Opening Arguments

Rudy Giuliani is as bad at being a lawyer as he is at wearing a believable human suit. Both of these shortcomings were on full display this week as Trump's top lawyer continued to not only lose case after case, but also display an impressive ability to not have any idea what any legal term actually means. Also in this episode, Andrew tells us about the Kim Davis of this election - GSA Administrator Emily Murphy. Murphy can't seem to understand which number is bigger than the other. Then ace associate Morgan Stringer joins us to provide a few highlights of Giuliani's insane ramblings. She listened so that none of us have to! Links: 3 U.S.C. 102, CFPB Announces Additional Member of Taskforce, The Law of Presidential Transitions and the 2000 Election, Lawsuit tracker: Trump’s battle faces skepticism from judges, Marks v. Stinton.

It's a 97% Trump-free episode! First we have to cover the bullet points Andrew foolishly thought we could get to last week, including questions like: does a 50-50 Senate mean no more Majority Leader McConnell? and what consequences should there be for law firms that take Trump's money and file frivolous election lawsuits? and more! Then we get to the main signature deep dive, and it's not a happy one. ***content note: this episode contains discussion of sexual assault.*** Some Jehovah's Witnesses church leaders emotionally abused a rape victim, who was a minor, and she very justifiably sued them. But the backwards-ass Mormon judges of Utah conveniently decided churches can do... whatever. While this is likely to be overturned by the Supreme Court, it also might damage Church-State Separation along the way. Links: Jones Day Statement Regarding Election Litigation, Snell & Wilmer withdraws from election lawsuit, Jehovah's Witnesses Lawsuit, Court hears case of woman suing Utah Jehova's Witnesses over rape audio.

While it cannot be overstated how disgusting, unpatriotic, anti-American, and anti-Democratic this pathetic coup attempt by Trump and Republicans is, it also has no chance of working. At least, according to our resident optimist, Andrew Torrez! Before that, Andrew gives us the breakdown on the Affordable Care Act case, and why the media might be completely wrong in how they're covering it. Links: California v. Texas, best Trump case still terrible, Montgomery County Election Results, 25 P.S. § 3150.16, 25 P.S. § 3150.14, In re Recount of Ballots (Pa. 1974)

As always, we can't emphasize enough how important it is to win the two Georgia runoffs, but today's show covers why we COULD still win in North Carolina. It involves court thingies. Then in the main segment, Andrew tells us how exactly Biden can play hardball in the event that we don't win the Senate. There's still a lot we can do. Biden's administration had better be show listeners because this is top notch free legal consulting! Links: 4th Cir. on North Carolina Ballots, Wise v. Circosta, OA415: DeJoy's Illegal Dismantling of the USPS, NAACP v USPS, 5 US Code § 3345 - Acting officer, 15-1251 NLRB v. SW General, Inc, 5 US Code § 3346 - Time limitation, 5 US Code § 3349a - Presidential inaugural transitions, 5 US Code § 3349c - Exclusion of certain officers, Fed Figures 2014: Federal Workforce, Demographic Profile of the Federal Workforce, As of September 30, 2010, L.M.-M., et al., Plaintiffs, v. KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI II, Legality of Service of Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, OA61: Flyin' the Friendly Skies

Biden is all but assured victory, and despite the election not going nearly as well as we'd hoped, there's still a chance to take the Senate! However, Trump is throwing every terrible legal challenge he's got at the problem. Andrew breaks down why they're all incredibly stupid and doomed to fail. Links: SIO263: Not the Worst Possible Outcome, But Close, Slate - A Large Portion of the Electorate Chose the Sociopath, Georgia Code § 21-2-501, Trump lawsuit Michigan, Trump's lawsuit Pennsylvania, Trump Lawsuit Georgia, OA25: Could Jill Stein Decide the Presidency? (No.), Wisconsin Statutes § 9.01 (2019) — Recount, Georgia Code § 21-2-495 (2019) - Procedure for recount or recanvass of votes, 2019 Georgia Code: Contested Elections and Primaries.

This is an emergency mini-episode in which Andrew breaks down all the events surrounding Hotze v. Hollins, which is the case involving Republican efforts to throw out 127,000 early votes in Harris County, Texas – which has nearly five million people and includes almost all of the city of Houston. It’s (mostly) good news, and we go through all the appellate stuff, too. Stay an Optimist Prime today! Links: Hotze v. Hollins order by District Court Judge Hanen. Plaintiff’s request for emergency relief in the 5th Circuit. News story re: 7 Pennsylvania counties that won’t count mail-in votes on Election Night

That's right, EVERY state. So if you, or anyone you know, is doing the "eh my vote doesn't matter because I'm in x state" NO. STOP. Listen to this episode and share it with that person who needs it! It really matters! Links: Congressional Elections in Presidential Years: Presidential Coattails and Strategic Voting, Why Pennsylvania’s Vote Count Could Change After Election Night, How election votes and data for 2020 are collected at NBC news, Head of Fox News Decision Desk: Why results in swing states likely won't be known on election night, Control Of Redistricting Is Up For Grabs In 2020.

