Opening Arguments

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]

In today's episode, we discuss the recent controversy over CNN's handling of a Redditor who posted a Trump meme online. Is this really "blackmail" by CNN? We begin, however, with a follow-up from Patron Joerg regarding UK laws on personal jurisdiction/long-arm and defamation. Could Maajid Nawaz (whose potential lawsuit we discussed in Episode #83) really file against the SPLC in the UK after all? In our main segment, the guys break down CNN's conduct and see if it qualifies as blackmail, extortion, conspiracy to deprive an individual of his Constitutional rights, or any other criminal behavior. Next, by great popular demand, we tackle Bob Murray's lawsuit against John Oliver in connection with his report on "Last Week Tonight." You won't be surprised by our evaluation of the merits, but you will enjoy reading the Complaint! Finally, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #31 about the Statute of Frauds. 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 Here is a link to the 2013 UK Defamation Act. This is the 2010 SPEECH Act, 28 U.S.C. § 4102. And here is the SPLC's report on Maajid Nawaz labelling him an "anti-Muslim extremist.". This is 18 U.S.C. § 873, the federal blackmail statute. Here is a link to an informative Washington Post article about the CNN/HanAssholeSolo debacle. And here is a link to the Ben Shapiro opinion piece in the National Review. This is a link to the lawsuit filed by Murray against Oliver, which is a delightful read. This link contains the original Oliver segment about Murray, which is definitely worth watching. 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 special holiday episode, Andrew and Thomas talk about fireworks law across the U.S. Where can you go for a cherry-bombin' good time? Listen and find out! First, however, we take a look at Maajid Nawaz's threatened lawsuit against the SPLC. In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas figure out the best place to set off bottle rockets. And after that, Andrew tackles another question from the patron-only Q&A mailbag. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (and Andrew Seidel) Take the Bar Exam Question #30 regarding cross-examination. Will Thomas and the practicing lawyer get it wrong? Listen and find out, 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 14 of Habeas Humor, cracking lawyer-themed "yo mama" jokes. Check it out! Show Notes & Links This is the SPLC's report on Maajid Nawaz labelling him an "anti-Muslim extremist." 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 break down the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer with guest lawyer Andrew Seidel from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. We begin, however, with a parenting question from Garrett Thomas Fox in our Super-Secret Patron-Only Q&A thread that didn't get answered on our patron-only special. In our main segment, Andrew Seidel helps explain what went wrong in the Trinity Lutheran case that Andrew confidently predicted would go 6-3 the other way. After that, we tackle the Supreme Court's recent decision staying the judgment in the 4th and 9th Circuits, which in turn had enjoined the enforcement of Executive Order 13780. What does all of this mean? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #30 about cross-examination, in which our guest Andrew Seidel plays along! Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 14 of Habeas Humor, cracking lawyer-themed "yo mama" jokes. Check it out! Show Notes & Links 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. Here is a link to the Supreme Court's decision allowing most of EO 13780 to go into effect. 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] Direct Download

In this episode, Thomas and Andrew interview Denise Howell from the This Week in Law podcast. First, however, we take a look at the Supreme Court's recent decision denying certiorari in an appeal of a Fourth Circuit case striking down various provisions of a North Carolina law that restricted voting rights. There's a lot of misinformation going on, so you'll want to listen! In the main segment, Denise Howell breaks down the "law of emojis" and a 🐿️ time is had by all. After that, Breakin' Down the Law returns with the recent FTC decision to try and block the FanDuel-Draft Kings merger. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (and Denise) Take the Bar Exam Question #29 regarding assumption of risk. Will Thomas beat the practicing lawyer? Listen and find out, 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 if you're on the East Coast, you should check out Andrew's speech to the Lehigh Valley Skeptics on "Skepticism and the Law" on July 2, 2017 at 11 am by clicking here. Show Notes & Links This is the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari, which is worth reading. The underlying case is NC State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F. 3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016). The Supreme Court's 2-line denial of the application to stay McCrory, 137 S.Ct. 27 (2016) is here. This is a link to the "American News X" (wrong) "hot take." You can read Prof. Eric Goldman's delightful law review article on emojis here. And Denise recommends falling down the Wikipedia rabbit hole by reading the history of emojis. This is the FTC complaint against Draft Kings and FanDuel. And here are a few links to articles by and about new FTC Acting Director of Bureau of Competition Tad Lipsky. 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]

It's our first Flashback Friday! On today's episode, we revisit topics from previous episodes that are once again back in the news. We begin with the breaking-est of breaking news, the new Senate version of the AHCA that literally just got released right before the show was scheduled to record. What's in the new bill? Listen and find out! After that, our main segment goes through the recent Supreme Court victory for our friend Simon Tam of the Slants, who previewed this case for us way back on Episode 33. Find out what the ruling means and how it might impact future issues (like a certain D.C.-area football team). After that, we take a look at the Supreme Court's recent grant of certiorari in the Wisconsin gerrymandering case we discussed back in Episode 54. What's the prognosis for whether the Supreme Court will finally do something about partisan gerrymandering? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas (and Denise) Take the Bar Exam Question #29, in which next week's guest, Denise Howell, joins the guys for a preview and plays along. Remember that you too can 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). Answers, as always, drop on Tuesday. Recent Appearances None. But if you're on the East Coast, you should check out Andrew's speech to the Lehigh Valley Skeptics on "Skepticism and the Law" on July 2, 2017 at 11 am by clicking here. Show Notes & Links Flash back to our first discussion with Simon Tam of the Slants on Episode 33, and keep groovin' with gerrymandering by listening to Episode 54. This is the text of the Senate's version of the AHCA. MACPAC's analysis of the ACA referenced on the show is here. This table shows the DSH allotment by state for 2016. Here is the full text of the Supreme Court's opinion in Matal v. Tam (formerly Lee v. Tam). Finally, here's the text of the Cooper v. Harris decision we discussed on Episode 72 that gives Andrew some cause for concern. 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, Thomas and Andrew break down the Trump Administration's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement regarding climate change. First, however, we celebrate Thomas being prescient in taking an in-depth look at the Ninth Circuit's rather surprising decision regarding Trump's EO 13780, the so-called "Muslim Ban." In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas answer some questions and bust some myths regarding the U.S.'s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Can Trump do that? Can the states pick up the slack? Is there one weird trick that will solve climate change? The answers may surprise you. After that, Andrew tackles a fun question from patron Myk Dowling about disclaimers. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #28, which involved a pizza joint defaming a nearby burger hut. Can Thomas start a new, 2-game winning streak? Listen and find out! And, as always, we'll release a new #TTTBE question this Friday and answer that question the following Tuesday. 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), and don't forget that patrons who support us at any level get early access to the answers (and usually a fun post analyzing the question in more detail). Recent Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 390 of This Week in Law, throwin' down the devil horns. Give it a listen! Show Notes & Links You can read the Ninth Circuit's recent opinion here. This is the text of Executive Order 13780. This is the text of Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979), the odd case on whether a President can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty. This is a link to NASA's data regarding climate change. And this is the text of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, to which the U.S. was a signatory in 1992. 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 it's Friday, it's a current events episode, and if it's current events, we're probably talking about Donald Trump. We begin, however, with Breakin' Down the Law, in which Andrew answers the question raised by every single person in the universe this week: can Jeff Sessions really do that? In our main segment, we look at the recent emoluments lawsuit brought by the Attorneys General for Maryland and Washington DC. After that, Yodel Mountain returns with a look at the Washington Post's breaking news that Donald Trump is under investigation by the FBI, as well as the GOP's purported talking points as to why this is no big deal. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #28 about a malicious pizza store owner. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 today's (6/16/2017) episode of This Week in Law, as well as on Episode 24 of the Scenic City Skeptics show. Check 'em out! Show Notes & Links We first discussed obstruction of justice in Episode #70, and analyzed the status of Executive Order 13780 in Episode #51. You can read the text of U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) here. Here is a link to the Maryland/DC complaint against Trump. And here is a link to Trump's motion to dismiss the CREW lawsuit. This is the Washington Post story breaking news of the investigation by the FBI into Trump. Here are the ostensible (and terrible) GOP "talking points" about the investigation. And this is the text of the Rosenstein order appointing Mueller as special counsel. 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, Thomas and Andrew talk to the co-host of one of their favorite podcasts, Oh No Ross and Carrie, along with the show's lawyer, Matthew Strugar -- proving once and for all that other podcasts need lawyers, too. First, however, Andrew breaks down a recent viral story about whether Donald Trump's Twitter account can be a "designated public forum," a term our listeners should remember from Episode #73's discussion with Travis Wester. In the main segment, Carrie Poppy sits down for a fun and wide-ranging interview about her job and the potential legal perils that stem from investigating pseudoscience, the paranormal, and potentially dangerous religious cults. After that, the much-beloved "Are You A Cop?" segment returns with a question from listener Brian Babcock about how to deal with standard-form contracts. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #27, which was a complicated fact pattern involving drunk driving, punitive damages, insurance limits, and cross-examination. Did Thomas break his streak? Listen and find out. And, as always, we'll release a new #TTTBE question this Friday, and, as always, answer that question the following Tuesday. 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), and don't forget that patrons who support us at any level get early access to the answers (and usually a fun post analyzing the question in more detail). Recent Appearances: Andrew was just a guest on Episode #84 of the Cellar Door Skeptics Podcast; give it a listen here. Show Notes & Links Check out the Oh No Ross and Carrie podcast! This is the link to Matthew Strugar's law firm in California. If you want to brush up on the concept of a "designated public forum," you can revisit our discussion with Travis Wester in Episode #73 by clicking here. Here is the text of the Knight First Amendment Institute's letter to Donald Trump regarding Twitter. ...and here is the text of Davison v. Loudon County, 2017 WL 58294 (E.D. Va. Jan. 4, 2017), the case cited in the footnotes. 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 Direct Download

