Opening Arguments

*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]!

Today we're joined by Gabe Roth, executive director of https://fixthecourt.com/. Fix the Court is a national, nonpartisan organization that advocates for non-ideological “fixes” that would make the federal courts, and primarily the U.S. Supreme Court, more open and more accountable to the American people. In his work, Gabe has been tracking some curious financial dealings of "friend" of the show Justin Walker. We discuss that, and other ethics questions and reforms related to the court system.

Today's extra-long show -- two hours if you're a patron! -- tackles all the issues surrounding the state of our Union in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder, including questions about which charges should be filed against Derek Chauvin, whether Trump can invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, and much, much more! Oh, and as a bonus, we also have a "lightning round" Yodel Mountain segment (with deep dives for patrons). We begin with an in-depth discussion of an argument made by arguably the country's greatest legal mind, Laurence Tribe, that the murder-3 charge against George Floyd was sure to be dismissed. Find out why Andrew thinks Tribe is wrong, even in light of the Minnesota DA's decision to add a murder-2 charge to Chauvin's charges. After that, Andrew will explain one thing he was wrong about... due to a "quirk" in Minnesota's laws regarding felony murder and the merger doctrine. Then, we discuss Trump's invocation of the Insurrection Act of 1807 to justify potentially sending armed forces into American cities. You'll learn exactly how not justified this is... and whether it matters. After that, it's time to (briefly!) check in with Black Lives Matter and evaluate their lawsuit against Eric Garcetti for an injunction to block the Los Angeles curfew. Will it succeed? (No.) We're not remotely done, though! After all that, it's time to head on up for a lightning round atop Yodel Mountain., were we check in on (1) Rod Rosenstein's Senate testimony, (2) Judge Sullivan's DC Circuit brief in the Flynn case, and (3) a weird story making the rounds regarding a 2016 lawsuit filed (and dropped) against Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. After all that, it’s time for an all-new #T3BE involving character testimony. It's a tough question; can Thomas get it right? Listen and find out! And remember -- if you're a patron, you get a ton of bonus content in this episode, including deep dives on each and every one of these stories! Patreon Bonuses There's a new Patreon amicus thread in addition to all the other patreon goodies. Appearances None! 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 COVID-19 is still a crisis. On Floyd: (a) you can click here to read the revised Chauvin charging document; (b) this is the here's the Laurence Tribe article; and (c) here's the Greg Egan law review article. We also discuss a number of cases including State v. Wahlberg, 296 N.W. 2d 408 (Minn. 1980), State v. Loebach, 310 N.W. 2d 58 (Minn. 1981), and State v. Barnes, 713 N.W.2d 325 (Minn. 2006). On the Insurrection Act of 1807, 10 U.S.C. §§ 251-255, we cited two specific provisions: § 252 and § 253. And we discussed Greg Gianforte back in Episode 72. During the bonus, we also discussed two executive orders from the George H. W. Bush presidency: EO 12690 and EO 12804, and two corresponding Proclamations: 6023 and 6427. During the bonus, we also break down how Vol. I of the Mueller Report contradicts Rosenstein's testimony. Finally, check out Sullivan's D.C. Circuit brief. -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 a deep dive into H.R. 965, which (quite sensibly) permits proxy voting in the House of Representatives in light of the COVID-19 crisis, and the lawsuit filed by various Republican lawmakers to try and stop it. Good news! The lawsuit has no chance of success thanks to... litigation prompted by Donald Trump. We begin, however, with an update on the DOJ probe into insider trading allegations against four Senators that allegedly -- either on their own behalf or via another party -- sold off stock prior to the public pronouncements about COVID-19 that tanked the stock market. Who got off? Who's left under the microscope? Is there anything nefarious here? We break it all down for you! After that it's time to delve into the recent legislation and accompanying (nonsense) lawsuit by Republicans challenging the House's simple resolution, H.R. 965 (and the implementing legislation, H.R. 967). Find out how the whole thing is going to be precluded thanks to the D.C. Circuit's recent ruling in Blumenthal v. Trump, which was of course hailed as a victory for the President at the time. Then, it's time to check back in with #T3BE involving potential negligence for a factory that failed to install sprinklers. Can Thomas pull this one out? