Opening Arguments

In today's episode, we take a look at the recent Supreme Court decision to rescind its grant of certiorari in the 4th Circuit opinion of Grimm v. Gloucester County School District. What happened, and what does this mean for transgender rights? First, we begin with an examination of the Trump administration's revised Executive Order (sometimes called the "Muslim Ban") restricting entry from now six Muslim-majority nations. As you may recall, we first addressed this issue back in Opening Arguments episode #43. Does this revised order comply with the law and solve the problems outlined by the 9th Circuit, or is it still "obviously unconstitutional," as many news sources claim? You'll know better than the New York Times soon enough! In our main segment, we look at Title IX's prohibition on "sex" discrimination and discuss whether it applies to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity while walking through the somewhat unique procedural history of the Grimm decision. Next, we evaluate whether former President Obama would be likely to prevail in a lawsuit for defamation against President Trump for the claim that Obama "wiretapped Trump Towers" prior to the election. Is this Bat Boy?? Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #14 about IIED. 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 The Gaytheist Manifesto podcast, discussing the history of Title IX. Show Notes & Links 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"). According to this Guardian article, Hawaii has already sued to block the Revised EO. This is the decision in Church of Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), which is the touchstone for whether Trump's Revised EO violates the First Amendment. Click here to read the (overconfident) New York Times article, "Don't Be Fooled" that asserts that the Revised EO is blatantly unconstitutional. This is the text of 20 U.S.C. § 1681 ("Title IX"). This is the memorandum issued by the Obama DOJ providing guidance as to how to interpret Title IX. And click here for the 4th Circuit's now-vacated opinion in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board that we discuss during 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] Direct Download