If it's Friday, it's a current events episode, and if it's current events, we're probably talking about Donald Trump. We begin, however, with the second installment of a hopefully infrequent segment about stuff Andrew gets wrong. In this case, it's actually two things. First, Andrew clarifies the terminology related to immunity, and second, Andrew admits to falling for a hoax (!) In our main segment, we look at James Comey's testimony before the Senate regarding his firing. How far up Yodel Mountain does this take us? Listen and find out! After that, fan favorite Breakin' Down the Law returns with an analysis of what's going on with the Trump Administration's appeal of Executive Order 13780, the so-called "Muslim Ban," which we last discussed in Episode #51. Finally, we end with a brand new (and tricky) Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #27 about the admissibility of a question on cross-examination regarding the availability of insurance proceeds. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 recent guest on Episode #84 of the Cellar Door Skeptics podcast; give it a listen. Show Notes & Links We first discussed obstruction of justice in Episode #70, and analyzed the status of Executive Order 13780 in Episode #51. Snopes debunked the Berkeley Breathed letter here. The relevant obstruction statutes are 18 U.S.C § 1501 et seq. The two cases Andrew found that involve valid prosecutions for obstruction of justice where the defendant used the "I hope" construction in threatening a witness are U.S. v. Bedoy, 827 F.3d 495 (5th Cir. 2016) and U.S. v. McDonald, 521 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2008). This is the text of Executive Order 13780. 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 freewheeling episode, Andrew walks through a recent decision in California regarding a key employee who worked on self-driving cars and was recruited by a competitor. First, however, the guys talk about Episode #73's discussion with Travis Wester and what lessons hopefully we all can take away from it, including answering a listener question from Lyman Smith on how to go about finding primary sources. Next, the guys discuss "Mr. Met" and the doctrines of factual and legal impossibility. Can a four-fingered mascot really give anyone the "middle" finger?? In the main segment, Andrew breaks down the recent federal court opinion in California enjoining a former Waymo employee from working on Uber's self-driving car program, and along the way highlights the differences between non-compete clauses, non-solicitation clauses, and trade secrets. After that, Andrew tells a fun story in answering a listener question from Michael Grace regarding the craziest legal argument Andrew's ever heard. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #26 about composite sketches inspired by dead witnesses. We'll release a new #TTTBE question this Friday, and, as always, answer that question the following Tuesday. 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), and don't forget that patrons who support us at any level get early access to the answers (and usually a fun post analyzing the question in more detail). Recent Appearances: None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Here's the Tweet from Darren Rovell that inspired our "A" segment. ..and here's the link to the Wikipedia entry on the Impossibility defense, as a good exercise in finding primary sources. This is the New York Times article about the Waymo lawsuit; and the actual lawsuit can be found here. Finally, you can revisit our lengthy discussion with Travis Wester in Episode #73 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]

If it's Friday, it's a current events episode, and if it's current events, we're probably talking about Donald Trump. We begin, however, with a hopefully infrequent segment about stuff Andrew gets wrong. In this case, patron Sean Keehan corrects Andrew's numbers regarding Congressional votes. After that, we answer the actual legal question behind #covfefe -- namely, whether Donald Trump can delete his Tweets. The answer... might surprise you! In our main segment, we look at the ongoing Senate investigation regarding Trump's ties with Russia and break down the Congress's power to conduct investigations and issue subpoenas, and the reasons people can give for failing to comply with them. After that, fan favorite Breakin' Down the Law returns with the question on everyone's lips: is it legal for Kathy Griffin to have posed with Donald Trump's severed head? Finally, we end with a brand new (and tricky) Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #25 about the admissibility of a composite sketch after the primary witness has unexpectedly died. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 Andrew first made the erroneous claim regarding voting results in Episode #54 on Gerrymandering, and repeated it in Episode #72. Oops. The Presidential Records Act can be found at 44 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. The case establishing the inherent power of the Congress to issue investigations dating back to the McCarthy era is Wilkinson v. U.S., 365 U.S. 399 (1961). Finally, the landmark case establishing the applicable standard of "imminent incitement to lawless action" is Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). 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, the guys engage in a discussion with actor Travis Wester, who criticized the show's coverage of the Berkeley College Republicans' lawsuit back in the "C" segment of Episode #65. Travis comes on the show to criticize Berkeley's policy regarding the imposition of fees, while Andrew walks us through the various laws regarding the First Amendment's applicability to "time, place, and manner" restrictions in college classrooms. This episode went long, so we skipped our other segments, but obviously no Tuesday episode would be complete without the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam Question #25 about smokin' weed and crashin' cars. Recent Appearances: None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Here are the resources discussed in this episode: This is the link to the BCR/YAF (Ann Coulter) Complaint. Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995) is the Supreme Court case decisively holding that campus groups allocating space in classrooms are a limited public forum. Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989), is the landmark Supreme Court case on time, place, and manner restrictions. Rock for Life-UMBC v. Hrabowski, 643 F.Supp.2d 729 (D. Md. 2009) is the D.Md. case that is directly on point with a university that has the exact same policies as Berkeley. The authorizing regulation is 5 CCR § 100004. The 5th Circuit case to which Travis kept referring is Sonnier v. Crain, 613 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2010), the opinion of which was subsequently withdrawn in part by Sonnier v. Crain, 634 F.3d 778 (5th Cir. 2011). Finally, the Supreme Court case cited by Travis within the Sonnier opinion is Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992), in which the Supreme Court held that content-based restrictions, including excessive security fees, violate the 1st Amendment. 