Kavanaugh, in a disgrace of an opinion, just signaled that he and enough of his fellow hack justices are willing and able to hand a disputed election to Trump. Andrew has the full breakdown, and what we can do to stop it. But that last part is very obvious: vote vote vote vote vote vote vote vote. IT IS NOW TOO LATE TO MAIL IN YOUR BALLOT. So in the first segment, we go over every which way you still are able to vote even if you've got a mail-in ballot you have yet to drop in the mailbox. Links: Even Fox News says results won't be know on election night, I Will Vote.com, Slate - Naked ballots, signature mismatch, and other pitfalls to avoid when voting by mail, NYT How Long Will Vote Counting Take? Estimates and Deadlines in All 50 States, Wisconsin §6.86(6), OA425: 'The Election That Could Break America' ???, Trump’s Upcoming Refusal to Leave Office: The Very Bad News, Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election, Supreme Court 2020 Opinions not up currently for some reason, How to Accommodate a Massive Surge in Absentee Voting, Lawfare blog Reducing One Source of a Potential Election Meltdown, North Carolina Injunctive Relief Denied.

It's a Tr*** free day here at OA! Not even one mention of that entity. It's all about some major stories in the law. Google has been sued by the DoJ and a number of individual states for unlawfully maintaining monopolies for search services. And Purdue Pharma has reached a plea agreement involving billions of dollars. One of these is good and the other... isn't... Listen to the Andrew Torrez Mr. Fantastic Signature Breakdown to found out! Links: Google Complaint, 15 US Code § 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony, Purdue Pharma plea deal

In a steroid-induced haze, Trump may have inadvertently declassified all Russia documents by Tweeting: “I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!” BuzzFeed News jumped on the opportunity and took Trump to court. Andrew has the full break down! Before that, we talk about updates in the E. Jean Carroll case. That case centers around the (for some reason) difficult question of whether or not slandering your own sexual assault victim is somehow within your job duties as President. Links: OA420: DoJ Defending Trump in Carroll Case?, Carroll's opposition, Trump reply, Oral argument scheduled for 10/21, BuzzFeed v DoJ, Leopold Reply, ACB responses to QFR, Senate Rule III, Pennsylvania decision, Alabama decision

The Trump administration was given a victory in the courts regarding the census. It's absolutely bad news, but Andrew has a plan for that! Ok, ok, it was Elizabeth Warren's plan, but Andrew breaks it down for us! It's a one weird trick that actually will work, assuming that we win in November. Before that, we've got yet another Mazars update. It's going exactly how Andrew told us it would go, and that's... not great but also not bad. Links: Trump v Mazars application for stay, US v R Enterprises porn case again, Ross v. National Urban League, Warren's Census plan, 13 US Code § 141 - Population and other census information, Mid-Decade Census, 2015 Census.

Andrew watched the hearings so you don't have to! What is super-precedent? And did ACB really rule that an employer using the n-word wasn't hostile or racist? We've got the full breakdown! Before that, we have an excellent listener question on potential federal laws on things like Roe V Wade after the Handmaid's Tale Court takes away reproductive rights Links: McGahn petition, Article 1 sec 8, OA309 Stormy Daniels, CA v Texas, gov't opposition, Sinclair George Mason Law Review Article, Richmond Medical Center v. Gilmore, Smith v Illinois Dep't of Transportation, ACB questionnaire, 42 US Code § 2000e–2 - Unlawful employment practices.

As we say often... there's no sugar coating this one. Alito and Thomas shouted their pathetic homophobia from the bench in a concurrence recently. What was the ruling, you ask? No ruling. It was a concurrence on a denial of cert for a case involving - wait for it - Kim Davis. Yes, that Kim Davis. The case was so stupid that not even Alito and Thomas could get behind it, but they went out of their way to yell the quiet part as loudly as they could. Andrew has the full breakdown of what happened. Oh, uh, apropos of nothing... WE NEED TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY AND THE SENATE BACK. In happier news, Naomi Andrews is here to tell us all about the Access for All Conference Andrew will be speaking in! (Use code: openargs) Links: Obergefell, Kim Davis's Idiot Case, Zablocki v. Redhail (1978).

