Opening Arguments

Happy holidays, everyone! Today's special episode tackles a number of issues about being in law school and being a lawyer. First, however, we begin with an update on the Trump administration's efforts to restrict the reproductive rights of young women in federal custody first discussed in Episode 117. In the main segment, Andrew solicits some advice from some lawyer and law student friends-of-the-show and tries to answer some of your most recurring questions like "Should I go to law school?" "If so, where?" "What's it like?" "Will I like being a lawyer?" and so forth. If you've ever dreamed about sitting in the chair opposite Thomas, this is the show for you! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas TakeS The Bar Exam question #55 about water damage to a boat. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links We broke down Jane Doe v. Wright in Episode 117. You can read the government's stay application in Hargan v. Garza by clicking here, and the court's Order here. Resources for law students include the National Association of Law Placement's 2017 research, the in-depth reports put out by Law School Transparency, the somewhat off-color "Law School Sewage Pit Profiles" site, and the ATL report on cheapest law schools in the country. Finally, if you're dying to know what a scorpion bowl is, you can check out the Kong's website. It's a Harvard institution! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

As a gift to our amazing listeners, here's the great Eli Bosnick breaking down Miracle on 34th Street with the guys! If you enjoy this Law'd Awful Movies, make sure to check out Patreon.com/law for more!

Today's episode is all about the budding legal expert co-host of this show, one Thomas Smith, Esq. soon-to-be of Thomas's Second Chance Law Firm. First, taking a cue from the hilarious failed nomination of Matthew Petersen to the federal bench, Andrew asks Thomas the same kinds of basic questions. Is Thomas more qualified than Trump's judicial nominees? (The answer will not surprise you.) In the main segment, the guys break down a threatened "God's Not Dead 2"-style lawsuit at Thomas's old high school, Bret Harte High. Strap in for a bumpy ride, because this one is a roller coaster of crazy. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #55 about damaging a boat. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links The fabulous "Thomas's Second Chance Law Firm" graphic was designed by fan of the show Kristen Hansen; you can follow her @wrathofkhansen on Twitter. If you haven't yet watched Sen. Kennedy (R-LA) humiliate laughably unqualified former Trump federal judicial nominee Matthew Petersen, you really should. You can read all about the hearing at Thomas's high school here. Crazy person Greg Glaser is a serial blogger who writes about the evils of vaccinations, numerological theology; and (of course) his proposed Earth Constitution. The actual cases relevant to the dispute are Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) and Kitzmiller v. Dover, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode welcomes back one of our favorite guests -- and the show's only three-time guest, Andrew Seidel, attorney with the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Together, Andrew, Andrew, and Thomas tackle a bunch of church and state separation issues. First, they break down Andrew Seidel's recent success in convincing the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject their most unqualified judges, Jeff Mateer and Brett Talley. Then, the gang does a deep dive into the oral arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop hate-bakery case. After that, Andrew Seidel gives us his take on a new Christian right-wing lobbying group co-founded by Gordon Klingenschmitt. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (and Andrew!) Take The Bar Exam question #54 about witness statements and overlapping privilege. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 75 of The Science Enthusiast podcast and Episode 229 of the Atheist Nomads podcast. Give 'em a listen! Show Notes & Links We broke down the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in Episode 105, and you can follow along with the guys by reading the transcript of the Masterpiece Cakeshop oral argument before the Supreme Court! If you love Andrew Seidel, you might want to go back to his previous appearances on the show, Episode 82 (on Trinity Lutheran), Episode 85 (which was originally a Patreon-only exclusive), and Episode 111. And if that's still not enough Andrew for you, you can catch up on Andrew Seidel's most recent writings: his op-ed on Masterpiece Cakeshop, which you can read here; his blog post on right-wing legal organizations; and, of course, his FFRF press release celebrating the victory in keeping Mateer and Talley off the federal bench. Find out all about Go Klings's latest right-wing "legal" group here. Finally, consider supporting the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode talks about the disastrous wildfires that have ravaged Thomas's home state of California, and who winds up footing the bills for these disasters. It's exactly as much insurance law as you wanted to learn! First, we begin with some news items, including an update on the Net Neutrality vote, a new mega-merger, and the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, a case we discussed back in Episode 112. After the main segment, Andrew and Thomas also update on the pending tax bill and some other items in the news. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #54 about witness statements and overlapping privileges. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 229 of the Atheist Nomads podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links We discussed the AT&T/Time Warner merger in OA 128; you can read about the new Disney/Fox merger here. This is the petitioners' brief for cert in Evans, and this is the response brief filed by the hospital. We discussed several provisions of the California Insurance Code, including Section 1861.05 ("Proposition 103" that prohibits rate hikes); Section 2032 (a consumer protection provision); and Section 2071 (standard form fire insurance policy). Here's a New York Times article about the impending tax deal, and this is the begging letter sent by the American Bar Association. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Should you take legal advice from a viral video on YouTube? Today's episode is all about judges, lawyers, attorney-client privilege, and the police. We begin with the news that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself in the case of Jennings v. Rodriguez; why? After that, the guys break down a video called "Don't Talk To The Police" and discuss some hallmarks of legal videos online. After that, Andrew tackles Donald Trump Jr.'s assertion that whenever a lawyer enters the room, attorney-client privilege shields everything. Is that really true? (No.) Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam question #53 about witness impeachment. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 75 of The Science Enthusiast podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links This is the recusal letter sent on behalf of Justice Kagan; and here is the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges. You can watch the "Don't Talk To The Police" video. Here's the data on Regent University's fake law school. The first out-of-context quote comes from Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949). The second out-of-context quote comes from Justice Breyer's dissent in Rubin v. U.S., a 1998 cert petition regarding the extent of executive privilege. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode concludes the discussion begun in Episode 125 about antitrust law in light of the proposed AT&T/Time Warner merger. First, though, we begin with some news items, including an update on Patreon practices and the status of Leandra English's lawsuit to become Acting Director of the CFPB. In the main segment, Andrew breaks down the Department of Justice's lawsuit against AT&T and Time Warner with an eye towards answering the question "is this just an effort to punish CNN?" After the main segment, fan favorite "Closed Arguments!" returns with an evaluation of Alan Dershowitz and John Dowd's claims that the President cannot obstruct justice. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #53 about witness impeachment. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was recently a guest on The Science Enthusiast podcast; you can watch the video of that here. Show Notes & Links Here's the update on the Leandra English lawsuit. Before tackling this week's episode you might want to re-listen to Episode 125 and read the Department of Justice's lawsuit. The principal case that applies to Trump's claims of immunity is U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). And as always, we recommend friend-of-the-show Randall Eliason's Washington Post article on the practical implications of the immunity argument. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

