Opening Arguments

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!

OA1036 Two great stories for you today - following OA1034 on how much Alito sucks, the Law Dork himself, Chris Geidner, is on to discuss the flag habits of Samuel Alito, as well as the exclusive story he broke regarding Alito’s stock activity immediately after Libs of TikTok called for a boycott against Bud Light because…transphobia. After we vent about Alito for a bit, Chris walks us through what an Alabama judge threatened to do to a group of LGBTQ+ lawyers and it’s even worse than you could imagine. Be sure to follow Chris (@chrisgeidner/@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) and subscribe to his Substack to support independent legal journalism! Law Dork's coverage of Judge Liles Burke's orders out of the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

T3BE 25 I am pleased to introduce you all to Heather Varanini! In her role as Director of Academic Achievement, Heather spends her days helping students succeed in law school and prepare for the Bar. She's onboard to serve as the Official Opening Arguments Bar Tutor and teach us a lot along the way! In this episode we'll hear more about her journey and the values that she brings to her work; for this week, we do a full Bar Question and Answer to give a sense of what we're in for with her! The traditional staggered Q&A will commence next time!

OA1035 A second Alito flag has hit the news, we have election results out of Fulton County, and the jury is nearly out in Donald Trump’s New York criminal trial. Matt also answers patron questions about how things could go wrong with the jury between now and the verdict, as well as why juries everywhere are so rarely sequestered anymore. After a brief detour past a very important class-action suit against Hershey’s for the insufficient jauntiness of its Halloween candy, we turn to our main story: International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan’s application for arrest warrants to be issued against leaders of both Hamas and Israel. How does The Hague have jurisdiction to prosecute the prime minister of a country which has flatly refused to recognize its authority--or, for that matter, Palestinians who carried out the attacks of October 7, 2023 in the territory of that same country? Matt explains the background and recent history of humanity’s first standing international criminal tribunal as we consider what this moment means for Israel, Palestine, and the world. Complaint in Cynthia Kelly v. Hershey (Reese’s lawsuit) ICC expert panel findings re: investigation into “The Situation in Palestine” (5/23/2024) ICC prosecutor Karim Khan’s application for arrest warrants for leaders of Hamas and Israel (5/20/24) Christiane Amanpour interview with ICC prosecutor Kamir Khan (5/20/24) There's a new episode out on www.patreon.com/gavelpod! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA 1034 With the recent news that a sitting Supreme Court justice was publicly displaying support for Trump’s attempted coup in the days between January 6, 2021 and Joe Biden’s inauguration, it’s time to ask: Is Samuel Alito actually worse than our very low opinion of him? Also who could have possibly known that a hard-right Reagan/Buckley conservative who has been publicly advocating for ending abortion rights since 1985 would turn out to be the ultra-right Trump/Scalia conservative who ended abortion rights in 2022? We take these questions on after a quick look at the latest low point in Rudy Guiliani’s long, steep, and often hilarious fall from grace. (N.B.: there’s so much more to talk about here than we could possibly fit into an hour, we didn’t even get to his awful decisions on the death penalty, among many other things.) Finally, we learn the answer to last week’s T3BE question and consider the multifarious liabilities of stocking a private lake full of piranhas. Alito’s 1985 memo with strategies for overturning Roe v. Wade Alito’s 1985 job application to the Office of Legal Counsel Doe v. Groody, 361 F.3d 232 (3rd Cir. 2004)(Alito dissent in qualified immunity case involving strip search of a 10-year-old girl) A Tiger on the Court: Sam Alito ‘72 at Princeton, Princeton Alumni Weekly (March 8, 2006) Justice Samuel Alito: ProPublica Misleads its Readers, Wall Street Journal (6/20/23) (Alito op-ed) Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court’s Plain-Spoken Defender, Wall Street Journal (7/28/23) (editorial drawn from 4 hours of interviews with Alito) There's a new episode out on www.patreon.com/gavelpod! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1033 We begin with a quick check-in on Trump’s trial in New York, from the recent appellate ruling on his gag order Todd Blanche's bizarrely personal start to his cross-examination of the most important witness in one of the most important criminal trials in US history. Matt then explains why it might be a felony to run for governor in Washington State if your name is Bob Ferguson. Then: Clarence Thomas just rejected an originalist 5th Circuit ruling to save the Consumer Protection Finance Bureau on behalf of a 7-2 court--with Alito dissenting for totally different originalist reasons. What is going here? We then stop in for a quick layover with the current state of the Boeing non-prosecution agreement before Thomas takes on a bar question about some extremely unpleasant fish. Unanimous order from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York upholding Trump NY gag order (5/14/24) RCW 29A.84.320 (WA criminal statute addressing “Duplicate, nonexistent, and untrue names”) SCOTUS ruling in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd. (05/16/2024) DOJ letter to court overseeing Boeing nonprosecution agreement (5/14/24) There's a new episode out on www.patreon.com/gavelpod! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1032 We're very pleased to welcome Steve Vladeck on the show to talk about what's going on with the Supreme Court these days, and how shadowy their docket has been recently. We then dig into (and debate a touch) a recent piece he wrote regarding a different way to conceptualize about court reform, and what he personally sees as viable and appropriate among the various proposals for change. Be sure to read The Shadow Docket, which will be released on paperback soon, and subscribe to One First to get more of Steve's great coverage! Then we reveal the answer to last episode's T3BE; did Thomas successfully determine the fate of Rebecca the violinist? And who from the audience will be the lucky winner?! Remember to head over to www.patreon.com/gavelpod to follow our Trump Trial coverage ahead of the public release of the show! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1031 First up, BIG ANNOUNCEMENTS!!! The Trump Trial Transcript readings will now only be available on patreon.com/gavelpod! Details inside. Then: the Biden administration is moving forward with rescheduling marijuana to a lower federal classification--and Matt is not happy about it? Find out why this long-overdue acknowledgment of the over-criminalization of cannabis may not only be too little too late, but actually the wrong direction for criminal and social justice. And speaking of justice gone wrong: Aileen Cannon. Fort Pierce, Florida’s best (and only) federal trial judge has once again put off Trump’s classified documents case, this time with no end in sight. We take a closer look at what she is actually doing here before checking in on Trump’s latest success in delaying his RICO trial for election interference in Georgia. We finish up with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, in which Thomas find out how he did in the strange case of the arsonist who doesn't understand how fire works before wagering his eternal soul on a new question about a sick violinist. Formal HHS recommendation that cannabis be moved to Schedule III (8/29/23) “Legalize it All,” Dan Baum, Harper’s (April 2016)(source of 1994 John Ehrlichman quote as personally recorded by the author) Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) The Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (2022 Senate bill removing marijuana from federal drug schedules and putting it under FDA regulation reintroduced by Chuck Schumer on 5/1/2024) Judge Cannon’s Order Setting Second Set of Pretrial Deadlines/Hearings (5/7/24) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1030: Trump Trial, Week 2, Part 2! This episode centers around David Pecker's testimony and it's basically rock solid. Trump's attorneys are desperate, so Mr. Bove goes for the juggler! And then everyone has to explain it's actually "jugular" why in the world would you go for the "juggler?" Why would that be the idiom? In what world are jugglers like, crucial components of anything, at which you would want to go in order to really hurt someone or something? Maybe at circuses? They're arguably not even that important to circuses though, don't they just mess around in between way better acts to try to distract the audience a little? I just want to assure people that Matt had nothing to do with these show notes. He hasn't had a stroke or anything, don't worry. It's just that I, Thomas, now answer to NO ONE when it comes to Opening Arguments because.... SURPRISE SHOW NOTES ANNOUNCEMENT Andrew is completely out of OA! The legal bull shit is over! More details inside! If you would like to audition to read transcripts on the show in the future, go to https://openargs.com/audition and follow the directions there! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1029: Trump Trial, Week 2, Part 1! Lordy, there are tapes! Our special coverage of People v. Trump continues, now with readings from Juilliard-trained, Tony-winning actors Thomas and Lydia Smith! (none of that is true except possibly our names.) Donald Trump is now the first U.S. President ever to be held in contempt of court. Exactly how criminal is "criminal contempt" in New York, and what does this mean for the rest of the trial? Also, Matt takes us on a fascinating mini-dive on the National Enquirer. It has a very interesting history you might not be familiar with. Then start getting into the trial fireworks. Much more to come! Probably at least 3 parts. 1) People v. Trump Transcripts 2) Justice Merchan's contempt order 3) AMI non-prosecution agreement If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1028 Can a former President of the United States be prosecuted for trying to overturn a democratic election? The Supreme Court just spent two hours and forty minutes (!) hearing a case in which they were supposed to be reviewing this simple question and Donald Trump’s claims of total immunity. We review the last oral argument of this term and try to cut through the bad faith, irrelevance, and misdirection to understand what is actually happening here and where it all might be going. DC Trump indictment (8/1/23) Government’s brief in Trump v. U.S Trump’s brief in Trump v. U.S. CSPAN’S complete bookmarked SCOTUS oral arguments in Trump v. U.S. (4/25/24) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