The government has been caught doing some really absurd things to the benefit of Michael Flynn, including sneaking in post-it notes and lying on Brady material. Andrew's got the full breakdown for us. After that, we talk about Trump losing again in court in Trump v. Vance! Links: Access for All Conference, code: openargs, Whitmer kidnapping complaint, Goelman and gov lying on notes, more lying on McCabe, sticky notes, lying on Brady material, exhibit, yes tweets are official, DC cir en banc ruling, Trump v. Vance 2nd cir, Mazar's briefing schedule, US v R Enterprises.

No matter how many Republicans get COVID, McConnell will still find a way to confirm his new justice. So, Andrew has a signature deep dive on Barrett's most significant cases. The news, as always, isn't good. Links: ACB Questionnaire, ACBarrett supported group that said life begins at fertilization, Doe v. Purdue, Understanding Judge Barrett's Opinion in Doe v. Purdue, Rainsberger v. Benner, 913 F.3d 640 (2019), Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, 882 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2018), Wallace v. Grubhub, 970 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2020), AF Moore & Associates v. Pappas, 948 F.3d 889 (7th Cir. 2020), Casillas v. Madison Ave Assocs Inc., 926 F.3d 329 (2019), EEOC v. Costco, 903 F.3d 618 (7th Cir 2018).

We're still mad about Breonna Taylor's killing, and you should be too. A juror has come forward to say that the AG misrepresented the deliberations. We're like to get the tapes soon, but as of now we don't have them. We clarify and expand on a few things from our previous Breonna episode. Andrew also does a mini dive on the disproportionate racial breakdown of our prison population. In our main story, we talk about the blockbuster story by the NYT on Trump's tax returns. Andrew answers whether the NYT is in any legal trouble for the article, and we go into the horrifying contents of Trump's returns. Links: Breonna's family's civil suit, BOP Statistics: Inmate Race, Gap between number of blacks, whites in prison narrows, Imprisonment rate of black Americans fell by a third from 2006 to 2018, How to reduce the federal prison population, Trends in US Corrections, Immigration sends more people to federal prison, 21 US Code § 841, OA45: What Could Donald Trump's Tax Returns Tell Us?, OA46: What Could Donald Trump's Tax Returns Tell Us? part 2, Trump Paid $750 in Federal Income Taxes in 2017, 1st Presidential Debate Transcript 2020, trump public disclosure 1, 2, 26 US Code § 172 - Net operating loss deduction, 2017 tax bill, NYT v. US, Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001), OA200: Reporters and Confidential Sources, OA201: Follow Up Friday!, The BALCO reporters shielded a lying lawyer. They are no heroes., Absentee and Mail Voting Policies in Effect for the 2020 Election.

Let's talk about that Atlantic article that has really been scaring people. Andrew brings us his signature deep-dive, and why he's slightly optimistic that the fears in the article won't ultimately be borne out. Up first, we preview a topic for another time, this really interesting lawsuit against Facebook regarding the Rittenhouse shootings. Links: Trump will see what happens, Presidential Emergency Action Documents, OA370: Can Trump Cancel the Election? and Other COVID-19 Questions!, 19-465 Chiafalo v. Washington (07-06-2020), Faithless Elector State Laws, Trump’s Upcoming Refusal to Leave Office: The Good News, Trump’s Upcoming Refusal to Leave Office: The Very Bad News, Vox Will Trump leave office if defeated?, law review: preparing for a disputed election, 3 U.S. Code § 2 - Failure to make choice on prescribed day, 3 U.S. Code § 5 - Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors, 3 US Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress, Atlantic The Terrifying Inadequacy of American Election Law, Bush v. Gore.

The law worked... how it's designed to work. Andrew gives us the breakdown on what happened, and what didn't happen. After that, Andrew has the deepest of dives on Amy Coney Barrett, the odds-on favorite to be the next fundamentalist Justice on the Supreme Court. Links: Your homework for next episode What If Trump Refuses to Concede?, Hankison indictment, Kentucky Penal Code § 508.060, 431.073 Certain felony convictions may be vacated, Coney Barrett cult People of Praise, Catholic Judges in Capital Cases, Transcript: JFK's Speech on His Religion, Kanter v. Barr Addition Coney Barrett stuff: US Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. AutoZone, Inc., 860 F.3d 564, EEOC v. AutoZone, Incorporated – CourtListener.com, Schmidt v. Foster, 891 F.3d 302.

