Opening Arguments

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]!

Happy Holidays, everyone! Today, we tackle a number of issues that managed to distract us over the holidays regarding impeachment and do a deep dive into Nixon v. US -- all while weaving in a John-Roberts-as-the-Grinch-Who-Saved-the-Country-From-Mitch-McConnell story. Can it happen? Absolutely. Will it? We don't know. Do you need to listen? ABSOLUTELY. We begin, however, with the recent filing by the lawyer for the House Judiciary Committee suggesting it might "impeach Donald Trump again." What on earth does that mean, and why is he taking this position? We explain it all. Then it's time for a brief foray into the debate between Noah Feldman, Laurence Tribe (and Jonathan Turley for good measure) as to whether Trump has really been impeached given that the House has not yet transmitted the articles to the Senate. As we all know, that question is really academic -- the real issue is: what power does Mitch McConnell have to transform impeachment into a sham proceeding? The answer lies in a 1993 Supreme Court case, Nixon v. US , 506 U.S. 224 -- and it may just reside in Chief Justice John Roberts. You won't want to miss this deep dive storytelling. After all that, it's time for a brand new #T3BE involving burglary, larceny, and the world's angriest ex-employee. Remember to 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 Click here to read the House's filing before the D.C. Circuit in the McGahn subpoena litigation. In the battle of expert turncoats, we have Noah Feldman arguing that Trump hasn't been impeached, and Jonathan Turley arguing that he has. Finally, make sure you read Nixon v. U.S., 506 U.S. 224 (1993). -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 combines a deep dive into the IRS's tax exemptions with some breaking news about allegations made by a whistleblower that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (that is, the Mormon Church) has hidden over $100 billion in assets that should otherwise be taxed. Grab some yarn and pushpins, and we'll try and disentangle this conspiracy together! Joining us is the host of the Naked Mormonism and Glass Box podcasts, Bryce Blankenagel, who has first-hand knowledge of some of these events and has done serious work trying to parse through the documents and help us figure out what the mainstream reporting on this story might have missed! Along the way you'll learn a ton about the various corporate entities owned by the Mormon Church. After that, we return to a popular #T3BE question involving whether the court can instruct the jury as to one of the elements of a crime. Can Thomas add to his amazing one-question win streak??? Listen and 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 Click here to read the whistleblower's 78-page letter to the IRS, and here to watch his 7-minute video summary. NOTE: We do not endorse all of the claims and/or analysis made in that video. Check out 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) for the statutory provisions regarding non-profits, and here to read the special rules as to when the IRS can investigate or audit a church. -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 recent 5th Circuit ruling you may have heard about that... is supposed to have declared the ACA unconstitutional? How can that possibly be the case? We break it all down for you. Oh, and yeah, we also talk about the fact that the third president in American history has been impeached. We begin, however, with an Andrew Was Wrong segment about the procedural history underlying the Syed appeal. Then, it's time to break down the 5th Circuit's ACA opinion. How is it possible? How is the case ripe? Wasn't all of this decided in 2012 in the NFIB v. Sebelius case? We explain everything you need to know -- and what you need to know about the future -- in this main segment. Then, it's time to tackle some impeachment questions like, "what the hell is going on?" and "is it true that the President can't be pardoned for crimes over which he's been impeached?" (No.) You definitely won't want to miss this one. After all that, it's time for a brand new #T3BE involving jury instructions during a criminal trial. Can Thomas build on his amazing 1-question winning streak? There's only one way to know for sure! 