In today's episode, we take a look at a rule first proposed by President Obama's Department of Labor in 2016 that would require financial advisers to abide by a "fiduciary" duty with their clients. What does that mean? Listen and find out! We begin with a relevant note about the status of the rule, which is due to be implemented in 60 days. Next, in our main segment, we take a look at the implications of the Fiduciary Rule by consulting an expert; in this case, certified financial planner Ben Offit, CFP® who has a somewhat novel take on this enhanced obligation. He breaks down what the proposed rule means for you and the financial professionals you might hire. After the main segment, we turn to a petition that has been garnering significant attention on the Internet: #ReVote2017. What is it? Is it really pending before the Supreme Court, and what does that mean? Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #14 regarding the tort of the intentional infliction of emotional distress. 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)! Show Notes & Links To find out more about Ben Offit, CFP® and his services, you can visit his firm, Clear Path Advisory, or email Ben at [email protected]. This is the announcement that the Fiduciary Rule has been postponed for 60 days. You can also check out the text of the Fiduciary Rule itself. This is the hilarious petition for writ of mandamus filed by the #ReVote 2017 petitioners. And this is the docket entry for their petition, which is currently pending before the Court and will be denied on March 17, 2017, one week from today. 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 take a long look at the judicial philosophy of "originalism" made popular by former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and advocated by his would-be replacement. First, we begin with a question from Jodi, who asks Andrew for his opinion of LegalZoom and other law-in-a-box services. Andrew gets a little emotional in his response.... Next, we break down originalism as a form of jurisprudence and examine why it is (1) internally incoherent and contradictory; (2) dangerous and unconstrained; and (3) contrary to the fundamental purpose of the judiciary. Andrew's argument is that originalists do not belong on the Supreme Court. Period. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #13 about 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: Andrew was a panel guest on The Thinking Atheist episode "Donald Trump's America," which you can listen to by clicking right here. Show Notes & Links Here are Andrew's two blog posts -- one about Legal Zoom and one about downloading contracts off the internet. His law firm site is here. This Huffington Post piece quotes Scalia's 2008 interview with Nina Totenberg about the Eighth Amendment not prohibiting 18th-century forms of torture. Here's a link to the full text of the Federalist Papers. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938). Scalia's dissent in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 347-48 (2002) and opinion in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) are where he makes fun of citations to international law. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) is the infamous decision in which Scalia declared that the Eighth Amendment only bars punishments that are both "cruel" and "unusual in the Constitutional sense." 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 a little bit different than our usual format; today, we take a look at three cases that our listeners have asked about on Twitter and Facebook. First up is an order entered by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas enjoining the state of Texas (and nitwit Attorney General Ken Paxton) from disqualifying Planned Parenthood as an authorized Medicaid service provider on the basis of fake videos. Next, we tackle a recent ruling by the Washington Supreme Court applying that state's anti-discrimination law to a florist that decided she couldn't sell wedding flowers if the participants were gay. Is this really the worst violation of individual freedom in the history of Western Civilization? Third, we look at the recent victory in the 11th Circuit by our colleague Dr. Steven Novella of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Podcast, and discuss what the ruling means for (say) podcasters who get sued for libel. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #13 regarding 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: Thomas was interviewed by Conatus News about the development of the atheist community on the internet, including the role played by his other podcast, Serious Inquiries Only. Andrew was a guest panelist on an episode of The Thinking Atheist show, "Donald Trump's America." Show Notes & Links This is the W.D. Texas order restraining the state from blocking Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. Here is a link to Washington's anti-discrimination law. Click here to read David French's hilariously over-the-top description of this case in the right-wing garbage mag, the National Review. This is the 11th Circuit's ruling in Tobinick v. Novella. Click here to check out Dr. Novella's podcast, the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. 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 the just-decided case of Kolbe v. Hogan out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Is this case as big a deal as people are saying it is? We begin, however, with a preliminary question from patron Alice Ashton, who asks about the controversial flavor-of-the-week, recently deplatformed Milo Yiannopolous. Does knowing about a crime and not reporting it make you an accessory after the fact? Find out! Next, we break down Kolbe v. Hogan and explain whether this recent decision lives up to the hype (and why)! After our main segment, we answer another patron question, this one from Derek Timp, who has some questions about the separation of church and state. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #12 about that criminal squirrel-feeder. 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 panel guest on The Thinking Atheist episode "Donald Trump's America," which you can listen to by clicking right here. Also, Seth Andrews, host of the Thinking Atheist, has just released his "Secular State of the Union" address which you can listen to right here. Show Notes & Links Thomas did a fabulous, full-length episode of Serious Inquiries Only about Milo; you should give that a listen. Alice's question referenced a post and attached video on the Joe.My.God. website which you can see here. This is the text of the Kolbe v. Hogan decision. And here is DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Here's a brief rundown of clergy serving in Congress. 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 concludes our two-part look at one of your most requested questions: what might be in Donald Trump's taxes! We begin, however, with a listener criticism from Peter Crinklaw, who thinks Andrew gave short shrift to the policy argument for educational vouchers. Next, we conclude our two-part interview Tony Di Fatta, a practicing CPA, to take a deep-dive into all the things we might -- and might not -- find in the event that Donald Trump's taxes are ever disclosed. All of this is meant to shed some light on the question: should Democrats be focused on finding out what's in Trump's taxes? After our main segment, we tackle another listener question; this one from our top patron Zabby, who wants to know about the recently-passed Jacksonville, Florida Human Rights Ordinance. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #12 regarding witness credibility. 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 interviewed by Conatus News about the development of the atheist community on the internet, including the role played by his other podcast, Serious Inquiries Only. Andrew was a guest on the David Pakman show; you can watch the 14-minute video interview here. Andrew was also a guest on the Biskeptical Podcast, episode #19, with Trav Mamone and Morgan Stringer, discussing free speech and Milo Yiannopolous. Hall of Fame Patron Charone Frankel started her own legal comedy podcast, Habeas Humor. Go check it out. Show Notes & Links This is the economist survey regarding vouchers mentioned by Peter. To find out more about Tony, click here for his website, or give him a call at (443) 791-5726. This is a link to Donald Trump's 2016 financial disclosures. Here's the hilarious Onion article, "You People Made Me Give Up My Peanut Farm!" This is the text of the Jacksonville HRO. 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 take a look at one of your most requested questions: what might be in Donald Trump's taxes! We begin, however, with a preliminary question from Jim Sabatowski, who asks us what's the big deal with Trump's tax returns, anyway? Is there a good reason to think we can get information that's necessary to evaluate a candidate? Next, we give you part one of our two-part interview Tony Di Fatta, a practicing CPA, to take a deep-dive into all the things we might -- and might not -- find in the event that Donald Trump's taxes are ever disclosed. All of this is meant to shed some light on the question: should Democrats be focused on finding out what's in Trump's taxes? After our main segment, we inaugurate a new segment about how close President Trump is to impeachment with a question about 18 USC § 1001 and the prohibition against making false statements. With a bonus reference to The Price Is Right! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #11 about the best evidence rule. 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 interviewed by Conatus News about the development of the atheist community on the internet, including the role played by his other podcast, Serious Inquiries Only. Andrew was a guest on the David Pakman show; you can watch the 14-minute video interview here. Andrew was also a guest on the Biskeptical Podcast, episode #19, with Trav Mamone and Morgan Stringer, discussing free speech and Milo Yiannopolous. Show Notes & Links To find out more about Tony, click here for his website, or give him a call at (443) 791-5726. This is a link to Donald Trump's 2016 financial disclosures. Here's the hilarious Onion article, "You People Made Me Give Up My Peanut Farm!" This is the text of 18 USC § 1001. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download

In today's episode, we take a look at arbitration, an increasingly popular device being used to take disputes out of the courtroom. What might arbitration mean for you? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a question from patron Faye Reppas, who asks about HR 2802, the so-called "First Amendment Defense Act." Next, in our main segment, we take a look at the implications of arbitration -- particularly in the employment context, where your employer may have inserted a mandatory arbitration clause in your employment agreement. What does arbitration do? Can you be compelled to do it? We break it all down for you. After our main segment, we tackle another listener question; this one from Eric Walls about corporate personhood. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #11 regarding the testimony of a plaintiff who's had surgical sponges accidentally left inside of her (a surprisingly common occurrence). 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)! Show Notes & Links This is the text of the proposed HR 2802, the First Amendment Defense Act. Andrew wrote two articles on arbitration for his firm blog: you can read Part 1 and Part 2 for more in-depth analysis. Here's a link to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. Here is a link to Andrew's appearance on the David Pakman 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]