As the first week of the first criminal trial of a former President in U.S. history wraps up, we prepare for our special coverage of People v. Trump by stepping back to remember how we got here. Why is Donald Trump being prosecuted for paying off Stormy Daniels, anyway? Who are all of these people? How good is the prosecution’s case, really? And what can we expect from the defense? We also answer a few patron questions about the trial, after which subscribers will enjoy a dramatic rendition of the best bit of this week’s gag order violation hearing: Trump attorney Todd Blanche’s struggle to convince the court that his client’s retweets are not, as a matter of law, endorsements. PATRON EXTRA! Beginning now, Patreon subscribers will enjoy longer episodes with special bonus content as part of our special coverage of People v. Trump: Thomas and Matt’s readings from our favorite parts of the daily trial transcripts. Subscribe at www.patreon.law/law for the good stuff! Indictment and Statement of Facts, People v. Trump (4/4/2023) New York jury instructions for Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree (NY Penal Law 175.10) Justice Merchan’s ruling on Trump’s Motion to Dismiss (2/15/24) Daily trial transcripts in People v. Trump If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1026 The transcript is in! The first official written record from the first trial of a former President in U.S. history was just released hours before recording, and we dig in for a first look from the first full day of proceedings (Monday April 23rd) to find out which of the 45th president's many misdeeds the court ruled that prosecutors will be allowed to bring up during cross-examination. We also indulge in some dramatic readings of each party's opening statements, and discuss what we can learn from them about the Manhattan DA's case and Trump's defense to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Much more to come! We then check back on last week's round of Thomas Takes the Bar Exam to see how Thomas did on questions about a thieving magician and a lying philanthropist before turning to this week's challenge: an arsonist who doesn't understand how fire works. 1. People's Sandoval Notice filed 4/17/24 2. Transcript of proceedings in People v. Trump on 4/23/24 If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1025 Today we take on two law stories the media have been getting wrong recently. 1) Did the Supreme Court just "end the right to protest in three states"? We go beyond the headlines to better understand Justice Sonia Sotomayor's denial of certiorari in a negligence suit brought against Black Lives Matter organizer Deray McKesson by a police officer injured during a BLM protest in Baton Rouge. 2) Biden's border. The impeachment of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas ended last week in the Senate before it ever began, but the lies, misinformation, and terrible reporting which fueled it are only getting worse. Matt breaks down what people who complain about Joe Biden's "open-border policies" are actually saying before getting into the facts. How do Trump's enforcement metrics compare to Biden's? How has a commitment to actually abiding by basic due process and our international and domestic obligations to people seeking protection for persecution been spun into "lawlessness at the border"? And what even are Biden's border policies anyway? 1) Justice Sonia Sotomayor's order denying certiorari in McKesson Doe (4/15/24) 2) Articles of impeachment passed by the House against DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas (Dismissed by the Senate on 4/16/2024) 3) Data Show Trump Would Have Released as Many Border Crossers as Biden, David Bier, Cato Institute (1/5/2024) 4) The Biden Administration’s Humanitarian Parole Program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans: An Overview, American Immigration Council (10/21/2023) 5) 126 Parole Orders over 7 Decades: A Historical Review of Immigration Parole Orders, David Bier, Cato Institute (7/17/2023) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1024 We have a jury! The preliminaries are nearly complete in the first criminal trial of a former president in US history, and we take this opportunity to review what we know so far about the Manhattan DA's prosecution of Donald Trump for funneling hush money to Stormy Daniels three weeks before the 2016 election. How did they pick a jury so quickly? What is DA Alvin Bragg's theory of the case? Could "retweets are not