For $30 off your first week of HelloFresh, visit hellofresh.com and enter lawpod30! Today's special episode tackles the breaking news that Gen. Michael Flynn has pled guilty in connection with the Mueller investigation. To break down the significance of this deal, we welcome back Prof. Randall Eliason. After that, Andrew answers a bunch of listener questions regarding the tax bill that just passed the Senate. Recent Appearances Andrew just did two episodes of the David Pakman show: first, he was on talking about #NetNeutrality; and then, he came back for a segment on the Mueller investigation. You can see both -- including Andrew's spiffy new webcam -- by clicking the YouTube links above! Show Notes & Links This is a copy of the Flynn plea deal; he's pled guilty to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Prof. Eliason's "Sidebars" blog is here, and you can read his latest Washington Post article about Flynn by clicking here. We referenced statements by Seth Abramson (scroll forward to linked reply #6); Alan Dershowitz, and a pretty awful article by Andrew McCarthy in the National Review. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode breaks down the recent kerfuffle over the simultaneous claims of Leandra English and Mick Mulvaney to be Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). First, we begin with an "Andrew Was Wrong (?)" segment that gives voice to an anti-Net Neutrality argument, a clarification on the Obama administration's antitrust policies, and a factual clarification on the Anheuser-Busch/InBev merger. After the main segment, Andrew and Thomas answer a fun question about speeding and evidence AND tease the upcoming Law'd Awful Movies #13. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #52 about the constitutionality of a cigarette tax and accompanying program. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links For Jaqen and others, we recommend OA22: "Libertarianism is Bad and You Should Feel Bad." Here is the lawsuit filed by Leandra English; and this is the memorandum supporting her motion for TRO. On the other side, you can read the memorandum issued by Asst. Attorney General Steven A. Engel and the companion memo authored by CFPB Counsel Mary McLeod. The statutes we cited during the show are two sections of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 3345 and 5 U.S.C. § 3347, as well as a portion of Dodd-Frank, 12 U.S.C. § 5491. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode takes two deep dives into complicated legal issues in the news. First, we tackle the FCC's recent "Order Restoring Internet Freedom," which is being characterized as ending Net Neutrality. Is that true? The answer... probably won't surprise you, actually. Then, Andrew and Thomas discuss general principles of antitrust law with an eye towards the recent news that the Trump Department of Justice has sued to block the AT&T/Time Warner merger. Finally, we close with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #51 involving class action lawsuits in Tenntucky. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew is going to be on the Wednesday broadcast of the David Pakman show; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links We first discussed Net Neutrality in Episode 64 and Episode 65. The text of the Open Internet Order of 2015 is here. You can also read the Heritage Foundation's plea to have internet regulations fall under FTC rather than FCC jurisdiction. The interim vote to reverse the Open Internet Order of 2015 is here. This is the full Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order ("Restoring Internet Freedom"). This is FTC Commissioner Clyburn's Minority Report and guide to the order. We first discussed antitrust laws in connection with the USFL lawsuit in Episode 57 and Episode 58. Here is the DOJ's lawsuit attempting to block the AT&T/Time Warner merger. The main citations we relied upon in the show were 15 U.S.C. § 1 (The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890); 15 U.S.C. § 18 (The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914), and 15 U.S.C. § 45 (the FTC Act of 1914). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode is the Happiest Episode Ever (TM)! First, the guys discuss "the real meaning of Thanksgiving," cribbing from a blog post Andrew wrote for his old firm back in 2013. In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas break down a pending case before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia regarding Donald Trump's tweets and the Freedom of Information Act, as well as an update on the status of Trump's "Sanctuary Cities" executive order first discussed on OA 65. Then, Thomas answers a delightful listener question about what he likes. The answer WILL surprise you! Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #51 about justiciability and standing. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was a return guest on the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links Check out "The Real Meaning of Thanksgiving" here. The Freedom of Information Act can be found at 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. We discussed the influential Garland opinion of ACLU v. CIA, 710 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2013). We first discuss the "Sanctuary Cities" EO in Episode 65, and you can read the permanent injunction here. Finally, you can submit your show quotes here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

In this fun, pre-Thanksgiving episode, we delve into a number of interesting topics. We begin with the popular (if much maligned by Thomas) card game "Cards Against Humanity" and their pitch to "save America." Are you surprised that it turns into a deep dive about eminent domain? (You shouldn't be.) After that, Andrew answers a listener question about whether, in fact, there are "magic words" in the law. How does this relate to the infamous lawyer dog? Listen and find out! Next, the guys discuss Trump's secret war on the judiciary, beginning with a judge less qualified than Thomas and most OA listeners. It's depressing! It's true! It's... depressing. The episode closes with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #50 involving hot rods, cruisin', and assault with a deadly car hood. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was a return guest on Episode 7 of the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links Check out Cards Against Humanity Saves America! Oh, and afterwards, give Episode 52 of Comedy Shoeshine a listen and hear how Thomas really feels about adult Apples-to-Apples! You can read this Washington Post story about the infamous "lawyer dog" by clicking here. And, of course, you can always read Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode is, unfortunately, all about Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore. First, the guys discuss the unintentionally hilarious litigation hold letter filed by Moore's attorney. After that, Andrew and Thomas break down Alabama's election laws and discuss a variety of proposals being circulated for replacing Moore on the ballot. Next, the guys end with a discussion of whether the Senate can expel Moore from its ranks in the event that he wins. Finally, we end with an all-new "West Side Story"-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #50. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Here is the AL.com story containing the litigation hold letter they received from Moore's attorney. The relevant law is Alabama Code 17-6-21. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download

Today's episode takes a deep dive into social contract theory, and in particular, one of the most influential works of modern philosophy, John Rawls's A Theory of Justice, with guest philosopher Aaron Rabi, host of the terrific podcast Embrace The Void. After the discussion, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #49. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Check out Embrace The Void by clicking here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode features Natalie Newell of the documentary "Science Moms" discussing GMO labeling and science awareness. First, we begin with an "Andrew Was Wrong" segment that updates some previous stories, including good news from the Jane Doe v. Wright decision discussed in Episode 117 and some clarification regarding the Manafort indictment from Episode 118. After that, Natalie Newell joins us for a lengthy discussion on GMOs in light of legislation passed in 2016 requiring uniform national labeling. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #49. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode 6 of the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links Here is the press release regarding Jane Doe's abortion. The GMO labeling law we discuss is the "National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard Act of 2016," 7 U.S.C. § 1639 et seq. And you can (and should!) check out "Science Moms" by clicking here and listen to Natalie's podcast, The Science Enthusiast. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download