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 this episode, we revisit what Andrew has called the worst problem in American politics: gerrymandering -- but this time with a twist. We begin, however, with a listener question from Anna Bosnick, who is also our special guest for Law'd Awful Movies #7 - Legally Blonde! Anna watched the movie and listened to our intro and wants to know: what exactly is habeas corpus, anyway? Then, we tackle the recent news about Montana Congressional candidate Greg "Body Slam" Gianforte. Can he really take office if he's convicted of assault? In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas walk through the recent Supreme Court decision in Cooper v. Harris and discuss what it might mean for the future of gerrymandering legislation. After that, Andrew answers another listener question, this one from the exceptionally prescient Garry Myers, who wants to know whether corporations can assert 5th Amendment rights. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #25 about smoking pot and crashing cars. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 check out our Law'd Awful Movies guest, Anna Bosnick, and her amazing ukulele work over at worthyfools.com. Show Notes & Links Don't forget to check out our prior Episode #54 on Gerrymandering. In the case of Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), Scalia opined that "of course" being actually innocent isn't grounds for habeas corpus relief, although that was walked back by the Supreme Court in McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S.Ct. 1924 (2013). You can also check out the Cooper v. Harris decision here. Finally, the case discussed in the C segment is Hale v. Henkel, 204 U.S. 43 (1906). 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 this episode, the guys address whether the political left or the political right is the biggest threat to freedom of speech in the United States. Their answer probably won't surprise you, but it will give you some ammunition during your next twitter fight with some dude with a Pepe the Frog icon. To tee up this subject, the guys examine the case of journalist Dan Heyman, who was just arrested (!) for trying to ask a question about the AHCA to a rather reluctant Tom Price, the guy who's Secretary of Health and Human Services and who's job description includes answering these kinds of questions. In the main segment, the guys compare the real threat to free speech with the latest complaint filed by our friends over at the Alliance Defending Freedom. This particular lawsuit was filed on behalf of creationist lunatic Andrew Snelling, who wants to steal rocks from the Grand Canyon so he can prove something something Jesus moon lasers something and therefore, the earth is only 6,000 years old. What you won't expect: Andrew actually praises this Complaint! Multiple times! After that, Andrew tackles a question from listener Thomas McCormick who -- perhaps somewhat tongue-in-cheek? -- wonders why churches are tax-exempt at all. In (not) answering the question, Andrew also points out some special benefits churches get under the tax code. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #24 about double hearsay. We'll release a new #TTTBE question this Friday, and, as always, answer that question the following Tuesday. 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), and don't forget that patrons who support us at any level get early access to the answers (and usually a fun post analyzing the question in more detail). Recent Appearances: None, but you should check out Thomas's other show, Serious Inquiries Only, and in particular episode #41 featuring Michael Shermer backpedaling on his the-left-is-killing-free-speech tweets and articles. Show Notes & Links Mediaite has the video and some contemporaneous tweets of the Heyman arrest. This is a copy of the Complaint the ADF filed on behalf of Andrew Snelling. Finally, two of the special statutes that benefit churches (and only churches) cited by Andrew in the "C" segment are 26 U.S.C. § 508(c) and 26 U.S.C. § 7611. 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 episode begins the switch to a new, more responsive format in which we are better able to cover breaking news within a day of its release. And, of course, what better way to kick off that format by addressing the most pressing topic of the moment: is Donald Trump guilty of obstruction of justice in his firing of James Comey in light of the recent evidence? We break it down for you with the help of a guest expert, Prof. Randall Eliason of the Sidebars blog. First, though, we continue our ascent up Yodel Mountain with the question as to whether it's legal for Donald Trump to surreptitiously record White House conversations (as Press Secretary Sean Spicer recently failed to deny). In the main segment, the guys turn to a former prosecutor and expert on public corruption and the obstruction of justice, Prof. Randall Eliason, and ask about the strengths and weaknesses of mounting a case against the President for obstruction of justice. After that, Andrew answers a question from Jake (the Fake Jake) who wants to know whether the President has immunity from civil lawsuits, as he's claimed. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #24 about hearsay-within-hearsay. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 Check out Prof. Eliason's blog, Sidebars, and in particular the most recent post on this subject. Here is the link to the L.A. Times story about how Press Secretary Sean Spicer won't deny that President Trump is secretly taping White House conversations, and this is the link to the operative statute, § 23-542 of the D.C. Code. This is the text of Acting AG Rod Rosenstein's order appointing Robert Mueller as special counsel. The operative regulations governing the special counsel can be found at 28 CFR § 600.4 et seq. This is a link to the CNN story regarding Gen. Flynn's refusal to comply with the Senate's subpoena duces tecum. Finally, here is a link to Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), the Supreme Court case that established that Presidents do not have immunity from civil suit while in office. 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, the guys analyze the justification given by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for President Trump to fire former FBI Director James Comey. First, though, fan-favorite Yodelin' Trump returns with a related question from our listeners (including Kevin Hicks), who ask whether Trump's tweet about Sally Yates violated the law. In our main segment, Andrew breaks down the Rosenstein memo. Then, we answer a great listener question from Patron Ben Hatcher, who wants to know exactly what things are admissible in the record on appeal. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #23 about a class action breach-of-contract lawsuit against a scammer who sells your private information. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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: Thomas was recently a guest on Det. Matthew Maxon's new podcast, ______, and Andrew was recently a guest on Episode #116 of the Gaytheist Manifesto. Go check 'em out! Show Notes & Links This is the text of 18 U.S.C. § 1512, the statute that governs witness tampering. And this is the text of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's letter recommending the firing of Director Comey. 