Opening Arguments

In this fast-breaking episode, Thomas and Andrew preview a significant labor case scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court this coming Monday, Janus v. AFSCME. You'll know all about it before the news breaks! In the initial segment, "Andrew Was Wrong" returns with listener criticism over our repetition of the common media statement that Parkland was the "18th" school shooting of 2018. After that, Andrew walks us through Janus v. AFSCME and its implications on the future of unions. Next, the guys revisit ex-Google employee James Damore and discuss the significance of a recent memorandum issued by the National Labor Relations Board regarding his termination. Is The Most Important Lawsuit In The History of Western Civilization still on track? Listen and find out. Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #64 about criminal dog law. You won't want to miss it! 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 Check out the NEW PODCAST created by our very own Thomas Smith and friend-of-the-show Aaron Rabi, "Philosophers in Space." You'll be glad you did! Show Notes & Links Janus is, in fact, the angry god of doorways. We covered the Parkland school shooting in Episode 148. This is the Washington Post article critical of the "Everytown for Gun Safety" statistics, and here is a link to Everytown's actual database of incidents. Judge for yourself! Here is Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), discussed extensively during the show. You can read the NLRB memo advising dismissal here. We covered the (still-pending) James Damore lawsuit on Episode 111 of Serious Inquiries Only. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

Today's emergency episode breaks down the indictments issued in the Mueller probe on Friday, focusing on the shadowy, Putin-funded Internet Research Agency. What does this mean in terms of Yodel Mountain? Listen and find out! After that, we have a lengthy interview with friend of the show Bryce Blankenagel of the Naked Mormonism podcast. Bryce comes on the show to break down the Rob Porter scandal, an innocuous-sounding bill before the Utah state legislature, and the puppet-mastery of the Mormon Church of all things political in that state. After that, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #63, another very difficult question, this one about hearsay. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances Check out the NEW PODCAST created by our very own Thomas Smith and friend-of-the-show Aaron Rabi, "Philosophers in Space." You'll be glad you did! Also, Andrew was just a guest on Episode 6 of the Wayward Willis Podcast -- give it a listen. Show Notes & Links The case referenced in the A segment is United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2003). This is the text of Utah HB 330, and this is the article Bryce referenced during the show. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

In this emotional episode, Thomas and Andrew begin by discussing the recent school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS in Parkland, Florida. After that, the guys break down the recent settlement between Waymo (the Google-backed automotive company) and Uber regarding allegations of stolen trade secrets in the nascent self-driving car industry. Then, Andrew updates us on the state of gerrymandering litigation in Pennsylvania and before the Supreme Court. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #63 about hearsay. 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 6 of the Wayward Willis Podcast -- give it a listen! Show Notes & Links We discussed a modest proposal for gun control in Episode 110., and the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill in Episode 95. Andrew quoted from this CNN article when referencing teacher Melissa Falkowski; from this Washington Post article about Colt's decision to suspend sales of the AR-15 in 1989, and from this blog post on "The Firearm Blog" by the AR-15's designer, Jim Sullivan. California's Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 can be found at California Penal Code § 30150 et seq. This is the Waymo v. Uber lawsuit, and here is the link where you can view the Powerpoint used during the REAL OPENING STATEMENTS by Waymo's attorneys. Finally, we last discussed gerrymandering in Pennsylvania and elsewhere way back in Episode 146. If you're curious, this is what MD-6 looks like today, and this is what it looked like before the 2011 redistricting. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode features a full-length interview with the co-founder of The Satanic Temple, Lucien Greaves. This episode is part of a two-part crossover with Episode 119 of Serious Inquiries Only. In this episode, we talk about TST's lawsuit challenging Missouri's abortion law and other issues at the forefront of church-state separation. After that, we end with the answer to Thomas (and Lucien!) Take the Bar Exam Question #62, a fiendishly difficult question about the Statute of Frauds. Don't forget to follow 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 Don't forget to check out Episode 119 of Serious Inquiries Only featuring Jex Blackmore! We first discussed TST's lawsuit challenging the Missouri abortion law way back in Episode 7 and Episode 8! You can follow the link to the January 23, 2018 oral arguments in Doe v. Greitens by clicking here. Doe's brief can be found here, and this is the State of Missouri's response. 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 "lightning round" episode, Andrew tackles more than the typical three stories we cover on the show. How much more?? Listen and find out! Potential topics include: the budget showdown and sequestration, the recent Supreme Court rulings on gerrymandering, the Nunes memo, the Federal Reserve, stock market, and Wells Fargo fraud, and ... possibly even more?? Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas (and Lucien!) Take the Bar Exam #62 involving the statute of frauds. 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 read all 652 pages of the proposed budget deal here. The Pennsylvania redistricting case is League of Women Voters v. Pennsylvania, 159 MM 2017. We discussed the North Carolina gerrymandering decision in Episode 138; the Supreme Court's brief order staying that decision is here. And, of course, you'll want to review the 2008 Powerpoint and 2010 "Snidely Whiplash" REDMAP Powerpoint. This is the full text of the Nunes memo. We discussed FISA courts in depth in Episode 106, which covered 50 U.S.C. § 1805, the authorizing legislation. Finally, you can read the Federal Reserve's cease-and-desist against Wells Fargo; the enabling legislation is 12 U.S.C. § 1818 et seq. 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 a full-length interview with former naturopath turned whistleblower Britt Marie Hermes. We talk about her amazing career and the recent defamation lawsuit filed against her under German law. After that, we answer a question from Very Special Listener Lydia S. about a viral tweet suggesting that Native Americans grant honorary citizenship to DACA enrolees. And, as always, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #61, the end of our three-part Dungeons & Dragons question about ogres, assault, trespass, electrical storms, and deadly arrows. Don't forget to follow 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's a link to the German defamation law, which begins at section 185. You should check out Britt Hermes's excellent blog, Naturopathic Diaries. 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 want football-themed Opening Arguments, check out Episode 57 and Episode 58, which tell the tale of how one Donald J. Trump destroyed the USFL. Everyone else can enjoy today's sports-free episode, which begins with a discussion of California SB 183 and so-called "sanctuary cities" in light of the State of the Union. In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas break down news about a proposed Department of Labor rule regarding the "tip credit." After that, the guys discuss yesterday's landmark opinion holding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau constitutional. Finally, we end with our third Dungeons & Dragons-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam (Question #61) involving lightning, wildfires, an experienced woodsman, and possible assault by an errant crossbow bolt. 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 read the text of Cal. SB 183 here. This is the Bloomberg News article on the Trump DOL burying the factfinding report; here is a link to the NPRM. Finally, you can read PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the D.C. Circuit opinion discussed during the "C" segment. 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 a deep dive into two recently-filed lawsuits on behalf of same-sex couples where the government literally wants to break up their families. And don't forget to tune in for our LIVE Q&A this Wednesday, 1/31, at 7 pm EST / 4 pm Pacific. First, though we return to the wild and wacky world of sovereign citizens by examining a recent bill introduced in the New Hampshire state legislature. Does it really threaten cities in New Hampshire with a $10,000 fine if they don't subscribe to sovereign citizen nonsense? Listen and find out! In the main segment, we cover the Blixt and Dvash-Banks lawsuits. Did INS really make a determination that one twin is a U.S. citizen and the other isn't? The answer (yes) probably won't surprise you. After that, we answer a listener question about whether the Supreme Court is as political as it seems. And, as always, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #60 about trespass, signs, electrical storms, and deadly arrows. Don't forget to follow 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 Get your Q&A Questions in and vote for your favorites! You can read the full text of New Hampshire HB 1653 here, and, if you're not up on your sovereign citizen lingo, be sure to check out LAM 13 ("Meet Your Strawman"). Oh, and don't forget to check out Wes Jensen's amazing sovereign citizen wackiness ("Hiding Behind the BAR") if you want to know the secrets they won't tell you. The 14th Amendment's birth citizenship clause is implemented by 8 U.S.C. § 1401, and then further interpreted by 7 FAM 1140, Appendix E. Finally, here's the NPR article on Gorsuch voting with Thomas 100% of the time. 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 a deep dive into our nation's opioid crisis. First, the guys take a look at a recent bad court thingy filed by Paul Manafort's lawyers in connection with his criminal prosecution. What does it mean? Listen and find out! In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas break down the just-released Senate Subcommittee Report on illegal opioid use in this country and discuss how an obscure 1874 treaty organization affects international drug trafficking. You won't want to miss it! After the main segment, Andrew answers a question from one of our youngest listeners, high school sophmore Brian about a recent free speech case at the University of Alabama. You may be surprised at the answer! Finally, we end with our second of three Middle Earth-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam (Question #60) involving lightning, wildfires, an experienced woodsman, and an errant crossbow bolt. 