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses If you missed our Live Q&A #32, the audio is now up for all Patrons! Also remember that Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! Appearances None! 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 DOJ probe links: (a) here's the NPR link to the story; and (b) here's the GovTrack link to the fact that Marco Rubio still doesn't do his damn job. On remote voting, check out (a) H.R. 965 (and the implementing legislation, H.R. 967; (b) the D.C. Circuit's recent ruling in Blumenthal v. Trump; (c) our discussion of that case in Episode 361; (d) the Congressional Research Service article we discussed; and (e) United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892). -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 emergency episode breaks down everything you need to know about the death of George Floyd and the charges filed against Officer Derek Chauvin in Minnesota. Patreon Bonuses We’ve got an all-new Live Q&A scheduled for Sunday, May 31 at 7 pm Eastern / 4 pm Pacific, and Patrons can click here to suggest questions and vote on the ones they want answered. Also remember that Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the latest episode of 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, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Please do check out how to partner with Black Lives Matter. -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 breaks down the latest temper tantrum and accompanying executive order by our game show host president attacking social media platforms for having the temerity to engage in fact-checking. You're going to be hearing a lot about "Section 230" -- so we're here to tell you exactly what that means, what Trump is trying to do, and why it matters. We begin, however, with a pretty straightforward Andrew Was Right now that Tulsi Gabbard has voluntarily dismissed her defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton that we covered back in Episode 354 ("A Russian Asset Sues What?"). Then it's time for our deep dive into CompuServe, Prodigy, section 230 of the Telecommunications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 -- which ended internet porn forever -- and what all of that has to do with Trump's latest tantrum over being fact-checked on Twitter. You won't want to miss it! After that, it's time for an update on the amicus brief we're filing in the Flynn case. We tell you what Flynn's best case is, and walk through how it does and does not inform Judge Sullivan's discretion under Rule 48(a). And then, of course, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam involving a fire at one warehouse spreading to another. If you want to play along, just share out this episode on social media using the hashtag #T3BE and we might pick you as next week's winner! Patreon Bonuses We've got an all-new Live Q&A scheduled for Sunday, May 31 at 7 pm Eastern / 4 pm Pacific, and Patrons can click here to suggest questions and vote on the ones they want answered. Also remember that Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the latest episode of 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, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Tulsi links: (a) click here for the news that Tulsi Gabbard has voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit; (b) here to read the original defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton; (c) the Time magazine story on how strong a case Tulsi Gabbard had; and (d) be sure to listen to our coverage of this from Episode 354 ("A Russian Asset Sues What?"). Trump links: (a) click here for the fact-check on Trump; (b) here is the text of 47 U.S.C. § 230; (c) for the draft of the Executive Order, check out Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, and Page 6. OA brief: Click here to read U.S. v Fokker Svcs. BV, 818 F.3d 733 (D.C. Cir. 2016). -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 brings back AG of the Mueller She Wrote and Daily Beans podcasts to help delve in to all the craziness that is #Obamagate. And, as a bonus, we also discuss the five Inspectors General fired by Trump and what they were investigating. You won't want to miss this special episode! As it turns out, #Obamagate is nonsense. Who knew? After the hour-long interview, it's time to revisit #T3BE, in which Thomas decided the issue was hearsay, not spousal privilege. Did he get the answer correct? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! Appearances Andrew was just a guest host on Episode 123 of the Skepticrat, discussing some of these same issues. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Check out this story on Steve Linick, the AG investigating Mike Pompeo. -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 checks in on all the latest goings-on in the Trump administration that probably don't violate the law but do undermine the norms of 200+ years of government, from firing Inspectors General that are potentially interested in government accountability to the DOJ's refusal to turn over the unredacted Mueller Report to the House Judiciary Committee to the collusion between Bob Barr and Michael Flynn. You won't want to miss it. We begin with some pre-show news about Cory Wilson, the latest completely insane, hyper-partisan (and 49-year-old) Trump nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals. From there, we take a deep dive into the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5a U.S.C. § 3, and the legal protections for IGs (or lack thereof). After that, it's time to check in on the latest order by the Supreme Court staying the production of the unredacted Mueller Report to the House Judiciary Committee. We explain exactly what that means and when, if ever, you should start panicking. Then, it's time for an update on the Flynn case where we're filing The Opening Arguments Amicus Brief! Also, we check in on a truly terrible Sidney Powell filing seeking mandamus from the D.C. Circuit. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE about a man, his yacht, and insurance fraud -- in which Thomas tries to figure out if the issue is privilege, hearsay, or something else entirely. Patreon Bonuses Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! And if you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here! Appearances Andrew was just a guest 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, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Cory Wilson was rated a tepid "Qualified" by the ABA his first-go-round; that got upgraded to "mostly Well-Qualified" when he was renominated. Check out the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5a U.S.C. § 3. This is the Supreme Court order staying the production of the unredacted Mueller Report. Here's the petition for mandamus, and the opposition by the House of Representatives. We last covered the Flynn case in Episode 386. Click here to read the 4th Circuit's mandamus opinion in In re Flynn. And click here to check out the late-breaking order from the 4th Circuit requiring additional briefing from Judge Sullivan. -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 features an interview with one of our favorite recurring guests, Andrew Seidel, who returns to warn us of new regulations pursuant to the CARES Act that are permitting churches to take PPP money. Yes, that means your tax dollars are literally paying the salaries of ministers, priests, imams, and the like. We also discuss what just happened in Wisconsin, where the Supreme Court invalidated Gov. Evers's stay-at-home order. Is it bad? Listen and find out! (Yes.) After that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE about when & where double jeopardy attaches. Patreon Bonuses Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! And if you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links If you missed Andrew Seidel's last appearance in Episode 376, go check it out! -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 marks a milestone for the show: we're going to file an amicus curiae brief in the Michael Flynn case. Find out exactly how & why we're doing this! We begin, however, with a brief update in the various emoluments cases, including an update on the two orders released this morning by the 4th Circuit en banc. After that it's time to dig into all the developments in the Flynn litigation that will lead to the filing of Opening Arguments' first amicus brief! Then, it's time for #T3BE, featuring next week's guest, Andrew Seidel! Patreon Bonuses If you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links The last time we broke down the emoluments clause cases was in Episode 361. You can check out the two orders released this morning by the 4th Circuit en banc (the first one is the lengthy discussion). Flynn docs: the DOJ's Motion to Dismiss; the Notice of Intent to file amicus by the Watergate Prosecutors, as well as the 9th Circuit's Opinion in U.S. v. Hector. -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 features an in-depth interview with Allison Gill of American Atheists regarding the just-released survey Reality Check, which interviews more than 34,000 nonreligious individuals, gathering data as a precursor to support specific arguments with lawmakers in terms of lobbying for recognizing atheist constituents. You won't want to miss it! We begin, however, with a bit more in-depth analysis about the nonjusticiability doctrine and how it might affect the Supreme Court's decision in the Mazars and Deutsche Bank subpoena cases -- which are being heard today by the Supreme Court! Then, it's time for our in-depth interview with Allison where we talk about discrimination against atheists, including a deep dive into the actual research that shows how atheists are treated in society -- even among educated peers. After all that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 177 involving a noxious factory next to a residence and mini-golf. Can Thomas keep up his winning streak? There's only one way to find out!