*note that this episode was recorded before RBG's death and the resulting tenfold increase in existential doom feelings* If you're a keen listener, you might remember last time we had Prof. Randall Eliason on, he teased his forthcoming Great Courses Course! Well, it has now forth-come. Here's his new course! It's on White Collar Criminal Law, and boy does that sound relevant to.. *gestures broadly at the entire current administration*. In the first segment we answer whether or not Trump could be charged with manslaughter for all the slaughtering of man he did by lying about COVID-19.

RBG has died. This is terrible. Absolutely, unambiguously terrible. We were already recording something else when the news broke, so we decided to stop that recording, and give you our live, unfiltered reaction to the news. This is not a tribute to RBG. We are going to regroup and make sure we properly honor her immense legacy at a later time. This is a very human, fearful reaction to the awful news. Andrew breaks down the situation, and what is likely to happen. Keep in mind, he successfully predicted the last two Supreme Court appointments before they happened. We hope this episode helps you process. Let's all be a little kinder to each other today. We truly love our OA community and we are so unbelievably thankful for the great work so many of you are doing to fight for a better future.

Certified supervillain Bill Barr has a new plan to arrest protestors for sedition and subversion. How worried should we be about this? What's the legal basis? As always, we've got the full breakdown! Before that, we briefly preview a horrifying story about possible eugenics being perpetrated by ICE. It's horrendous. We hope it's not real, but unfortunately... it might be. We also give some updates on the government taking over for Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case. Links: DC v. Ballenger, 28 US Code § 1447 - Procedure after removal generally, Barr Tells Prosecutors to Consider Charging Violent Protesters With Sedition, Harry Bridges - Wikipedia, 18 US Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government, Dennis v. U.S., 341 U.S. 494 (1950), Robert G. Thompson, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), 18 US Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy, US v Rahman, 189 F. 3d 88 (2nd Cir. 1999), Omar Abdel-Rahman.

There's no sugar coating it: the wheel of justice was so f***ing slow it couldn't do anything to Trump in 4 damn years. Come on in and hear the breakdown of the breakdown of justice. In our second segment we discuss even more crimes that Trump was shown to be guilty of in the Mueller Report. Yes, the Mueller Report. It was NOT total exoneration, or really any kind of exoneration, as it turns out. Links: Tatel, weakest emoluments case; covered in OA361: DC Sides with Trump in Emoluments Case?; and OA391: Republicans Are Still Trying To Break the Government, Part Eleven Billion; DOJ opposition to cert; DC & Md v Trump discussed on OA386: The Opening Arguments Amicus Brief!; interlocutory appeal 28 US Code § 1292 - Interlocutory decisions; CREW v. Donald J. Trump; lost initially Case 1:17-cv-00458-GBD Document 103 Filed 12/21/17; won after 1.5 years CERTIFIED COPY ISSUED ON 09/13/2019; Leopold/Buzzfeed FOIA Lawsuit denied; Less Redacted Mueller Report; part 2; OA324: Trump's 9 Crimes and Misdemeanors

You've likely seen the headlines saying the DoJ wants to take over defending Trump against E. Jean Carroll, but you haven't heard it properly explained by our esteemed P. Andrew Torrez! So what's happening and is it normal? The answer might actually surprise you... We also talk a little about Bob Woodward's recordings of Trump and how totally awesome it is that he kept them secret for 7 months to sell his book. Links: Another Trump Judge Rate Not Qualified; Carroll v Trump; SDNY Docket; DoJ Statement for Intervention; 28 USC 2679; 28 U.S. Code § 1446 - Procedure for removal of civil actions.

Did Neil Gorsuch and his 4 flaming liberal friends in the Supreme Court just give away half of Oklahoma? Ted Cruz thinks so, so that should tell you. But if you want to really know what happened, check out this Andrew Torrez Signature Deep Dive! In our first segment, we talk about whether any new information has changed our view of the Rittenhouse killings. Is Rittenhouse a terrorist? Is there any reasonable self-defense claim? Links: U.S. v. Thomas, 34 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1994); United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 830, 842-43 (11th Cir.); 474 U.S. 905, 106 S.Ct. 274, 88 L.Ed.2d 235 (1985); Postal Service Has Paid DeJoy’s Former Company $286 Million Since 2013; Did We Give Away Half of Oklahoma? | LegalEagle’s Law Review; Idiot Ted Cruz on Twitter; Plan of action remains unsettled after McGirt decision.

Our main story today is how the DC Circuit Court has helped Trump successfully avoid accountability until after the election. You may remember Don McGahn from such investigations as Robert Mueller's. McGahn refused to cooperate at all with the House's impeachment investigation, under the complete nonsense theory of absolute immunity. Andrew breaks down what happened and gives a signature deep dive on House subpoena power! Our first segment is some good news and "Andrew was right" about the Flynn case. It could mean the Return of the OA Brief! Links: Feb. 2020 McGahn ruling; OA366: Your Guide to the Coronavirus!; Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn; 8-31-20 McGahn ruling; McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927); order staying the mandate.

