Opening Arguments

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]!

Today's episode updates you on litigation in three states: in Texas, where the 5th Circuit blocked the lower court injunction, allowing the anti-abortion executive order to go into place; in Wisconsin, where the Supreme Court literally killed people; and in Washington, where publicity-seeking idiots have some liberals convinced Fox News is about to file for bankruptcy. We begin in Texas, with an Andrew Was Wrong -- and also, a hidden message of solidarity from the dissent in In re Greg Abbott as to how abortion clinics can stay open despite Executive Order GA-08. You won't want to miss it! Then, we have on Wisconsin citizen Andrew Seidel to break down the Supreme Court's decision forcing people to the polls during an epidemic. Bonus: you can count the number of relevant citations in the majority opinion (0). After that, it's time to check out the Complaint in WASHLITE v. Fox News, which will probably get us sued by litigation-happy buffoons. As you can imagine, we are NOT KIND to this wadded-up diaper full of nonsense. Then, you know it's time for a brand-new #T3BE where Thomas and Andrew S. tackle a civ pro question framed around a car accident. Want to play along? Just share out this episode on social media with #T3BE and we'll pick a winner.... 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 Here is the Supreme Court's opinion in connection with the Wisconsin election. Here's the headquarters of WASHLITE - 1826 Berry Street NE, Olympia, Washington, and here are the articles on Arthur West (Seattle Times) and Liz Hallock (Yakima Herald). The binding decision in the Washington courts is Fidelity Mortgage Corporation v. Seattle Times Co., 131 Wn. App. 462 (2005). -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 is a fun interview with Dan and Jordan from the Knowledge Fight! podcast, your #1 source for deciphering the otherwise-indecipherable world of Alex Jones. We think you'll enjoy this interview; it's got a little bit of everything -- laughter, tears, and, of course, madness. After the interview, it's time to answer an exciting new #T3BE civ pro question that involves res judicata — a concept so convoluted, courts often screw it up. Will Thomas get it right? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses We're still bringing you the Patreon bonuses! You can submit proposed new intro quotes for the show, and 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 Once more, Andrew was a guest on the Daily Beans Podcast, breaking down the week in news. 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 You should really check out the Knowledge Fight! podcast! -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 covers a number of stories that might be bad news for now, but each one, we think there's a reason to be optimistic beneath the surface. We also make sure we're holding Idaho's feet to the fire for the anti-trans bills that state tried to sneak past the radar this week, and we tell you the fate of states that have tried to restrict access to abortion using COVID-19 as pretext. We begin with a survey of the landscape including the states that haven't issued stay-at-home orders. There's an interesting commonality among these states' governors; can you figure it out?? Then, it's time for our main segment which is a deep dive into Idaho HB 509 that attempts to prevent trans people from changing their gender on their birth certificate. The bill is horrible, bigoted, and mean... and yet why are we optimistic? You'll have to listen and find out! After all that, it's time to take a look at the six states that have attempted to restrict access to abortion services during COVID-19 and examine the latest rulings by the Fifth Circuit. Why isn't it as bad as you've heard? We tell you exactly why. We conclude, as always, with a brand-new #T3BE featuring a civ pro question that involves res judicata -- a concept so convoluted, courts often screw it up. Will Thomas get it right? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses There’s still so much right now! If you’re a Patron, you can submit proposed new intro quotes for the show, and you can also listen to the audio from March's LIVE Q&A! Oh, and if you missed it, you can also enjoy Andrew’s Lecture, “We’re All Gonna Die!” and the accompanying slides! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the Daily Beans Podcast, talking megapastors flaunting the law. 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 You should read F.V. v. Barron, the Idaho case we discussed at length, as well as the current Idaho rules regarding birth certificate changes. You can also check out the WPATH Standards of Care document. This is the 5th Circuit's order on abortion. -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]!

Idiotic legal pleadings, sports law, and some news debunking... what could be happier?

