
We Are Losing a Generation of Civil-Rights Memories
America’s response to the pandemic harkens back to ugly times in our country’s history. But to recognize that, we need to know our elders’ stories.

A special project on the constitutional debates in American life, in partnership with the National Constitution Center
This work was commissioned, produced, and edited by The Atlantic's editorial staff. Support for this work was provided in part by the organizations listed here.
Support for this project was provided by the Madison Initiative of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

America’s response to the pandemic harkens back to ugly times in our country’s history. But to recognize that, we need to know our elders’ stories.

Some state governments are criminalizing and censoring lawful speech under the guise of protecting public health.

The Supreme Court has the opportunity to prove to the country that despite all the hardships that surround us, humanity is not dead, and cruelty does not rule the day.

The Supreme Court may hear a case that will test the country’s commitment to protecting protest organizers.

The government’s reaction to COVID-19 in jails and ICE detention facilities must follow settled legal precedent on acceptable conditions of confinement. The pandemic does not change that obligation.

Even the Founding Father with the most expansive view of executive power would have found Trump’s recent constitutional ideas troubling.

A president cannot just make Congress disappear when he wishes.

At a technical, legal level, Donald Trump’s proposal to force Congress to adjourn doesn’t hold up.

If the country’s institutions cannot function effectively during a crisis, and especially if a view takes hold that authoritarian regimes are managing the crisis more decisively, a grim future lies ahead.

A belief seems to persist among some on Capitol Hill that the Constitution requires members’ physical presence to do the nation’s business. This is false.