Opening Arguments

Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code OPENING for 4 months EXTRA at https://surfshark.com/OPENING The answer for T3BE39 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1069 Matt is doing a bit of blending of work and pleasure today, by sharing with everyone his footnote fetish. Let's all make this a safe place for Matt to share his more controversial proclivities. Joining us is the author of the book in the episode title, Peter Charles Hoffer. Professor Hoffer is Distinguished Research Professor of History at the University of Georgia. Unlike the justices, Professor Hoffer is an actual historian. Listen and find out not only the fascinating footnote history, but also yet more reasons why originalism and "history and tradition" are not good ways for untrained amateur historians like Samuel Alito to do jurisprudence. If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1068 We begin with a quick review of some of the stranger legal issues raised in this week’s Presidential debate, including such mysteries as whether it is legal to murder babies upon delivery and the factual guilt of the Central Park Five 22 years after they were exonerated by DNA evidence and a third-party confession. In our main story, we review the chaos that the Supreme Court’s legalization of Presidential crime is already causing in Donald Trump’s hush-money case and discuss the relative merits of pushing his sentencing back until after the November election. Finally, Matt drops a footnote to explain an overlooked legal story in this week’s news involving a remarkably rare grant of a common defense motion. Filings from People v. Trump (NYCourts website) SDNY Judge Hellerstein’s order denying Trump’s notice of removal (9/3/24) Justice Merchan’s order continuing Trump’s sentencing hearing to November 26, 2024 (9/6/24) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The answer for T3BE39 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1067 After some of the strangest post-conviction twists in US legal history, the Supreme Court of Maryland has just reinstated Serial killer Adnan Syed’s conviction for the murder of his high school ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee 25 years ago. We begin by revisiting Matt’s first-ever legal podcasting deep dive with Thomas on Serious Inquiries Only (SIO354) shortly after Syed’s conviction was initially reinstated by the Maryland Appellate Court last April. How accurate were his predictions for what Maryland’s highest court would do with this, as well as for the fallout which might follow if a new team of prosecutors were to be required to go before a new judge to actually present the evidence upon which they claimed to have brought the motion which freed Syed? Matt then briefly breaks down the Supreme Court of Maryland’s lengthy decision and explains why this is one of the strongest statements for victims rights ever made by any US state court. What are the odds of the prosecution now bringing a legitimate motion for a new trial? Why doesn’t Adnan Syed have to return to prison now that officially once more stands convicted of first-degree murder? And would we even be here at all if a man who has spent the last 25 years lying about a murder that he committed with his bare hands at the age of 17 hadn’t been introduced to a massive international audience by the only podcast your mother has ever listened to? Maryland Supreme Court’s decision in Adnan Syed v. Young Lee as Victim’s Representative (9/3/24) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1066 Privyet, fellow citizens! We begin with a quick look at recent events following Jack Smith’s new superseding indictment in Trump’s January 6th case in DC. Why are Trump’s lawyers saying that Clarence Thomas “directed” them to file a motion to dismiss? And does DC federal judge Tanya Chutkan even care that this defendant who happens to be charged with four counts of trying to overturn an election is running for President at all? Then in our main story: In an indictment filed this week, the Department of Justice has charged two Russian state media operatives with funding an officially unnamed production company which is allegedly (but also definitely) Tenet Media, the home of mediocre anti-woke crusaders like Dave Rubin, Tim Pool, and Lauren Southern (among others). Thomas takes us through some of the most entertaining facts alleged in the indictment, including an extremely real investor who is definitely in Paris and not Moscow, the Tucker Carlson Russian propaganda video which was a little too much even for Tenet’s producers, and why anyone (including Tim Pool) could have ever believed that Tim Pool could have possibly been worth $100,000 an episode. Matt then breaks down some of the history of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and how this indictment sets a new standard for its enforcement in the 21st century--and what (and who) might be next. DOJ indictment of Kostiantyn Kalashnikov and