Today's episode breaks down the three main provisions of the just-passed CARES Act in terms of (1) additional unemployment benefits, (2) tax relief in the form of advance $1,200 "rebate" checks to taxpayers, and (3) the $500 billion "slush fund" for corporate giveaways. While there's more in this 880-page monstrosity, we break down the key parts for you! We begin, however, with some good news about the impending retirement of Ohio Rep., Trump-supporting lunatic, and soon-to-be-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Does this violate the Ineligibility Clause of the Constitution? YOU BETCHA. Is it #ClearAsKushner? YEP! And this time, does it matter? YES IT DOES! After that it's time for a full breakdown of the main components of the CARES Act, including how much money you'll be getting and when, what the costs are, and what the provisions are that can come into play to prevent all of this from winding up in Jared Kushner's pocket. You won't want to miss it! After all that, it's time for a quick segment on IRS Form W-7, which allows you to pay your taxes if you're a nonresident alien. Patreon Bonuses There's so much right now! If you're a Patron, you can submit your questions for next Tuesday's LIVE Q&A scheduled for 3/31 at 8 pm Eastern / 5 pm Pacific, and you can also enjoy Andrew's Lecture, "We're All Gonna Die!" and the accompanying slides! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the Daily Beans Podcast, talking President Leahy. 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 On the Ineligibility Clause: check out Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208 (1974) (restricting taxpayer and citizen standing) and Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority et al. v. Citizens For The Abatement Of Aircraft Noise, Inc., et al., 501 U.S. 252 (1991) (invalidating Congressional action pursuant to the Ineligiblity Clause). You can read the final CARES ACT for yourself, all 880 pages of it! Please do fill out IRS Form W-7 if it applies to you. -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 is the second half of our double-length episode in which we tackle your questions about the coronavirus and the law. If you haven't listened to Episode 370 (Part 1) first, go check that out! We tackle: The extent of federal and state powers during emergencies, including the National Emergency Act, 50 U.S.C. Ch. 34, the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5121, and 42 U.S. § 264; And we contrasted that with state powers, such as 2018 Maryland Code, Public Safety Art., Title 14, Article 3. Whether the House of Representatives has to vote in chamber, or whether they can use technology; Whether restrictions on gatherings violate the First Amendment; Whether you can be charged with a crime for spreading coronavirus; And much, much more! No #T3BE this week as we jam-pack 2.5 hours of content for your self-quarantining listening pleasure! Patreon Bonuses If you’re at the $2 level or above, we have an amazing new Law’d Awful Movies featuring the Larry Klayman/Roger Stone deposition that must be heard to be believed! Cucker Carlson! 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 As an overview to states of emergency, we began with Ex parte Milligan (1866). Federal powers: 50 U.S.C. Ch. 34, the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5121, and 42 U.S. § 264; the federal government has enumerated powers as per the 10th Amendment. Check out the Rules of the House of Representatives. On time, place & manner we cited Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989). -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 begins with a discussion of the recent dismissal of charges by the Department of Justice against Concord Management & Consulting, LLC (and Concord Catering) with prejudice. Is this another example of Attorney General Bill Barr's meddling? We explain that it... probably... isn't. Probably. After that, it's time for the first part of a double-length episode in which we tackle your questions about the coronavirus and the law. First up are all the questions involving elections, including whether and how Trump can suspend or eliminate the election, and what would happen if he did. If you've always wanted Vermont Senator Pat Leahy to be President, well, this is the episode for you! No #T3BE this week as we jam-pack 2.5 hours of content for your self-quarantining listening pleasure! Patreon Bonuses If you’re at the $2 level or above, we have an amazing new Law’d Awful Movies featuring the Larry Klayman/Roger Stone deposition that must be heard to be believed! Cucker Carlson! 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 On Concord Management: you can check out the 2019 Motion alleging that Concord was abusing the discovery process as well as the 3/16/20 motion to dismiss. As an overview to states of emergency, we began with Ex parte Milligan (1866). On primaries: Check out the Ohio Supreme Court's denial of the writ of mandamus to hold the March 16 primary, as well as the lawsuit filed by the Ohio Democratic Party. Oh, and if you want to be depressed, read Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927). Election statutes: 2 U.S.C. §§ 1, 7 (“Time of Election”) and 3 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. And of course, don't forget Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), which we broke down way back in Episodes 3, 4, and 5 of the show! Presidential succession is governed, inter alia, by the 20th Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act, 3 U.S.C. § 19, and the Speaker of the House is required by Art. I, Section 2 of the Constitution and implemented by the House Rules. Pat Leahy as President was first proposed by journalist Ian Millhiser. -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 two deep dives: first, we have an interview with David Williamson of the Central Florida Freethought Community to discuss their successful (!) five-year lawsuit to permit humanist, atheist & non-clergy invocations before the Brevard County council meetings. Find out how this case developed and learn some strategies for successful grass-roots activism even in the age of Trump! We also take one more deep dive into the amazing Spirit/Led Zeppelin lawsuit, this time taking a look at the recent en banc decision by the full 9th Circuit that reverses the earlier panel opinion (and is a win for Led Zep). The 9th Circuit has some interesting things to say about the "inverse ratio" rule that really brings out discussion from the past two weeks (see episodes 365 and 367). We know you'll enjoy it! After that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 170, which matched Thomas up against the dreaded REAL PROPERTY QUESTION. Can he slay the beast? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses If you're a patron at any level, you can ask a coronavirus question to be answered on the next two episodes, and if you're at the $2 level or above, we have an amazing new Law'd Awful Movies featuring the Larry Klayman/Roger Stone deposition that must be heard to be believed! 