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 We tackled the Syed case for the very last time in Episode 340. You can read the 5th Circuit's ACA opinion here. Finally, on impeachment, don't forget to check out (a) Episode 90 where we explain that Trump can probably pardon himself, and also (b) Laurence Tribe's article that changed how the House handles impeachment. Oh, man, and if you missed last episode's humor, check out “Larry ‘Bud’ Melman” advertising “Mr. Larry’s Toast on a Stick” from the old Late Night With David Letterman show. -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 something the Supreme Court didn't do last week -- namely, it declined to grant certiorari to reverse an obviously incorrect decision of the Sixth Circuit (EMW Women's Surgical Center v. Meier), in which that court upheld a blatantly unconstitutional Kentucky law mandating that women undergo a medically unnecessary ultrasound and listen to a script before undergoing an abortion. We begin, however, with a delightful Frozen-themed listener question about the extent of copyright law and whether Josh Gad can start singing songs about how Brett Kavanaugh is a monster. (Hint: this is a fantastic idea.) We truly drill down on all the different ramifications of when you create an original character for yourself versus your employer. After that, it's time for the main sequence deep dive on EMW Women's Surgical Center v. Meier and exactly why it's surprising -- and depressing -- that the Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari in this case. Then, it's time to check in on #T3BE and see if Thomas can get this homebuying question right. Do you get to cancel a sale when the buyer hides water damages, and if so, why? Listen and 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 If you want to go down memory lane, check out "Larry 'Bud' Melman" advertising "Mr. Larry's Toast on a Stick" from the old Late Night With David Letterman show. You can read the 6th Circuit's opinion in EMW Women's Surgical Center v. Meier, 920 F.3d 421 (6th Cir. 2019) for yourself. The Kentucky law at issue is KRS 311.727. The 4th circuit decision we referenced is Stuart v. Camnitz, 774 F.3d 238 (4th Circ. 2014). Before the Supreme Court, check out (a) the cert petition; (b) the State's opposition; and (c) the petitioner's reply 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 -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode breaks down the Articles of Impeachment currently being debated in the House Judiciary Committee. Find out Andrew's disappointment, the hidden clause that lets the Senate consider Mueller evidence (if they want), and what these articles can't let the Senate evaluate in determining whether to impeach Trump. You won't want to miss it! Oh, and also, you'll get a mini-deep-dive on the Espinoza decision and so much more! We begin with an important listener question about whether Donald Trump could plead the 5th Amendment during the impeachment process. The answer might surprise you -- and you'll enjoy the deep dive into the Constitutional protections against self-incrimination. Then, during the main segment, we tackle the two articles of impeachment in depth, evaluating what crime(s) the articles consider, how they respond to the Republican arguments, and much, much more. After that, we're excited to bring you a segment in which law students can win up to $10,000 in an essay-writing contest that also gives you a chance to make a real difference in a case pending before the Supreme Court, Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue. Then, of course, it's time for another #T3BE, this time about a homeowner who paints over some water damage. Is there a viable reason for the buyer to rescind the contract, or is it "buyer beware"? Listen and 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 Our opening segment discusses the 1957 Supreme Court case of Watkins v. U.S. and also references this 1956 law review article. Our omnibus impeachment explainer is Episode 319 (you can also read the transcript for that episode). This is the text of Rep. Nadler's proposed two articles of impeachment. Finally, if you're a law student, please do check out the FFRF essay contest! Resources: (a) Art. X, Sec. 6 of the Montana Constitution; (b) Montana Code Ann. § 15-30-3101 et seq.; and (c) the FFRF amicus brief in Espinoza. Also, don't forget that we broke down Trinity Lutheran before the Supreme Court ruled way back in Episodes 14, 17, and 18, and then dissected the travesty of an opinion in Episodes 82 and 85. Phew! -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]!

