINTS OF VIEW
Gold glitters as mistrust spreads
Gillian Tett | June 26, 2025
Financial Times
Watch Gillian’s debate on whether America needs a digital dollar
New York Mayor’s Race Shows Us a Better Way To Run Elections
Andrew Yang | June 25, 2025
Newsweek
Watch Andrew’s debate on whether America needs a third party
Trump, Congress, and the War Powers Resolution
Jeannie Suk Gersen | June 28, 2025
The New Yorker
Watch Jeannie’s debate on whehter courts, not campuses, should decide sexual assault cases
Could an AI-Driven ‘Job Apocalypse’ Push the Best and Brightest into Teaching?
Michael J. Petrilli | June 23, 2025
The 74
Watch Michael’s debate on whether we should embrace the Common Core
Ayatollah Khamenei faces a nuclear nightmare
Abbas Milani | June 23, 2025
The New Statesman
Watch Abbas’s debate on whether the maximum pressure campaign against Iran is working
Support Open to Debate
We are the leading debate-driven, non-profit, non-partisan digital media organization bringing you balanced perspectives on complex issues. Your support enables our team to bring you engaging content, like our “Think Twice” series, and the informed debates you rely on for evidence-based arguments. Donate today and join us in keeping the public square Open to Debate.