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 Check out the Central Florida Freethought Community We first took a "Stairway to the Supreme Court (?)" back in Episode 236 and then did a follow-up in Episode 288. Of course, we also covered Riehl and Rubin’s project in Episode 365 (“Every Melody Ever, Part 1”) and interviewed Riehl and Rubin themselves in Episode 367. Finally, you can read the recent en banc decision by the full 9th Circuit 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 continues our discussion from Episode 366 on the political, criminal, and civil legal issues surrounding coronavirus and COVID-19 in the United States, including whether the CDC has the authority to waive the fees associated with testing for the virus (they do!) and how this is going to affect civil society (badly). You won't want to miss it -- and you'll be stuck inside your house anyway, so you'll have all the time in the world to listen! We begin, however, with some nuance regarding An Andrew Was Right, the line of Presidential succession, the 12th and 22nd Amendments, and whether Barack Obama can be Joe Biden's Vice-President. Learn that... apparently there's an argument that he could? After that, it's time for the main segment, which covers COVID-19 and the coronavirus, specifically (a) Rep. Katie Porter's amazing cross-examination of the CDC Director and the legal authority; (b) lawsuits against con artists like Jim Bakker and Alex Jones; (c) Congress's response; (d) more on private lawsuits and the specific example of SXSW; and (e) a really interesting question about jury duty and the future of jury trials. After all that, it's time for a dreaded REAL PROPERTY #T3BE. Can you get it right? Just share out this episode on social media, include the hashtag #T3BE, your guess, and your reasons therefor and we will shower the winner with... well, you know. Appearances Andrew was just a guest speaker at Houston OASIS, and we’ll be working to bring you the audio of his speech from that event. 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 In the "A" segment on Presidential succession, we referenced this law review article from Peabody & Gant. Check out the video of Katie Porter's blistering cross-examination of the CDC Director as well as the text of 42 CFR § 71.30. And, of course, you'll want to listen to our original coverage back in Episode 366. -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 is a continuation of Part 1, in which we discuss Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin's "All the Music" project and the history and future of music copyright. We've got a special treat for you in that Damien and Noah are both on the show to answer our (tough!) questions. You won't want to miss this fun discussion! We begin, however, with a listener question/comment about attending law school and balancing costs, risks, and budgets that many of our listeners will undoubtedly find timely. Then it's time to bring on Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin for a fascinating deep dive into the mechanics, the law, and the public policy behind their "All the Music" project. Where should our sympathies lie? What changes to copyright law would better benefit music creators? How do Riehl and Rubin see the fundamental issues in music copyright? You won't want to miss this! After the interview, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 169 involving a tainted witness identification and the permissibility of eliciting testimony in court. Can Thomas start a new winning streak?? Listen and find out! Appearances Andrew was just a guest speaker at Houston OASIS, and we'll be working to bring you the audio of his speech from that event. 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 Our basics on music and copyright were covered in Episode 236 and then with a follow-up in Episode 288. Of course, we also covered Riehl and Rubin's project in Episode 365 ("Every Melody Ever, Part 1"). For (some of) the details on Riehl and Rubin’s project, check out Riehl's fascinating TEDx talk. -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 force majeure clauses in contracts and takes a look at what might happen in the next few weeks as the world prepares to deal with COVID-19 coronavirus. Along the way we also tackle the news of the week, including the baffling decision out of the DC Circuit not to require Don McGahn to testify. You won't want to miss this episode! We begin, however, with some recurring Vice Presidential/line of succession questions and take a mini-deep-dive into the absolutely bonkers elections of 1796 and 1800 that produced the 12th Amendment, and what it says about vice-presidential qualifications. After that, it's time for our main segment on coronavirus, which includes a deep dive into various cases where contracts have been broken due to "acts of god." Is a global pandemic an "act of god?" Listen, find out, and you'll soon be able to whip out four-part tests if your hotel tries to cancel your room due to coronavirus scares. Then, it's time to pick apart the D.C. Circuit's 2-1 baffling opinion that the House Oversight Committee lacks standing to go to a court to enforce its subpoena over Don McGahn. This is technically an "Andrew Was Wrong," because Andrew did not imagine that any judges with functioning brain cells could have authored an opinion this bad. Find out what's next! After all that, it's time for a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam involving a tainted witness identification. And remember that you too can play along by sharing out this episode on social media and using the hashtag #T3BE. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links For all your Vice Presidential qualification questions, check out the 12th Amendment! Here's the D.C. Circuit's decision in McGahn, and we also referenced Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) and, of course, Opening Arguments's good friend Richard Nixon in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 696-97 (1974). Finally, you can read Josh Chafetz's law review article, "Executive Branch Contempt of Congress." -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 you our first look at the efforts by Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin to copyright "every melody ever" as part of a way of reconceptualizing copyright law as it applies to music. SPOILER: We're going to have Riehl and Rubin on the show to discuss their work in more depth. We also discuss Chevron deference and a recent dissent by Clarence Thomas that's No Laughing Matter. We begin with a deep dive into the Riehl and Rubin "Every Melody Ever" effort, which builds upon the music copyright episodes we've previously discussed in Episode 236 ("Stairway to the Supreme Court") and Episode 288 ("More on Led Zeppelin"). What exactly are Riehl and Rubin doing, and will it put an end to copyright lawsuits against musicians? Listen and find out! After that, we check out a case (Baldwin v. U.S.) in which the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari -- and the dissent filed by Clarence Thomas. That prompted a headline that got some chuckles last week -- "Clarence Thomas cites Thomas in overruling Thomas" -- and we learn that (of course) this turns out to be no laughing matter, but part of a concerted effort to roll back not only a 2005 Clarence Thomas opinion, National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Svcs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005), but Chevron deference itself. Find out why even the howler monkey contingent wanted to take a pass on this case -- but not Clarence Thomas! After all that, it's time for the answer to perhaps the easiest #T3BE ever -- or is it? (It is.) And remember, you can always play along with #T3BE by sharing out the show on social media! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Our basics on music and copyright were covered in Episode 236 and then with a follow-up in Episode 288. For (some of) the details on Riehl and Rubin's project, you can read the write-up in Vice. Finally, you can check out Thomas's cert dissent in Baldwin v. U.S. here. -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 the just-filed briefs in the Trump v. Mazars litigation pending before the Supreme Court regarding the legitimacy of the House's subpoenas for Trump's tax returns. Is the law on the House's side? (Yes, yes it is.) Are we confident that the Supreme Court will rule the right way in a case this bad? (Maybe?) In any event, you'll want to listen! Announcements Don't forget our YouTube Live Q&A this Sunday, March 1, at 1:30 pm Eastern / 10:30 am Pacific! You still have two days to register for Voter Protection Law School Boot Camp! We begin with an Andrew Was Wrong(-ish) from our good friend Randall Eliason on the actual frequency of below-guidelines sentences in light of Roger Stone's downward variance. Then it's time for a deep dive into Mazars v. Trump, where we look at the briefs filed by the parties and evaluate the arguments made by the Trump administration that the subpoenas issued by the House are invalid. How bad are these arguments? They're bad. Then, it's time to tackle the recent defamation lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign against the New York Times regarding a March 2019 op-ed by Max Frankel, in which Mr. Frankel argued that the campaign didn't need to coordinate with Russia to benefit from foreign assistance. Does this pave the way for really good discovery? (No.) After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE involving a law prohibiting providing assistance to undocumented aliens. Can Thomas start a new winning streak? Listen and find out. And, of course, you can always play along on social media by using the hashtag #T3BE! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Remember to check out our YouTube Channel ! If you're thinking about Democratic Voter Protection Law School Bootcamp, check out the flyer and then apply online. n the opening segment, Andrew references the U.S. Sentencing Commission (2018) report on sentences. in Mazars v. Trump, check out the President's Jay Sekulow-penned brief as well as the just-filed response by the House of Representatives. You can also read the Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt (2019) decision. Finally, check out the Trump Campaign v. New York Times defamation lawsuit. -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 -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode brings you some good news from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals with respect to Florida's effort to restore the vote to felons who have completed their sentences -- and the Republicans' ongoing efforts to stop it. We also revisit the emoluments clause litigations pending in two jurisdictions as well as tackle a novel question from one of our listeners. You won't want to miss it! We begin with a brief Andrew Was Wrong / Andrew Was Right segment regarding emoluments. Friend of the show Seth Barrett Tillman writes in to correct us on two procedural issues and also to venture an opinion that any future emoluments cases would have to be brought by both houses of Congress. Find out why Andrew disagrees and stands by his original recommendation in Episode 361 that Nancy Pelosi authorize a new vote by the full House of Representatives to re-file the case originally brought in Blumenthal v. Trump. Then it's time for our main segment on the breaking decision out of the 11th Circuit striking down the Florida legislature's effort to gut Amendment 4 (which was meant to restore voting rights to ex-felons). Find out why the court ruled the way it did, what happens next, and why there may be cause for optimism in the Sunshine State! After that, it's time for a fascinating, clever, but (sadly) wrong suggestion from a listener regarding a writ of mandamus and the current logjam in Congress. We end, as always, with #T3BE, and Thomas's seven-question winning streak on the line regarding a contract and an unfortunate foreman who suffers an accident prior to starting his duties. Will Thomas prevail? Listen and find out! And don't forget to play along by sharing out the show on social media! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links In the opening segment, Andrew breaks down the Supreme Court case of Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill (2019). You'll want to read the 11th Circuit's opinion for yourself. We last discussed the Florida legislature's efforts to gut Amendment 4 back in Episode 266. -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 -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the history and contemporary use of the Presidential pardon power in light of President Trump's decision to pardon and/or commute the sentences of 11 various and sundry monsters. We figure out exactly what the power was supposed to mean and what it means today. We start off with some pre-show teasers. After that, our "A" segment looks at the basics of the Nevada caucus, including the results you can expect the day after this show drops! What weird changes are taking place in Nevada? Listen and find out! As a teaser, we talk about today's sentencing by Judge Amy Berman Jackson of Trump loyalist and Nixon afficionado Roger Stone. What does it mean, and does it portend a pardon for Stone? Listen and find out! Then, it's time for our deep dive into Presidential pardons and commutations. We begin with the language in the Constitution (Art. 2, Sec. 2, Cl. 1) and Federalist 74. From there, we move on to the 19th and 20th century uses of pardons, looking at the literature and the relatively recent (and controversial -- deservedly so) pardons by Bill Clinton on the very last day of his presidency. We end the segment, of course, by discussing the assorted and sundry monsters pardoned by Trump, including some names you literally won't believe. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Check out Federalist 74 on pardons. In terms of contemporary pardon literature, we recommend Margaret Colgate Love's "The Twilight of the Pardon Power" (2010) and Gregory C. Sisk's 2002 article "Suspending the Pardon Power During the Twilight of a Presidential Term." -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 -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Make sure to subscribe to the YouTube Channel! Today's episode features a quick Andrew was... something segment about the ERA. Then we talk about the recent ruling in an emoluments case against Trump. Was it devastating or was it expected? Listen and find out! Then we tackle some great listener questions at the end.