Perhaps against our better judgment, we once again return to the Adnan Syed case narrated so beautifully in season 1 of Serial. If you haven't heard our take on the case itself, you might want to go back and listen to Episode 107. Today, we're not discussing the underlying merits but rather what the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled and why the Supreme Court declined to review that decision. Love us or hate us, if you love Serial, you won't want to miss this episode! We begin, however, with a look at how President Trump has reshaped the federal courts by the numbers. Is it as bleak as some sources say? Or is there merit to the counter-argument that Trump isn't doing anything much differently than his predecessors -- it's just that we're in the middle of his Presidency, so of course his effect is outsized. We delve beneath the op-eds to tell you what the cold hard facts are. Then, it's time to describe exactly what's happened to Adnan Syed in the courts since Serial, culminating with a 4-3 decision in the Maryland Court of Appeals that was left undisturbed by the Supreme Court when they denied certiorari last week. What does it all mean? We break it down for you. After that, it's time for a bonus mini-"Breakin' Down the Law" segment integrated with Thomas's fiendishly hard #T3BE question. If you've ever wondered about motions for new trials and Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, well, this is the show for you! 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 We first broke down the Adnan Syed case (and Serial's portrayal of it) in Episode 107. You can check out the Brookings article we referenced ("Trump Has Reshaped the Judiciary But Not As Much As You Might Think"). For the Maryland Court of Appeals opinion (State v. Syed), click here. Then you can read Syed's cert petition, the State's response, and Syed's reply. Ultimately, the Supreme Court just denied the petition without comment.\ Finally, the underlying case we discussed regarding ineffective assistance of counsel is Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (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 is a timely impeachment-themed deep dive into the testimony of George Washington University law professor -- and legitimate legal scholar -- Jonathan Turley before the House Judiciary Committee. How should you evaluate his arguments? We walk you through them, of course! We begin, however, with a new segment: the Wingnut Lightning Round(TM), in which we evaluate -- or rather, make fun of -- two preposterous new lawsuits filed this week by two complete idiots. After that, it's time for an #AndrewWasWrong about Ronald Burris, the interim Senator nominated by Rod Blagojevich to fill Barack Obama's unexpired Senate seat. Find out the twists and turns to this rather fascinating story as a side bonus to Andrew's well-deserved comeuppance. Then, it's time for the main segment: the news that the House is going to draft articles of impeachment against President Trump despite the testimony of Jonathan Turley. How do the lone Republican-called witness's arguments stack up? (Hint: they're not good.) Surely the Republicans wouldn't have called someone who's on the record saying the exact opposite of what he's presently saying 20 years ago, right? (Guess.) After all that, it's time for a fiendishly hard #T3BE about a trial, a videotape, and a jogging plaintiff. You won't want to miss it -- and you'll want to play along! Appearances Thomas was just the main guest on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, and Thomas and Andrew make additional appearances to roast and be roasted for Vulgarity for Charity. 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 Oh man, you just have to read batshit-crazy Rep. Devin Nunes's eleventy million trillion dollar lawsuit against CNN. For more of the Roland Burris story, check out Wikipedia. Click here to read Turley's testimony 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 -And finally, remember that you can email us at [email protected]!

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the nondelegation doctrine in light of a recent Kavanuagh comment on a case... in which the Supreme Court didn't even grant certiorari. Is Andrew panicking? (No.) Listen and find out why not! We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Wrong on taxation that calls back to OA 336. How exactly is stock income taxed? Listen and find out! Then, it's time for the main segment, which is a deep dive into the "administrative state" and specificially the "nondelegation doctrine" at issue in U.S. v. Gundy. Why did this last week signal the beginning of the end for Andrew & Thomas? Listen and find out! After all that, it's time for a listener question/comment on LIHEAP that helps contextualize how this program works in low-income communities. You won't wan't to miss it! Then, of course, it's time for #T3BE -- the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #155 about a tenant who takes possession of an apartment only to find the previous tenant still inside. How can.. the landlord win? Listen and find out! Appearances Thomas was just the main guest on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, and Thomas and Andrew make additional appearances to roast and be roasted for Vulgarity for Charity. 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 an update on Chevron deference, check out our Episodes 40 and 136. In terms of Auer deference, check out our explainers in Episode 266 and 293. To get up to speed on the nondelegation doctrine, read Gundy v. U.S., 139 S.Ct. 2116 (2019). -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]!