Today's episode takes a look at the recent decision in Doe v. Trump in which a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the majority of President Trump's ban on trans servicemembers in the armed forces. First, though, we begin with a discussion of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and the requirement that prosecutors turn over exculpatory evidence to criminal defendants. In the "C" segment, we discuss two articles surrounding Trump's legal strategy in light of last week's indictments. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #48 about co-conspirators, confessions, and hearsay. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode 6 of the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links The two cases discussed in the "A" segment were Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and U.S. v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985). You can read the full text of Judge Kollar-Kotelly's decision in Doe v. Trump by clicking here. The two articles discussed in the "C" segment were this article from the Daily Beast and this article from The Hill. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's rapid-response episode tackles -- of course -- the indictment of former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his protege, Rick Gates, as well as the guilty plea entered by Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos. What does it all mean? Listen to a special full-length episode and find out! After our full discussion, we end with a timely new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #48 about co-conspirator confessions. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode 6 of the How-To Heretic Podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links You can (and should) read the Papadopoulos statement of offense. Papadopoulos has pled guilty to providing a false statement to a government official, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. After that, you can read the Manafort and Gates indictment by clicking here. Manafort and Gates are collectively charged with 12 crimes, including conspiracy to commit an offense against or to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371; conspiracy to launder money,18 U.S.C. § 1956; seven counts of record-keeping violations under 31 U.S.C. § 5314; two separate violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, 22 U.S.C. § 612 et seq.; and, of course, providing false statements to a government official, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode takes a look at a tragic case currently unfolding of a pregnant young woman being detained for being in this country illegally and the Trump administration's efforts to deny her the right to an abortion. We begin with a quick procedural update on the 9th Circuit's ruling on EO-2 before taking a deep dive into the nuts and bolts behind Zarda v. Altitude Express, which we first discussed back in Episode 91. Thanks to some great questions from our listeners, Andrew and Thomas get into the civil procedure weeds with concepts like "claim-splitting" and res judiciata. In the main segment, the guys break down Jane Doe v. Wright, and discuss whether the government can prohibit an minor alien in this country outside of legal status from seeking an abortion. Next, Andrew and Thomas discuss a prominent tweet within the skeptical community and whether it is fair to characterize the statement itself as "sexual harassment." Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #47 about landlord responsibility and immunity. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links The recent news regarding the 9th Circuit was reported by Bloomberg News and other outlets. We first discussed Zarda v. Altitude Express in Episode 91. New York's Human Rights Law can be found in the New York Consolidated Laws, Art. 15, § 290 et seq. We took you through the current status of abortion in our detailed two-part discussion of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Episode 27 and Episode 28. You can read Jane Doe's complaint, as well as the en banc decision of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Jane Doe v. Wright. The regulations implementing sexual harrassment under Title VII can be found at 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's rapid-response episode tackles the recent news that Hillary Clinton's campaign and/or the DNC paid for the "Russian dossier" on Donald Trump. What does that mean in terms of U.S. election law? Listen and find out! We begin with a quick news update on various lawsuits against poker pro Phil Ivey, a story we covered way back in Episode 32 with guest Chris Kristofco. Next, we take a quick look at New York's use of the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE) and what this might mean for Thomas's Second-Chance Law Firm! In our main segment, we talk to election law expert Beth Kingsley on the "Trump Dossier" and the role played by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. Is it time to "Lock Her Up?" After that, we examine the recent Senate vote against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule regarding class action lawsuits. What does it mean, and did Andrew contradict himself with his earlier support for arbitration? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #47 about landlord immunity. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links You can listen to the fascinating tale of Phil Ivey's edge-sorting scheme by checking out Episode 32, and if you would like to hear more from Chris Kristofco, check out his podcast, "Titletown Sound Off." This is the Yahoo News article about Ivey. Here are the New York bar exam results, courtesy of Above the Law. We first discussed Donald Trump, Jr.'s meeting with the Russians back in Episode 86, and then again in Episode 93 when we answered Sage's question. The relevant election law statute is 52 U.S.C. § 30121. Here is the CFPB rule that was just voted down by the Senate. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode features former NFL punter, social justice advocate, and game designer Chris Kluwe, who sued his former NFL team for wrongful termination after he alleged that they cut him for standing up for marriage equality. Kluwe brings his unique behind-the-scenes knowledge to help us understand Colin Kaepernick's recently-filed grievance against the NFL, and gives us some bold predictions as to what's going to happen next. Even if you're not a football fan, we think you'll love this conversation. After that, Andrew and Thomas break down a recent story circulating about former FBI Director James Comey and (of course) Hillary Clinton's "damned emails," which we first discussed way back in Episode 13. (If you haven't listened to that episode, you probably should; it's really good!) Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #46 as to whether pre-nuptial agreements must be in writing. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links You too can read Colin Kaepernick's arbitration demand; we archived a copy of it here. We first discussed Hillary Clinton's "damned emails" and the Comey investigation back in Episode 13. Here is a link to the (almost entirely redacted) email chain regarding Comey's statement. Finally, you should absolutely check out Kluwe's new card game, Twilight of the Gods, by clicking here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download

Today's rapid-response episode begins with an update on the Allergan patent licensing scheme discussed in Episode 107. What does a federal judge think of this One Weird Trick to avoid certain legal proceedings? Listen and find out! Next, our main segment looks at Donald Trump's efforts to undermine Obamacare from the Oval Office. Does this violate the Constitution? Is there anything we can do about it? The answer might surprise you! After that, we continue the theme by looking at the two recent injunctions handed down by U.S. District Courts in Hawaii and Maryland regarding the third iteration of President Trump's Travel Ban. Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #46 about prenuptial agreements. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Thomas was on Episode 60 of the "Atheists on High" podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links We first discussed the Allergan patents for Restasis back in Episode 107, along with no other controversial things at all. The court's opinion regarding Allergan's joinder of the native American tribe can be found here; and the main opinion on the validity of the patent can be found here. This is a link to the Vox article by Prof. Gluck alleging that Trump has violated the "Take Care" clause of the Constitution. The Nixon-era case we discuss is Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975). This is the text of Presidential Proclamation 9645 ("EO-3"). Here is a link to the Hawaii opinion; and here is a link to the Maryland opinion. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode is entirely Trump-free, and features a deep dive into the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the 8th Amendment. We begin, however, with a great listener question from Captain Patrick Dobbins, who wants to know the ins and outs of "international waters." Ask, and ye shall receive! After that, the guys break down the history of the 8th Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" -- what does it mean, what kinds of punishments are prohibited, and when did it begin to apply to state prisons? You WILL be surprised. Then, we tackle with another listener question from Patron Cody Bond, who wants to know more about price discrimination, cake baking, and "Ladies' Night." Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (& Andrew) Take the Bar Exam Question #45 regarding licenses for massage parlors. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links We first discussed the thorny nature of what constitutes property way back in Episode 22, "Libertarianism is Bad and You Should Feel Bad." If you'd like to read the U.N. "Law of the Sea" Treaty, get ready to settle in for a lengthy read! The two death penalty cases wediscuss are Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) and Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976). The Huffington Post records Antonin Scalia's 2008 interview with Nina Totenberg approving of putting people in the stocks. The case we discuss in the "C" segment outlawing "Ladies' Night" in California is Koire v. Metro Car Wash, 707 P.2d 195 (Cal. 1985). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's rapid-response episode begins with a discussion of a recent petition to the Supreme Court for certiorari filed in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, and in particular, an amicus curiae brief submitted by 76 employers. How does this brief affect the future of gay rights in this country? Listen and find out! Next, our main segment looks at Donald Trump's recent threat to have the FCC "revoke NBC's license," and rewards you with a deep dive into what the FCC is and what it can and cannot do. (Hint: it cannot revoke NBC's "license.") Remember that we first discussed the FCC's "Common Carrier" regulatory authority back in Episode 64 and Episode 65 in evaluating the history of the net neutrality movement. After that, we answer two related listener questions from patrons John Funk and Secular Ewok about the attorney-client relationship and some crazy situations. Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #45 about the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment in the context of a business license. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links As background to this issue: we first discussed Hively v. Ivy Tech back in Episode 60, and then followed up with our discussion of Zarda v. Altitude Express in Episode 91. This is the cert petition filed by Evans. And this is the amicus brief filed by the 76 employers that you should definitely read. Here's the New York Times story about Trump threatening NBC. And, of course, you can read the FCC's description of its own regulations. The FCC derives its authority to regulate broadcast media from 47 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter C. Finally, you can click here to read Rule 1.2 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download