Today's episode covers the "Tuesday Afternoon Massacre," in which Donald Trump's tweets prompted his sycophantic Attorney General, William Barr, to overrule career prosecutors and file a "Supplemental and Amended Sentencing Memorandum" reversing the government's position from literally the day before in order to urge leniency on convicted criminal Roger Stone. We begin, however, with a less-than-exhaustive (but exhausting) recitation of the various ways Trump has abused his power -- and yes, committed crimes -- in the mere eight days since he was acquitted during impeachment. From firing Lt. Col. Vindman to placing Barr in charge of all future "political investigations," Trump is consolidating his now-seemingly limitless power to run the U.S. government as his private fiefdom, with no consequences whatsoever. Then it's time for our main segment, where we explain just how corrupt the "Supplemental and Amended Sentencing Memorandum" really is. Along the way, we explain Pre-Sentencing Reports (PSRs), the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and much, much more! After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE that starts off as a question about hearsay before the curveball takes us down the question of witness impeachment. How will Thomas do? There's only one way to find out! And remember that you can play along -- just share out this episode on social media using the hashtag #T3BE and we’ll pick a winner! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links You can check out the Barr memorandum on "political investigations" by clicking here, and Lindsey Graham's confession here. Firing Lt. Col. Vindman is very clearly a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e). We referenced Manafort's nonsense "solitary confinement" claim that was refuted by the DOJ itself a year and a half ago in this filing. You can click here to read the DOJ's initial sentencing memo, and click here to read the "Supplemental and Amended" memorandum filed the next day. -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 -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Make sure to check out our YouTube video and subscribe to the channel! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh69ZSnZzc4&t=1s Today's EXTRA LONG episode breaks down the recent ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) by the State of Virginia. Since that's the 38th state (more than 3/4ths of the states), and the ERA also passed the Senate and the House of Representatives by more than 2/3 margin... does that mean that the ERA is now part of the Constitution? Listen and find out! We begin by diving right in to the ERA, starting with a lengthy deep dive into the history of the Amendment dating back to the early 1970s... which might make you nostalgic for the Republicans of old. Then, we talk about the complicated issues underlying the passage of the ERA, including the strange case of the 27th Amendment which lay dormant for two centuries before getting ratified by 3/4ths of the states in 1992. And if the 27th Amendment can lay dormant for more than 200 years, why can't the ERA? Well... we'll tell you some of the reasons why (and why not). After that, it's time to break down the Houston Astros cheating scandal, where we talk about our listeners' favorite topic: baseball law! Even if you're not a fan of baseball, we think you'll enjoy our breakdown. And after all that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 165 involving jury instructions. Can Thomas keep his winning streak going?? There's only one way to find out! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links To catch up: We discussed Amendment 27 way back in Episode 11, and the Munsingwear doctrine in Episode 181. The Supreme Court last weighed in on the Equal Rights Amendment in 1982. The two cases we discuss in context are Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921) and Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939). Baseball law references: Check out the story in the Athletic quoting Mike Fiers that started it all; this CBS article on how Tyler Glasnow "was tipping his pitches"; the results of the MLB investigation; and the MLB Constitution. -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 -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode takes place in the aftermath of the Trump impeachment sham. We take a minute to heap praise on Sen. Mitt Romney, who had the courage of his convictions, before delving into the obvious fact that this president is now empowered to seek revenge on his enemies, starting with the State of New York. Can he really prevent New Yorkers from using Global Entry? Before that, we have to cover the latest in faux outrage, in which America's Dumbest Congressman (TM), Matt Gaetz, teams up with Charlie Kirk (and others) to ... insist that Speaker Nancy Pelosi had no right to rip up her copy of Trump's State of the Union address. Can that possibly be the law? (No.) Then, it's time to settle in for a nice, long deep dive into New York's Green Light Law, and how that led a Trump lackey to try and retaliate by asserting that New Yorkers will no longer be eligible for the Global Entry program at airports. Is it really possible that Trump's Department of Homeland Security will carry out this threat? Do we have a legal recourse? Listen and find out! After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE on the preservation of objections for appeal. Can Thomas continue his winning streak? Would you do any better? If so, just share out this episode on social media using the hashtag #T3BE and we'll pick a winner! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links The operative law that Speaker Pelosi definitely didn't violate -- but President Trump has -- is 18 U.S.C. § 2071. You can read all about New York SB1747B (the "Green Light Law") as well as check out the fact sheet issued by the DMV. We break down the nonsense threat letter written by "Acting Director" of DHS, Chad Wolf. Legal references! Check out 8 U.S.C. § 1365b; 74 FR 59932; 77 FR 5690; and the final rule, 8 C.F.R. 235.12. Finally, in the political aftermath, we mentioned the pending bipartisan bill, House Res. HR 3675. Check out the latest blog post from Marcy Wheeler, which sets out her take on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and sets out the embedded legal documents. -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 -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

We're on for a bonus pod talking about the bungled Iowa Caucus.

