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
OA409: Jed Shugerman on Trump's "Unfaithful Execution" of the Oath
Jed Shugerman is a Professor of Law at Fordham University. He and his colleague Ethan Leib filed a motion before Judge Amy Berman Jackson regarding Roger Stone's commutation. They argue "that the Constitution limits the pardon power to uses that are in the public interest, not primarily for self-interest, self-dealing, or self-protection." For more information and for links to Jed's law review articles related to these arguments, check out his blog post.
OA408: What Happens When The CARES Act Expires Tomorrow?
Today's episode takes a deep dive into the Republican proposal to extend the CARES Act, which is (of course) called the HEALS Act. It's a Republican proposal, so you know it's probably terrible, but... how bad is it? (Bad.) Listen and find out! Remember that our LIVE Q&A is THIS SATURDAY, 8/1, at 7:30 pm Eastern / 4:30 pm Pacific! We begin, however, with some good news! The D.C. Circuit has granted en banc review and vacated the prior panel opinion in the Michael Flynn case. That means our amicus brief is (potentially) back in business, baby! From there, we take down Trump's idiotic distract-o-Tweet of the day involving postponing the 2020 Election. No. He can't do this. It won't happen. Trump's a monster, but no. Then it's time for a deep dive on the CARES Act, which includes some mystery provisions we've outsourced to you, our listeners! After all that, it's time for #T3BE, this one a (straightforward?) question about permissible witness testimony. Remember that you too can play along by sharing this episode on social media using #T3BE. Patreon Bonuses Lots of goodies, including the Q&A Questions thread and Andrew's "100 Seconds" talk to the UK Skeptics in the Pub! Appearances Andrew pops in again for an interview on The Daily Beans. And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links We broke down why Trump can't cancel the election in detail in Episode 370. You can click here to read the McConnell HEALS Act proposal; here for the Rubio/Collins proposal we discussed on a second round of PPP loans; and here for the academic research led by Raj Chetty that PPP loans don't work. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
OA407: Trump's Illegal DHS Secretary
The very person in charge of Homeland Security is essentially "here illegally." The upside is, though, there is a one weird trick to undo everything he has done while overstaying his tenure! And by "trick" we mean a lengthy A. Torrez deep dive, so tune in! Before that, we talk about updates in the Flynn case and how the government is LYING about a Federal Rule. Links: DOJFlynnEnBancReply, 5 US Code § 3346 - Time limitation, 6 US Code § 551 - Transitional authorities, 22 US Code § 9685 - Transitional authorities, 5 US Code § 3348 - Vacant office, National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview, DHS Under Boss, Trump's New Acting AG Unconstitutional?, Acting Officers and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, List of Bailfunds
OA406: Fascism in Portland
Listeners and co-hosts alike have been wanting Andrew to do a breakdown of the situation in Portland. There are big questions like, for example, how? and WTF? and what can anyone do? Andrew answers these and gives us the timeline of what's led to the Trump administration sending out paramilitary troops to abduct people in unmarked vans, like a totally non-fascist president would do. Before that, we talk about the gun wielding couple from St. Louis who threatened BLM protestors, and how they're totally not going to face any justice for their undeniable crimes because they are white. Links: OA307: The Census Fight Is Not Over, St. Louis lawyers Mark and Patricia McCloskey, 2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. — Unlawful use of weapons, St. Louis Gun Couple Charged, MO Gov Vows To Pardon Gun Couple, Supreme Court Rules - Rule 5 - Rules Governing the Missouri Bar, Acting Secretary Wolf Condemns Violence In Portland, Portland Fence To Come Down, Portland City Council votes to defund police by $15 million, Executive Order on Protecting American Monuments, Federal Officers Deployed in Portland Didn't Have Proper Training, Man Shot in Face with Rubber Bullet, Portland Roadside Abduction, Ocasio-Cortez to introduce bill requiring federal officers to identify themselves, Terry v. Ohio, 8 USC 1357, 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, In re Neagle, 18 USC 242