endorsements" actually be a loophole to a gag order? The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday from one of the 350 January 6th rioters charged under a 2002 statute passed by Congress in the wake of the many crimes of Enron. How did Congress's attempt to close a loophole which made it legal for some corporate criminals to destroy evidence so long as they did it by themselves open the door to the prosecution of violent insurrectionists? Is there a new, secret meaning to the word "otherwise" that only lawyers know? Is the Supreme Court really about to agree with the defendant that the words "obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding [including in Congress], or attempts to do so" clearly do not apply to him--a person clearly on video violently attempting to obstruct, influence, and/or impede an official proceeding of Congress? We also consider the potential disruption to Jack Smith's DC prosecution of Trump, of which this statute is the basis for one of the four pending charges in that case. For the first time in U.S. history, articles of impeachment brought by the House have been dismissed by the Senate without a trial. Why was the impeachment of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for doing his job in a way that Republicans didn't like (a.k.a. a "high crime" and/or "misdemeanor") so totally dead on arrival? We pay zero respects to what we can only hope will go down as by far the stupidest impeachment in the history of impeachments. (See OA bonus episode of 2/11/24 for our breakdown of the House's articles of impeachment). Meanwhile in Florida, Fort Pierce's finest (and only) federal judge has returned fire after Trump prosecutor Jack Smith had the untrammeled nerve to notice in writing that Fort Pierce's only federal judge really sucks at her job (see OA 1016 & 1020). Fortunately for everyone however, it turns out the only person responsible for her many mistakes is--Jack Smith? 1. 18 USC 1512(c) 2. Defendant/Petitioner Joseph Fischer's brief in Fischer v US 3. Government's brief in Fischer v. US 4. Audio and transcript from SCOTUS oral argument in Fischer v. US (4/15/24) 5. New York Penal Law 175.10 6. Judge Aileen Cannon's denial of Trump's motion to dismiss based on the Presidential Records Act & gratuitous reference to Jack Smith's complaints about her bizarre thought experiment re: jury instructions (4/4/2024) 7. Judge Cannon's order reconsidering her prior decision to unseal sensitive information in which she blames Jack Smith for letting her get the law wrong (4/9/24) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Last week's answers, this week's questions! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

April 15th marks two significant events in US history: the 11th anniversary of Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev's bombing of the Boston Marathon, and the first day of jury selection in the first criminal trial of a former US President. These two very different situations both share one important legal question: how do you select a jury from a city full of people who not only know a defendant by name but have good reasons to despise them? Boston residents Matt and Casey share their own memories of the day that changed their city forever before breaking down the trial of surviving bomber Dzhokar Tsarnaev and ensuing appeals of his death sentence to the 1st Circuit and Supreme Court. We examine why the U.S. publicly announced that it would not be reading Tsarnaev his Miranda rights, and debate whether or not the defense should have been allowed to introduce evidence during the penalty phase that Tamerlan Tsarnaev may have participated in a triple homicide two years earlier to prove his influence over his younger brother. What can Clarence Thomas's decision reinstating Tsarnaev's death sentence tell us about how Trump trial judges might handle jury selection? And what might be next following the 1st Circuit's recent findings on juror bias? 1) U.S. v. Tsarnaev indictment 2) Middlesex District Attorney's report on Watertown PD's shootout with the Tsarnaev brothers 3) 1st Circuit's decision vacating Dzhokar Tsarnaev's death sentence (7/31/2020) 4) Supreme Court decision reinstating Tsarnaev's death sentence (3/5/2022) 5) Most recent 1st Circuit decision ordering further hearing on juror bias (3/21/2024) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1022 Courts in Arizona and Florida have both ended abortion rights in very different (but both terrible) ways this month. Did Arizona actually resurrect a 160-year law passed decades before it was even a state? And how weird can it get when you go full originalist on a law that is younger than most people in Florida? Before we get there, Matt opens by sharing his experience with the OJ Simpson trial at the age of 14 and how it shaped his understanding of US criminal law. We then make sure to pay appropriate respects to the violent domestic abuser who (do we even have to say "allegedly" anymore?) brutally murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman on June 12, 1994. Also, two different countries have committed extreme and unprecedented violations of international law involving embassies in the past week. How does the Vienna Convention protect diplomatic posts, and what actually happens when these international agreements are broken? The first of the Trump trials will finally begin in New York in one business day! How does jury selection even work in a case where everyone on the planet has an opinion about the defendant? 1) Planned Parenthood v Florida (4/1/24) 2) In Re: TW, 551 So. 2d 1186 (1989) 3) Planned Parenthood of AZ v. Mayes (4/9/24) 3) The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) 4) Judge Merchan's letter to the parties in NY v. Trump outlining jury selection process If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