Today's episode features an in-depth interview with investigative journalist and prolific blogger Marcy Wheeler (a.k.a. emptywheel), who has a novel take on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn who, as our listeners know, fired Covington & Burling, hired a loon, and has tried to withdraw his guilty plea. Marcy tells us what she thinks this means! We begin with a bit of analysis and some kind words from a listener in light of the disappointing Senate vote to block witnesses that came down late Friday night. Yes, this means the impeachment is effectively over. No, it doesn't mean we're going to stop fighting. After that, it's time to tackle Marcy Wheeler's take on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. We do a deep dive into the two most recent sentencing memoranda filed by the government in Flynn's case while trying to figure out what this portends. You don't want to miss it! After all that, it’s time for the answer to #T3BE 164 involving a crazed roommate, an aborted murder, and exactly what you could charge him with. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Check out the latest blog post from Marcy Wheeler, which sets out her take on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and sets out the embedded legal documents. -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 -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode tackles six questions raised during the first day of cross-examination at the impeachment of President Trump and gives you the real answers, from a legal point of view, minus the spin (on both sides)! We tackle the standard for impeachment, past judges who have been impeached, the will of the Framers, and much, much more! ----- Remember that Alan Dershowitz has challenged Andrew to a debate, and we've accepted! Only time will tell if Dersh chickens out. Also: please do CALL YOUR SENATORS. The Senate switchboard is (202) 224-3121. They’ll connect you! For the Republicans, make this simple request (and be polite!): “I’d like to speak with Senator ____’s office. Hi, I’m _____, I’m a constituent, and I’m calling to ask Senator ____ to vote in favor of allowing the Senate to subpoena documents and witnesses in the impeachment trial. I don’t know how we can decide if Trump is innocent or guilty without seeing all of the evidence. Thank you.” For the Democrats, call them and thank them for their promise to vote for subpoenaing documents and witnesses. That’s all! It’s that easy and you can REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Thank you! ----- We begin the show with a brief analysis of John Bolton's forthcoming book and whether the White House can get a judicial injunction to block publication. (Hint: no.) In analyzing the question, we do a mini-deep-dive into prior restraint, what it means, and why it protects Bolton's right to publish here. Then it's time for the question extravaganza, which covers not only the legal standard for impeachment but the arguments raised by both sides, the question of foreign interference in our elections, how one asserts executive privilege, and so much more! You won't want to miss this! After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE about a crazed, icepick-wielding roommate with bad luck. Will Thomas be able to keep his win streak going? There's only one way to find out! And remember that you too can play along on social media! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Don't let Republicans misrepresent the articles of impeachment. Article I, Abuse of Power contains allegations that satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2) (the crime of bribery) and Art. II, Obstruction of Congress contains allegations that satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (the crime of obstruction of justice). We referenced Zephyr Teachout's seminal 2009 law review article, "The Anti-Corruption Principle" as well as this analysis by Eisen, Painter, and Tribe on emoluments. Finally, check out Prof. Cunningham's article on the original meaning of "misdemeanors" here. -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 -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode breaks down the (spoiler: ridiculous) defamation lawsuit filed by Tulsi Gabbard against Hillary Clinton for calling her (sort of) a "Russian asset." We do the patented Opening Arguments reading-the-complaint-backwards method (sort of) to figure out exactly what this means and what comes next. We begin, however, with some instant response to the Saturday Republican "defense" of Trump in the impeachment proceedings. It's... well, it's a thing. Is Jay Sekulow still America's dumbest lawyer? (Hint: yes.) Learn the arguments that they're actually trying to advance, and why they're not actually a thing. And again: please don't forget to CALL YOUR SENATOR! Remember, this is preposterously easy: Call. (202) 224-3121. CALL YOUR SENATORS, if you need help connecting to them, use @resistbot. Text the word RESIST to the bot on Messenger, Twitter, Telegram, or to 50409 on SMS. First time setup is quick, then calling both should take 3-5 minutes. Here’s what you say: “I’d like to speak with Senator ____’s office. Hi, I’m _____, I’m a constituent, and I’m calling to ask Senator ____ to vote in favor of allowing the Senate to subpoena documents and witnesses in the impeachment trial. I don’t know how we can decide if Trump is innocent or guilty without seeing all of the evidence. Thank you.” Then, it's time to break down everything about Tulsi Gabbard's lawsuit. That means defamation law, Tulsi's lawyers, the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, and much, much more. You'll be surprised to learn that Tulsi Gabbard's lawyers are... actual lawyers? But you'll also be surprised to learn some facts about them. Don't go all crazy conspiracy-theory on us, but... definitely listen. After all that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 163 involving contemporaneous notes and whether they're admissible as hearsay. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Check out Tulsi's defamation lawsuit here. -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 -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode won't be a surprise; we're tackling all the developments in the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump, including a deep dive into the trial brief filed by his cadre of (terrible) lawyers that alleges a strange new legal defense: "duplicity." Figure out what it all means & why there's so much reason to hope on today's show! We begin with a letter a listener received from Sen. Todd Young and a call to action to each of you to CALL YOUR SENATORS. The Senate switchboard is (202) 224-3121. They'll connect you! For the Republicans, make this simple request (and be polite!): “I’d like to speak with Senator ____’s office. Hi, I’m _____, I’m a constituent, and I’m calling to ask Senator ____ to vote in favor of allowing the Senate to subpoena documents and witnesses in the impeachment trial. I don’t know how we can decide if Trump is innocent or guilty without seeing all of the evidence. Thank you.” For the Democrats, call them and thank them for their promise to vote for subpoenaing documents and witnesses. That's all! It's that easy and you can REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Then, it's time for the main segment, where we delve into all of the supposed "impeachment rules" -- do they really have to drink milk? -- and why S. Res. 438 gives us some reason for optimism. After that, it's time to deconstruct the "cargo cult legal brief" filed by Trump's lawyers. How is it lying nonsense and what's the next bizarre and false argument they're going to make in the trial? We tell you! We also explore the legal doctrine of "duplicity," and show how... duplicitous that argument is in Trump's brief. Then, of course, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE on contemporaneously recorded notes and hearsay. Will Thomas build on his three-question winning streak? Will you get it right? There's only one way to find out.... Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Rules: click here to read Riddick's Senate Procedure, and here for the just-adopted S. Res. 438. Strap in: this is the cargo cult Trump trial brief, and here are the House Articles of Impeachment. Remember that the two crimes covered by the Articles are bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2) (included in Art. I, Abuse of Power) and obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (included in Art. II, Obstruction of Congress). Here's the interview reported by Politico in which Mulvaney conceded there was a quid pro quo (and "get over it")! Finally, if you really want to dig into "duplicity," check out U.S. v. Kearney, 451 F.Supp. 33 (S.D.N.Y. 1978). -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 -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Believe it or not, Congress apparently does occasionally pass laws still. One such law is the SECURE Act. The stated goals of the legislation involve trying to improve the retirement plans and options for Americans who are struggling to save enough. But was the legislation well-written or will there be unintended consequences? We've got Phil Ferguson of Polaris Financial Planning and host of the Phil Ferguson show to give us the breakdown!

Today's episode is one big Andrew Was Right! As we predicted, the House transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate this week, and we unpack all of this week's news in connection with impeachment, including the new GAO report on the Impoundment Control Act, the testimony from Lev Parnas, and much, much more. By the end of this super-sized episode, we'll also give your our predictions as to who might be a surprise profile in courage. The answer WILL surprise you! We begin with the GAO report that's being quoted everywhere. Are media sources getting it right? And what's in the report that's not being talked about? Listen and find out! Did Trump's OMB violate the Impoundment Control Act? (Hint: yes.) Then, we take a look at the transmission of articles, the House managers named, the rules involved, the President's amazing legal team, and much, much more. After all of that, we get to the ultimate question: will this moo the noodle? And if so, who are the Republicans that can be moo'ed? We name names! We also evaluate the Lev Parnas testimony and try and steelman Trump's arguments. Then, of course, it's time for an all-new #T3BE on cocaine smuggling, featuring a special guest player (and next week's guest) Phil Ferguson. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the GAO report on the ICA, and the two relevant provisions of that act: 2 U.S.C. § 683 (rescission) and 2 U.S.C. § 684 (deferment). We referred to the 1991 Cheney GAO opinion on "programmatic delays." Click here to read the Parnas SDNY indictment. Finally, here's the evidence on our Mystery Amash Candidate. -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 -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Chris Armitage is running for the House in Washington's 5th District against Trump devotee Cathy McMorris Rodgers!