Today's episode marks the triumphant return of attorney Andrew Seidel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation to the show! We begin with an "Andrew Was Wrong" segment in which patron Kristen Hansen discusses how better to evaluate charities than the simple overhead metric the guys used in Episode 102. After that, Andrew Seidel joins us for two segments. First, the two Andrews discuss separation of church and state, including their recent disagreement as to whether FEMA funds will be spent rebuilding churches damaged by the recent hurricanes, as well as a return foray into gay wedding cakes discussed in Episode 105. Then, Andrew Seidel updates us regarding two recent victories by the FFRF. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (& Andrew) Take the Bar Exam Question #44 regarding witness testimony. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links If you like their work, please consider supporting the Freedom From Religion Foundation. We originally discussed the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in Episode 105. Here is the link to the major victory Andrew Seidel discussed in the "C" segment of the show. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's rapid-response episode begins with a discussion of the tragedy in Las Vegas and whether we can do anything about it. Before you dig in, you might want to take a refresher on our two-part masterclass on the Second Amendment in Episode 21 (Part 1) and Episode 26 (Part 2). Then, we take our first of two separate trips to Yodel Mountain with the recent revelation that the Trump DOJ disregarded decades of advice before issuing an opinion memo that authorized the (blatantly illegal) hiring of Jared Kushner. Is this really a Hillary Clinton story? Listen and find out! After that, we trek back up Yodel Mountain with the breaking news that the New York Attorney General's office was about to indict Donald Trump, Jr. and Ivanka Trump in 2012... until the AG received a visit (and a bag of money!) from Donald Trump's lawyer, Marc Kasowitz. Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #44 about hearsay... and Thomas is joined by next week's guest, Andrew Seidel of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Our two-part masterclass on the Second Amendment begins with Episode 21 (Part 1) and continues in Episode 26 (Part 2). After that, we discussed Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017), which we also covered in depth in Episode 47. You can read the Trump Administration's talking points on Las Vegas here. This is the breaking story by Politico about the DOJ ignoring precedent. The case Andrew discusses at length is AAPS v. Clinton, 997 F.2d 898 (D.C. Cir. 1993). It is being grossly misreported in the media; see, for example, this NPR story. This is 5 U.S.C. App. § 1, the Federal Advisory Committee Act. You can read the ProPublica story here that suggests that Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump were about to be indicted in 2012. The federal bribery law is 18 U.S.C. § 201; the relevant case is McDonnell v. U.S., 579 U.S. ____, 136 S.Ct. 2355 (2016); and you can check out our friend Randall Eliason's great analysis of the bribery statute here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's show discusses: A) The Jones Act and Puerto Rico; B) The GOP's tax plan; and C) Oral arguments in the Zarda v. Altitude Express case we discussed back in Episode 91. Support us on Patreon at patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download

Today's episode hits on some timely news stories, including Trump's latest kerfuffle with the NFL. In the pre-show, we talk a little bit about the Graham-Cassidy Bill, which is hopefully defunct by the time you hear this. But can Trump save it via Executive Order? (No.) Then, we return for a lengthy "Andrews Were Wrong!" segment in which we issue a correction from Episode 107, explain the difference between Ronnie Lott and Leon Lett, and also tackle friend of the show Andrew Seidel's recent article regarding whether churches will likely receive FEMA relief in the wake of the Trinity Lutheran decision. In the main segment, Andrew looks at the Supreme Court's recent order in Tharpe v. Warden and explains the significance in light of our prior discussion of jury deliberations. Before you listen to "Yodel Mountain," you'll want to go back and listen to Episode 57 and Episode 58, in which we go into detail on Donald Trump's rocky relationship with the NFL. Then, we answer whether Donald Trump violated federal law by threatening NFL players who refuse to stand for the national anthem & some other questions. You'll find out which senators oppose "State-Sponsored Patriotism" and the answer WILL surprise you! Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #43 about whether a "Letter of Intent" is binding in a business sale. (Oooh, right in Andrew's professional wheelhouse!) Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances After being bombarded by 10,000 Twitter trolls, the guys are going to lay low for a little bit. Show Notes & Links We discussed the first GOP effort to repeal the AHCA back in Episode 80, and you can read about the changes to that bill (largely, to the slush fund) in this Bloomberg article. This CNN report suggested that Trump would "do an Executive Order" when Graham-Cassidy fails. If you want to read the trial court's ruling on ineffective assistance of counsel in the Syed case, you can do so. We first discussed whether churches will receive FEMA funds for disaster relief in Episode 102; Andrew Seidel respectfully disagreed with that conclusion in a recent article; we continue to think he's too optimistic in light of the Trinity Lutheran decision. We discussed Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado as a "landmark case" way back in Episode 56. You can read the Supreme Court's order staying execution in Tharpe v. Warden, as well as the District Court's opinion denying reopening of Tharpe's habeas petition. We're really proud of the episodes we did on the USFL v. NFL lawsuit back in Episode 57 and Episode 58, in which we go into detail as to exactly why Trump hates the NFL (and so much more)! The relevant statute at issue with Trump threatening the NFL is 18 U.S.C. § 227. That "LawNewz" article we referenced is here; read at your own risk! Finally, we definitely recommend reading the McCain-Flake report on "paid patriotism." Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download