Be warned, this episode contains explicit language and Trumpian hypocrisy. Given that the RNC was basically a 4-night Hatch Act Violation Spectacular, Andrew is delivering us the Hatch Act deep-dive we need. Joining us to talk about her personal experience with the Hatch Act is Allison Gill of Mueller She Wrote! That's right, now that she was fired from her government job, "AG" is now unmasked! Links: Hatch Act; penalties for violation; 10 U.S.C. § 973 and 18 U.S.C. § 593 pertaining to military; CREW v. OSC on Kellyanne Conway.

17 year old murderer Kyle Rittenhouse was treated as a friend by the police even after he killed two people. Jacob Blake was shot in the back 7 times despite being unarmed. The difference? You already know it. Andrew gives us the breakdown of what happened, and what possible legal defenses we might see from Rittenhouse and the horrible right wingers who are already embracing him. In the first segment, we get a positive update on the USPS from a listener. And in the final segment, we get more positive news, this time from the Gavin Grimm case we've previously covered. References: USPS - 18 U.S. Code § 1703 delay or destruction of mail; House bill to repeal pre-funding mandate; expedited to street/afternoon sortation; New York v Trump; Trump's win rate is terrible. Kenosha - Cop Identified; Wis DOJ update; Kenosha Guard calls for Armed Vigilantes; NYT Kyle Rittenhouse Timeline; Kenosha Cops Silent on Support for Militia Ahead of Kyle Rittenhouse Shooting; Cops "appreciate" militia; Kenosha Police Chiefs blames victims; arrest warrant; Wisconsin Statute: 940.01; Wisconsin Statute 939.50; Federal Charges. Grimm - OA51: The Grimm Reality About Transgender Bathrooms; OA306: From Gavin Grimm to Jeffrey Epstein; 17-1618 Bostock v. Clayton County; OA397: Explaining Bostock v. Clayton County; 4th Circuit Ruling on Grimm.

We're finally getting the deep-dive we've always wanted on the *drum roll* Unites States Postal Service! Questions answered by our esteemed Andrew include: Who is DeJoy? How is he even there? Why is the Post Service losing so much money? What's with the sorting machines and boxes disappearing? All those answers and more!

So much to discuss on today's show! Bannon busted on billionaire's boat by the boys in blue! Leaders Of ‘We Build The Wall’ Online Fundraising Campaign Charged With Defrauding Hundreds Of Thousands Of Donors. Also, Andrew gives us some highlights from the Senate Intelligence Committee Report. Despite being controlled by Republicans, this report was VERY damning.

This is not a happy episode, really, unless you enjoy Andrew completely demolishing racist birtherism crap published in Newsweek about Kamala Harris. The author is the same racist asshole who, curiously enough, wrote this: Ted Cruz's Citizenship Makes Him Eligible to be President. Ted Cruz wasn't born in this country, but Kamala Harris was. I wonder what the difference is? Here to help debunk this racist crap is the 14th Amendment. Also Garrett Epps, The Citizenship Clause: A "Legislative History"; U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). The first segment is some things Andrew was wrong about.. and the main segment is a depressing deep dive on how John Roberts has successfully undermined reproductive rights with almost no one noticing. Dahlia Lithwick noticed though and wrote John Roberts' stealth attack on abortion rights in June Medical v. Russo just paid off. Andrew dives deeper into this and explains what happened in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo and how the 8th Circuit has capitalized on this.

Joe has made his pick and it's (predictably) Senator Kamala Harris! Andrew is bringing us an extensive, balanced deep-dive into Harris's record in the Senate, as California AG, and as a prosecutor for San Francisco. Rather than try to condense Andrew's extensive notes for this one, I'm linking them. Find his sources here. Before the main segment we read a listener comment about the census, and later in the episode we bid a fond farewell to Ed Brayton, a friend of the show who passed away this week. Rest in Peace.

Returning to the show is Randall D. Eliason, a law professor, writer and commentator on corporate and white collar criminal law! We discuss the Flynn case in more depth, as well as a bribery angle on the Roger Stone commutation. Check out Prof. Eliason's Sidebars Blog. Before that, Andrew has on voting by mail. Nevada has passed a bill AB4 that Trump in challenging in a truly ridiculous way. Find out why!