Today's episode updates you on all the recent goings-on at the Supreme Court, including the advent of new, social-distancing-approved oral arguments, the Court's calendar, and today's 9-0 reversal in Kelly v. U.S., the Bridgegate case. Oh, and while we're at it, we also take on two lengthy Andrew Was (Sort of) Wrong segments! Phew! We begin with a discussion of the new procedures for SCOTUS oral arguments, and give an apology to Clarence Thomas, who's now engaged and asking questions after decades of silence on the bench. After that, it's time to take a look at the SCOTUS calendar where we check out some suspicious timing regarding the non-release of the Title VII cases as well as 10 pending gun control cert petitions. Then, it's time for a deep dive into Kelly v. U.S., which we last covered in Episode 232. Andrew thought the 3rd Circuit's analysis of "property" was plausible in that episode... and just got reversed 9-0 by a unanimous Supreme Court. Whoops! As long as Andrew Was Wrong, how about we check back in on Andrew Yang's lawsuit against the DNC, in which Yang (despite "not having a great case," according to Andrew in Episode 382) nevertheless managed to secure an injunction from the Southern District of New York. Find out where this case is headed, what's next, and why Andrew is STILL right, sort of.... Finally, Andrew Was... not wrong, exactly, but Flabbergasted that the American Bar Association reversed itself, finding Justin Walker "Well Qualified" for serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Andrew, on the other hand, continues to rate Walker "Not Qualified," as per Episode 289. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE involving a nuisance plant next to a mini-golf park. Will Thomas's winning streak continue? Patreon Bonuses If you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 204 of The Daily Beans, talking justiciability. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Supreme Court's opinion in Kelly v. U.S., and here to listen to our coverage of the Third Circuit's opinion in Episode 232. Check out the district court's injunction in favor of Andrew Yang reinstating the New York Democratic primary. You can check out the ABA's "Not Qualified" ranking of Walker in 2019 and match it against their new "Well Qualified" letter here. For more on why you should #OpposeJustinWalker, check out Episode 289. -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 checks back in with the status of the consolidated cases pending before the Supreme Court regarding Trump's tax returns. As it turns out, this overlaps pretty strongly with the show's "B" segment about the potential for abuse in the CARES Act. We begin with a colossal "Andrew Was Wrong" -- in which Andrew optimistically predicted we'd see Trump's tax returns in 2019. That... turned out not to be the case. So what are the odds that we'll see Trump's taxes before the November elections? Listen and find out! After that, it's time for another semi-deep-dive, and this time we're checking back in with the just-passed CARES Act as Andrew talks about a provision we missed the first time around that has the potential to... well, you'll just have to listen and find out! Then, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 176 involving burning a copy of the IRS Code. Is it illegal? If so, why? Patreon Bonuses If you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 121 of the Skepticrat, talking about the abuse of the Paycheck Protection Program and other crazy legal stories in the news. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the letter sent by Liz Warren & other Democratic Senators to Deutsche Bank. Our comprehensive overview of the CARES Act was in Episode 372, and you can read the final CARES Act here. The Sunshine Act is 5 U.S.C. § 552b. -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 two deep dives -- first, into New York's cancellation of its Democratic Presidential Primary, and second, into the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and efforts by scumbag payday lenders to take your tax dollars despite being parasites. We begin with a thorough examination of the DNC's Delegate Selection Rules and the Call For Convention Rules and figure out whether Bernie Sanders can get to 25% -- and why that matters. Learn why Andrew Yang's lawsuit omits what Andrew thinks is the best argument -- Rule 11.C -- and exactly how it comes into play in terms of the candidates' delegate count. We end with some optimism and a bold prediction by Andrew about the Biden campaign! After that, it's time for a deep dive into a provision of the CARES Act that we didn't cover back in Episode 372, namely, the Paycheck Protection Program. How does it operate? And how are payday lenders operating on two fronts to try and take advantage of it? Listen and find out! Then, it's time for an all-new #T3BE about a libertarian tax protestor who sets fire to the Internal Revenue Code inside a government building. (We can't make this stuff up.) Patreon Bonuses Our next LIVE Q&A is scheduled for Friday, May 1, at 8 pm Eastern / 5 pm Pacific, and you can post and vote on which questions you want to see answered! And don’t forget that we’ve released Law’d Awful Movies #39, Class Action, starring Gene Hackman and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, and featuring guest performer Matt Donnelly of the Ice Cream Social podcast! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 121 of the Skepticrat, talking about the abuse of the Paycheck Protection Program and other crazy legal stories in the news. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read Andrew Yang's lawsuit against the DNC; here for the Delegate Selection Rules; and here for the Call For Convention Rules. This is the April 17, 2020 AP article suggesting that Biden may let Sanders keep his statewide delegates. Latest news regarding payday lenders: this April 29, 2020 New York Times article suggesting the fix was in at Trump's CFPB, and former CFPB member Jonathan Lanning's blockbuster 17-page email documenting the corruption. Here's the list of SBA Section 7(a) lenders, and this is the relevant regulation, 13 CFR § 120.110(b). -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... was supposed to have two bookend segments and legal analysis, but we wound up having so much fun talking to Devin Stone, the Legal Eagle himself about nontraditional careers in the law, Tiger King and Better Call Saul, and so much more! After that, it's time for the answer to the first Thomas and Devin Take The Bar Exam in which it was literally Hammer Time for two friends watching football. Did Thomas and Devin get it right or wrong? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses Our next LIVE Q&A is scheduled for Friday, May 1, at 8 pm Eastern / 5 pm Pacific, and you can post and vote on which questions you want to see answered! And don’t forget that we’ve released Law’d Awful Movies #39, Class Action, starring Gene Hackman and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, and featuring guest performer Matt Donnelly of the Ice Cream Social podcast! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 121 of the Skepticrat, talking crazy legal stories in the news, and Episode 375 of the Scathing Atheist, breaking down the latest legal nonsense from Kansas. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don't forget to check out the Legal Eagle YouTube channel. -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 breaks down two significant Supreme Court decisions released this week, including Barton v. Barr (involving immigration) and Ramos v. Louisiana (involving unanimous jury verdicts). We break down each one and explain the short- and long-term implications. First, though, it's time for a bit of Andrew Was Right and Andrew Was Wrong. The good news: Texas has changed its Executive Order formerly prohibiting abortions and has now affirmed in open court that it will not use the COVID-19 pandemic as pretext for denying reproductive health rights! Best of all, this is exactly the result we've been telling you would happen over the past few weeks -- even though it took us a bit to get there. But also Andrew Was Wrong? Yeah, Andrew also has a correction to issue regarding lifetime judicial appointments in Episode 378. Then, it's time for the main segment in which we break down the Supreme Court's completely predicable -- and utterly unjustifiable -- 5-4 decision in Barton v. Barr to restrict the remedies available to legal aliens to challenge removal decisions. Find out why Neil Gorsuch openly admits that the interpretation he votes for makes no sense, textually. (Hint: it's because these justices don't care about jurisprudence, just about outcomes.) After that, we tackle a second key Supreme Court decision that came out this week, Ramos v. Louisiana, in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury was incorporated to the states. Find out why this case presents a "stare decisis trap" for the Court's liberal justices and how that explains this unique 6-3 alignment with Roberts, Alito, and Sotomayor in dissent (!) Then, of course, it's time for an all-new Thomas (and Devin) Take the Bar Exam, in which we preview next week's special guest and they try and break down a criminal question about football. You won't want to miss it! Patreon Bonuses Our next LIVE Q&A is scheduled for Friday, May 1, at 8 pm Eastern / 5 pm Pacific, and you can post and vote on which questions you want to see answered! And don't forget that we've released Law’d Awful Movies #39, Class Action, starring Gene Hackman and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, and featuring guest performer Matt Donnelly of the Ice Cream Social podcast! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 375 of the Scathing Atheist, breaking down the latest legal nonsense from Kansas. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links For a sneak peek at next week's guest, check out the Legal Eagle YouTube channel. Click here to read the Court's decisions in Barton v. Barr (involving immigration) and Ramos v. Louisiana (involving unanimous jury verdicts). In the A segment, we discuss the hilariously-secretive announcement of GA-15, the text of GA-15 itself, and quote extensively from the reply brief filed by Texas in Judge Yeakel's court (W.D. Tex.). Our previous immigration discussions were in Episodes 301 and 314. We talked about how subsection d(1)(B) was buried on page 596 of the 750-page Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, and also broke down the text of both 8 U.S.C. § 1229b and 8 U.S.C. § 1282. Finally, please read this amazing piece by Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times analyzing the Court's decision in Ramos v. Louisiana. -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 features a deep dive on a completely frivolous lawsuit filed by Donald Trump against