Opening Arguments

It's OA Bar Prep with Heather! First we get the answer to last week's Mario Kart easement question, and then we get question 46 - The Fraudulent Flight to Florida 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!

OA1081. We're taking a broad survey of the 2024 elections, starting with the many, many 2020 election deniers who are still in--and seeking--public office. How many of these people are still around, and how many are up for re-election? What kinds of threats to democracy are still built into the system and how could we do better? What would real reform look like, and what is it going to take to get there? “The Story of Election Denial in America," ElectionDeniers. org SCOTUS decision in FEC v. Cruz for Senate (2022) “Interactive U.S. House Election Map,” 270towin. Com “At least 30 election deniers and 2020 fake electors serving as Trump electors this year,” CNN (10/17/2024) Fifth Circuit’s decision in Lamb v Wetzel (10/25/24) “A Comprehensive Look at the Freedom to Vote Act,” Jonathan Diaz, Campaign Legal Center (9/17/21) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1080 - As a weary nation watches the world's richest man try to buy a federal election in plain sight, we stop to consider the question which has so long plagued Elon Musk: There's gotta be a crime here, right? Somewhere? There has been plenty of debate this week about the legality of Musk’s $1 million daily lottery for registered US voters in swing states, but there is something far more insidious going on in this story beyond the headlines. Matt explains how the Federal Elections Commission has recently taken the Supreme Court’s perfectly good joke way too far before we consider what the rapidly evolving rules around super PACs could mean for the future of fair elections in the United States. Finally, we drop a seasonal footnote to discuss how some Massachusetts 8th graders recently helped to close out a 332-year-old criminal case. “Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general” ABC News (10/22/2024) “Elon Musk’s Big Business and Conflicts of Interest With the U.S. Government” The New York Times (10/20/2024) “A Democrat, Siding With the G.O.P., Is Removing Limits on Political Cash at ‘Breathtaking’ Speed,” Shane Goldmacher The New York Times (6/10/2024) The Illusion of Independence: How Unregulated Coordination is Undermining Our Democracy, and What Can Be Done to Stop It, The Campaign Legal Center (11/30/2023) FEC Advisory Opinion 2024-01 (3/20/2024) FEC Vice Chair Ellen Weintraub’s dissent from Advisory Opinion 2024-07 (addressing Lindsay Graham campaign’s question re: super PAC campaign fundraising coordination) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

It's OA Bar Prep with Heather! First we get the answer to last week's pizza predicament, and then we get question 45 - the case of the uneasy easement! 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!

OA1079 - An OA Spooktacular! But also a normal episode. We continue our ongoing series on fascism and the law with a fresh perspective on a familiar American legal horror story. Matt explains the terrifying legal context surrounding the 1692 Court of Oyer and Terminar which sentenced dozens of innocent Massachusetts colonists to hang for the extremely real felony of practicing witchcraft--and an unexpected defense strategy which could have spared them. What can the most terrifying run of wrongful executions in US history teach us about the dangers of governance by rumor, paranoia, and conspiracy theories 332 years later? SOURCES: In the Devil’s Snare: The Salem Witchcraft Crisis of 1692, Mary Beth Norton (2003) “Salem Witchcraft Trials Research Guide,” Congregational Library (2024)(links to primary sources) 18 USC 611 (voting by aliens) Order granting preliminary injunction against Oklahoma’s anti-Sharia law amendment in Awad v. Ziriax et al, W.Dist. of OK (2010)(later upheld by 10th Circuit Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1078 - The Supreme Court is back from their vacation and is set to ruin a bunch of lives again! They start off with Glossip v. Oklahoma, another opportunity for the Republican ghouls on the Court to execute a potentially innocent man. But not to worry, Matt's Footnote Fetish(tm) will bring us wayyyy back into happy territory, as a favorite character from OA past is in the news in the best way! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

It's OA Bar Prep with Heather! We get the answer to last week's hot firefighter question, and then a new question involving pizza and promised payment! 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!