Elena Afanasyeva (9/4/24) FARA on Facebook, Joshua Fattel, NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy (2019) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The answer for T3BE37 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1065 (This episode first appeared on Gavel Gavel Aug. 18th) Three years ago, cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was fatally shot on the set of Alec Baldwin's film, Rust. Alec Baldwin (in addition to armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed) was subsequently criminally charged with involuntary manslaughter. Recently, Baldwin's counsel brought a motion for dismissal and sanctions, and after a shocking day in court, Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer dismissed the case with prejudice. Matt and Thomas walk through the events of that hearing and try to figure out what in the world the prosecutors were thinking. State of New Mexico v. Alexander Rae Baldwin III (Alec Baldwin) Defendant's Motion for Dismissal and Sanctions Under Brady, Giglio, and Rule 5-501 (pdf) Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Dismissal and Sanctions Under Brady, Giglio, and Rule 5-501 NMRA (pdf)

OA1064 One angry Matt brings us two stories from this week’s news: After taking some time to think about the Supreme Court’s decision that former US presidents can’t be prosecuted for anything involving--or in any way touching on--”official acts,” special counsel Jack Smith has returned to a grand jury to obtain a superseding indictment in his DC prosecution of Donald Trump. How has he retooled the charges relating to the January 6th conspiracy? How much weaker will this case be without the many federal government witnesses who would otherwise have been called, and what happens next? Here’s something everyone should know: AGs in 16 red states are now taking a bold and principled stand against--and this is 100% true--traditional marriage. In a suit filed in a Texas federal court last week, these staunch defenders of our most cherished family values argued that there are at least 550,000 US citizens who should be exiled from not only from their states but from the United States for ten years because they married the wrong person--and that the very existence of these families is causing their states “irreparable harm.” Matt controls his unbounded rage just enough to break down one of the weakest and most inhumane challenges to immigration policy in modern history before calling out 16 people who should never hold public office anywhere again. Superseding indictment in U.S. v. Trump (filed 8/27/24) Implementation of Keeping Families Together (Federal Register, 8/23/24) Complaint brought by 16 Republican AGs to stop the Biden administration’s “Keeping Families Together” program (8/23/24) Donation page for Elad Gross, the only candidate in the MIssouri AG’s race who has not argued to a federal court in Texas that 9,000 of his own voters should be exiled from the United States for 10 years If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The answer for T3BE37 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Hey folks! Wanted to give you all a preview of the bonus we just released. If you'd like to hear the full thing, please head to patreon.com/law and pledge at the 2nd tier or above! Thanks! Yay LAM is back and booker than ever! Neil Gorsuck wrote an incredibly bland book and Matt read it for some reason. Let's find out how much suck can a Gorsuck suck if a Gorsuck could suck suck. PS yes I said I'd bleep stuff on the main feed but since this ended up being a bonus I'm just marking it explicit instead.

OA1063 We are excited to bring you a fascinating conversation with Attorney Diana Adams (they/them) of the Chosen Family Law Center, a New York City-based non-profit which advocates for LGBTQIA and other non-traditional families of all backgrounds and descriptions. Diana is one of the nation’s leading advocates for rethinking how governments, courts, employers, and other institutions can accommodate committed relationships beyond the norms of romantic and/or sexual monogamy, including those involving more than two people, platonic partnerships, non-traditional parenting arrangements, and the many other ways in which people can choose to be in family relationships. Topics include (among many other things) the surprisingly racist history of the term “nuclear family,” developments in local and state law since the Supreme Court’s monumental recognition of full marriage equality in 2015, and what an immigration system not fundamentally based in a 1950’s conception of white heteronormative marriage might look like. Donate to the Chosen Family Law Center “Why US Laws Must Expand Beyond the Nuclear Family,” Diana Adams (TED Talk)(3/25/2022) “Three's Company, Too: The Emergence of Polyamorous Partnership Ordinances” - Harvard Law Review (March 2022) Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality, Ryan, Christopher, Jetha, Cacilda (2010) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1062 We begin with a brief update on Disney’s truly Mickey Mouse arguments in a Florida wrongful death lawsuit before discussing three other questionable legal claims from the week’s news: As expected, Hunter Biden has tried to use findings from a Florida federal court that special counsel Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed to have his own pending federal tax charges dismissed in California. Can this creation of Aileen Cannon’s imagination survive in the wild? Speaking of the BIDEN CRIME FAMILY: we review the final report from the House Republicans in support of impeaching Joe Biden--for, well you know. Something. If anyone wants to get around to it. What are we even doing here? News this week that presidential candidate Donald Trump may have discussed delaying a Gaza ceasefire agreement with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu until after the election has set off yet another round of online demands for prosecution under the Logan Act of 1799. What’s the deal with this 225-year-old law--and are we ever going to get around to actually using it? Order denying Hunter Biden’s motion to reconsider his previous motion to dismiss (8/19/24) House Republicans’ Report of the Impeachment Inquiry of Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (8/19/24) “Non-Enforcement by Accretion: The Logan Act and the Take Care Clause,” Daniel B. Rice, Harvard Journal on Legislation (2018) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The answer for T3BE36 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1061 This week Matt shares a mostly under-the-radar story which has completely changed his understanding of the events of September 11, 2001. As the 23rd anniversary of the attacks approaches, a mountain of information emerging from lawsuits filed by 9/11 families has revealed far more extensive ties between both al-Qaeda and at least two of the hijackers to the Saudi government than were ever previously known. Why has justice taken so long? How does the law even allow this suit to proceed, and why did Congress have to override Barack Obama’s veto to allow it to move forward? Why has some of the best journalism about this lawsuit been from Golf Digest? And has the time come for a second 9/11 commission to re-evaluate everything we thought we knew about the day that changed everything? Complaint in Ashton v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (filed March 20, 2017) Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (filed 5/10/24) Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed 5/7/24) Blood, Oil and Golf: The emergence of LIV Golf highlights the Kingdom’s troubling influence Alan Shipnuck, Golf Digest (8/19/2022) New 9/11 Evidence Points to Deep Saudi Complicity, Daniel Benjamin and Stephen Simon, The Atlantic (5/20/24) “The Declassified 28 Pages,” 28Pages.org 60 Minutes excerpt which includes Omar Al Bayoumi’s 1999 video of the US Capitol (6/20/2024) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1060 This week Matt breaks down four very different legal actions: 1. Donald Trump is suing the United States--yes, the same United States that he is running to be the President of--for $100 million based on the FBI’s alleged violation of the Florida common law tort of “intrusion upon seclusion” in executing a valid search warrant on Mar-A-Lago two years ago. Is Trump just spiking the legal football after his big win in front of federal judge Aileen Cannon in Jack Smith’s documents case, or is there actually something worth talking about here? 2. Is the Walt Disney Corporation actually arguing that signing up for a 30-day trial of its Disney+ streaming service protects them from the tragically fatal consequences of negligence at a restaurant in its Disney Springs shopping center? Could that really be a thing that licensed attorneys wrote down, printed, reviewed, signed, and filed with a court? We consider what might be one of the most bizarrely evil defenses ever raised in a wrongful death suit. 3. Soul singer Isaac Hayes’s family has joined the dozens of artists who have spoken out against their music being used at Trump rallies, issuing a cease-and-desist letter to the campaign alleging that it has used Hayes’s song “Hold On! I’m Coming” at least 134 times even after being asked to stop. To what extent do artists have “moral rights” under US intellectual property law, and what alternatives are available to them when they don’t? We riffing on a particularly interesting failure to harmonize copyright and antitrust law. 4. French authorities have announced that they will investigate claims of cyberbullying against Olympic boxing champion Imane Khelif, a ciswoman from Algeria who was harassed online by J.K. Rowling, Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and many more of the world’s finest people with completely baseless claims that she was not a biological woman. We debate the merits of this uniquely European approach to criminalizing speech and marvel at the unmatched powers of TERF ideology to rot the human brain (and soul). Hayes Enterprises cease and desist letter (8/11/2024) BMI’s “Political Entity Licensing Terms” “License to Rock,” Leah Scholnick, Cardozo Law Review (4/7/2022) Doctor dies after eating dinner at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant at Disney Springs, lawsuit alleges | FOX 10 Phoenix (2/26/24)(includes full text of plaintiff’s complaint)