Today's super-sized show -- at long last! -- discusses season 1 of the Serial podcast. Even if you haven't heard Serial, we think you'll enjoy this application of the principles of reasonable doubt. We begin with a discussion of the recent settlement between Evergreen College and Bret Weinstein. Why does Andrew say this means the college valued Weinstein's alleged $3.8 million lawsuit at zero? In the main segment, Andrew goes through some of the issues behind the Serial and Undisclosed podcasts related to the Adnan Syed case. Next, Andrew does a mini-deep dive on patent law by looking at a strange recent deal between Allergan and the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe. What in the world do these two entities have in common? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #42 regarding authentication of evidence. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode 11 of the Reasonable Risk podcast; go check it out! Show Notes & Links Andrew quoted extensively from State v. Earp, 319 Md. 156, 170-172 (1990) on witness coaching. This is Allergan's press release regarding their deal to sell the patents to the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe. The two relevant sections from the U.S. Code relating to inter partes review are 35 USC § 102 (“no prior art”) and 35 USC § 103 (“non-obvious”). This IP website has a brief discussion of the Oil States v. Greene's Energy Group case in which the Supreme Court will consider whether the inter partes review process is constitutional. The two recent patent cases discussed in the "C" segment are Covidien, LP v. University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. (Jan. 25, 2017) and NeoChord v. University of Maryland, Baltimore (May 23, 2017). For a refresher on sovereign immunity, you might want to check out Opening Arguments Episode #90. Finally, don't forget to check out and join the Opening Arguments Facebook Community! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

In this episode, we discuss a number of political stories making the rounds. First, "Yodel Mountain" returns with a look at the recent CNN story showing that the FBI obtained a FISA court warrant for Paul Manafort. Does this mean Trump's complaints about Obama "wiretapping" his campaign are true? Listen and find out! In the main segment, Andrew walks us through the recent ruling dismissing out the class action claims against the Democratic National Committee ostensibly by Bernie Sanders supporters. Find out what's really going on! Next, we answer a listener question from Patrick Hager about whether Congress can really overrule the Supreme Court. Learn civics with us! Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #42 about whether an expert witness can authenticate crucial pieces of evidence. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode 11 of the Reasonable Risk podcast; go check it out! Show Notes & Links This is 50 U.S.C. § 1805, which governs FISA court warrants. You can read the Wall Street Journal article on how FISA warrants are "rubber-stamped" by clicking here. And this is the CNN report indicating that Manafort's investigation had been reopened by the FBI. DON'T CLICK ON THIS Observer link! Here is a link to the original lawsuit filed against the DNC. This is the DNC's Charter and Bylaws, which contain Article 5, Section 4. Here is the transcript of oral argument on April 25, 2017. This is the Wymbs v. Republican State Executive Committee of Florida decision discussed on the show. Here is the link to Jared Beck's appearance on InfoWars. And this is Elizabeth Lee Beck's interview with WorldNet Daily. Finally, this is the link to the court's ruling. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's show discusses everyone's favorite non-issue: whether bigots who bake cakes for a living can discriminate against gays. We begin with a lightning round of questions taken from the Opening Arguments Facebook Community, which you should definitely join! In the main segment, we break down Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Next, we explain the recent pronouncement by Donald Trump regarding enforcement of the Magnitsky Act. Are we scaling Yodel Mountain? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #41 regarding direct and circumstantial evidence in the context of a murder investigation and a shoeprint left at the scene. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Here is where you can find the recently-created Opening Arguments Facebook Community, which you should definitely join! We answer a question about the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.; we first discussed the CRA back in Episode 61. Our next lightning round question is about revenge porn, which we first discussed in Episode 87, and the relevant statute is Cal. PEN § 647(j)(4). We end the lightning round with a question about the Apple X phone drawn from this article in Slate. You can click here to read the Appellees' brief in opposition to certiorari in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case. This is the text of the Magnitsky Act; and this is the memorandum issued by the Trump White House. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download

Our jam-packed "breaking news" episode covers some of the biggest stories trending at the moment, including the Equifax breach. First, Closed Arguments returns by tackling a proposal from friend of the show Eli Bosnick, who asks -- in light of Trump's repeal of DACA -- whether we can't just marry off the 800,000 program participants. We can't; listen and find out why. In the main segment, Andrew walks us through the Equifax data breach, the pending class-action lawsuits, and all of the key legal issues. He even weighs in on the "chat bot" that some are saying will file your suit for you! Next, Breakin' Down the Law continues with everything you wanted to know about the Supreme Court's recent gerrymandering decision. Finally, we end with a new (and possibly too-easy!) Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #41 about the admissibility of footprint and shoe evidence. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links "Adjustment of status" is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1255, and sham marriages are prohibited by 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c). This is the Oregon lawsuit filed against Equifax. Class actions are governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Here is a link to Equifax's statement regarding the website TOC issued in response to NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's inquiry. We previously discussed political gerrymandering (including the "Wisconsin case") in episode 54, and racial gerrymandering and Cooper v. Harris in episode 72. This is a link to the Supreme Court's one-sentence 5-4 order in Abbott v. Perez staying the lower court's decision, and this is a link to that case, Perez v. Abbott, SA-11-CV-360 (Aug. 15, 2017). Please remember to sign up for the Opening Arguments Facebook Community! We'd love to see you there! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's show discusses the Trump budget, scientist Kevin Folta's defamation lawsuit, and the recent debt ceiling deal struck between Trump and Democrats. In the wake of hurricanes Harvey and Irma, the guys encourage you to donate to either (or both) the Red Cross and/or Habitat for Humanity's hurricane relief efforts. If you do, please post your receipt on Facebook for a chance to win an Opening Arguments t-shirt. We begin with a great question from British listener David Cartwright about the Trump presidency -- and the answer will surprise you! In the main segment, the guys break down Kevin Folta's defamation lawsuit in which he alleges that the New York Times defamed him by publishing a "hit piece" implying that he's in the pocket of Monsanto. Next, we explain the practical and political ramifications of the debt ceiling agreement. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #40 regarding jury instructions and the presumption of intent. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links This is a link to the Red Cross's page for donations for hurricane relief; and here is a link to Habitat for Humanity's hurricane relief efforts. Find out how to win a T-shirt from us by clicking here. Here is where you can find the recently-created Opening Arguments Facebook Community, which you should definitely join! This is the full list of all 54 bills that Donald Trump has signed into law. Here is a link to S.442, the $19.5 billion NASA 2017 budget. For comparison, this is the NASA press release detailing the agency's 2016 budget. Click here to read Kevin Folta's lawsuit against the New York Times (which contains the original article as an exhibit). Finally, the debt ceiling is codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3101. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