a Wisconsin TV station for simply airing an ad created by Priorities USA that... uses a pastiche of Trump's own words talking about COVID-19. Learn why Trump (and his corrupt lawyers at Husch Blackwell) are transparently trying to silence any public criticism of this President. First, we begin with an update on the various emoluments clause cases and we learn a) the status of all three cases and b) why none are likely to be decided before the next Presidential election. Then, it's time for that deep dive into Trump for President, Inc. v. Northland Television d/b/a WJFW-NBC, a nonsense lawsuit designed to intimidate a local TV station for airing a garden-variety attack ad against Trump's handling of COVID-19. After that, it's time to decipher whether Trump can actually de-fund the World Health Organization (WHO), as he's threatened. (Hint: no.) Then, of course, it's time for the answer to a thrilling #T3BE involving breach of contract by a beloved aunt and her niece over the ownership of a business, the transfer of a lease, and some slow lawyers. Will Thomas's win streak continue? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses We just released Law'd Awful Movies #39, Class Action, starring Gene Hackman and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, and featuring guest performer Matt Donnelly of the Ice Cream Social podcast! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Whatever you do, don't share out this anti-Trump ad created by Priorities USA on social media, or you might get sued by Trump via his lawyers at Husch Blackwell. You can read the Trump for President, Inc. v. Northland Television d/b/a WJFW-NBC lawsuit for yourself. -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 breaks down the latest threat by Donald Trump to "adjourn" the House and Senate, and explains why a) you shouldn't be scared and b) he's unlikely to do it. This is a stunt designed to distract us from how badly Trump has handled COVID-19; we recognize we're sort of falling for it, so we're bringing you a deep dive on appointments and good news as well! We begin, however, with that good news, including an update on the HUGE VICTORY for the forces of democracy in Wisconsin in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's shameful decision that we discussed in Episode 376. And, to pile on, we talk about good news in all of the abortion cases, even those in Texas! After that, it's time for the main segment breaking down whether Trump can adjourn the House and Senate (probably), whether he will (almost certainly not), and why not (because there's not much to be gained and a ton to risk). Along the way, we'll do a deep dive into NLRB v. Noel Canning, a 2014 Supreme Court decision that constrains Presidential "recess appointments" -- which is what Trump would presumably adjourn the Senate to do. Then it's time for a brand new #T3BE about an aunt who changes her mind about selling her business to her niece. Can she be sued? Listen and find out! And, as always, if you want to play along on social media just share out this episode along with your answer! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Here's Trump's threat to adjourn Congress. We begin with an analysis of the Senate's rules on advice-and-consent in approving Presidential appointments. You'll want to read NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014). Finally, here's the Tweet by Steve Vladeck with which Andrew disagrees. -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 features one of our most-requested return guests, AG of the Mueller She Wrote and Daily Beans podcasts. AG joins us for "Below the Radar," stories that you might have missed while your eyes glazed over during the 11th consecutive coronavirus press conference. We begin, however, with a nice grab-bag of Andrew Was Rights (and Wrongs, sadly) from the Carolinas to Illinois to the CARES Act to the sad and perhaps inevitable ascension of 37-year-old Federalist Society hack Justin Walker, Andrew Was... Something. After that it's time to welcome on AG to discuss a recent ruling requiring the Trump crime syndicate in both their individual and corporate capacities to actually litigate claims rather than shunt them off into arbitration. Andrew and AG break down the significance of last week's ruling, which may have flown... Under The Radar (TM). Then, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 173 involving an auto accident, contributory negligence, and one of our favorite lawyers. Did Thomas and Andrew get it right? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses We just did an amazing SIO crossover with an Australian lawyer on the Cardinal Pell decision, and don’t forget you can also participate in the Transformers coloring book challenge! And, if you missed it, don’t forget to listen to the audio from March’s LIVE Q&A and Andrew’s Lecture, “We’re All Gonna Die!” and the accompanying slides! PHEW! Appearances Andrew was just a guest host on the Talk Heathen live call-in show, so you can see how he handles religious apologists. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links We broke down the CARES Act in Episode 372, and you can check out the final "no offset" provision here, on p. 154. For more on Justin Walker, check out his debate with Andrew on Episode 224 and our breakdown of his lack of qualifications to serve on the federal bench in Episode 289. -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]!