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, the guys tackle a recent Internet meme regarding convicted murderer Aaron Hernandez's suicide with help from NFL expert and friend of the show Chris Kristofco of the Titletown Sound podcast. First, though, Andrew tackles a question from listener Joel Forman who asks whether Andrew can help secure him a "letter of marque." What is a letter of marque and why does Joel want one? Listen and find out! In the main segment, the guys break down the law regarding Aaron Hernandez's suicide. Does it really vacate Hernandez's conviction for murder? Are the Patriots really on the hook for $6 million? Is it all a big conspiracy? We tell the hard truths. After that, Andrew answers a question from Hall of Fame patron R.J. Rautio about an obscure procedural quirk in the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Does this mean President Elizabeth Warren can kick Gorsuch off the Court in 2020?? Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #23 about a breach of contract lawsuit for stealing your personal information. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 recently a guest on Episode #116 of the Gaytheist Manifesto. Go check it out! Show Notes & Links Check out Chris Kristofco's fabulous podcast, Titletown Sound. This is the hilarious (and serious!) article from the Federalist Society's web page on bringing back letters of marque. No, seriously: a real person wrote this, unironically. This is the case of U.S. v. Pogue, 19 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 1994), the case Andrew discusses on the "abatement" rule during the main segment. And here is just one example of sports media claiming that abatement puts the Patriots back on the hook for Hernandez's salary. 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, the guys analyze the recent Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty. First, though, we discuss why the show rejected a potential sponsor. Next, we answer a great listener question from our (only?) conservative listener, "Dan Dan the Conservative Man." Dan wanted to know about the exclusionary rule, so-called "illegal" aliens, a recent Supreme Court decision, and how all of those things play in to "Sanctuary Cities." We think we answered this. In our main segment, Andrew breaks down the meaningless portions of the Trump EO and contrasts them with the Definitely Unconstitutional provision. Then, we answer another listener question, this one from Shane Argo, who wants to know about the legal and philosophical reasons for treating "attempted murder" differently than regular murder. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #22 about a buyer who finds a priceless artifact at a yard sale and knowingly buys it for a fraction of its true value. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 In Episode 52 of the show, we linked to this Facebook post by an immigration lawyer about the term "illegal" immigrant. We recommend you revisit both! Here is a link to Utah v. Strieff, 136 S.Ct. 2056 (2016), the case Dan asked about. This is the text of President Trump's Religious Liberty EO. And this is a link to David French's delightful article in the National Review complaining that Trump's EO doesn't go far enough. 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, the guys break down the recent decision by a federal court to enjoin the enforcement of President Trump's Executive Order 13768 regarding Sanctuary Cities. First, though, Andrew tackles a popular question from Brad Kalmanson (and others) as to whether Donald Trump can really make good on his weird threat to "break up" the 9th Circuit. The answer will almost certainly surprise you. In the main segment, we analyze the Sanctuary Cities Executive Order and the Trump Administration's rather amazing legal "strategy" they orchestrated to try and defend it. If you have Trump supporters in your news feed (or are one yourself!), you'll be amazed at what the administration did. After that, Andrew answers an in-person question from David at ReasonCon about the practice of law. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #22 about selling a priceless work of art. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 This is a nice primer on the creation of the current federal judiciary, beginning with the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. Here is a link to the decision by the Northern District of California enjoining the enforcement of EO 13768. This link is to the text of EO 13768. And this is 8 U.S.C. § 1373, referenced in the EO. 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, Thomas continues his choose-your-own-adventure in which we discover how two well-meaning efforts to protect privacy on the Internet somehow left us with the "Selling The Internet" Bill, S.J.R. 34. We also tackle the wackiest of wacky lawsuits, starring everyone's favorite Internet troll, Ann Coulter. First, though, Andrew assigns homework to the listeners for the very first time, previewing what will be an in-depth discussion of the recent Federal Court order granting injunctive relief and blocking President Trump's "Sanctuary Cities" executive order. Then, we return to our story from Friday's show, unraveling the connections between the FCC, the FTC, Internet Privacy, and the Republican Congress. After that, we discuss the Berkeley College Republicans' lawsuit against the school in connection with Milo Yiannopolous and Ann Coulter. Is this lawsuit as hilarious as it seems? (Yes. Yes it is.) Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (and Phil!) Take the Bar Exam Question #21 about a state choosing first to recognize gay marriage and then trying to repeal it via a ballot initiative. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 209 of the Phil Ferguson Show; please give it a listen! Show Notes & Links Here is a link to the decision by the Northern District of California enjoining the enforcement of EO 13768 that Andrew assigned as homework. This is the single sentence text of S.J.R. 34. And these are the 2016 FCC Internet Privacy rules (all 399 pages!) that S.J.R. 34 overturned. This is the earlier 2010 Open Internet Order promulgated by the FCC... ...and this is Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014), which struck down those rules. And this is the case of FTC v. AT&T Mobility, a 2016 decision from the 9th Circuit, discussed in depth in this episode. Finally, this is a link to the text of the Berkeley College Republican/Ann Coulter lawsuit, which is some truly hilarious reading. 