This week's "breaking news" episode covers three of the biggest stories trending at the moment: the Utah nurse who was arrested for standing up for her patient's rights; Trump's repeal of DACA; and churches suing for relief funds. In the wake of hurricanes Harvey and Irma, the guys encourage you to donate to either (or both) the Red Cross and/or Habitat for Humanity's hurricane relief efforts. We begin with the story behind the arrest of Alex Wubbels, the Utah nurse who refused to take and turn over her patient's blood to the police. In the main segment, Andrew walks us through President Trump's directive to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Does Andrew actually agree with a legal opinion authored by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III?? Listen and find out! Next, Breakin' Down the Law continues with everything you wanted to know about churches suing for funds allocated to disaster relief and recovery. Is the Friendly Atheist right when he says such a case is legally distinct from the precedent set by Trinity Lutheran v. Comer? Finally, we end with a fiendishly difficult and all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #40 about jury instructions regarding the presumption of intent. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links This is a link to the Red Cross's page for donations for hurricane relief; and here is a link to Habitat for Humanity's hurricane relief efforts. Here is where you can find the recently-created Opening Arguments Facebook Community, which you should definitely join! You can read the relevant Supreme Court opinion, Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S.Ct. 2160 (2016), that Nurse Wubbels relied upon in refusing to take and turn over blood to the police. The guys first discussed illegal immigration on Episode 52 and then again in Episode 67. This is the original June 15, 2012 Napolitano DHS memo that became DACA. This the text of the recent memorandum by Attorney General Sessions rescinding DACA. The DAPA case relied upon by Sessions is Texas v. US, 86 F.Supp.3d 591 (S.D. Tex. 2015), aff'd, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015). We first analyzed the Trinity Lutheran v. Comer decision (along with Andrew Seidel) in Episode 82. Previously, we discussed Trinity Lutheran while the case was still pending during our three-part “You Be The Supreme Court” series: Part 1 (Episode 14) is available here, Part 2 is available here, and Part 3 is available here. This is the Friendly Atheist article discussed during the "C" segment attempting to distinguish Trinity Lutheran v. Comer. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's show discusses the free speech issues surrounding the Trump administration issuing a search warrant to DreamHost in connection with its hosting of a website critical of the Trump administration. We begin, however, with the triumphant return of "CLOSED ARGUMENTS" -- this time, examining a truly insane claim being made by Ron Paul supporters and other nutballs who think that the Washington Metro Safety Commission overturns the Fourth Amendment. (It doesn't.) In the main segment, we delve into all the intricacies of the DreamHost search warrant and what it means for us as internet users. Next, the guys tackle a "hypothetical" question about conspiracy that just might take place on Yodel Mountain. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #39 regarding hearsay testimony. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links The text of House Joint Res. 76 can be found here. If you're a masochist, you can read the truly insane "ZeroHedge" post that totally misconstrues the law here. This is a copy of the initial search warrant served on DreamHost. And here is a link to all of DreamHost's discussion of their responses to the search warrant. Finally, here is a link to the Washington Post article describing various Inauguration Day riots. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

This week's "breaking news" episode covers two of the biggest Trump stories right now: the ban on trans soldiers in the military, and the President's pardon of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. First, though, we begin with the seldom-necessary "Andrew Was Wrong" segment. The less said about this, the better. In the main segment, Andrew walks us through President Trump's directive to the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security regarding transgender servicemembers, as well as the lawsuit filed by the ACLU challenging the directive. Next, Breakin' Down the Law continues with everything you wanted to know about the Joe Arpaio pardon. Is it legal? Does it make him civilly liable? Does it erase his prior convictions? Can he now be forced to testify? Listen and find out. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #39 about the admissibility of a criminal defendant's prior statement. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Here is a link to the Trump memorandum directing the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security regarding trans servicemembers. This is he lawsuit filed by the ACLU challenging that directive. Here is the Martin Redish New York Times article initially entitled "Why Trump Can't Pardon Arpaio." This is a paper by Stephen Greenspan, Ph.D., listing posthumous pardons that I used for research in this epsiode. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download

Today's show is an hour-plus-long question & answer session answers some (but not all!) of the 110 questions our Patrons submitted on this thread. As always, Andrew has no advance knowledge of these questions and answers everything off the cuff! After the Q&A, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #38 regarding the admissibility of prior consistent statements. And don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

If you or anyone you know has ever cared what color the fringe on the U.S. flag is, you will not want to miss this episode. Yes, by popular request, we once again tackle the wild and wacky world of sovereign citizen loons! First, though, the guys read a listener comment from Tony Wall who actually toured with KISS (!!) and can give us some insight as to Gene Simmons's copyright practices. In the main segment, Andrew walks through Gray v. Texas, a 2009 decision of the Texas Court of Appeals that delightfully debunks a great many "sovereign citizen" claims. Next, the guys answer a question from Revan, who wants to know whether criminal and civil cases wind up in the same courtroom or even in front of the same judge. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #38 about the admissibility of prior consistent statements by a witness. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Show Notes & Links You will absolutely want to read Gray v. Texas! And here is a link to the David Hall DUI hearing in which the judge delightfully deals with sovereign citizen nonsense. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download