In today's episode, we take a look at the ongoing status of Executive Order 13769 (often referred to as the "Muslim Ban"). What exactly did the 9th Circuit decide, and how does it affect the status of efforts to restrict emigration going forward? We begin, however, with a Breakin' Down the Law segment where we examine the so-called "Johnson Amendment." What is it? Would it be a bad thing if the Trump administration repeals it? Does it really make a difference? We break down the law so you'll be armed with the information you need to answer these questions. Next, we take a deep-dive into the 9th Circuit's recent ruling denying the Government's emergency motion for a stay. What does that mean? Where is this lawsuit headed next? You won't know if you only read The New York Times, but you will know if you listen to this show! After our main segment, we turn to a question from listener Schofield Miller about why courts hand down multiple-life sentences that run to hundreds of years. Figure out what it means to be sentenced to "ten consecutive life sentences." Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #10 about witness testimony. 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)! Also: Andrew was recently on Episode #103 of the Gaytheist Manifesto podcast talking about executive orders more generally; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links Andrew also discussed the Johnson Amendment when he was a guest on The Scathing Atheist podcast episode #208. Andrew also did a guest spot on episode #103 of the Gaytheist Manifesto talking about executive orders. Judge Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington's Order issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking the Executive Order is here. And the 9th Circuit's opinion refusing to issue a stay 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]