As usual, we've got last week's answers and this week's questions! Some fun and tricky ones... If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Hey folks, due to an annoying technical glitch, I'm just re-releasing this episode. This was some weird backend problem with our hosting. The file looks completely fine everywhere that I can see, but internet goblins decide otherwise, I guess. Sorry for the trouble and I'll make sure this won't happen again! OA10121 On March 26, 2024 a container ship the size of the Eiffel Tower named for the world's most famous surrealist destroyed a bridge named after the author of the U.S. national anthem yards from one of the most notable sites of our country's least popular war. Who was Francis Scott Key anyway, and why has the man who gave the world the phrase "land of the free and the home of the brave" gotten a total pass for writing the world's worst national anthem while owning people and prosecuting abolitionists? We then honor the memories of the six Latino immigrants who lost their lives in this disaster by taking a closer look at the contributions of both undocumented and "lightly documented" workers to the U.S. economy, including the massive boost of more than $7 trillion that the Congressional Budget Office has predicted the so-called "border crisis" will bring in the coming years. But what about the most recent Republican "solution" to give the world's whitest and wealthiest a chance at the American Dream? Would Thomas be able to immigrate to the U.S. under Sen. Tom Cotton's RAISE Act? We end with a short cruise through maritime law and examine why the owners of the Dali are seeking protection under the same 209-year-old maritime law which was used to severely limit the liability of everyone responsible for the Titanic. 1. "Francis Scott Key Opposed 'Land of the Free,'" Jefferson Morley (2012) 2. Baltimore bridge collapse victims: New info on who they were – NBC4 Washington (3/28/24) 3. Baltimore Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs Key Bridge Emergency Response Fund 4. RAISE Act point system infographic 5. 20 Years Later, Undocumented Immigrants Who Aided 9/11 Recovery & Cleanup Efforts Demand Recognition | Democracy Now! (9/15/2021) 6. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Mellor :: 233 U.S. 718 (1914) (U.S. Supreme Court's application of the 1851 Limitation of Liability Act to the Titanic disaster) 7. Petition for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability filed in federal court by the owners of the Dali (4/1/24) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA10121 On March 26, 2024 a container ship the size of the Eiffel Tower named for the world's most famous surrealist destroyed a bridge named after the author of the U.S. national anthem yards from one of the most notable sites of our country's least popular war. Who was Francis Scott Key anyway, and why has the man who gave the world the phrase "land of the free and the home of the brave" gotten a total pass for writing the world's worst national anthem while owning people and prosecuting abolitionists? We then honor the memories of the six Latino immigrants who lost their lives in this disaster by taking a closer look at the contributions of both undocumented and "lightly documented" workers to the U.S. economy, including the massive boost of more than $7 trillion that the Congressional Budget Office has predicted the so-called "border crisis" will bring in the coming years. But what about the most recent Republican "solution" to give the world's whitest and wealthiest a chance at the American Dream? Would Thomas be able to immigrate to the U.S. under Sen. Tom Cotton's RAISE Act? We end with a short cruise through maritime law and examine why the owners of the Dali are seeking protection under the same 209-year-old maritime law which was used to severely limit the liability of everyone responsible for the Titanic. 1. "Francis Scott Key Opposed 'Land of the Free,'" Jefferson Morley (2012) 2. Baltimore bridge collapse victims: New info on who they were – NBC4 Washington (3/28/24) 3. Baltimore Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs Key Bridge Emergency Response Fund 4. RAISE Act point system infographic 5. 20 Years Later, Undocumented Immigrants Who Aided 9/11 Recovery & Cleanup Efforts Demand Recognition | Democracy Now! (9/15/2021) 6. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Mellor :: 233 U.S. 718 (1914) (U.S. Supreme Court's application of the 1851 Limitation of Liability Act to the Titanic disaster) 7. Petition for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability filed in federal court by the owners of the Dali (4/1/24) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1020! It's time for a round of Trump updates, starting in Florida with the responses to Judge Aileen Cannon's weird request that the parties try making up new law that she could try out on a jury if this case ever finally makes it to one. Is Jack Smith's response to this nonsense everything we'd wanted? And what happens when you actually try to sit down read anything that the Trump defense team has filed as if it were a serious legal document? We then turn to recent legal developments in New York, where a subprime auto lender has totally failed to post Trump's bond and Judge Merchan finally had to get around to putting in writing that the world's most famous criminal defendant isn't allowed to go after his family. 1. Trump's response to Judge Cannon's order 2. Jack Smith's response to Judge Cannon's order 3. 18 USC Sec 793 (Espionage Act) 4. Presidential Records Act 5. Trump's opposition to motion to clarify gag order 6. Judge Marchan's order expanding gag order 7. Judge MacAfee's denial of motion to dismiss Fulton County charges on 1st Amendment grounds If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Can you believe it, it's T3BE8! You know the drill, we answer last week's questions, honor two winners, and then ask two more questions! But Matt has a new bar exam book, and it's going to be quite fun, if these questions are any indicator. Deviously hard, needlessly complex, extremely silly... it has it all! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Most criminal defendants can't kill 346 people and expect to get off with a light fine and three years of probation, but most criminal defendants are not The Boeing Company. In today's show, we examine the differences between different kinds of pretrial diversion agreements and why the best ones are reserved for ultra-wealthy defendants like Boeing and Jeffrey Epstein. We then take a closer look at the DOJ's routine use of deferred prosecution agreements to help our nation's most valued citizens (corporations) avoid the unpleasant inconvenience of facing actual consequences of their actions (killing people), with a special focus on the NPA which recently resolved Boeing's recent deadly fraud involving its 737 MAX. 1. Boeing Deferred Prosecution Agreement (1/7/2021) 2. "Nosedive: Boeing and the Corruption of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement," Prof. John C. Coffee (6/6/2022) 3. "Why Boeing pilot Forkner was acquitted in the 737 MAX prosecution,"| The Seattle Times (3/25/22) 4. "Blowing the Door Off Boeing’s ‘Epstein Deal’" - The American Prospect (2/9/24) 5. Fifth Circuit order dated 12/15/23 from In re Ryan et al confirming that courts have no authority to review a DPA and that families will have to wait to oppose any future motion to dismiss If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1018 - GOOD NEWS EPISODE! It's positive vibes only as we celebrate the impending disbarment of MAGA law toadies John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark, the first but-actually-for-real-this-time Trump trial date, and some extremely real threats to your favorite President's sacred First Amendment rights to lie to the public and terrorize the families of court personnel. In more good news, the Supreme Court couldn't seem to find an actual excuse to ban medical abortions this week--or even find anyone who could even claim to have been in the same ZIP code as someone harmed by mifepristone--so we take a good look for ourselves and don't find too much to worry about. One more bit of good news: Matt wants to give you a job! (Inquire within.) 1. John Eastman's two-page proposal to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election 2. Judge Yvette Roland's full 126-page decision to the CA Supreme Court recommending John Eastman's disbarment (March 27, 2024) 3. Judge Merchan's gag order (3/26/24) 4. Trump's motion to dismiss GA charges on 1st Amendment grounds (12/23/2024) 5. Transcript of oral arguments in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (March 26, 2024) 6. Federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's mifepristone ruling (April 7, 2023) 7. Application of Comstock Act to Drugs That Can Be Used for Abortion (USPS General Counsel)(12/23/2022) 8) 18 U.S. Code § 1461 - Mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter (Comstock Act) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