The answer for T3BE35 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1059 This week we welcome Rhode Island state senator Meghan Kallman for a conversation about the power of state lawmaking and ordinary people in elected office. Meghan is a professor of sociology at UMass Boston whose work in both the theory and practice of how people organize led her to a parallel career in politics. As the Democratic Presidential ticket coalesces around a woman and (for the first time since 1980!) a non-lawyer, we discuss the unique challenges which women still face in US politics at every level as well as what it is like for someone with no legal training or no political experience to run for and hold elected office. Also: How can state and local governments make progressive change even when the federal government can't or won't act? What is it like for someone with no legal training to write laws? And why is Rhode Island the last state in the Union to take an entire day off to celebrate the US victory over Japan? Meghan Kallman’s campaign website The Conceivable Future, Meghan Kallman and Josephine Ferorelli (2024) “Sousaphone vs the KKK,” Christian Science Monitor (7/23/15)

OA1058 We begin with Neil Gorsuch’s recent appearance on Fox News. How normal is it for a sitting Supreme Court justice to go on Fox News, and did Gorsuch really just threaten the Biden administration over its relatively minor court reform proposals? In our main story, we break down two major antitrust suits from the past week: Elon Musk’s ridiculous claim that corporations which refuse to advertise on a social media platform which has failed to regulate neo-Nazi and animal abuse content are violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and District Court judge Ahmet Mehta’s extremely reasonable findings that Google’s anticompetitive practices are in violation of Section 2. Also, Matt has some nice things to say about Richard Nixon. White House announcement on Biden court reform proposals (7/29/24) About GARM (WFANet.org) "GARM's Harm" report from the House Judiciary Committee (7/10/2024) Complaint in X v. GARM et al (8/6/2024) “Is Google Getting Worse? A Longitudinal Investigation of SEO Spam in Search Engines” J. Bevendorff and M. Wiegmann, et al., Leipzeig University (2024) Judge Amit Mehta’s full ruling in US v. Google (8/5/24) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The answer for T3BE34 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1057 We’re giving ourselves a break this week from Trump, the Supreme Court, and all things 2024 to indulge in one of Matt’s all-time favorite subjects: CIA mind control experiments! In this extra-carefully-researched episode, Matt breaks down the history of the federal government’s MKULTRA program to fund research in brainwashing, mind control, and LSD on unsuspecting U.S. and (for some reason) Canadian citizens, as well as the inherent legal issues in trying to sue the CIA for something you can’t remember and for which most evidence has been destroyed. Why was the CIA funding a sadistic mad scientist in Montreal, and is there any hope of justice for the families of his victims today? BOOKS Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control , Stephen Kinzer (2019) The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: the CIA and Mind Control, John Marks (1979)(link goes to full text on CIA website) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government: David Talbot (2016) CHAOS: The Truth Behind the Manson Murders, Tom O’Neill (2020) LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Orlikow v. United States, 682 F. Supp. 77 (D.D.C. 1988) CIA v. Sims :: 471 U.S. 159 (1985) “PROJECT MKULTRA, the CIA’s Program of Research in Behavioral Modification,” (transcript of joint Senate hearing)(8/3/1977) Judgment dismissing former Deputy U.S. Marshall Wayne Ritchie’s claims against the CIA in Ritchie v. U.S. (N.D. CA 2005) ARTICLES ANATOMY OF A PUBLIC INTEREST CASE AGAINST THE CIA, Joseph Rauh and Jim Turner, Hamline Journal of Law and Public Policy (Fall 1990) MK-ULTRA: Quebec high court says U.S. has immunity in Canada | Montreal Gazette (10/3/23) CIA Denies Conspiracy Theory That It Used MKUltra on Trump Shooter, Gizmodo.com (7/28/24) “After Learning of Whitey Bulger LSD Tests, Juror Has Regrets,” PBS (2/18/2020) “Before He Was the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski was a CIA Mind Control Test Subject,” Washington Post (6/11/2023) PODCASTS & DOCUMENTARIES Brainwashed, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (2024) Madness, WBUR (2020) The Sleep Room: CIA-funded experiments on patients in Montreal hospital (1998) - The Fifth Estate (CBC) Wormwood, Errol Morris, Netflix (2017)