Today's episode is brought to you by Audible! Go to audible.com/lawpod for your free 30 day trial!! In today's episode, we take a look at the law of contracts, and particularly in the context of the recent lawsuit involving former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert. We begin, however, with a related question from patron Michael, who asks whether the Scientologists can really enforce that billion-year contract to join to Sea Org. (This answer will not surprise you.) That leads into our main segment, where we look at the strange and tragic lawsuit being brought against Hastert by a victim of his past sexual assault. Hastert agreed to pay the victim $3.5 million for his silence, and then stopped paying after he came under federal investigation. Recently, Hastert counter-sued to recover the hush money previously paid, and we break down all the intricacies of contract law to try and figure out who's likely to get what. After our main segment, we tackle another listener question; this time, about whether employers can fire you for smoking marijuana in the privacy of your own home if you live in a state like Colorado that's legalized marijuana use. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #10 which is another very, very hard question. 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)! Show Notes & Links This Chicago Tribune article sets forth the facts of the Hastert case. And this Tribune article contains the actual text of Haster's counterclaim that we discuss during the show. On Thursday, Andrew was a guest on The Scathing Atheist podcast episode #208. That same day (he's a busy guy!), Andrew also did a guest spot on episode #103 of the Gaytheist Manifesto podcast. 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 examine one of the favorite policy recommendations of President Trump's Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos: the school voucher. What is it? Is it constitutional? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a Breakin' Down the Law segment where Andrew looks at a popular Twitter account's explanation of the odd fact that Donald Trump filed his re-election papers four years early. Is there some nefarious purpose to him having done so, or is this innocuous? We break down the law so you'll be armed with the information you need to navigate these kinds of claims. In the main segment, Andrew walks us through Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), the most recent Supreme Court case to consider school vouchers, with a focus on whether providing federal tax dollars to private religious institutions violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. After our main segment, we turn to a question from ex-Mormon about the infamous "Mormon Extermination Order," an executive order (No. 44) signed by Missouri Gov. Lilburn Boggs in 1838. This dovetails with a two-hour discussion of the Order between Andrew and host Bryce Blankenagel during episode 47 of the "Naked Mormonism" podcast, which you should definitely check out by clicking here. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #9 about joint tenancy. 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)! Show Notes & Links The "Resisterhood" tweets are here. Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002). This is the original, hand-written text of Missouri Executive Order 44 (the "Mormon Extermination Order"). The main page for the "Naked Mormonism" podcast is here; and Andrew was on Epsiode 47, which you can download 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 President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch. The main segment was recorded before the announcement and reflects our guess (correctly!) that he would be the nominee, so you'll hear some speculative language. We begin, however, with a question from David Durman who wants to know if a citizen can bring a private civil suit against President Trump while he's in office. The answer may surprise you! During our main segment, we also discuss Gorsuch's originalism and some of the opinions and dissents he issued while serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Oh, and he also wrote a snottly little editorial for the right-wing mag National Review. After our main segment, "Closed Arguments" returns with a question about Jared Kushner and the anti-nepotism law. Is Trump violating the law? The answer will probably not surprise you. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #9 which is the single hardest question so far, in that it involves real property. 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)! Show Notes & Links This is a link to the Washington Post article referenced by David. If you read only one thing from the show notes, it should be this sarcastic, nasty little article Gorsuch wrote for the National Review before he joined the bench. Then, if you have the stomach for it, check out Gorsuch's opinion in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2016), in which he openly muses in the text of the opinion about repealing Chevron deference. Still think he's not an activist judge? This is the anti-nepotism law, 5 U.S.C. §3110. 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 revisits a question we tackled way back in Episode #16, namely, whether President Trump has the authority to enact his Muslim Ban. We begin with an examination of the recent CREW lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that President Trump has violated the Emoluments Clause. Is that lawsuit likely to prevail? What could it accomplish? Listen and find out. In the main segment, we consider not only the recent Trump Executive Order restricting the entry of aliens from seven majority-Muslim nations (the "Muslim Ban"). We address questions of legality and constitutionality, as well as break down the recent injunction handed down by the Southern District of New York in response to the ACLU's lawsuit. After our main segment, we turn to a question from a conservative listener about abortion and whether Roe v. Wade was an "activist" decision. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #8 about a landowner's duties regarding trespassers who accidentally fall into the landowner's murder lake. 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)! Show Notes & Links The CREW lawsuit is here. We reference two decisions on the "political question" doctrine: Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) and Nixon v. U.S., 506 U.S. 224 (1993). We initially discussed the Muslim Ban way back in OA Episode #16, which is worth another listen! The authorizing statute (the "1952 Law") is 8 USC §1182(f). The "1965 Law" is 8 USC §1152(a). In light of those two provisions, we think you can spot the errors in David Bier's op-ed in the New York Times. I wrote a lot on Facebook about the ACLU lawsuit and the injunction handed down by the court on Saturday, so you can check that out if you want the relevant documents. 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 two of our two-part series on pending changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). As we've previously mentioned, in 2016, the Obama Department of Labor promulgated new rules requiring that employees who are "exempt" from the FLSA's overtime requirements must earn at least $47,476 per year. A district court judge issued an injunction blocking those rules from going into effect; that decision is currently pending on expedited review before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this episode, Andrew continues his explanation as to why he thinks those rules are going to eventually go into effect and what that means for employers and employees. We begin, however, with a thoughtful question from friend of the show Noah Lugeons regarding how the FLSA's tipping rules interact with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Is it illegal for employers to rely on tips knowing how inequally tips are handed out to men and minorities? Listen and find out! After our main segment on the FLSA, we answer a delightfully mad question from Robert Rautio regarding the supposed "right to travel" in the Constitution. Answering this doozy takes us back into the weird and wonderful world of "sovereign citizens" -- you won't want to miss it! Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #8 about whether a company dumping toxic waste has a duty to warn trespassers. 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)! Show Notes & Links The relevant provisions of the FLSA for this episode are 29 USC § 207 (maximum hours) and 29 USC § 213 (exempt employees). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 begins at 42 USC § 2000e and can be found here. This is the original rule promulgated by Obama's Department of Labor. Here is the judicial injunction blocking the implementation of the rule. And here is the judge's decision not to overturn his own injunction after a motion for reconsideration. Please laugh at -- but DO NOT FILE! -- this suggested "brief" by the weirdos at The Lawful Path who think you can get out of a traffic ticket by filing this nonsense. (You can't.) And here's another absolutely bonkers list of random string-cites that purports to show that you have an absolute right to travel guaranteed by the Constitution. (You don't.) 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 one of a two-part series on pending changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). As we've previously mentioned, in 2016, the Obama Department of Labor promulgated new rules requiring that employees who are "exempt" from the FLSA's overtime requirements must earn at least $47,476 per year. A district court judge issued an injunction blocking those rules from going into effect; that decision is currently pending on expedited review before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this episode, Andrew explains why he thinks those rules are going to eventually go into effect and what that means for employers and employees. We begin, however, with a listener correction regarding the FLSA and tipped employees. As it turns out, Andrew mis-spoke on a prior episode and employers must ensure that an employee's total compensation (including tips) meets the federal minimum wage. After our main segment on the FLSA, the much-beloved "Are You A Cop?" segment returns with a myth about President Trump revoking the commutation of Chelsea Manning's prison sentence. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #7 about 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)! Show Notes & Links The relevant provisions of the FLSA for this episode are 29 USC § 207 (maximum hours) and 29 USC § 213 (exempt employees). The DOL Fact Sheet #15 referred to listener Victoria McNair is here. This is the original rule promulgated by Obama's Department of Labor. Here is the judicial injunction blocking the implementation of the rule. And here is the judge's decision not to overturn his own injunction after a motion for reconsideration. Finally, here's the New York Times story about President Obama commuting Chelsea Manning's sentence. 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 two of our two-part series on whether the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution applies to incoming President Donald Trump. We begin, however, with a listener question from Erik Alsman who asks whether the Supreme Court has the power to declare an amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional. Along the way we'll learn a little bit about the history of judicial review in the United States. In our main segment, we conclude our interview with Lecturer Seth Barrett Tillman of the Maynooth University Department of Law, exploring Tillman's thesis that the Emoluments Clause does not apply to President Trump because the Presidency is not an "office... under the United States" for purposes of Constitutional analysis. Afterwards, Thomas and Andrew break down the argument and offer their views on the issue. Next, we air some listener comments and questions regarding the difference between a "barrister" and a "solicitor" in UK law. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #7 about the admissibility of a hearsay statement during a civil trial. 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)! Show Notes & Links This is the text of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), in which the Supreme Court articulated -- some say, invented! -- the doctrine of judicial review. Prof. Tillman can be found on Twitter at @SethBTillman, and here is his professional page. In November of 2016, Prof. Tillman wrote a brief piece for the New York Times summarizing his thesis about the Emoluments Clause. This 2009 Memorandum from the President's Office of Legal Counsel assumes -- without argument or citation -- that the Emoluments Clause applies to the President. In December of 2016, Norm Eisen, Richard Painter, and Laurence Tribe wrote a paper for the Brookings Institution arguing that the Emoluments Clause does apply to the President. Zephyr Teachout's law review article, The Anti-Corruption Principle sets forth her argument that the Constitution, including the Emoluments Clause, enshrines a fundamental principle to protect against corruption of our highest offices, including the Presidency. Tillman's Opening Statement, Citizens United and the Scope of Professor Teachout’s Anti-Corruption Principle is here. Teachout's specific response to Tillman on the Emoluments Clause is here. Tillman's reply to Teachout can be found here. Teachout's final reply to Tillman can be found here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected]