In a HUGE breaking news story, the New York Attorney General has sought to dissolve the NRA over rampant corruption! The complaint is nearly a couple hundred pages, but our esteemed Andrew has already read it and has the breakdown for us in a truly rapid response Friday! Questions he answers include: what are the alleged facts? Can NY actually do this? Could LaPierre simply re-form the NRA somewhere else? And more! In the pre-segment, Andrew strongly advocates that you fill out your census! Check out this Statement By Former US Census Bureau Directors.

Jed Shugerman is a Professor of Law at Fordham University. He and his colleague Ethan Leib filed a motion before Judge Amy Berman Jackson regarding Roger Stone's commutation. They argue "that the Constitution limits the pardon power to uses that are in the public interest, not primarily for self-interest, self-dealing, or self-protection." For more information and for links to Jed's law review articles related to these arguments, check out his blog post.

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the Republican proposal to extend the CARES Act, which is (of course) called the HEALS Act. It's a Republican proposal, so you know it's probably terrible, but... how bad is it? (Bad.) Listen and find out! Remember that our LIVE Q&A is THIS SATURDAY, 8/1, at 7:30 pm Eastern / 4:30 pm Pacific! We begin, however, with some good news! The D.C. Circuit has granted en banc review and vacated the prior panel opinion in the Michael Flynn case. That means our amicus brief is (potentially) back in business, baby! From there, we take down Trump's idiotic distract-o-Tweet of the day involving postponing the 2020 Election. No. He can't do this. It won't happen. Trump's a monster, but no. Then it's time for a deep dive on the CARES Act, which includes some mystery provisions we've outsourced to you, our listeners! After all that, it's time for #T3BE, this one a (straightforward?) question about permissible witness testimony. Remember that you too can play along by sharing this episode on social media using #T3BE. Patreon Bonuses Lots of goodies, including the Q&A Questions thread and Andrew's "100 Seconds" talk to the UK Skeptics in the Pub! Appearances Andrew pops in again for an interview on The Daily Beans. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We broke down why Trump can't cancel the election in detail in Episode 370. You can click here to read the McConnell HEALS Act proposal; here for the Rubio/Collins proposal we discussed on a second round of PPP loans; and here for the academic research led by Raj Chetty that PPP loans don't work. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

The very person in charge of Homeland Security is essentially "here illegally." The upside is, though, there is a one weird trick to undo everything he has done while overstaying his tenure! And by "trick" we mean a lengthy A. Torrez deep dive, so tune in! Before that, we talk about updates in the Flynn case and how the government is LYING about a Federal Rule. Links: DOJFlynnEnBancReply, 5 US Code § 3346 - Time limitation, 6 US Code § 551 - Transitional authorities, 22 US Code § 9685 - Transitional authorities, 5 US Code § 3348 - Vacant office, National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview, DHS Under Boss, Trump's New Acting AG Unconstitutional?, Acting Officers and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, List of Bailfunds

Listeners and co-hosts alike have been wanting Andrew to do a breakdown of the situation in Portland. There are big questions like, for example, how? and WTF? and what can anyone do? Andrew answers these and gives us the timeline of what's led to the Trump administration sending out paramilitary troops to abduct people in unmarked vans, like a totally non-fascist president would do. Before that, we talk about the gun wielding couple from St. Louis who threatened BLM protestors, and how they're totally not going to face any justice for their undeniable crimes because they are white. Links: OA307: The Census Fight Is Not Over, St. Louis lawyers Mark and Patricia McCloskey, 2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. — Unlawful use of weapons, St. Louis Gun Couple Charged, MO Gov Vows To Pardon Gun Couple, Supreme Court Rules - Rule 5 - Rules Governing the Missouri Bar, Acting Secretary Wolf Condemns Violence In Portland, Portland Fence To Come Down, Portland City Council votes to defund police by $15 million, Executive Order on Protecting American Monuments, Federal Officers Deployed in Portland Didn't Have Proper Training, Man Shot in Face with Rubber Bullet, Portland Roadside Abduction, Ocasio-Cortez to introduce bill requiring federal officers to identify themselves, Terry v. Ohio, 8 USC 1357, 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, In re Neagle, 18 USC 242

You'll never guess which 5 justices were in the affirmative in this case and which 4 dissented... unless you've ever listened to our show, in which case you'll easily guess. Andrew discusses this decision and why the popular idea that Roberts is turning more liberal is a misconception. We also talk about the latest in Trump v. Vance and when we might see Trump's tax returns or possibly an indictment! Links: Trump v. Vance Status Report; Purkey Opinion; OA400: No, John Roberts Is Not Your Friend; Roberts Is The New Swing Justice. That Doesn’t Mean He’s Becoming More Liberal; July 2020 Bar Exam: Jurisdiction Information