OA1056 As the Trump campaign celebrates the “demise” of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, we check in on reports of its death to see just how exaggerated they might be. Does it even matter that the ultra-conservative push to remake the personnel and policies of the federal government run by people who talk like Bond villains is (allegedly) no longer in the policy game? And how did things get to the point that these people were too extreme for Stephen Miller? We then discuss the Supreme Court’s recent decision to dismiss Moyle v US without a decision on the merits of Idaho's attempts to criminalize nearly all abortions. Why did the conservative justices rush to jump into this case only to find that they never should have done that? What can we learn from this week's unprecedented inside leaks about how this decision? Finally, a quick check on the state of Donald Trump's gag order and Nikki Haley's weird attempt to get her name out of her treacherous former SuperPAC's collective mouth. 42 USC 1395dd (relevant EMTALA provision) Idaho “Defense of Life Act” St Luke’s Medical System’s amicus brief in Moyle (detailing specific harms to pregnant people of allowing Idaho’s so-called “Defense of Life Act” to go into effect) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The answer for T3BE33 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1055 Charis Kubrin is a professor of criminology at University of California Irvine whose extensive analysis of rap lyrics has provided the basis for her expert testimony in cases around the U.S. in which an artist’s work has been used against them as criminal evidence. Professor Kubrin joins us to explain what brought her to this subject, the history of “rap on trial,” and her ongoing work with the defense bar to push back against this problematic and almost inevitably racist practice. Charis E. Kubrin’s faculty bio at the UCI School of Social Ecology Rap on Trial Legal Guide (2nd Edition), Jack Lerner & Charis Kubrin the Rap on Trial website If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1054 As the Democratic Party comes together around presumptive nominee Kamala Harris after Joe Biden's surprise exit, we take another look at the Vice President”s career and political record. Is she any more of a “cop” than any other career prosecutor? How will history remember this VP? What might we expect from a President Harris that we wouldn't from a second Biden term? And why did Matt just get kicked out of a library in Rhode Island? We take on all of these questions and many more in this rapid response episode, with much more to come as this unprecedented race continues to develop. If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The answer for T3BE32 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1053 We had a different episode ready, but this development warranted an emergency episode. Matt answers many of the most pressing questions about what happens next. Can Harris get on the ballot? Does she get access to the funds Biden had? What happens with Biden's delegates? And is it illegal to drop out of a presidential race... for some reason... as many Republicans are saying? If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1052 CAAAANNNONNNNNBALLLLLL! Judge Aileen Cannon has just made a major splash in the Trump trials by dismissing the entire federal classified documents case based on her findings that special prosecutor Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed. We try our best to pretend that this 93-page decision is a regular order released by a normal judge, at least for a few minutes, before moving on to ask: Should we have seen this coming? Does this explain Clarence Thomas’s weirdly unprompted thoughts on the same subject in the Trump immunity case earlier this month? What happens next, and is there any chance it could happen without Fort Pierce, Florida’s best, worst, and only federal judge? BONUS PATRON CONTENT: Patrons will also hear us listen to the New York Times rub its collective chin as its The Daily podcast considers Aileen Cannon’s mysterious ways and unknowable motives. Aileen Cannon's 93-page order granting Trump ‘s motion to dismiss 28 U.S. Code § 533 (Investigative and other officials; appointment) United States v. Nixon :: 418 U.S. 683 (1974) What We Can Learn from American History's First Special Prosecutor, TIME (1/5/19) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The answer for T3BE31 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1051 In the wake of... one of the many moral panics likely started by Chris Rufo, many "Don't Say Gay" laws were passed. I don't know about you, but I had just figured these had to be unconstitutional. After all, we have freedom of speech, right? There's an Amendment about that, right? Well....... Returning to the show to take us through this is the best namer of law review articles, Caroline Mala Corbin. Caroline is a law professor at the University of Miami, focusing on the First Amendment's speech and religion clauses, reproductive justice, and the principle of equality that should run through it all. Check out her paper "The Government Speech Doctrine Ate My Class" here! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1050 Legal podcaster Charles Star (ALAB, Mic Dicta) joins to share his administrative law expertise as we consider the end of the Chevron doctrine and what comes next. Why is everyone so worked up about the overturning of a ruling reached by a conservative SCOTUS at the behest of Ronald Reagan, Neil Gorsuch's mom, and one of the worst polluters in world history? Why are immigration lawyers (including Matt) quietly celebrating the end of deference to administrative agencies? And how might a lesser-noticed decision from the last day of the Supreme Court’s term fuel a new era of challenges to administrative regulations? Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (6/28/24) Corner Post v. Board of Governors (7/1/24) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The answer for T3BE30 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1049 Qualified Immunity is insane. It's one of several ways that police evade accountability for truly monstrous acts. As unpleasant as that is, we're fortunate to have an amazing guest to take us through the history of it, as well as a new case that may be cause for optimism! From her UCLA Law bio: Joanna Schwartz is Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law and the Faculty Director of the David J. Epstein Program in Public Interest Law and Policy. She teaches Civil Procedure and a variety of courses on police accountability and public interest lawyering. She received UCLA's Distinguished Teaching Award in 2015, and served as Vice Dean for Faculty Development from 2017-2019. Professor Schwartz is one of the country's leading experts on police misconduct litigation and the author of Shielded: How the Police Became Untouchable (2023). If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1048 This decision is absolutely outrageous. It is in the hall of fame of worst Supreme Court Decisions in our nation's history. It's that bad. As such, we recorded a ton, there is yelling involved. And cursing. And we even did an extra length patron episode to answer some of your questions. Neil Gorsuch recently promised that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity would be one “for the ages,” and Chief Justice John Roberts has certainly delivered here. In this special episode recorded on the 248th anniversary of history’s most famous rejection of monarchical tyranny, we review the historical context and (alleged) legal foundations of Trump v. U.S. (July 1, 2024). How much power has the Supreme Court just given future presidents? Are the unusually stark warnings of the authoritarian consequences of this decision from the liberal dissenters as “disproportionate” as Roberts claims, or are they exactly proportionate to the broad protections against investigation and prosecution which it seems to provide? Matt shares his perspective from nearly two decades of working with people seeking asylum from failed (and failing) democracies, and we close with our hopes for a better American future. U.S. v. Trump (July 1, 2024) U.S. v. Nixon (July 27, 1974) Trump’s motion to dismiss DC federal charges on the basis of presidential immunity Judge Chutkan’s decision denying Trump’s motion to dismiss DC Circuit’s unanimous decision affirming denial of Trump’s motion to dismiss If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1047 We continue our coverage of the contempt hearing against Young Thug attorney Brian Steel with a very special guest! Attorney Ashleigh Merchant is not only the president of the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, but most recently known for her work in seeking to recuse Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis from the Trump RICO case. Attorney Merchant provides her impressions of the YSL RICO trial and why GACDL’s has to have a special “strike force” to defend attorneys in contempt matters before giving us the play-by-play on her cameo appearance in the dramatic conclusion to the hearing which we covered in Part I yesterday. YSL Trial Day 88, Fox 5 Atlanta (full video) Full 56-page transcript of ex parte hearing with Judge Glanville, Fulton County DAs, and witness Kenneth Copeland held June 10, 2024 Ashleigh Merchant’s bio page from the Merchant Law Firm website

OA1046 Bit of a special schedule this week, for reasons that I over-explain in the first 5 minutes of this episode. But it's good reasons! Hope you enjoy. This is a part 1 of an extremely good Gavel Gavel episode. If you are a Gavel Gavel patron, you can listen to the full version in that feed now! Otherwise, stay tuned for part 2 tomorrow, with special guest Ashleigh Merchant!