OA405: SCOTUS OKs Execution of Prisoner with Alzheimer's
You'll never guess which 5 justices were in the affirmative in this case and which 4 dissented... unless you've ever listened to our show, in which case you'll easily guess. Andrew discusses this decision and why the popular idea that Roberts is turning more liberal is a misconception. We also talk about the latest in Trump v. Vance and when we might see Trump's tax returns or possibly an indictment! Links: Trump v. Vance Status Report; Purkey Opinion; OA400: No, John Roberts Is Not Your Friend; Roberts Is The New Swing Justice. That Doesn't Mean He's Becoming More Liberal; July 2020 Bar Exam: Jurisdiction Information
OA404: Rule of Law Not Found
AKA the Roger Stone scandal. Trump has overloaded our ability to be angry and made us swallow outrage after outrage like Joey Chestnut eating hot dogs. But don't worry because Andrew is our Upton Sinclair telling us just what the hell is in these things. This one is a doozy. The Roger Stone commutation is absolutely a scandal, and in a just world would result in a swift impeachment and conviction. Before that, we've got updates on the Flynn case. What's happening there, and will the OA Amicus Brief(s) make any difference? Find out! Some links: Rule 35. En Banc Determination | Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; FRAP rule 40; Sullivan Moves for Rehearing En Banc; Local DC Circuit Rules; Trump Uses Pardon Power Differently Than Other Presidents, Scholars Say; Meet the Acting Pardon Attorney; OA90: Pardon Me? Yes, Donald Trump Can Pardon Himself; 7 13 20 Stone Filing Commutation; 28 CFR § 1.3 - Eligibility for filing petition for commutation of sentence; Roger Stone says McCarthy, Stefanik advocated against preelection clemency
OA403: SCOTUS Demolishes Church State Separation
While the SCOTUS news last episode was good, this time around it is... not that. We've had a slew of terrible decisions for anyone who believes that taxpayers should not have to fund Christianity. So, like the Founders. To ease the pain a little, we have everyone's top 2 Andrew -- Seidel! He's the Director of Strategic Response at the Freedom from Religion Foundation, an organization we encourage you to support and become a member of!
OA402: Good News from SCOTUS!
Yes, you read that correctly, we've got some good news! You may not quite have seen the two decisions reported that way exactly, but Optimist Prime Torrez believes that 19-635 Trump v. Vance and 19-715 Trump v. Mazars were decided about as well as we could have hoped or better! After that, we tackle the absolutely horrendous move by ICE to try to deport international students, and what schools are doing to try to fight back!
OA401: Legal Eagle Sues the Trump Administration!
Today we're joined by the Legal Eagle himself, Devin Stone! Devin is suing the Trump administration, with the help of his lawyer Kel McClanahan. Devin and Kel break down for us what the lawsuit is about, and what they hope to accomplish.
OA400: No, John Roberts Is Not Your Friend
Today's show could also be called "the worst good news possible" because, yes, the Supreme Court declined to completely gut Roe v. Wade (despite the fact that Roe is effectively dead in many ways), but this was not John Roberts turning into AOC. Find out why in Andrew's breakdown! Before that main story though, our first segment is about some reallllly bad news out of Florida. Remember when Florida voters came out overwhelmingly in supermajority numbers to restore voting rights to ex-felons? Yeah Republicans said "nah." We last covered this, when we thought the courts scored us a victory, in Episode 363. We also discuss the Supreme Court granting cert for some Mueller Report cases, which is NOT good news. Here are Andrew's links and references: Private Debt Collectors ad 40% to Total, Felons Can't Afford These Fines, Jones v. Governor of Florida, Previous OAs on June Medical: OA249 OA251 and OA251.5, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, OA309 Discusses Sheldon Whitehouse, Comprehensive Supreme Court Report by Sen Whitehouse and his amicus brief, Roberts Narrow Concurrence vs. stare decisis in Casey.
OA399: The LAMicus Brief
We've got a special treat for you fine folks today! This is the Law'd Awful Movies from last month where Thomas delivers his Amicus Brief in the Flynn case and Andrew and Morgan discuss the process of writing their brief! Heads up, this episode contains explicit language. Hope you enjoy!