AKA the Roger Stone scandal. Trump has overloaded our ability to be angry and made us swallow outrage after outrage like Joey Chestnut eating hot dogs. But don't worry because Andrew is our Upton Sinclair telling us just what the hell is in these things. This one is a doozy. The Roger Stone commutation is absolutely a scandal, and in a just world would result in a swift impeachment and conviction. Before that, we've got updates on the Flynn case. What's happening there, and will the OA Amicus Brief(s) make any difference? Find out! Some links: Rule 35. En Banc Determination | Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; FRAP rule 40; Sullivan Moves for Rehearing En Banc; Local DC Circuit Rules; Trump Uses Pardon Power Differently Than Other Presidents, Scholars Say; Meet the Acting Pardon Attorney; OA90: Pardon Me? Yes, Donald Trump Can Pardon Himself; 7 13 20 Stone Filing Commutation; 28 CFR § 1.3 - Eligibility for filing petition for commutation of sentence; Roger Stone says McCarthy, Stefanik advocated against preelection clemency

While the SCOTUS news last episode was good, this time around it is... not that. We've had a slew of terrible decisions for anyone who believes that taxpayers should not have to fund Christianity. So, like the Founders. To ease the pain a little, we have everyone's top 2 Andrew -- Seidel! He's the Director of Strategic Response at the Freedom from Religion Foundation, an organization we encourage you to support and become a member of!

Yes, you read that correctly, we've got some good news! You may not quite have seen the two decisions reported that way exactly, but Optimist Prime Torrez believes that 19-635 Trump v. Vance and 19-715 Trump v. Mazars were decided about as well as we could have hoped or better! After that, we tackle the absolutely horrendous move by ICE to try to deport international students, and what schools are doing to try to fight back!

Today we're joined by the Legal Eagle himself, Devin Stone! Devin is suing the Trump administration, with the help of his lawyer Kel McClanahan. Devin and Kel break down for us what the lawsuit is about, and what they hope to accomplish.

Today's show could also be called "the worst good news possible" because, yes, the Supreme Court declined to completely gut Roe v. Wade (despite the fact that Roe is effectively dead in many ways), but this was not John Roberts turning into AOC. Find out why in Andrew's breakdown! Before that main story though, our first segment is about some reallllly bad news out of Florida. Remember when Florida voters came out overwhelmingly in supermajority numbers to restore voting rights to ex-felons? Yeah Republicans said "nah." We last covered this, when we thought the courts scored us a victory, in Episode 363. We also discuss the Supreme Court granting cert for some Mueller Report cases, which is NOT good news. Here are Andrew's links and references: Private Debt Collectors ad 40% to Total, Felons Can't Afford These Fines, Jones v. Governor of Florida, Previous OAs on June Medical: OA249 OA251 and OA251.5, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, OA309 Discusses Sheldon Whitehouse, Comprehensive Supreme Court Report by Sen Whitehouse and his amicus brief, Roberts Narrow Concurrence vs. stare decisis in Casey.

We've got a special treat for you fine folks today! This is the Law'd Awful Movies from last month where Thomas delivers his Amicus Brief in the Flynn case and Andrew and Morgan discuss the process of writing their brief! Heads up, this episode contains explicit language. Hope you enjoy!

Plus, Andrew breaks down (or has a breakdown over) the viral photo of a card that purportedly allows the holder to enter any business without wearing a mask. Is it real or... really stupid? Then we take a deep dive into DHS. v. Thuraissigiam, the asylum case recently decided by the Supreme Court.