OA1045 As the Supreme Court gives itself an extension on its homework, we review two of its most recent completed assignments: Department of State v. Munoz (6/21/2024) What rights do US citizens have to object to the arbitrary denial of a spouse’s immigrant visa? Matt explains the arbitrary perils of the consular visa processing system and Amy Coney Barrett’s dangerously misguided search for deeply rooted history and tradition in an immigration system deeply rooted in white supremacy. We also discuss Justice Sotomayor’s warning in dissent about Snyder v. U.S. (6/26/24): In fantastic news for anyone looking to give or receive a bribe, a 6-3 conservative majority has effectively read any penalties for paying a public official off after they have given you what you wanted out of federal law. Brett Kavanaugh reminds us what he was put there for by mischaracterizing the facts, finding entirely new meanings for the word “rewarded,” and worrying way too much about soccer moms inducing violations of 18 USC 666 with gift cards and edible arrangements. We close out with a quick review of Steve Bannon’s desperate attempts to stay out of prison, and the concerning commitments House Republicans have recently made to stand behind his argument that the entire January 6th committee was invalid. Finally for PATRONS ONLY: we read and discuss the best bits of Justice Jackson's very good Snyder dissent! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The answer for T3BE29 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1044 Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has used Georgia’s RICO statute against everyone from public school teachers to environmental protesters to a former President of the United States. This week we examine Willis's massive 88-page RICO indictment of rapper Young Thug and 27 other associates of YSL, the Atlanta record label which her office alleges is also operating as a violent street gang. Matt shakes his geriatric millennial first at the scourge of mumble rap before breaking down what has already become the longest criminal trial in Georgia history and the injustice of prosecutors using an artist’s lyrics against them in court. Finally, we break down this month’s most listener-requested story: judge Ural Glanville’s inexplicable decision not only to secretly meet with a prosecutor and one of the state’s most important witnesses without defense counsel present, but to sentence Young Thug’s attorney to 20 days in jail simply for noticing that he wasn’t supposed to. What is going on here, and could there possibly be a good explanation for it? Georgia’s RICO statute RICO Indictment of “Cop City” opponents (8/29/2023) YSL Indictment (5/9/22) Young Thug’s NPR Tiny Desk Concert (7/27/2021) GA Code Rule 2.9 - Assuring Fair Hearings and Averting Ex Parte Communications Breaking Down the Origins of Mumble Rap (video), Genius.com If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1043 This week: good immigration news! The Biden administration announced on June 17th that it will be moving forward with a plan to offer a pathway to citizenship for immigrants married to U.S. citizens who have been in the country for more than 10 years through a special “parole-in-place” program. Why does current U.S. immigration law make it so difficult--and sometimes impossible--for so many people who are in loving long-term relationships with U.S. citizens to “do it the right way?” Matt breaks down the legal and historical context of the most important executive action on immigration policy since Barack Obama created the DACA program in 2012. We then speak with Emily, a U.S. citizen whose husband stands to directly benefit from this policy, for a firsthand account of the realities of living in immigration limbo. Official White House announcement of the new parole-in-place program (June 17, 2024) Extreme Hardship Considerations and Factors (USCIS Field Manual) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The answer for T3BE28 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1042 Several years ago, Christopher Rufo created a bogeyman that rallied the Right across the United States to seek bans in educational environments of "divisive concepts" such as Critical Race Theory. Since the entire effort was obviously... racist, the CRT bans themselves are just perfect for a CRT analysis, and Caroline Mala Corbin is here to lead us in a classic OA Deep Dive! Caroline is a law professor at the University of Miami, focusing on the First Amendment's speech and religion clauses, reproductive justice, and the principle of equality that should run through it all. Be sure to check out the full article that was published recently in the UC Irvine Law Review! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1041 NY defense attorney Liz Skeen is here to break this decision down. Did the Court mess it up? Or is something more complicated and unexpected happening? The answer might surprise you. Content note/trigger warning. For exactly what you'd think. If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The answer for T3BE27 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1040 We begin in Florida with yet more of Judge Aileen Cannon's efforts to delay Donald Trump's federal case, including a demand for Jack Smith to be nicer to Trump's lawyers and her decision to allow non-parties to join the fun and make arguments in an upcoming hearing about whether Smith was properly appointed to prosecute Trump at all. Hunter Biden's federal trial began this week in Delaware on charges relating to his purchase and possession of a gun which he owned for 11 days in 2018. Matt breaks down the history of this investigation, the charges, and how this case ended up going to trial before a quick time jump in which we return to review what we know one week into these proceedings. How does this trial compare to the one which concluded a week earlier with the conviction of a former President Donald Trump--and would these charges ever have been brought against someone whose last name wasn’t Biden? 11th Circuit order instructing the clerk's office to stop taking complaints about Judge Cannon Mar-A-Lago search warrant Jack Smith's Motion for Modification of Conditions of Release Quick Facts on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) Firearms Offenses (US Sentencing Commission) Delaware indictment of Robert Hunter Biden (gun charges) “How to Think About the Hunter Biden “Laptop,” Marcy Wheeler (6/6/2024) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1039 Trump’s prosecution for election interference in Georgia was just stayed by the Court of Appeals, leaving no chance that this trial will proceed before November. What happened, and how unexpected was this delay? We investigate. We then turn to our main story: Biden administration’s executive actions to “shut down the border” and close the door to asylum for many people who would otherwise be eligible. Matt explains what’s actually going on here and how much of it was already in place before we consider the practical and political consequences of Joe Biden effectively carrying out the border bill which Trump bullied Republicans not to pass. We end by spending a few minutes discussing a recent opinion from Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, who has very strong--and extremely appropriate--opinions about fonts. Georgia appeals court order staying Trump’s criminal trial “A Proclamation on Securing the Border” (June 4, 2024) Interim Final Rule (“Securing the Border”)(June 4, 2024) Attorney Taylor Levy’s donation page If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA's Official Bar Tutor returns! We've got the answer to Question 26, but with Heather's signature style where we're going to learn a whole lot along the way. Then, in Question 27, we've got some Constitutional Law! Be sure to play along by submitting your answer! Use #T3BE, or play on reddit.com/r/openargs!

OA1038 Today we're joined by Vox Senior Correspondent, Ian Millhiser! In his reporting, Ian focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. Ian gives us an excellent and comprehensive breakdown of Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case that could be decided any day now. As usual with this Court, the question is: How scared should we be? Check out Ian's excellent article and other reporting here. If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1037 THE JURY IS IN! Opening Arguments is coming at you LIVE AND UNEDITED today as we react in realtime to the announcement of the verdict in People v. Trump--conveniently timed for exactly the time that we had already planned to record this week! We also take a look at the lengthy closing arguments from both sides and Matt answers patron questions about some of New York’s more unusual trial practices before getting into what we can expect next. We finish out the fun with Thomas’s dramatic reading of Samuel Alito’s indignant, mendacious, and entirely unsolicited response to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s demands to speak with the Supreme Court’s manager and take a moment to appreciate his full-throated defense of a woman’s absolute right to choose (flags). Jury instructions in People v. Trump People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585 (1987)(providing jury with written excerpt of jury instructions was reversible error) Alito’s letter to Senators Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse dated May 29, 2024

Heather is back for another bar question! Yay! Except... it's real property... NOOOOO We only do the question on this one, since we did both the Q and A last time. So, this is just a short little uncharged episode to get us back on track. It also allows me to catch up on Patron thanks! Note: two new Gavel Gavels are out, with more coming very, very soon! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!