Today's show deals with a number of issues that all surround what your employer can (and cannot) fire you for. First, we begin by revisiting the "Google manifesto" topic from Opening Arguments Episode #94 as Thomas and Andrew respond to some hate mail from a listener who no longer wants to listen to the show after that episode. Does he have a point? Listen and find out. Next, the guys break down whether employees can discuss their salaries with co-workers on the job. After that, Andrew and Thomas answer a question from Patron April who wants to know how much an employer can control your social media use. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #37 regarding installment contracts. And don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances None. Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links We first discussed the "Google manifesto" during Opening Arguments Episode #94. You can read that Google manifesto referred to during that episode as well. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 can be found at 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. This is the text of President Obama's 2014 EO directing non-retaliation against government employees who discuss their compensation. This is the NLRB's collection of findings regarding social media. Here is a link to Three D, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board, the Second Circuit case referred to during the "C" segment. Here is a link to Rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which explains the answer to #TTTBE. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's special episode devotes all three segments to the tragedy in Charlottesville, VA. First, the guys answer a question regarding the police declaration that the Unite the Right rally as an "unlawful gathering" right before the scheduled start time, illustrating the principles of time, place, and manner restrictions. During the main segment, Andrew breaks down the law of hate speech and also explains the charges filed against the individual who drove his car into the protestors. After that, Andrew answers another listener question, this one regarding Texas A&M's decision to cancel a "White Lives Matter" rally in light of the tragedy in Charlottesville. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #37 about the failure to timely pay on an installment contract. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode #15 of the Right to Reason podcast, arguing politics and whether your vote can be a message. Show Notes & Links Our discussion with Travis Wester regarding the Berkeley College Republicans lawsuit took place back in Opening Arguments Episode #73. You might want to re-listen! This is a link to the Vox timeline of the events in Charlottesville. Here is Washington Post reporter Joe Heim's Twitter feed, showing a picture of the heavily armed "citizens" attending the rally. This is the preliminary injunction ruling on the motion filed by Jason Kessler, organizer of the "Unite the Right" rally. The key case setting forth the principles of time, place & manner restrictions is Ward v. Rock Against Racism 491 U.S. 781 (1989). The "fire in a crowded theater" case is Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919) -- give it a read and you'll understand (and appreciate!) why it is no longer good law. The modern rule on hate speech stems from Brandenberg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). This is the DOJ's list of hate crimes laws. Virginia's second-degree murder statute is Code of VA § 18.2-32. You can read Texas A&M University's statement cancelling the "White Lives Matter" protest scheduled for Sept. 11 here. You can also check out Andrew's rockin' 1980s case, Sable Communications v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's show is a companion to Episode 67 of Serious Inquiries Only regarding the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. We begin, however, with a question about progressivity and fines from listener Noah Lugeons. In the main segment, Andrew tells the story of how Michael Dukakis, Slayer, and race-baiting by Newt Gingrich led to the worst aspects of the omnibus crime bill. Next, the guys cover perhaps their most anticipated "Breakin' Down the Law" ever: defending Milo Yiannopoulos, along with the ACLU. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #36 regarding defamation. And don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances Andrew was a guest on Episode #15 of the Right to Reason podcast, arguing politics and whether your vote can be a message. Show Notes & Links You should be listening to Serious Inquiries Only. This is the text of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This is the longitudinal Gallup study showing the last 80 years of support for the death penalty. And here is the draft of the lawsuit filed by the ACLU against WMATA on behalf of Milo, PETA, and a family planning company. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download

In today's episode, we interview Geoffrey Blackwell from the American Atheists Legal Center. First, the guys break down the recent lawsuit filed by two LGBTQ advocacy organizations challenging President Trump's tweets regarding transgender service in the military. During the main segment, we ask Geoff what the AALC does, what kinds of cases are on his plate, and whether Trinity Lutheran v. Comer is as bad as we think it is. After that, Andrew answers a question from listener Thomas S. regarding Google's firing of an employee who wrote a bizarre, 10-page anti-woman manifesto. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #36 about defamation. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Give Geoff's podcast, All Too Common Law, a listen! Here is a link to the Doe v. Trump lawsuit filed Aug. 9, 2017 challenging Trump's tweets. This is the Slate piece calling the lawsuit "ingenious"; Andrew disagrees. And this is the (weird) Mattis internal DOD memo about "ethics" to which the guys refer during the show. Finally, this is the Google manifesto referred to during the "C" segment of the show. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's show is a deep dive into the current Constitutional status of affirmative action in higher education. We begin, however, with a question about Donald Trump from conservative listener Sage Scott. Is it really a big deal to just listen to the Russians? Couldn't you just pay them if their stuff turns out to be useful? No. The answer is no. In the main segment, the guys outline the current state of the law of affirmative action in higher education as set forth in Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin, 136 S.Ct. 1398 (2016) ("Fisher II"), and what that means in light of the Trump Administration's recent comments that it plans to focus DOJ resources on challenging college admission programs that (supposedly) disadvantage white people. Next, in a follow-up to the John Oliver defamation lawsuit we discussed in Episode 84, "Closed Arguments" returns with a dissection of the best legal brief ever written, an amicus curiae brief filed by Jamie Lynn Crofts of the ACLU of West Virginia in support of Oliver. Andrew tries to contain his jealousy. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #35 regarding a physician's duty regarding releasing patients who are a danger to themselves or others. And don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances Andrew had a busy week! He was on the follow shows: Episode #17 of the Squaring the Strange podcast Episode #14 of the Odd Atheist Friends podcast; and Episode #113 of the Utah Outcasts podcast. Show Notes & Links Here is a link to 52 U.S.C. § 30121, which you can read for yourself plainly prohibits virtually all contact between foreign nationals and any candidate for federal, state, or even local office. You can read the August 1, 2017 New York Times story on how the Trump Administration plans to challenge affirmative action in college admissions here. The most recent Supreme court case on affirmative action in higher education is Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin, 136 S.Ct. 1398 (2016) ("Fisher II"); Andrew also referenced Fisher I, 133 S.Ct. 2411 (2013). We first discussed Bob Murray's defamation lawsuit against John Oliver in Episode #84, and you can read the ACLU's outstanding amicus brief here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

In today's episode, Andrew reluctantly -- but definitively -- opines that the Second Circuit got the law right in dismissing out the claims of Davino Watson, who argued that he was falsely imprisoned by the U.S. government for 3 1/2 years. In the pre-show segment, Andrew briefly introduces new FBI Director Christopher Wray as a good nominee by Donald Trump. After that, the guys tackle a follow-up question to Episode #91; namely, isn't "sexual orientation" already a protected class? Doesn't the law just prohibit discrimination in general? (No.) In our main segment, Andrew explains why statutes of limitation are necessary and why the Second Circuit got it right in dismissing out Watson's false imprisonment claim even though the circumstances are awful. Next, the guys break down Rod Wheeler's defamation lawsuit against Fox News. Why is this part of Yodel Mountain? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with an all-new (and fiendishly hard!) Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #35 about a hospital's duty to third parties when releasing a patient with homicidal ideation. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew had a busy week! He was on the follow shows: Episode #17 of the Squaring the Strange podcast Episode #14 of the Odd Atheist Friends podcast; and Episode #113 of the Utah Outcasts podcast. Show Notes & Links You can listen to the original discussion of anti-discrimination in employment in Episode #91, as well as read the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. This is the trial court's decision in Watson v. U.S. (EDNY 2016), as well as the Second Circuit's decision from Sept. 1, 2017. Here is the Complaint filed by Rod Wheeler against Fox News. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download