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, Thomas begins a choose-your-own-adventure in which two well-meaning trains collide, producing the so-called "Selling The Internet" Bill, S.J.R. 34. How did this happen? First, though, Andrew revisits a very difficult TTTBE question (#18), and answers a question from long-standing friend of the show Eric Brewer about the differences between a corporation and an LLC. In the main segment, Thomas gets to choose between the well-meaning FCC and the well-meaning FTC in boarding his doomed train. Choose along with Thomas and figure out where we're headed! After that, Closed Arguments looks at the Fearless Girl statue and moral rights associated with copyright. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #21 about repealing gay marriage. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 209 of the Phil Ferguson Show; please give it a listen! Show Notes & Links This is the single sentence text of S.J.R. 34. And these are the 2016 FCC Internet Privacy rules (all 399 pages!) that S.J.R. 34 overturned. This is the earlier 2010 Open Internet Order promulgated by the FCC... ...and this is Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 2014), which struck down those rules. This is the case we discuss in depth in this part of the story. And, as a special hint to our listeners who read the show notes, Part 2 of this story airing next week will focus on the case of FTC v. AT&T Mobility, a 2016 decision from the 9th Circuit. 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 this episode of Opening Arguments, Andrew and Thomas invite on Phil Ferguson, host of the cleverly-titled Phil Ferguson Show, to discuss why only suckers save money for college. First, Andrew discusses the scuttlebutt surrounding whether Ivy Tech will appeal the decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech that the guys discussed in Episode 60. After that, we look at the best(?) potential educational bill that might come before Donald Trump's desk: H.R. 529, which would make modest expansions to so-called "529" college savings plans. This, of course, is to set up our "C" segment, in which the guys interview Phil Ferguson and find out what he really thinks of 529 plans in specific and saving for college in general. How clickbaity is our episode title? You'll have to listen and find out! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #20 about whether a law prohibiting hiring those undergoing drug treatment or with prior drug convictions would violate the equal protection clause. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 also a guest on Episode 209 of the Phil Ferguson Show; please give it a listen! Show Notes & Links So-called "529 plans" are governed by 26 U.S.C. § 529, which you can read here. You can see the text of H.R. 592 (no relation) by clicking this link as well as read the endorsement from The Hill 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] Image courtesy of CheapFullCoverageAutoInsurance.com

In this episode, Andrew goes through five of the worst, most embarrassing cases in Supreme Court history. First, though, the guys tackle a question from Scott, who's considering becoming a patron of the show (good!) but has some questions about a standard form indemnification clause in the Patreon agreement. In the main segment, we look at the worst of the worst in Supreme Court history. From the embarrassingly racist to the embarrassingly activist, come visit the Supreme Court's "Hall of Shame" with Andrew and Thomas. After that, fan favorite Breakin' Down the Law returns with an examination of a new mandatory arbitration provision for civil cases in Cook County, Illinois. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #20. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 209 of the Phil Ferguson Show; please give it a listen! Show Notes & Links The worst cases in Supreme Court history, in chronological order, are: Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) (not discussed in this episode) Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) Korematsu v. US, 323 US 214 (1944) Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986); and, of course, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (not discussed in this episode) 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 of Opening Arguments, the guys look at both United Airlines and an obscure law from 1996 that could threaten the "administrative state" held in such disdain by our newest Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch. First, of course, Andrew breaks down the legality of the recent decision by United Airlines to forcibly remove a passenger. How badly is United going to get sued? You know we deliver the goods. Then, Andrew and Thomas discuss a little-known law passed in 1996 as part of the Republican Revolution and Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America": the Congressional Review Act. What is it, and why does it matter? Listen and find out! In the "C" segment, Andrew answers a question from his mom. Really! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #19 about diversity jurisdiction. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 recently a guest on the Embrace the Void podcast, Episodes 5 and 6. Listen and enjoy! Show Notes & Links The Congressional Review Act is 5 U.S.C. § 802. ...and the Brookings Institute study can be found here. Finally, you can read Todd Gaziano's efforts to beef up the CRA 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 episode, we take a look at a landmark decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana. First, though, we tackle a question from listener Justin Wilder who wants to know about serving a subpoena on Amazon for evidence in a civil case related to information that might be stored on your Echo. We love that our listeners are becoming civil procedure geeks! In the main segment, Andrew walks us through the landmark Hively decision and discusses what it means and what the likely future of the case will be. After that, fan favorite Breakin' Down the Law returns with an examination of South Dakota SB 149 which extends protections to adoption agencies in the state with (wait for it) sincerely held religious or moral beliefs. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #19 that asks about diversity jurisdiction in federal court between two companies. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 just recorded a two-part episode of the Embrace the Void Podcast; you can (and should!) give Episode 5 a listen right here. Show Notes & Links FRCP 45 governs subpoenas. This is the Supreme Court's Opinion in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana. And here is the link to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. This is the text of South Dakota SB 149, which allows adoption agencies to discriminate on the basis of a sincerely held religious or moral belief. 