Share this episode with your (open-minded) Republican friends, family, and co-workers! We're happy to bring you this Thanksgiving Special a day early in which we break down the latest "trial balloon" defense of Trump's conduct: that Trump was actually encouraging a legitimate investigation into a top-secret conspiracy in Ukraine to hack the DNC servers in 2016 and throw the election to Hillary Clinton. If you don't know what "CrowdStrike" and "Chalupa" mean, you won't want to miss this one! We begin on that key issue, breaking down the sole legal issue at stake in impeachment -- bribery -- and exactly what Congress needs to show in order to impeach and remove the President from office. From there, we turn to the next likely defense from Trumpland and explain exactly why it is bananas-in-pajamas-level bonkers. After that lengthy breakdown, it's time to check in on the status of various lawsuits seeking to compel witnesses to appear before various House committees. What's going on, and is there any cause for optimism? Listen and find out! Then, as always, it's time for #T3BE, in which Thomas tackles a curious fact-pattern involving a landlord, a new tenant, an old tenant who won't move out, and a surprising legal result. Can he figure out why? Can you? Appearances Thomas was just the main guest on Episode 498 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast, and Thomas and Andrew make additional appearances to roast and be roasted for Vulgarity for Charity. 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 Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to [email protected] along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. We broke down Amb. Sondland's testimony in Episode 335. But don't just take our word for it! You can read the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2), for yourself and figure out what it takes to prove bribery. We also cited to (a) ADNI Joseph Maguire's testimony before Congress; (b) the whistleblower's complaint (which we previously broke down in Episode 318 and a special bonus episode); (c) internal evidence as reported in the New York Times that Trump's lawyers briefed him on the whistleblower complaint in late August, before aid to Ukraine was restored; (d) the TELCON (edited transcript) of the July 25 Trump-Zelensky call released by the White House; (e) the CrowdStrike report from their own website; (f) Trump's April 2017 press interview in which he began peddling the CrowdStrike conspiracy; (g) Fiona Hill's opening statement in her testimony to Congress; (i) the reporting surrounding Sen. Kennedy's appearance on Fox News Sunday; (j) the 2017 Politico story upon which Sen. Kennedy purported to rely; and (k) Vol. 2 of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the 2016 Election, authored by Republican Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC). Phew! In the closing segment, we referred to Rubin v. U.S., 524 U.S. 1301 (1998). -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 Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax. Is it constitutional? How will the arguments shape up? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with an interesting proposal for a "Congressional Review Act" for the Supreme Court by law professor -- and professional Supreme-Court-fixer -- Ganesh Sitaraman. Will this proposal meet with more approval than Sitaraman's previous "lottery" idea? Then we do a deep dive into the history of taxes in this country, looking at two very old cases -- one from 1895 (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429), and one from way back in 1796 (Hylton v. U.S.). We also cover the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, as well as check in on the most recent Supreme Court tax ruling from Chief Justice John Roberts, the NFIB v. Sebelius 2012 Obamacare decision. What do we learn from all that? Well, you'll just have to give it a listen! After all that, it's time for the answer to what some are calling the easiest #T3BE question ever about falling off a ladder. Are they right? Was Thomas? There's only one way to know for sure! 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 Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to [email protected] along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. You can read Prof. Sitaraman's latest article in The Atlantic suggesting a "Congressional Review Act for the Supreme Court." (We previously broke down the Congressional Review Act way back in Episode 61.) We last touched on Prof. Sitaraman's "How to Save the Supreme Court" lottery proposal somewhat less favorably in Episode 294. Head on over to Elizabeth Warren's campaign site to read her "Ultra-Millionaire Tax" proposal. Resources for tax law: Hylton v. U.S. (1796); Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), and NFIB v. Sebelius (2012). Finally, you can check out the scholars letters submitted in support of Warren's tax plan as well as the Johnson & Dellinger law review article, "The Constitutionality of a National Wealth Tax." -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 significance of a packed week in Republican witness testimony before the House Intelligence Committee about the potential impeachment of Donald Trump. We continue to place everything in the context of proving that Donald Trump committed impeachable bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2), including evaluating the (increasingly desperate) defenses being raised by House Republicans. We begin, however, with a slight Andrew Was Wrong and some really interesting listener feedback about the 2019 Ukraine election. Then, it's time to take a look at the week in impeachment, with a particular focus on Amb. Gordon Sondland, a Trump donor who was hand-picked to help run the "shadow foreign policy" in Ukraine, and exactly why he's such a devastating witness. We also tease apart the