OA1077, Part 2 of Matt's MAGA is Fascist series. The MAGA movement has just taken a hard turn to the extreme right with openly fascist messaging from Donald Trump about “migrant crime,” “occupied cities,” and “bad genes.” We take a moment to absorb this alarming reality before Matt also explains how US immigration policy has always been the leading edge of American protofascism--and why Adolf Hitler personally admired it--before taking a look at Trump’s actual 2024 immigration promises and what keeping them would mean for us all. Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law, James Q. Whitman (2017) “Trump Apparently Has a List of Things He Loves About Adolf Hitler,” Tori Otten The New Republic (3/11/24) “Sweeping Raids, Giant Camps, and Mass Deportations: Inside Trump’s 2025 Immigration Plans,” Charlie Savage, Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan, The New York Times (11/23/2023) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA 1076: In the wake of the devastation left by hurricanes Helene and Milton, we examine the state of FEMA’s Congressional funding. Has disaster relief actually become a “partisan” issue, or is this really just a Republican thing? How are these funds distributed, and why can’t Congress ever seem to fully fund anything? Matt explains why the current state of Congressional appropriations has him looking for flights to Denmark. Then: Why is Ron DeSantis’s Department of Health threatening to bring criminal charges against local TV stations airing pro-choice ads in support of Florida’s proposed Amendment 4? Finally, we drop a footnote to check in on the current state of the longest-running criminal trial in Georgia history and listen in on what the judge most recently assigned to the Young Thug RICO case has had to say to Fani Willis’s office about how they are handling it. “Disaster Relief Fund State of Play: In Brief,” Congressional Research Service (8/14/2024) “The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction,” Congressional Research Service (11/30/2016) Letter sent by Florida Department of Health General Counsel John Wilson to WFLA-TV dated 10/3/2024 Get 15% off OneSkin with the code OPENING at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

It's T3BE43! First, Heather gives us the answer to last week's question about the 6th amendment right to a jury trial, and then we get a fun question involving an issue not talked about enough: discrimination against hot firefighters. Get 15% off OneSkin with the code OPENING at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod 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!

Is it okay to call Trump a “fascist”? Is our democracy itself really on the line next month? And what might our legal system look like after a second Trump term? We look behind the headlines to begin to examine the nuances of these questions in this first of several planned episodes on the current state of the American right. The Anatomy of Fascism, Robert Paxton (2004) “The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism,” Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way, Journal of Democracy (April 2002) They Thought They Were Free (full text), Milton Meyer (1955) The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America, Timothy Snyder (2018) Nothing is True and Everything is Possible: The Surreal Heart of the New Russia, Peter Pomerantsev (2015) Get 15% off OneSkin with the code OPENING at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1074: We begin with a quick look at JD Vance’s cringiest moment during this week’s VP debate. Does the junior senator from Ohio know anything about immigration law--let alone vice presidenting? In our main story: Two of last term’s worst U.S. Supreme Court decisions surrounding “official acts” have been playing out in real time this week in two of the most important criminal prosecutions in the US. First, special counsel Jack Smith has just filed a monster of a brief in the DC case against Donald Trump for his responsibility for the events of January 6th, 2001. Why is this filing so unique, and what can we learn about the evidence against Trump and DOJ’s strategy going forward? Meanwhile, New York Mayor Eric Adams has filed a motion to dismiss his pending bribery charge on the grounds that bribery is pretty much legal now. Could the SCOTUS decision in Snyder v. US actually make a difference here? Finally, Matt drops a rare animal law footnote to explain how the fate of one adorable little beaver became the single most important issue facing the Massachusetts government this week. Video of JD Vance badly mansplaining immigration law during the VP debate Special counsel Jack Smith's Motion for Immunity Determinations (10/3/24) Eric Adams’s motion to dismiss Count V of his pending indictment (9/30/24) Petition to save Nibi the Beaver Governor Maura Healey’s late-breaking announcement re: the fate of Nibi the Beaver Snyder v. US (June 26, 2024) Get 15% off OneSkin with the code OPENING at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Calling an audible here for reasons explained in the intro! Instead of T3BE this week, here is the very best day of Eli Bosnick playing Michael Cohen for Gavel Gavel. This was the infamous day of the Trump Trial when Todd Blanche start cross examination in the stupidest, weirdest way imaginable. Enjoy! Get 15% off OneSkin with the code OPENING at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Get 15% off OneSkin with the code OPENING at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code OPENING for 4 months EXTRA at https://surfshark.com/OPENING OA1073 - This week we are serving up the sticky Turkish delight which is the US Attorney for the SDNY’s 53-page speaking indictment against NYC mayor Eric Adams. Matt proudly explains why Boston is historically better at (among other things) corruption than New York before we get into the quid and the quo of it all. Finally, we review Adams’s weird career as a public safety advocate and self-published author and consider what’s next for this “true friend of Turkey.” U.S. v Eric Adams indictment (unsealed 9/26/24) Google Books excerpt of Don’t Let it Happen, Eric Adams (self-published, 2009) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code OPENING for 4 months EXTRA at https://surfshark.com/OPENING We begin by considering Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's claim that Israel's recent unprecedented operation against Hezbollah's pagers and walkie-talkies was a violation of international law. Was this one of the most sophisticated military intelligence operations in history or an indiscriminate act of terror? Did the US Supreme Court just allow Missouri to execute an innocent man? We consider the evidence against Marcellus Williams as well as the many legal and Constitutional issues with his conviction--and just how much blood enemy-of-the-show Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has on his hands in his rush to push forward an execution that the same DA's office which convicted Williams 23 years ago was desperately trying to stop. Finally, Matt drops a footnote to share his legal strategy for recovering 20 years of his digital life from the largest social media company on the planet. Do you really have to have (or be) a lawyer just to talk to Facebook's managers? Revised Statutes of Missouri Sec. 547.031 St Louis Prosecuting Attorney’s motion to vacate Marcellus Williams’s murder conviction Marcellus Williams’s Application for Stay of Execution to the U.S. Supreme Court (9/23/24) “How small claims court became Meta's customer service hotline,” Karissa Bell, Endgadget (6/20/240 If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code OPENING for 4 months EXTRA at https://surfshark.com/OPENING The answer for T3BE41 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!

Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code OPENING for 4 months EXTRA at https://surfshark.com/OPENING We are excited to welcome Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck back to Opening Arguments for a look back at how the Supreme Court responded to the infamously unruly--and increasingly more extreme--Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in its last term. How did the 5th “win by losing,” and why is there still cause for future concern even after SCOTUS reversed all but three of the eleven cases it took up from them? What kind of messages are the high court justices trying to send back to the 5th, and why aren’t they receiving them? Also discussed: Neil Gorsuch’s most recent not-quite-true statement, why the Supreme Court continues to tolerate the dumbest standing arguments on Earth, the 5th’s use (and abuse) of administrative stays, and what may or may not be wrong with Matt’s brain. Subscribe to Prof. Vladeck’s free weekly One First newsletter “The Fifth Circuit Won by Losing,” Steve Vladeck, The Atlantic (July 9, 2024) “30 Hours of SB4 Whiplash,” Steve Vladeck, LexisNexis.com (March 20, 2024) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1070 Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code OPENING for 4 months EXTRA at https://surfshark.com/OPENING We begin today’s show with updates on two small victories for the power of art against the Donald Trump legal-industrial complex before turning to our main story: the biggest leak of internal communications in Supreme Court history. We review what we can learn about how Chief Justice John Roberts has been managing his (and the Court’s) public image from the extremely unauthorized release to the New York Times of memos that we were never supposed to read. Also, Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee has just eliminated three more counts from the Georgia RICO indictment against Donald Trump and the co-conspirators charged with their attempt to submit a false slate of Presidential electors to a federal court based on 134-year-old Supreme Court precedent. What’s going on here, and how safe is this indictment now? Finally in this week’s Footnote Fetish, Matt explains why some scruffy-looking nerf-herder is trying to convince a British court that his legal rights were violated by Lucasfilm’s digital resurrection of the deadliest villain in Star Wars history. How Chief Justice Roberts Shaped Trump’s Supreme Court Winning Streak - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (9/15/24) Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee’s order dismissing defendants’ motion to dismiss RICO indictments against Donald Trump et al under the Supremacy Clause (9/12/2024) UK High Court’s judgment in Tyburn FIlm Productions Ltd v. Broughton et al If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

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!