This episode breaks down exactly what happened in the Supreme Court's surprising 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County holding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity is discrimination "because of sex" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's a great decision, we tell you why, and we give you some additional insights about Neil Gorsuch. We begin by diving into the case! We tell you exactly what it does (and doesn't) mean, figure out why this case took so long to get to a decision, and how it's exactly the ruling we thought might have been possible ever since the 7th Circuit's en banc decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech that we discussed way back in Episode 60. In figuring that out, we discuss the narrow differences between "texualism" and "originalism," even though this show tends to lump them together. As part of the analysis, we take a look into Neil Gorsuch's voting patterns to see if he's a secret liberal. Hint: he isn't. After all that, it's time for the #T3BE answer on Constitutional law. Can the university fire a professor for her political views? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Go ahead and read the Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County for yourself if you haven't yet. We discussed the 7th Circuit's en banc decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech back in Episode 60, with specific emphasis on the Flaum & Ripple concurrence. We also discussed R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes in Episode 167. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's bonus episode takes a deep dive into the lawsuit brought by the Trump Administration to try and block the publication of John Bolton's tell-all book. We break down the legal arguments and tell you whether you can look forward to getting that copy you ordered or not. (And seriously, you shouldn't give money to John Bolton. He's still a scumbag.) We begin, however, with a quick Andrew Was Right! in that PG&E pleaded guilty to 84 counts of manslaughter; we told you PG&E was likely criminally liable way back in Episode 241! Then, it's time to break down the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 which just passed the House Judiciary Committee and is an unambiguously good bill. Listen and find out why! After that, it's time to dig in to both the Complaint and the motion for TRO filed by the United States on behalf of Donald Trump because John Bolton's book made Trump feel bad. Do we really live in a society in which that happened? Yes. Do we live in one in which the court will grant injunctive relief? No. Listen and find out why. No #T3BE in this bonus episode but there's lots and lots of great content! Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Although the plea agreement isn't available, this Ars Technica article is a good timeline of PG&E's criminal activities; we told you PG&E was likely criminally liable way back in Episode 241! Click here to read the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 which just passed the House Judiciary Committee. You can read the Supreme Court's decision in Snepp v. U.S. 444 U.S. 507 (1980), the decision in the Pentagon Papers case, and also read the Complaint and the motion for TRO filed by the U.S. against Bolton. Injunctive relief is governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Finally, check out the NSA's pre-publication procedures. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode might have been titled "Andrew Was Really, Really Wrong," as we break down this rather surprising week in the Supreme Court, including the Title VII cases, the Court's refusal to grant cert on any gun case, and the DACA decision. We begin with a quick Happy Juneteenth! From there, we tackle the ways in which Andrew Was Wrong, starting with the Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the consolidated case in which the Court has now held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects sexual orientation and gender identity. We promise you it isn't a poison pill; it's an unambiguously good decision. After that, it's time to talk about another thing Andrew was wrong about that's kind of flown under the radar -- the fact that the Supreme Court denied certiorari in all 10 of the pending gun cases, allowing some good rulings to stand and forestalling some bad new law on the Second Amendment. Then, it's time to break down the Court's ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Trump, the case involving whether the Trump administration can unilaterally end DACA. The Court ruled they can't -- but this decision has a number of red flags in it that we discuss on the show. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE about constitutional law and whether a religious university can fire a professor for what she writes in an op-ed? Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Make sure you check out the Opening Arguments Amicus Brief if you haven’t yet. You can read the Court's decisions in Bostock v. Clayton County, and Regents of the University of California v. Trump. We discussed the importance of the Kolbe v. Hogan way back in Episode 47, and the Trump administration's approach to DACA in Episode 102. Finally, check out the Trump administration's scorecard (6-79!) in administrative actions. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's show takes a deep dive into the Supreme Court, with the theme of "Shame Justice Roberts," and we recorded this... just before Justice Roberts (and, surprisingly, Neil Gorsuch) voted to affirm in the Zarda cases, recognizing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's prohibition "on the basis of sex" includes sexual orientation. Andrew was (happily) wrong indeed. We begin, however, with a discussion of the latest madness coming out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and how Andrew would fight it. Then, it's time for our Supreme Court roundup, which featured not only Zarda, but a look at the pending gun cases (all of which were denied) and an analysis of the South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom decision permitting California to establish medical restrictions on churches and other places of public accommodation. After all that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE involving real property! Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Make sure you check out the Opening Arguments Amicus Brief if you haven't yet. We last discussed the McGahn case in Episode 366. Click here to read the South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom decision. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the concept of an amicus brief, explaining why we filed one in the Flynn case, what it means, and what's next for the guy who sold out his country... and his partner. We begin with a brief update on the Flynn trial (in the District Court for the District of Columbia) and the mandamus action pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Then, it's time to talk about all the various amicus briefs that were filed, with special attention to a pro-Flynn brief filed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Why does this liberal group want Judge Sullivan to grant the government's motion? Listen and find out! After a breakdown of all the amicus, we talk about the case in which Lt. Gen. Flynn was supposed to be the star witness for the government -- the case against Flynn's partner, Bijan Rafiekian. Find out what's up next for Kian, and how this all involves friend of the show G. ZACHARY TERWILLIGER! After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE, this one involving... real property. Can Thomas manage to figure out the relationship between a buyer, a mortgagor, a developer, and an unsigned deed? Listen and find out, and play along if you want on social media! Patreon Bonuses We posted six separate updates to the amicus brief in progress, and there's more where that came from! Appearances Andrew was just on the latest episode of the Daily Beans Podcast. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Make sure you check out the Opening Arguments Amicus Brief! You can also click here for the reply brief just filed by G. Zachary Terwilliger in the Bijan Kian case. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!