Today's episode is part one of a two-part series on whether the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution applies to incoming President Donald Trump. We begin, however, by addressing another Trump-related question: Does a recent report claiming that 50+ Trump electors are ineligible provide the relief of preventing Trump from assuming the Presidency? We delve into the report and answer the question in a way that may surprise you. Our main interview segment is with Lecturer Seth Barrett Tillman of the Maynooth University Department of Law. Tillman's thesis is that the Emoluments Clause does not apply to President Trump because the Presidency is not an "office... under the United States" for purposes of Constitutional analysis. Next, we answer a listener question from William Stemmler about officeholders in the line of Presidential Succession who are themselves ineligible to become President. Could Donald Trump nominate George W. Bush to be Secretary of State? Find out! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #6 about pre-nuptial agreements. 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)! Show Notes & Links Here's the Raw Story report on disqualified Trump electors, and the full text of the report can be downloaded from Alternet. Prof. Tillman can be found on Twitter at @SethBTillman, and here is his professional page. In November of 2016, Prof. Tillman wrote a brief piece for the New York Times summarizing his thesis about the Emoluments Clause. This 2009 Memorandum from the President's Office of Legal Counsel assumes -- without argument or citation -- that the Emoluments Clause applies to the President. In December of 2016, Norm Eisen, Richard Painter, and Laurence Tribe wrote a paper for the Brookings Institution arguing that the Emoluments Clause does apply to the President. Zephyr Teachout's law review article, The Anti-Corruption Principle sets forth her argument that the Constitution, including the Emoluments Clause, enshrines a fundamental principle to protect against corruption of our highest offices, including the Presidency. Tillman's Opening Statement, Citizens United and the Scope of Professor Teachout’s Anti-Corruption Principle is here. Teachout's specific response to Tillman on the Emoluments Clause is here. Tillman's reply to Teachout can be found here. Teachout's final reply to Tillman can be found here. Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at [email protected] Direct Download

Today's episode is a mini-masterclass on Copyright. We begin by answering a question from listener Sue Barnum who asks if a simple list can be copyrighted. After that, we move to the main discussion over the Copyright Act and the "fair use" defense, using as an illustration the recent story where CNN appropriated the graphic from the hit videogame Fallout 4 to illustrate a story about Russian hacking. Did this violate copyright law? Or was CNN's activity "fair use" of the game screen? Next, we answer a fun listener question from Damian Kumor about the portrayal of law in media. What's Andrew's favorite obscure legal TV show? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #6 about prenuptial agreements. 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 quoting the tweet that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links Here's the text of Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). This article from cnet explained CNN's use of the Fallout 4 graphic. The Copyright Act of 1976 is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Learn about the incredibly low-rated cancelled TV show "Justice" at its IMDB page. 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 begins with Breakin' Down the Law in which we discuss the recently-enacted "Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act," and whether the Act constitutes a significant legal protection for atheists. During our main segment, we are excited to have on Simon Tam, founder of the band "The Slants," for an extended interview that follows up on our discussion of Lee v. Tam from Episode 30. Simon tells us about the history of the band, answers some tough legal questions, and also describes how he combines his music with social justice activism. After the interview, we turn to a listener comment from friend of the show Dr. Dave Hawkes, who helps answer a plausibility question we had from Law'd Awful Movies. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #5 about the garnishment of wages. For every episode going forward, TTTBE will give you a new question on Friday, followed by the answer on Tuesday. And remember that you can play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and quoting the tweet that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links Learn all about The Slants and download authorized samples of their songs at www.theslants.com. This is the press release issued by the American Humanist Association that also contains the full text of the Frank R. Wolf Act. If you missed our initial coverage of The Slants on OA30, you should go back and listen to that episode! And if you still haven't listened to our free episode of Law'd Awful Movies #1, you can download that here. Finally, this is a copy of the Slants’ Supreme Court brief, which is reasonably entertaining for a legal brief. 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 begins with a question from Adrien Thuren about the minimum wage. How come restaurants can seemingly pay wait staff less than minimum wage? And if that's legal, why don't other industries don't start paying their employees less than minimum wage too? Andrew tells us why or why not. For our main segment, we bring back guest Chris Kristofco from OA6. In addition to being an ex-lawyer and current-day blogger about the Green Bay Packers, Chris is also a casino employee and former dealer. He joins us to help break down the recent verdict in federal court in New Jersey requiring Phil Ivey to pay back $10.1 million to the Atlantic City Borgata casino. Next, "Breakin' Down the Law" returns with a segment that explains the difference between a "lawyer" and an "attorney." Be honest -- you didn't know the answer, either, did you?? Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, where Thomas tackles question #5 about garnishment of wages. For every episode going forward, TTTBE will give you a new question on Friday, followed by the answer on Tuesday. And remember that you can play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and quoting the tweet that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links If you like football, and you love (or hate!) the Packers, you should listen to Chris Kristofco's excellent podcast, Titletown Sound Off. If you missed Chris's first appearance way back on OA6, you should go back and listen to his predictions about the "pending NFL apocalypse," and you'll understand why we hold his feet to the fire on this return visit. This is the Washington Post article explaining the Ivey verdict, based on the recent damage ruling. And this is the full text of the October decision by the federal court on liability, which mostly went unnoticed even though it decided the key issue in the Borgata's favor. Finally, this link contains a graphic representation of the purple Gemaco cards that were the subject of the suit as well as the "flaw" exploited by Ivey. 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]