It's week 7, and it's a Next Generation of test. Make it so! Oh also, we're still dogged by controversy, #T3BEgate2.5 but we've got a fall guy and it's Matt. Question 12 was a repeat and Matt is to blame and accepts the inevitable public shaming. But 13 was new! And, now we've got an entirely new kind of test! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1017 He had a plea agreement with the government which he thought would get him 8-14 months. He ended up with 5 years. What happened? Also, was this Democrats' version of January 6th Casey joins this week to help to answer an OA patron's question about the plea agreement reached in the prosecution of former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn for leaking records of Donald Trump, Rick Scott, Elon Musk, and a tragically high number of other innocent and blameless billionaires who are simply far too important to have to pay their taxes. We then review the unique role of plea bargaining in U.S. law and exactly how these agreements are reached and play out in court. Did you know that approximately 98% of all federal criminal charges are resolved in a way which is portrayed in approximately 0% of law-related movies and TV show? 1. "The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax," Propublica (6/8/2021) 2. "How These Ultrawealthy Politicians Avoided Paying Taxes," Propublica (11/4/2021) 3. "Trump’s Taxes Show Chronic Losses and Years of Income Tax Avoidance," NYT (9/27/2020) 4. "Most criminal cases end in plea bargains, new study finds," NPR (2/22/2023) 5. Boykin v. Alabama :: 395 U.S. 238 (1969) 6. Padilla v. Kentucky :: 559 U.S. 356 (2010) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Who is Aileen Cannon? Why is Aileen Cannon? We answer these important questions and many more in this brief review of the incomprehensible jurisprudence of the best federal judge in Fort Pierce, Florida. 1. Aileen Cannon's Senate Judiciary Committee nomination questionnaire 2. Map of federal Southern District of Florida 3. Democratic questioning at Aileen Cannon's group confirmation hearing 4. Judge Cannon's Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief (9/5/22) 5. 11th Circuit's reversal of Cannon's 9/5/22 order re: 100 classified documents (9/21/22) 6. 11th Circuit's reversal of Cannon's equitable jurisdiction ruling (12/1/22) 7. Jack Smith's Motion for Reconsideration & Stay (2/8/24) 8. Government's Opposition to Motion for Additional Time to File Certain Motions (2/8/24) 9. Judge Cannon's order denying Trump's motion to dismiss on vagueness grounds (without prejudice)(3/14/24) 10. Relevant portion of the Espionage Act 11. Judge Cannon's weird order demanding that the parties engage in a fantasy thought experiment about law that doesn't exist (3/18/24)

Massive controversy shakes T3BE to its core. Thomas and Matt respond to the international outcry and media firestorm generated by allegations that T3BE is using repeat questions. After that, we get two TOTALLY DEFINITELY NEW practice bar exam questions. Topics are appealing to SCOTUS re State constution vs. US constitution, and also the gender wage gap when it comes to bank robbery. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1015 Part 2 of Azul's story Folks... I implore you. I beg of you, please listen to this one all the way through. Azul tells us the rest of her story, and talks about where she is now, and it is one of if not the most inspiring, heartwarming things I have ever had the privilege of publishing. Seriously. And please share it. Another massive thanks to Azul, and to Matt, who we are so incredibly lucky to have on the show. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Emergency Bonus Pod! - Fani Willis and the Odor of Mendacity Judge MacAfee has issued a ruling on the Fani Willis disqualification motion. Get the OA breakdown with a full analysis and plenty of opinion and context. If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1014 We begin by pouring a Tequila Sunrise out for the charges against three memorabilia collectors charged with stealing old Eagles lyrics, in which the unexpected airing of 6,000 pages of Don Henley's dirty laundry had Manhattan prosecutors realizing last week that they truly could check out anytime they liked. Matt then takes us through Fulton County Judge Scott MacAfee's decision to dismiss 6 of the 41 pending counts against Trump and his goons. Can Trump still be prosecuted for his "perfect phone call" to GA Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger? And what does a guy have to do to solicit someone to violate an oath around here, anyway? We then turn some much-needed light on to Texas's most recent attempt to enforce federal immigration law before finishing up with some good immigration news out of--also Texas? 1. Order on Defendants' Special Demurrers (J. McAfee, 3/13/24) 2. Georgia Code Sec. 15-4-7 (Criminal Solicitation) 3. Georgia Code Sec. 16-10-1 (Violation of Oath by Public Officer) 4. Fulton County indictment of Trump et al (8/14/2023) 5. Judge David Ezra's decision in U.S. v. TX (2/29/24)(granting injunction against SB4) 6. Arizona v. U.S. (2012)(striking down most of AZ SB1070) 7. Judge Drew Tipton's decision in Texas v. DHS (finding no standing for TX to challenge Biden's CHNV parole program) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Week 5! Ok so last week revealed to us that the "hot unbreakable streak" was not, in fact, unbreakable. No one could have seen this coming though, so no use in playing the blame game. Thomas comes into the week 5-2. Will he go to 5-4? Or 7-2? Or perhaps the other possible record? Find out! Then, we get 2 new questions! It's personal injury, and also... personal injury? Maybe? We'll see! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! For the time being, any profit over and above the costs of operating the show, will go towards repair and accountability.