Opening Arguments
Opening Arguments is a law show that helps you make sense of the news! Comedian Thomas Smith and lawyer Matt Cameron help you understand not only current events, but also deeper legal concepts and areas! The schedule is M-W-F, with the main show on Monday and Friday and Vapid Response on Wednesday!
Listen on
Apple Podcasts
Spotify
iHeart
PatreonEpisodes
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE36
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!
You Can Run for Office. Yes, You! Just Ask RI Sen. Meghan Kallman!
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)
Is It Illegal To Make Elon Musk Sad
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!
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE35
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!
Suing the CIA Over MKUltra
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)
The SCOTUS Embarrassment That Was the EMTALA Case
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!
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE34
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!
Rap on Trial
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!
Setting the Record Straight on Kamala's Record
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!
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE33
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!
Biden is OUT! Republicans Cry Foul and Lie About the Law
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!
I Think This Judge Cannon Might Not Be on the Level
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!
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE32
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!
"Don't Say Gay" Bills Must Violate the 1st Amendment... Right? RIGHT?!
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!
They Finally Killed Chevron Deference
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!