Welcome to the first Opening Arguments of 2017, and the first episode on our new two-episode-per-week schedule. Just a reminder: we will be releasing these episodes on Tuesdays and Fridays every week. More on scheduling below. Today's episode begins with a far-fetched (but interesting!) hypothetical about what would happen if Donald Trump refused to take the Presidential Oath of Office. We dig into the Constitution, the 20th Amendment, and the 25th Amendment and go down some fun rabbit trails. For our main segment, we return to the McDonald's "Hot Coffee" lawsuit we discussed in OA 29, and tackle some common questions about negligence raised by listeners. Next, "Breakin' Down the Law" returns with a segment that explains the difference between "legalizing" and "decriminalizing" ... stuff. Yeah, "stuff." Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, where we find out how our intrepid co-host did in answering real-life bar exam prep question #4 about trespass. Going forward, TTTBE will always be an answer on Tuesday followed by a new question on Friday. Remember that you can play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and quoting the tweet that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s). Show Notes & Links If you missed OA29, you might want to go back and listen to find out all that's right and wrong about the McDonald's "Hot Coffee" lawsuit. Also, we gave you a little holiday present by releasing LAM #1: The Firm to all of our listeners. If you haven't listened already, we think you'll enjoy it. 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]

Well, it's finally here: the last Opening Arguments of 2016. We're looking forward to 2017 (and our amazing two-episode-per-week schedule). We begin with some announcements about Law'd Awful Movies, and then turn to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, where we find out how our intrepid co-host did in answering real-life bar exam prep questions. Then, we answer a listener question from Jim Sabatowski about the foreseeability of one's negligence by taking a trip back to law school and talking about the crazy, fireworks-on-a-train-exploding-scale madness that is Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928). In our main segment, we tackle the confusion world of religious-themed holiday displays. When is it okay to put a little baby Jesus on the courthouse steps? We'll tell you insofar as the Supreme Court has told us, which... isn't always perfectly clear. In our "C" segment, we tackle yet another listener question; this one from Skeptic Sarah regarding the controversy over trademark registration for the all Asian-American band "The Slants" and their unique crowdfunding of their Supreme Court legal costs. Finally, we conclude with TTTBE #4. Remember that you can play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and quoting the tweet that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s). We'll see you in 2017... twice as often! Show Notes & Links Here's a link to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which will help you answer TTTBE #3. While we're at it, this is the full-text link to Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), the case every law student knows. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), set forth the "Lemon test" that we talk about in the main segment. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), was the 1984 case that said it was perfectly legitimate for a courthouse to display little baby Jesus in a manger. But weirdly, Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), was the case from just five years later where the Supreme Court said no, courts couldn't just display little baby Jesus in a manger, but they could display a menorah, a Christmas tree, and a liberty plaque all together. We defy you to explain the difference between Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), which upheld a Ten Commandments monument in Texas, and a decision handed down the exact same day, McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), which struck down Ten Commandments posted on the walls out two courthouses in Kentucky. Finally, this is a copy of the Slants' Supreme Court brief, which is reasonably entertaining for a legal brief. 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]

SPECIAL CHRISTMAS GIFT! This is normally for Patrons only, but we wanted to gift our non-patronizing listeners a gift and a sample of what they might be missing over at patreon.com/law!! Behold the majesty of what you are about to receive. This is, hands down, the worst legal movie ever made. From the opening credits to the cheesy ending voice-over, literally everything this movie has to say about the law is completely and utterly wrong. Yes, for our first Patreon movie reward, we suffered through all 2 hours and 34 minutes of The Firm (1993), which chronicles the amazing journey of Mitch McDeere (Tom Cruise), an I'm-no-idealist Harvard Law grad who refuses to break some imaginary law he thinks exists regarding attorney-client privilege, but has no problems with extortion, illegal wiretapping, fraud, and kicking a 92-year-old man to death. Come for the crazy legal subplot that can be solved in two seconds! Stay for the crazy second legal subplot that gets introduced for the first time right after most movies are rolling the credits! Stay even longer to watch the epic Tom Cruise-Wilford Brimley fight to the death! Special guest: Sam from Comedy Shoeshine. --------- 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 a two-episode week! In this week's Wednesday episode, we are joined by Tom & Cecil of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast for a discussion about freedom of speech and whether online platforms such as Facebook and Twitter ought to be considered "public spaces." We begin with some announcements about the schedule, including Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, which will remain a weekly feature once we move to our twice-per-week format in January. So no new question today, but you will have a few extra days to answer TTTBE #3. Then we take a look at the new Texas law requiring funereal services for aborted embryos and miscarriages, and Thomas takes a shot at analyzing the issue. Is all his hard work studying for the Bar Exam paying off? Listen and find out! Finally, the show concludes with a discussion of the 1994 McDonalds "Hot Coffee" lawsuit, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, as an example of legal myths gone awry. What exactly happened in that case, and what does it say about whether we should have caps on punitive damages or other forms of "tort reform" in the U.S.? After that, we look at the abortion-related question of the lawsuit ostensibly brought by Sofia Vergara's frozen embryos. Is this a meritorious lawsuit or a publicity stunt orchestrated by a goofball anti-abortion columnist? Show Notes & Links Check out the Cognitive Dissonance podcast! Here are the actual fetal tissue rules promulgated by the Texas Health Services that require "interment" of "the products of spontaneous or induced human abortion." A federal judge in the Western District of Texas recently issued a temporary restraining order blocking the implementation of the rules pending a preliminary injunction hearing to be held on January 3. Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S.Ct. 2292 (2016), provides some guidance as to how the Supreme Court might treat the Texas abortion rules. Here's the CollegeHumor video on the McDonald's "Hot Coffee" lawsuit. 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 week’s episode, we conclude our discussion of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), and how the “undue burden” test the Supreme Court developed in that case continues to govern laws protecting (and restricting) abortion today. However, we begin with the moment you’ve all been waiting for: the answer to Thomas Takes … Continue reading OA28: Abortion and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Part 2 → The post OA28: Abortion and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Part 2 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In this week’s episode, we return to the subject of abortion and pick up with a cliffhanger from way back in episode #11, where Thomas was asked how he would have handled what became the Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). We talk about that landmark decision, how it changed the … Continue reading OA27: Abortion and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Part 1 → The post OA27: Abortion and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Part 1 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