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 Manafort's accidentally-included legal memo can be found here. You can hear Deborah Smith and Zach Law discuss opioids here. This is the Senate Subcommittee Report on Opioid Interdiction, and this is the text of SB 708. Finally, here's a link to Papish v. Board of Curators, 410 U.S. 667 (1973), the case we discussed in answering Brian's question. 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 a full-length interview with Tony DiFatta, accountant to the podcasting stars. He answers your questions about the 2017 omnibus tax bill that were posted in this Patreon thread. First, though, we take a look at whether Stormy Daniels can be silenced (or sued) because of the NDA she presumably signed with the Trump organization. After a deep dive into the new tax bill, we we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #59 about trespass, signs, electrical storms, and deadly arrows. Don't forget to follow 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 Trump's NDA in Episode 137; you can read the letter quoting the NDA here. Click here to find out more about Tony D. 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 features a deep dive in the latest legal news surrounding the DACA program. First, the guys tackle a listener question regarding the difference between the James Damore case against Google and Colin Kaepernick's grievance against the NFL. Are the two cases similar? After the main segment, Andrew walks us through a case that was just argued before the Supreme Court, McCoy v. Louisiana, in which a lawyer conceded his client's guilt during a capital murder trial over the client's objections. Finally, we end with an all-new Game of Thrones-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam (Question #59) involving lightning, wildfires, an experienced woodsman, and an errant crossbow bolt. 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 This Week In News With Kevin and Benedict, talking felon voting rights; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links We discussed the James Damore lawsuit on Episode 111 of Serious Inquiries Only, and the Kaepernick grievance on OA Episode 115. The Sherman Antitrust Act begins at 15 U.S.C. § 1. We first discussed the DACA recission on Episode 102. You can read the District Court decision on DACA here. The primary case we discussed in the assistance of counsel section was Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). 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 a full-length interview with the one and only Cara Santa Maria! First, though, we pore through the Fusion GPS testimony that was leaked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and we look at a companion defamation lawsuit filed by one of Trump's lawyers, Michael Cohen, against Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson. Click here to read the Cohen Complaint. Andrew also sneakily uses this as an excuse to teach us all about federal motions to dismiss and the Iqbal and Twombly cases. Next, we talk to Cara, who talks skepticism, the law, and science education with us. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas and CaraTake the Bar Exam Question #58 about breach of contract for the hottest tech gadget of 1987, the Walk-n-Talkman. Don't forget to follow 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 111 of Serious Inquiries Only, discussing the James Damore lawsuit against Google, as well as This Week In News With Kevin and Benedict discussing felon voting rights. Check 'em out! Show Notes & Links You'll want to check out Michael Wolff's response to the Trump cease-and-desist letter we made fun of back in Episode 137. You can read the Fusion GPS testimony by clicking here. Finally, you should go check out Cara Santa Maria's website for all things Cara! 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 tackles a number of breaking legal issues. First, the guys break down the recent memorandum by Attorney General Jeff Sessions on marijuana. What does this mean for the average recreational user in a state where pot is legal, like California? Listen and find out! Next, Andrew walks us through the recent decision by a three-judge panel in North Carolina invalidating that state's electoral districts. After that, the guys tackle a question from listener Jeremy Feldman about Net Neutrality and the Congressional Review Act. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas (and Cara Santa Maria!) Take the Bar Exam Question #58 about the hottest new gadget, the Mitsubishi Walk-and-Talkman! 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 This Week In News With Kevin and Benedict, talking felon voting rights; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links The Controlled Substances Act is 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. You can read the Cole Memo here, and then the Sessions Memo rescinding it. This is the US Attorney's Manual discussed on the show. We first discussed gerrymandering back in OA 54, and then again in OA 72 and OA 80. 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 all about the First Amendment and features a full-length interview with the one and only SciBabe, Yvette Guinevere d'Entremont! First, though, we answer a listener question from Secular Saint about the free press clause that was raised during our most recent patron-only Q&A show. Next, we talk to Yvette, who shares some amazing stories about her life taking down rich and powerful celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow, Vani Hari (the "Food Babe"), and David Avocado Wolfe. After that, we tackle Trump's cease-and-desist letters sent to Steve Bannon and the publishers of the new book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House . Special thanks to Niall O'Donnell and Deborah Smith of the Opening Arguments Facebook Community for finding the texts of these letters! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas and Yvette Take the Bar Exam Question #57 about a frostbitten drifter wandering through what might be a libertarian paradise. (Seriously!) Don't forget to follow 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 In answering Secular Saint's question, Andrew discussed Sonja West's UCLA Law Review article, "Awakening the Press Clause" as well as this op-ed by Eugene Volokh. We discuss the New York Times v. Sullivan standard for libel in numerous episodes, but in particular in Episode 84 about John Oliver's lawsuit. Yvette has some great articles that we talked about, including "The Unbearable Wrongness of Gwyneth Paltrow" and "David Avocado Wolfe is the Biggest Asshole in the Multiverse." Trump's cease-and-desist to Steve Bannon is here (Twitter screencap), and the one to Steve Rubin and Michael Wolff is here. You can compare it to the laughable Roy Moore litigation hold letter we discussed in Episode 122. 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 tackles the recent lawsuit filed by Paul Manafort against the Department of Justice, Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein, and Robert Mueller. First, we share some insights from our listeners about our recent deep dive into cryptocurrency, and promise a return visit Real Soon Now. After that, we take a deep dive into Chevron deference, Neil Gorsuch's mommy, and the legal landscape set more than 30 years ago... and why that's all come under fire by one Paul S. Manafort. It's an extra-long, double-length segment but we think you'll love it! Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas (and Yvette!) Take the Bar Exam Question #57 about a wanderer stuck in a snowstorm who breaks into a cabin... look, you'll just have to listen, okay? 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 We first discussed cryptocurrency in OA 134. You should read the Manafort lawsuit, and then to understand it, try and tackle Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resource Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). We started warning you about Neil Gorsuch way back in Epsiode 40. We were right. The case in which he salivates about overturning Chevron deference is Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (2016). Count I of the complaint arises under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. Count II arises under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. This is Rod Rosenstein's Order appointing Mueller, No. 3915-2017, and this is 28 U.S.C. § 515, which plainly authorizes it. Finally, you can read Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) and also laugh at the fantastic what-if comic about Ted Olson. 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]

Happy New Year! In today's special episode, Andrew, Thomas, and Chris Kristofco of the Titletown Sound podcast draft Democratic Presidential candidates for 2020. After the draft, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam question #56 about a bona fide sale of a stove. Don't forget to follow 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 can find Chris's show, Titletown Sound Off, by clicking here. Our rosters are as follows: Chris: Elizabeth Warren (Sen-MA) Joe Biden (VP-DE) Amy Klobuchar (Sen-MN) Tim Kaine (Sen-VA) Sherrod Brown (Sen-OH) Bob Iger Michelle Obama Tim McGraw Andrew: Kamala Harris (Sen-CA) Cory Booker (Sen-NJ) Andrew Cuomo (Gov-NJ) John Hickenlooper (Gov-CO) Julian Castro (HUD Sec'y) Eric Holder (Att'y General) Mark Cuban Oprah Winfrey Thomas: Bernie Sanders (Sen-VT) Kirsten Gillibrand (Sen-NY) Eric Garcetti (Mayor-LA) Terry McAuliffe (Gov-VA) Tulsi Gabbard (Cong-HI) Mark Zuckerberg Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson Howard Schultz 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 is a deep dive into cryptocurrency. First, we're delighted to share some breaking news with you that follows up on our Episode 132 about a student and his crazy-person lawyer trying to introduce creationism at Thomas's old high school, Bret Harte High. As it turns out, friend of the show and FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel has written a masterful letter to the school and offered to co-counsel with them pro bono. In the extra-length main segment, we discuss some of the issues surrounding cryptocurrency and the law. Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #56 about the fraudulent sale of a stove. 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 Episode 14 of the How-To Heretic podcast! Give it a listen! Show Notes & Links We first discussed Bret Harte High in our Episode 132; you can also read an account of the school board hearing; visit crazy person Greg Glaser's website and read all about the evils of vaccinations, numerological theology, and (of course) his proposed Earth Constitution. Andrew Seidel's letter is republished (with his permission) here. 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). 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),Episode 111, and Episode 131. 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. You can view the IGM survey we discuss here. This is the bitcoin FAQ. The case I discuss is SEC v. Shavers, 2013 WL 4028182 (E.D. Texas Aug. 6, 2013, Case No. 4:13-cv-416). 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]

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]