legality of the OMB hold and the crafting of the narrative to show the elements of bribery. Then, it's time for a brief update on the Trump v. Mazars litigation and the significance of the administrative hold put in place by the Supreme Court. Does that mean John Roberts is 100% in the tank for Trump? (No.) After all that, it's time for a NEW ERA in #T3BE as we move to a new set of questions! This one asks about a potential lawsuit for a guy who falls off his ladder. Did Thomas get it right? Listen and find out -- and play along with us 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 Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to [email protected] along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. Remember that this is all about Trump's bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2). Oh, the lies! We debunked the insane "the government secretly changed the whistleblower form" conspiracy back in Episode 320 and even created a handy link for you to share with Uncle Clarence to help convince him! On Trump v. Mazars, you can check out Trump's brief requesting a stay and the order issued by Chief Justice Roberts. -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 a deep dive into what used to be a core Republican program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. Did you know that every year, over a thousand people -- most of them with homes -- freeze to death in the U.S.? Did you know that both political parties used to want to do something about that? We begin, however, with some listener feedback from our popular recent Episode 330 in which we broke down a recent decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court regarding "pre-embryos" and in vitro fertilization (IVF). Hear from a published scientist and an IVF mom! Then, it's time for our deep dive into LIHEAP, 42 U.S.C. § 8621 et seq. You'll learn all about the problem of home heating in this country and what we do about it... at least for now. You'll also learn exactly how much the Trump administration would like to fund this program, which you won't be surprised to learn is $0. But that's not all! Our "C" segment features a lengthy explanation from election law expert Beth Kingsley who answers the question "Could Donald Trump just hire Vladimir Putin to work on his 2020 re-election campaign if he discloses it?" The answer is more complicated than you'd expect and just might surprise you. After all that, it's time for the answer to Friday's #T3BE 153 about the admissibility of a doctor's note in court. Will Thomas get this one right?? Listen and 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 Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to [email protected] along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. We discussed both the IVF decision and the election hypothetical back in Episode 330. You can read the LIHEAP law for yourself; it's 42 U.S.C. § 8621 et seq. The data we discussed on the episode comes from Olivia Wein's study, and the funding numbers come from this government document. This is the link to the FEC's guidance we discussed in the "C" segment. Finally, check out an actual IVF contract, thanks to Valerie Smith! -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]!

There was so much to discuss, we had to record an extra episode!

Today's episode ran so long that we're going to give you a BONUS episode tomorrow. What did we get through? Well, we break down almost everything about the first day of televised public hearings in the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry. You absolutely, positively do not want to miss this! We begin, however, with a plug for our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to [email protected] along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. After that, it's time to tackle a wide variety of legal topics related to the Taylor and Kent testimony, including: (a) how their testimony fits into the elements of the crime of bribery; (b) the Republicans' evolving defenses of Donald Trump; (c) the two lawyers picked to handle the bulk of the questioning; and much, much more. Along the way, we also discuss the significance of the D.C. Circuit's en banc refusal to rehear the subpoena decision in Trump v. Mazars and what comes next, as well as the status of Mick Mulvaney's continuing efforts to defy the Congressional subpoenas. After all that, it's time for a milestone #T3BE involving hearsay and expert witness testimony. 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 Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to [email protected] along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice. Remember: this is about bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201. This is the transcript of Sen. Kennedy on Face the Nation. In terms of dirty tricks, here's the link to Taylor's closed-door deposition, where Castor outed the whistleblower, and here's a link to his laughing during Fiona Hill's deposition. BONUS! Here's the Politico article we rip apart in Episode 333 ("There’s a Surprisingly Plausible Path to Removing Trump From Office") and... god help me.. the National Review article that actually gets it right. -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 is the final -- and dare we say it, the best -- part of our live show in Los Angeles where we were joined by the co-host of the popular podcast "Oh No Ross And Carrie" Carrie Poppy, and the show's lawyer, Matthew Strugar. Join us for a fascinating discussion as to who's threatened to sue the show and why.... And stick around for a special LIVE #T3BE! After that, we also answer last week's #T3BE about breach of contract. Can Thomas continue his improbable one-question win streak? Listen and find out! Show Notes & Links You should definitely be listening to Oh No Ross and Carrie! We last had Carrie and Matthew on our show in Episode 77.