OA398: The SCOTUS Asylum Ruling, Explained
Plus, Andrew breaks down (or has a breakdown over) the viral photo of a card that purportedly allows the holder to enter any business without wearing a mask. Is it real or... really stupid? Then we take a deep dive into DHS. v. Thuraissigiam, the asylum case recently decided by the Supreme Court.
OA397: Explaining Bostock v. Clayton County
This episode breaks down exactly what happened in the Supreme Court's surprising 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County holding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity is discrimination "because of sex" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's a great decision, we tell you why, and we give you some additional insights about Neil Gorsuch. We begin by diving into the case! We tell you exactly what it does (and doesn't) mean, figure out why this case took so long to get to a decision, and how it's exactly the ruling we thought might have been possible ever since the 7th Circuit's en banc decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech that we discussed way back in Episode 60. In figuring that out, we discuss the narrow differences between "texualism" and "originalism," even though this show tends to lump them together. As part of the analysis, we take a look into Neil Gorsuch's voting patterns to see if he's a secret liberal. Hint: he isn't. After all that, it's time for the #T3BE answer on Constitutional law. Can the university fire a professor for her political views? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Go ahead and read the Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County for yourself if you haven't yet. We discussed the 7th Circuit's en banc decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech back in Episode 60, with specific emphasis on the Flaum & Ripple concurrence. We also discussed R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes in Episode 167. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
OA396.5 BONUS Episode: Will You Be Able To Read John Bolton's Book?
Today's bonus episode takes a deep dive into the lawsuit brought by the Trump Administration to try and block the publication of John Bolton's tell-all book. We break down the legal arguments and tell you whether you can look forward to getting that copy you ordered or not. (And seriously, you shouldn't give money to John Bolton. He's still a scumbag.) We begin, however, with a quick Andrew Was Right! in that PG&E pleaded guilty to 84 counts of manslaughter; we told you PG&E was likely criminally liable way back in Episode 241! Then, it's time to break down the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 which just passed the House Judiciary Committee and is an unambiguously good bill. Listen and find out why! After that, it's time to dig in to both the Complaint and the motion for TRO filed by the United States on behalf of Donald Trump because John Bolton's book made Trump feel bad. Do we really live in a society in which that happened? Yes. Do we live in one in which the court will grant injunctive relief? No. Listen and find out why. No #T3BE in this bonus episode but there's lots and lots of great content! Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Although the plea agreement isn't available, this Ars Technica article is a good timeline of PG&E's criminal activities; we told you PG&E was likely criminally liable way back in Episode 241! Click here to read the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 which just passed the House Judiciary Committee. You can read the Supreme Court's decision in Snepp v. U.S. 444 U.S. 507 (1980), the decision in the Pentagon Papers case, and also read the Complaint and the motion for TRO filed by the U.S. against Bolton. Injunctive relief is governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Finally, check out the NSA's pre-publication procedures. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
OA396: Happy Juneteenth from the Supreme Court!
Today's episode might have been titled "Andrew Was Really, Really Wrong," as we break down this rather surprising week in the Supreme Court, including the Title VII cases, the Court's refusal to grant cert on any gun case, and the DACA decision. We begin with a quick Happy Juneteenth! From there, we tackle the ways in which Andrew Was Wrong, starting with the Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the consolidated case in which the Court has now held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects sexual orientation and gender identity. We promise you it isn't a poison pill; it's an unambiguously good decision. After that, it's time to talk about another thing Andrew was wrong about that's kind of flown under the radar -- the fact that the Supreme Court denied certiorari in all 10 of the pending gun cases, allowing some good rulings to stand and forestalling some bad new law on the Second Amendment. Then, it's time to break down the Court's ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Trump, the case involving whether the Trump administration can unilaterally end DACA. The Court ruled they can't -- but this decision has a number of red flags in it that we discuss on the show. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE about constitutional law and whether a religious university can fire a professor for what she writes in an op-ed? Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Make sure you check out the Opening Arguments Amicus Brief if you haven't yet. You can read the Court's decisions in Bostock v. Clayton County, and Regents of the University of California v. Trump. We discussed the importance of the Kolbe v. Hogan way back in Episode 47, and the Trump administration's approach to DACA in Episode 102. Finally, check out the Trump administration's scorecard (6-79!) in administrative actions. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs -Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!