Here's the extra bonus we promised you! As always, Andrew is terrible at lightning rounds so we might not have gotten to the quantity of questions that we'd hoped, but the quality is fantastic and as always, you'll learn a ton!

Today's episode takes on (some of) the two biggest pending news stories right now: (1) the U.S. assassination of Iranian Gen. Soleimani, and (2) the pending impeachment of President Trump. Oh, and we also cover a bunch of other things along the way, including the latest CNN settlement regarding the kid from Covington Catholic, and, well, you'll just have to listen to find out everything! We begin with a pre-show grab bag of mini-stories, including the "drain the swamp" news that outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry has joined the board of a holding company that owns a pipeline company. Is this 100% the same scandal as Burisma hiring Hunter Biden? (Hint: yes.) Then, we delve into some disturbing background information on the Solemani strike and answer the first of many listener questions about it: was the strike arguably justified by the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against the 9/11 hijackers? After that, it's time for some Yodeling! We look at the current state of the House/Senate standoff on articles of impeachment and what the likely way forward will be. You'll learn that former NSA Director John Bolton is willing to testify; the question is whether two more Republicans care about that at all. Finally, we cover the latest news that CNN settled the defamation lawsuit brought by Nick Sandmann of Covington Catholic relating to the video shared by CNN nearly a year ago. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE 161 -- this one is a constitutional law question regarding anti-discrimination laws. Can Thomas get it right?? Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Pre-show links: (a) Rick Perry rejoins the board of a pipeline company; (b) the Hofeller Files; and (c) the 5th Circuit's decision on Trump's stupid wall, which we last covered in Episodes 243 and 255. Iranian strike links: (a) Washington Post story on Pompeo masterminding the strike; (b) the Heather Timmons piece in Quartz warning us that Trump was listening to Rapture loons like Pence and Pompeo 18 months ago; and (c) Mary Lee Bigham-Bartling's 2018 doctoral dissertation on Rapture theology. This is the 2001 AUMF, and you can also verify that Solemani is named in neither the 9/11 Commission Report nor the 2019 State Department Fact Sheet. We also quoted from a VOA News report on Sunnis "celebrating" the death of Solemani. On impeachment: the important thing is to click here to read John Bolton's public decision to comply with a Senate subpoena. Finally, although you can't read the CNN/Covington Catholic settlement, you can still watch both the original Sandmann video, and the updated video released a few days later. -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 -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's show features an interview with American Atheists’ National Legal and Policy Director Alison Gill! American Atheists has just released their 2019 State of the Secular States Report, which you can find here. With how much the Trump Administration and the Christian Right have tried to enshrine conservative Christianity into our nation's laws, American Atheists has worked hard to bring us this comprehensive report detailing which states have good laws in place to protect the separation of Church and State. Some states are doing better than others, and some states might surprise you! The report provides a great blueprint of action for how we can work to fight the theocrats on a state by state basis.

Today's episode tackles a bunch of important developments in the new year -- and not all of them are even Trump-related! Our main segment features a deep dive into the recent voter purge decision in Georgia and what that has to do with the Eleventh Amendment and the Pennhurst doctrine. We also tackle the latest scare meme regarding 2020 and update you on all the developments in pending litigation regarding Donald Trump. Buckle up, it's going to be a fun ride! We begin with a quick off-the-white-board note about the "$100,000 verdict" in the Alex Jones defamation lawsuit that isn't what it appears to be. After that, we take a look at a recent meme that's circulating regarding 2020. Should you be concerned about the legal implications of writing 1/1/20 on your documents?? Why or why not? Then it's time to check in on the status of several pending cases involving Congressional subpoenas, including a decision that's being mischaracterized as a setback for impeachment (it isn't), and a bunch of irons that are still in the fire. Then it's time for our deep dive into Pennhurst and the recent denial of injunctive relief to Stacey Abrams's organization dedicated to restoring the voter rolls in 2020 in Georgia. Find out what happened & what's going to happen next. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE in the New Year: can a bakery tell a flaky flour supplier to go clownhorn itself? Don't forget to play along via social media! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the New York Times article about Alex Jones's lawsuit. The article we referenced on FOIA documents connected to OMB from Kate Brannen at Just Security is here. Filings: click here to read the Order of Dismissal in the Kupperman lawsuit, and here to read the Court's Order denying injunctive relief in the voter registration lawsuit. Oh, and feel free to brush up on your Supreme Court decisions by reading Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984). -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 -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode features an in-depth interview with Prof. Lawrence Lessig, counsel for the Colorado faithless electors, about the electoral college system. We also go through the answer to last week's #T3BE about the differences and similarities between burglary and larceny. You won't want to miss it! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at [email protected]. -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 -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!