Today's episode is everything you need to walk your open-minded Uncle Clarence -- you know, the one who watches Fox News, but not religiously, and isn't quite sure what all this impeachment nonsense is about -- through the key buzzwords of the week. And, as a bonus, we discuss an important decision regarding in vitro fertilization in Connecticut. We begin, however, with the Explainer. How is this process different from (and more fair than) the Clinton impeachment? What is an impeachment "inquiry?" And why -- oh god, why?!? -- is everyone so focused on quid pro quo? You'll find out the answers to all these questions and much, much more. After that, it's time to examine Bilbao v. Goodwin, which delves into the tricky question of what happens to a couple's frozen pre-embryos after they break up? This case has been making the rounds in both pro-life and pro-choice circles -- we'll tell you exactly what it stands for and what comes next. Then, of course, it's time for an all-new #T3BE, in which Thomas tackles a breach-of-contract question. Can he keep his winning streak going? Upcoming 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 the full breakdown of the House Impeachment Inquiry resolution, H.R. 660, check out our discussion in Episode 328. And you can click here to read Bilbao v. Godwin. -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 is something we absolutely love to do, which is listener questions! Our listeners pose some truly intelligent, well thought-out, and deep-dive worthy questions. Today's episode features two such deep dives inspired by our listeners. The first is regarding DC v Heller, and whether it applies to gun ownership or gun sales, or both. The second question is a chance for Andrew to talk about jury duty, and what makes a good juror. Classic OA Tuesday deep dives!

This week's Rapid Response Friday breaks down exactly what's in H.R. 660, the impeachment inquiry resolution, and what it means for the ongoing process. We also help you digest the legal significance of Alexander Vindman's testimony and much, much more, so strap in! We begin, however, with Thomas's favorite segment -- Andrew Was Wrong. Here, Andrew issues a correction regarding baseball law and the chemistry of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from our popular Pizza, Beer & Guns episode. After that, it's time for a trip up Yodel Mountain where we digest H.R. 660, the soon-to-be-passed resolution authorizing the House Intelligence Committee to take the lead on the impeachment inquiry. Is it "still without any due process for the President," as the White House claims? [No.] As a bonus, we also break down the companion change to the rules adopted by the House Rules Committee pursuant to the resolution that's managed to confuse a number of media outlets. But that's not all! While we're high atop Yodel Mountain, we also break down the significance of Alexander Vindman's testimony this week regarding the Trump administration's holding hostage of aid to Ukraine pending an "investigation" into Burisma, and Hunter and Joe Biden. After all that, it's time for #T3BE, in which Thomas tackles a dreaded real property question -- this one about whether a grantee can revoke an easement. Those are words! Will Thomas decipher them? Upcoming 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 H.R. 660, and here for the companion change to the rules. Here's the Democratic summary of those changes. This is the transcript of Alexander Vindman's opening statement, plus more on his testimony from the Washington Post and the (failing) New York Times, as well as the Politico story on how some Republicans are pushing back against attacks on Vindman. -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]!