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 this highly unlikely episode of Opening Arguments, the guys run through three segments in which they defend President Donald J. Trump. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction First, listener T.Sp. asks about the just-invoked "nuclear option," and whether that vote itself could have been filibustered, thus triggering an endless loop of filibusters... Obviously the answer is no -- but why? We learn about some arcane Senate procedures and the guys conclude that the Democrats probably would have done the same thing if the situation were reversed. In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas break down the recent use of force by President Trump in Syria. Does it violate the Constitution? The War Powers Act of 1973? Some other law? (No.) Yet again, the guys defend President Trump. In the "C" segment, our beloved Yodelin' Trump returns and the guys break down a popular video by Robert Reich that lays out five grounds for impeaching Trump. How good are they? Hint: check out the title of this show. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #18 about a crazily unconstitutional law regarding clothing. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 recently a guest on both the Embrace the Void podcast and The Phil Ferguson Show; links will go up when those shows release. Show Notes & Links The War Powers Act of 1973 is 50 U.S.C. § 1541 et seq. ...and the 60-day provision is found in section 1544. This is the document prepared by President Clinton's lawyers defending the 1994 invasion of Haiti. Here is the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force post-9/11. 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] Direct Download

Today's episode is part two of a two-part series in which Thomas and Andrew walk through the short-lived history of the USFL, an alternative football league that ran into the bulldozer that is Donald J. Trump. Along the way, we learn about jury nullification, antitrust law, and get some insight into Trump's legal strategies that just might have some relevance today.... First, though, "Breakin' Down the Law" defines "antitrust" in order to get you prepared to tackle the rest of our main story. Afterwards, we answer a question from listener Eric Johnston, who wants to know what exactly "laches" and "estoppel" are. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #18 that asks about the Constitutionality of an oppressive new law restricting clothing. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 just recorded a delightful and moderate discussion of the law of God's Not Dead 2 with the hosts of the "Is This Reel Life?" podcast. Show Notes & Links This is the AmLaw article Andrew mentions in which lawyers second-guessed Donald Trump's choice of litigation tactics way back in 2009. 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 part one of a two-part series in which Thomas and Andrew walk through the short-lived history of the USFL, an alternative football league that ran into the bulldozer that is Donald J. Trump. Along the way, we learn about jury nullification, antitrust law, and get some insight into Trump's legal strategies that just might have some relevance today.... First, though, "Breakin' Down the Law" defines "jury nullification" in order to get you prepared to tackle our main story. Afterwards, we answer a question from listener Collin Boots, who wants to know why Andrew was so dismissive of term limits back in Episode 54. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #17 about selling a lemon of a used car in "as is" condition. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 just recorded a delightful and moderate discussion of the law of God's Not Dead 2 with the hosts of the "Is This Reel Life?" podcast. Show Notes & Links This is the AmLaw article Andrew mentions in which lawyers second-guessed Donald Trump's choice of litigation tactics way back in 2009. And here is a link to U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), in which the Court struck down state efforts to limit Congressional and Senate terms. 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 look at a recent Supreme Court decision that could have wide-ranging effects on future trials. We begin, however, by "Breakin' Down the Law" regarding House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes. Did he just violate the law Republicans kept trying to insist applied to Hillary Clinton's emails? (Yes.) In our main segment, we delve into a recent Supreme Court decision, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, in which the Court held that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial means that jurors must be free to report blatant racial bias in otherwise-private jury deliberations, even if the law says otherwise. How the Court came down on this issue is also reflective of the split on the Supreme Court between the originalist justices and the mainstream ones. Next, long-time friend of the show Eric Brewer returns with a question about felon voting rights. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #17 that asks about the common law behind "as is" used cars. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 and Thomas were guests on Eiynah's podcast, Polite Conversations, Panel Discussion #6 talking about liberals vs. conservatives on free speech. Give it a listen! Show Notes & Links Here's the story on Devin Nunes's disclosures of confidential intelligence briefings to the press and to White House flacks. And this is the text of 18 U.S.C. § 793(f)(1), which is indeed the same statute Republicans sought to use against Hillary Clinton. This counts as irony, right? And finally, this is the Supreme Court's decision in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. 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 continues our look at appellate jurisprudence, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, and the philosophy of originalism that Andrew continues to insist is so extreme ast o be disqualifying. First, our much-beloved segment "Are You A Cop?" returns in triumphant fashion with an examination of a claim being raised by many Trump supporters; namely, that the 9th Circuit is "the most reversed appellate court in the country" with a "90% reversal rate." Is this claim true? (No.) In the main segment, we take a look at the Supreme Court's just-released opinion in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. Is this a "unanimous reversal" of Gorsuch on appeal while Gorsuch's nomination remains pending?? As usual, we correct the news sources that got this story wrong and explain its significance to you. Next, we answer a question/comment from Ed Brayton, author of the "Dispatches From The Culture Wars" blog, who has a different take on originalism. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #16 about apparent authority. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 and Thomas were guests on Eiynah's podcast, Polite Conversations, Panel Discussion #6 talking about liberals vs. conservatives on free speech. Give it a listen! Show Notes & Links This Politifact Article debunks the claim that the 9th Circuit is the "most reversed" appellate court. This is the text of the Endrew F v. Douglas County School Dist. opinion just issued by the Supreme Court. And here is the Endrew F opinion from the 10th Circuit (not authored by Gorsuch) that was reversed. Finally, this is the Luke P decision that was by Gorsuch discussed in the episode. And by contrast, this is Urban v. Jefferson County School Dist., 89 F.3d 720 (1996), which you can read for yourself and see that Gorsuch deliberately misconstrued. You can read Ed Brayton's excellent blog, Dispatches From The Culture Wars, 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 look at the history and potential future of gerrymandered congressional districts. We begin, however, with a listener question that's come to us from multiple sources, including Patrons Greg Boettcher and Adrian Borschow, who want to know if there's any difference between a "jail" and a "prison." We deliver the goods! In our main segment, we delve into three recent cases regarding the time-honored practice of gerrymandering a state into congressional districts so as to maximize the number of safe seats for any one political party. How significant is this problem, and can the courts fix it? Listen and find out! Next, our much-beloved segment "Closed Arguments" returns with a look at a British tabloid journalist, Katie Hopkins, who was recently forced to pay more than 300,000 pounds (that's still real money, right?) after mistakenly taunting another journalist on Twitter. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #16 that asks whether an administrative assistant has sufficient authority to bind her boss when making contracts. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 podcast, radio or TV show, or interview us! Show Notes & Links The first Supreme Court case to recognize a constitutional right to a non-gerrymandered district was Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986). Scalia (of course) attempted to overrule Davis v. Bandemer in his 2004 plurality opinion in Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 US 267 (2004), but could only garner four votes. Since then, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the basic principle of Davis v. Bandemer in LULAC v. Perry, 548 US 399 (2006), in which only two sitting Supreme Court justices have endorsed the Scalia position. This is a fairly awesome video from former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger making gerrymandering the centerpiece of what is likely to be a run for the Senate in 2018. This is the Whitford et al. v. Gill (Wisc.) decision on gerrymandering that contains a detailed section as to how to detect and remedy "packing" and "cracking." This is the full text link to the Perez v. Abbott (W.D. Texas) decision on Texas's gerrymandered congressional districts. Andrew recommends Princeton professor Sam Wang's work on gerrymandering. The full text of his Stanford Law Review article is 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 take a look at a recent claim being made by Sen. Al Franken and others that Attorney General Jeff Sessions perjured himself during his confirmation hearings. First, we begin with an examination of some legal issues in the news related to the Trump administration. What does it mean that the ABA rated Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch "well qualified," and does that mean Andrew is rethinking his opinions to the contrary in Episode 40 and Episode 49? (No.) We also delve into a discussion of the recent (non-)story regarding the release of Donald Trump's 2005 form 1040, as well as the recent decisions by U.S. District Courts in Hawaii and Maryland to issue temporary restraining orders blocking Trump's Revised Executive Order ("Muslim Ban"). In the main segment, we break down exactly what Sessions said and whether it meets the technical requirements for perjury. Next, we answer a question from patron Anthoni Fortier, who asks us what "cert" is and why Andrew keeps saying it. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #15 about eyewitness identification. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 podcast, radio or TV show, or interview us! Show Notes & Links This is the full text of the Hawaii decision enjoining the Revised Executive Order. If you missed it, you'll want to check out OA Episode #43, in which we first discussed the 9th Circuit's Opinion that we revisit in this episode. This is the full text of President Trump's revised Executive Order ("Muslim Ban"). And this is the decision in Church of Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), which Andrew continues to think is the touchstone for whether Trump's Revised EO violates the First Amendment. Here is the full text of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the federal perjury statute. This is a timeline maintained by the Washington Post of Sessions's relevant conduct. This is the tweet from John Harwood confirming that Russian officials did discuss the election with Jeff Sessions. And here is an article in the National Review arguing to the contrary (largely on the grounds of 'intent'). 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 look at some legal terms that our patrons asked us to define. In a twist, however, the guys switch chairs and Andrew asks the questions while Thomas tries to offer legal definitions. How did that work out? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a listener question from Rachel Doty, who -- in keeping with this episode's theme -- asks us to define "Alford plea." Then, based on a suggestion from patron Marie Kent, we ask Thomas to define as many legal terms as he can in half an hour. We think this would make an awesome game show, so if any of our listeners are TV producers, please give us a call. Next, we take a look at a listener who recommended a Facebook post from an immigration attorney, and the guys discuss the concept of "illegal" immigration. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #15 that asks whether eyewitness testimony can be tainted by viewing the suspect in police custody. Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show. 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 podcast, radio or TV show, or interview us! Show Notes & Links Check out Marie's podcast, My Book of Mormon, by clicking here. This is the Facebook post from immigration lawyer Lily Axelrod that we discuss during the show. The one section of the US Code that Andrew found that uses the term "illegal alien" is 8 USC § 1365(b), which is very different from the colloquial use of the term. 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