For today's show, we revisit the topic first discussed in Opening Arguments Episode #60, namely, whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of "sex" implicitly extends to prohibiting discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" as well. First, however, fan favorite "Breakin' Down the Law" returns with an explanation of civil and criminal asset forfeiture and a new policy announced by Attorney General (for now) Jeff Sessions. In the main segment, we contrast the amicus brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in Zarda v. Altitude Express with the 7th Circuit's opinion in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana. Find out why your government just submitted a brief arguing that employers have the right to hang a sign that says "no homosexuals need apply." After that, Patron Jordan Keith explains a bit more about the TOR browser as a follow-up to Opening Arguments Episode #88's discussion of U.S. v. Matish. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #34 regarding the rape shield law, FRE 412. Listen and find out if Thomas makes it back to .500! And don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew was just a guest on Episode 15 of Molly Unmormon's "Doubting Dogma" podcast -- give it a listen! Show Notes & Links The relevant statutes for asset forfeiture are 18 U.S.C. § 983 and 21 U.S.C. § 853, and you can also read the 2015 Holder memorandum prohibiting "adoptive forfeitures" by clicking here. We first discussed Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana in Episode #60. And here is the link to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Here is a link to the U.S.'s amicus curiae brief in Zarda v. Altitude Express. This is the text of the opinion in U.S. v. Matish, which we first discussed in Episode #88. And finally, you can read Rule 412 of the Federal Rules of Evidence by clicking here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

In today's episode, Andrew definitively opines that the Presidential pardon power includes the right to self-pardon. We begin, however, with "Andrew Was Wrong." This time, he was wrong about Thor Heyerdahl, but right about the fate of Ken Ham's Ark Encounter. In our main segment, the guys analyze the recent claims by Laurence Tribe, Richard Painter, and Norm Eisen that Donald Trump does not have the power to pardon himself and find it less than persuasive. Next, Andrew briefly discusses the legality of Trump's tweet regarding transgender individuals serving in the military. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #34 about introducing a rape victim's sexual history into evidence. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Andrew's talk before the Lehigh Valley Humanists is now up on YouTube. Show Notes & Links We first discussed AIG's Ark Encounter land sale in Opening Arguments episode #88. This is the press release from Answers in Genesis regarding their Ark Encounter fraud, and here is one news account of how the City suspended the tax breaks for the Ark Encounter and the subsequent revocation of the sale. This is the Tribe/Painter/Eisen article in the Washington Post arguing that Trump doesn't have the power to pardon himself. Here is a link to the 1974 Lawton memo. This is a link to the Autobiography of Charles Biddle; you'll want to turn to page 306-08 for the Aaron Burr story. This is "The Law as King and the King as Law" from the Hastings Law Quarterly 20:7. Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974). Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). Here is a link to Gov. Stevens's self-pardon in 1856. This is a link to Mayor James G. Woodward's self-pardon for public drunkenness in 1901. Finally, this is the Newsweek article referenced on the show that discusses self-pardons. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's show features an in-depth interview with Kirstin Beswick and Ben Knight of NorthPod Law UK, often referred to (by us) as the "Opening Arguments of England." Join all four of us as we discuss media, politics, Brexit, and maybe -- just maybe -- reasons for optimism about the future of politics. Due to the length of the interview, we don't have any other segments, but we do end, as always, with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #33 regarding reasonable suspicion to search an auto after a traffic stop. Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links You can check out NorthPod UK's blog by clicking here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

In today's episode, we discuss a recent court case involving an individual's expectation of privacy while browsing the Internet. We begin, however, with the question so many of our listeners wanted to know: Is it legal for Ken Ham to sell his Ark Encounter theme park to his own non-profit ministry in a presumed effort to evade taxes? In our main segment, the guys break down a recent court case involving search & seizure over the internet. Do you have an expectation of privacy for the stuff you do on your computer? The answer will surprise you. Next, Yodel Mountain returns with an in-depth examination of what it means to be a "thing of value." Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #33 about search and seizure, coincidentally enough. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Schedule us to appear on your show! Show Notes & Links Here is the article from the Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader on the sale of the Ark Park land. This is a link to the U.S. v. Matish decision discussed during the main segment. The relevant election law statute is 52 U.S.C. § 30121, which prohibits a foreign national from giving any "thing of value" to a candidate for public office. The two cases Andrew discussed interpreting that phrase "thing of value" are U.S. v. Schwartz, 763 F. 2d 1054 (9th Cir. 1985) and U.S. v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 941 F. Supp. 1262 (D.D.C. 1996). Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

For today's show, we take a deep dive into the law of contracts, featuring the "parol evidence" rule. First, however, we answer a question from special listener Lydia S. who wants to know all about Blac Chyna, Rob Kardashian, and "revenge porn." YOU asked for it! In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas discuss what you can and can't do to dispute a written contract. Next, Garry Myers asks us about why law firms are all structured as partnerships. Again, the answer might surprise you!. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #32 regarding 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Listen and find out if Thomas makes it back to .500! And don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links You can check out California's "revenge porn" law, Penal Code - PEN § 647(j)(4), by clicking here. And this is the Los Angeles Times article detailing Kamala Harris's first successful prosecution under the law back when she was California's Attorney General. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

In today's episode, we discuss the recent controversy over Donald Trump, Jr.'s contact with Russian officials during the 2016 election. We begin, however, with a follow-up from Dave (and others) who asked us about doxxing. In our main segment, the guys break the law of conspiracy to discuss whether Donald Trump Jr.'s conduct is potentially criminal. (Spoiler: Yes.) Next, fan favorite segment "Are You A Cop?" returns with a question about taxation without representation. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #32 about Section 1983 claims and acting under "color of law." Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! But you can come join the guys at the Inciting Incident 100th Episode Live Spectacular in Carlisle, PA on July 14, 2017! Get your tickets now! Show Notes & Links You can read Sarah Jeong's excellent article, "Stop Diluting the Defintion of Dox," here. This is 18 U.S. Code § 371, the federal conspiracy statute. And here is a link to the Cockrum, Comer & Schoenberg complaint. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

For today's show, we dive deeper into the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer with guest lawyer Andrew Seidel from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. First, however, we answer a question from Patron Christopher Arguin regarding cross-examination that was inspired by TTTBE #30. In the main segment, Andrew and Andrew continue to discuss church-state separation and the First Amendment. Next, our friend Seth Barrett Tillman provides us with an update on the CREW v. Trump lawsuit regarding emoluments. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #31 regarding the Statute of Frauds. Listen and find out if Thomas's improbable one-question winning streak will continue -- and don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances None! But this is your last chance to join the guys at the Inciting Incident 100th Episode Live Spectacular in Carlisle, PA on July 14, 2017! Get your tickets now! Show Notes & Links We first spoke with Andrew Seidel regarding Trinity Lutheran during Episode 82. Here is a link to the Trinity Lutheran v. Comer decision. We first discussed Trinity Lutheran during our three-part "You Be The Supreme Court" series; part 1 (Episode 14) is available here, part 2 is available here, and part 3 is available here. This is the letter that the Missouri Attorney General sent indicating that, post-election, Missouri would change its policy. Finally, please check out Andrew Seidel's great work at the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]