This week’s super-sized episode is literally jam-packed with five all-new segments for our listeners; six if you haven’t heard both parts of the Second Amendment Masterclass already. And make sure you stay tuned all the way to the end for our exciting new segment! First, you get an all-new introduction with new quotes, many of which were … Continue reading OA26: Second Amendment Masterclass, Part 2 → The post OA26: Second Amendment Masterclass, Part 2 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In this week’s episode, we discuss the recent efforts by Jill Stein and the Green Party to raise funds for Presidential recounts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Should you rush out and open your wallets to help raise funds for the Green Party? “Breakin’ Down the Law” returns with a discussion on court structure. If … Continue reading OA25: Could Jill Stein Decide the Presidency? (No.) → The post OA25: Could Jill Stein Decide the Presidency? (No.) appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In part two of this two-part episode, we continue to address every unique listener question posted to the Opening Arguments Facebook page relating to the impending Trump presidency. So if you’re wondering whether Trump will be impeached, if Obama can recess appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, about the future of the ACA, or … Continue reading OA24: Trump Presidency Legal Q and A, Part 2 → The post OA24: Trump Presidency Legal Q and A, Part 2 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In part one of this two-part episode, we tackle every unique listener question posted to the Opening Arguments Facebook page relating to the impending Trump presidency. So if you’re wondering whether Trump will be impeached, if Obama can recess appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, about the future of the ACA, or what Trump’s … Continue reading OA23: Trump Presidency Legal Q and A, Part 1 → The post OA23: Trump Presidency Legal Q and A, Part 1 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!! https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs In this week’s episode, we tackle the legal and philosophical issues underlying libertarianism. We take on such issues as : what is “property,” why is it a right, and is it cognizable as a side-constraint against government action? At the end of the day, … Continue reading OA22: Libertarianism is Bad and You Should Feel Bad → The post OA22: Libertarianism is Bad and You Should Feel Bad appeared first on Opening Arguments.

PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!! https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs By listener request, we are bringing you this special “deep dive” episode into the history and jurisprudence underlying the Second Amendment. This episode was originally broadcast on Atheistically Speaking earlier in 2016. Just in time for the election, we tackle a thorny political issue: … Continue reading OA21: Second Amendment Masterclass, Part 1 → The post OA21: Second Amendment Masterclass, Part 1 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!! https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs In this special episode, we look at breaking news: the jury verdict in United States v. Ammon Bundy et al., a federal case brought in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon as a result of the armed takeover of the Malheur National … Continue reading OA20: What Happened With Ammon Bundy? SPECIAL EDITION → The post OA20: What Happened With Ammon Bundy? SPECIAL EDITION appeared first on Opening Arguments.

PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!! https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs In this week’s episode, we look at some of the interesting details surrounding the intentional release of classified materials by Edward Snowden. In particular, we looked at the legacy of Snowden’s leaks, how they played out in the Second Circuit’s decision in ACLU v. Clapper, 785 F.3d … Continue reading OA19: Should Edward Snowden Be Pardoned? → The post OA19: Should Edward Snowden Be Pardoned? appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In this week’s super-sized episode, we conclude our three-part role-playing experiment “You Be The Supreme Court,” using an actual case that is currently pending before the Court: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley. Last time, we went through the State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources’s response brief. This week, we look at the … Continue reading OA18: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 3 → The post OA18: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 3 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In this week’s episode, we return to our little role-playing experiment “You Be The Supreme Court,” using an actual case that is currently pending before the Court: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley. Last time, we went through the Petitioner’s brief seeking to overturn the lower court’s decision to deny Trinity Lutheran Church the … Continue reading OA17: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 2 → The post OA17: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 2 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In this week’s bonus episode, we tackle the breaking legal question of whether the RNC can legally replace Donald Trump as the Republican nominee for President, and if so, what the consequences would be. You don’t want to miss this episode! In our opening segment, we bring back a classic “Breakin’ (Down) the Law” by … Continue reading OA16: Dump Trump? → The post OA16: Dump Trump? appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In this week’s episode, we tackle a breaking legal issue: is Andrew’s old law school buddy Ted Cruz correct that the U.S. government just “gave away the Internet?” (Hint: Ted Cruz is never right about anything.) We walk you through everything you could possibly want to know about #savetheinternet. (If you’re looking for Part 2 … Continue reading OA15: #SaveTheInternet → The post OA15: #SaveTheInternet appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In this episode, we try something a little bit different. Instead of simply analyzing a case, we let you play the role of Supreme Court Justice working your way through a difficult case that is currently pending before the Court: Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley. You’ll learn what kind of cases make their … Continue reading OA14: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 1 → The post OA14: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 1 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In this episode, we delve — at long last, and just in time for the first Presidential debate — into the question of Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State. In particular, we answer the question: “did Hillary Clinton receive preferential treatment” when the … Continue reading OA13: Hillary Clinton’s Damned Emails! → The post OA13: Hillary Clinton’s Damned Emails! appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In this episode, we delve into the wacky world of tax protesters and “sovereign citizens,” people who believe that the legal world is a magical place filled with secret code words that, if invoked properly, can force the Illuminati-run courts to admit you into the secret chamber where nobody has to pay their taxes or … Continue reading OA12: Tax Protesters, Sovereign Citizens, and Other Wackiness → The post OA12: Tax Protesters, Sovereign Citizens, and Other Wackiness appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In this week’s hour-length episode, we finally conclude our three-part discussion of abortion and defending the jurisprudence behind the Supreme Court’s 1973 opinion in Roe v. Wade… only to leave you with another cliffhanger and a topic for a future show. (Bingo!) Also, given our Patreon support, we’ll now be answering a viewer question every episode! In … Continue reading OA11: Abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the Constitution, Part 3 → The post OA11: Abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the Constitution, Part 3 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

Our discussion of abortion continues as we walk through the Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade and its aftermath. In our first segment, “Closed Arguments” continues with a look at whether you should call your law professor by her first name. (No. No, you should not.) And in our closing segment, we answer a question … Continue reading OA10: Abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the Constitution, Part 2 → The post OA10: Abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the Constitution, Part 2 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In Episodes 7 and 8, we discussed a recent decision by a federal court in Missouri dismissing a lawsuit brought by the Satanic Temple challenging certain Missouri laws that arguably restrict abortion rights. In this episode, we take a step back and look at the right to abortion itself and the sometimes-controversial Supreme Court decision … Continue reading OA9: Abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the Constitution, Part 1 → The post OA9: Abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the Constitution, Part 1 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In this episode, we wrap up the recent decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissing a lawsuit brought by the Satanic Temple challenging several laws relating to getting an abortion in Missouri. Andrew tells you what “motions to dismiss” are, and Thomas proves that he knows more about the … Continue reading OA8: You Won’t Have the Satanic Temple to Kick Around Any More, Part 2 → The post OA8: You Won’t Have the Satanic Temple to Kick Around Any More, Part 2 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In this episode, we look at a recent lawsuit filed by the notorious Satanic Temple challenging abortion restrictions in the state of Missouri. In the main segment, Andrew tells you how to read a Complaint, and Thomas offers advice to the Satanic Temple’s lawyers about which arguments are more persuasive to him. Our opening segment … Continue reading OA7: You Won’t Have the Satanic Temple to Kick Around Any More, Part 1 → The post OA7: You Won’t Have the Satanic Temple to Kick Around Any More, Part 1 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In this week’s episode, Andrew sits down in the interviewer’s chair and talks with Chris Kristofco, another real lawyer and the lead editor at Title Town Sound Off, a Green Bay Packers fan site. If you’ve been following the NFL’s investigation into alleged performance enhancing drugs use by several of its star players, you’ll enjoy … Continue reading OA6: The Pending NFL Apocalypse (with Chris Kristofco) → The post OA6: The Pending NFL Apocalypse (with Chris Kristofco) appeared first on Opening Arguments.

Finally wrapping up their four-part discussion of the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, Andrew and Thomas follow the Gore campaign’s lawsuit as it goes to the Supreme Court. How legitimate is Bush v. Gore? Does it hold water? Find out in this episode. Show Notes & Links The Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. … Continue reading OA5: Bush v. Gore and the 2000 Election, Part 4 → The post OA5: Bush v. Gore and the 2000 Election, Part 4 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

Continuing our discussion from OA3, Andrew lays the background for the most tumultuous Presidential election in modern American history, discussing the politics, history, and the legal background that led us to Bush v. Gore. Show Notes and Links Pres. Bill Clinton’s approval ratings, 1999-2000. Voting history for West Virginia, once a reliable Democratic stronghold. A … Continue reading OA4: The 2000 Election (#NeverForget), Part 3 → The post OA4: The 2000 Election (#NeverForget), Part 3 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

Andrew and Thomas continue their discussion of the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, moving from resurrecting long-dead jokes about “hanging chads” to explaining how the legal challenge that could determine the Presidency began in a tiny county courthouse in Florida. Show Notes & Links The Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). Palm … Continue reading OA3: The 2000 Election (#NeverForget), Part 2 → The post OA3: The 2000 Election (#NeverForget), Part 2 appeared first on Opening Arguments.