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
The Biggest Scandal in US History. Todd Blanche Should Be in Prison. And Trump, Obviously.
Two of the most egregiously impeachable things ever to happen in the United States have just occurred on the same day this week: The so-called "settlement" between Donald Trump and his own IRS which guarantees his immunity from consequences for any financial a slush fund for his friends and family and A Texas federal judge forcing a Rhode Island hospital to turn over records for trans kids while also attempting to specifically limit where this order can be challenged--and making absurd threats to anyone who even thinks about talking about challenging it We take a closer look at the alleged legal basis for both actions and how the Trump "settlement" compares to the previous record-holder for Presidential financial corruption set 123 years ago before getting on to much better news in today's footnote: an underdog Boston lawyer who has taken to the mic to call out some much bigger law dogs. "Settlement" Agreement, President Donald Trump et al. v. Internal Revenue Service et al. (5/18/2026) Untitled document, Office of the Attorney General (5/19/2026) Order Closing Case, President Donald Trump et al. v. Internal Revenue Service et al., Southern District of Florida (5/18/2026) Complaint, Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. District Court (5/20/2026) Order of Court, In RE: Motion to Quash Administrative Subpoena to Rhode Island Hospital, First Cir. (5/19/2026) Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoena In Duces Tecum, In Re: Administrative Subpoena 25-1431-032 to Rhode Island Hospital, Rhode Island District Court (5/4/2026) @joerezlaw on Instagram Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
MAGA Says the '60s Were Too Woke and Wants Racial Immigration Quotas Back
As the economic effects of Trump's war of choice in the Middle East begin to hit home, his party is playing the one card it has going into the midterms: the promise of fully restoring open white supremacy to the US immigration system. We begin with a sampler platter of amuse douche from a recent episode of Tim Pool's podcast–mercifully free of Tim Pool–to get a sense of how the MAGA right is talking about immigration reform these days. Matt then gives a brief history lesson about the openly racist origins of the Immigration Act of 1924 and the Cold War origins of the 1965 Hart-Celler bill which Republicans are now trying to repeal before we dive into the main course: a recent piece in The Federalist written in support of Rep. Andy Ogle's Assimilation Act. Why do these people hate families so much? Can Congress really end birthright citizenship? And can you really build an entire thinkpiece entirely out of red flags? Join us this week on Vapid Response Wednesday to find out. The National Visa Bulletin's website Whom We Shall Welcome (1952) The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 It's Long Past Time To Scrap Hart-Celler And Insist That Immigrants Assimilate (John Daniel Davidson, The Federalist; 5/15/2026) Watch us on YouTube! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
When Alito's Jurisprudence Is Kavanaughs All the Way Down
How are a car accident in California, a tax fraud case in Nevada, and two bus accidents in New York and Pennsylvania all connected to the Dobbs abortion case? Find out on this week's accidental too-deep dive into state sovereignty. Jenessa read a bunch of extra cases just to be thorough, and accidentally uncovered Kavanaugh planting the seeds that would grow into the "egregiously wrong" "rule" for ignoring stare decisis. But also mostly we'll talk about the weird world of state sovereignty, Clarence Thomas being obnoxious and ahistorical while accusing everyone else of being ahistorical, and Sotomayor getting some peace for a change to write a pleasant little 9-0 decision about some non-partisan procedural legal nerdery that benefits injured plaintiffs. Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979) Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 587 U.S. 230 (2019) Listen to oral arguments on Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1299; Timestamp for Kavanaugh dropping the "egregiously wrong" bomb: 50:47 Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020), Kavanaugh concurrence Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022) Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp., 607 U.S. ___ (2026) The "major questions doctrine" Kavanaugh inception timeline: U.S. Telecom Association v. F.C.C., 855 F.3d 381, 422-423 (D.C. Cir 2017), Kavanaugh dissent Repeal of the Clean Power Plan, 84 Fed. Reg. 32520, 32529 (proposed Jul. 8, 2019) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 60). West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. 697 (2022) Additional sources: Episodes 1229 & 1230 for an in-depth explanation of immunities, including state and federal sovereign immunity: "The complicated web of immunities that makes accountability so difficult" Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) U.S. Const. amend. XI Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890) Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
We May Get All the Files on Renée Good's Killing... Because of a Different Case
Today on Rapid Response Friday: a new fight for reproductive rights reaches SCOTUS, (some) justice on ICE, and two very different kinds of dicks get their day in court. (N.B.: Shortly after this recording, the Supreme Court entered a full stay in the mifepristone case pending disposition of a certiorari petition 7-2 (Thomas & Alito dissenting).) Louisiana v. FDA et al, filed Oct 6, 2025 SCOTUS stay order in Danco Laboratories v. Louisiana et al(5/14/26) Full bodycam footage of the arrest of Jeana Renea Gamble, Fox10 (11/21/2025) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
Clarence Thomas Delivers An Incomprehensibly Stupid Speech
Is Justice Clarence Thomas the single most interesting person in American public life right now? Matt is here to argue that case upon the dismal milestone of Thomas officially becoming the second longest-serving justice in US Supreme Court history. After a brief homage to Anita Hill's tenacity at Thomas's 1991 Senate confirmation hearing, we try to better understand the mind of this unusual man who has done uniquely massive amounts of damage to our legal system and our rights through a review of a speech he recently delivered at the University of Texas at Austin's Civitas Institute. Why did a former supporter of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers get fully behind the Reagan agenda, and why does he now believe that there is nothing wrong with Black Americans that harsher policing, the end of affirmative action, and lowering taxes on billionaires can't fix? Does he know that the intended audience of libertarian conservative Black nationalists he is trying to speak to is approximately the same size as the dedicated core of lefty capital-P Progressive devotees of Woodrow Wilson he is telling them to fear? Also, perhaps less importantly--where, exactly, is "Skanksville"? "Remarks on the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence," Clarence Thomas (full text of address given April 20, 2026)(full video here) The Enigma of Clarence Thomas, Corey Robin (2019)
Callais Is Worse Than You Think. No, Even More Worse. Nope, STILL WORSE THAN THAT.
The Supreme Court lectures us on the right way to combat racism, which is to close our eyes and pretend it's not happening. In Louisiana v. Callais… the court guts the Voting Rights Act, weaponizes the 14th Amendment against prevention of racial discrimination in the name of preventing racial discrimination, and opens the door to banning basically all government or government-sponsored practices designed to combat racism. Or national origin discrimination. And probably gender discrimination. However bad you've heard this is, it's worse. Listen to Jenessa and Thomas slowly lose their minds as they game out the myriad implications of this nonsense. Previous episode on this topic: 1199 "They're Going to End the Voting Rights Act. But at Least We Got to Hear KBJ Murder a Guy in Court" If Matt has a footnote fetish(tm), I guess Jenessa has a shownote fetish because she has so many that I need to put it in a google doc.
James Comey, Seashell Assassin
This week in Rapid Response Friday: who is the government protecting but not binding these days--and who are they binding but not protecting? We consider DOJ's newest low in the absurd indictment of former FBI director James Comey for two counts of aggravated beach photography before moving on to a roundup of the federal government's latest openly corrupt settlements with MAGA friends and supporters. Finally in today's footnote: are Massachusetts police okay? Indictment in U.S. v. James Brian Comey, Jr.(4/26/26) Docket in Flynn v. U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin's letter to Acting AG Todd Blanche re: Flynn settlement (4/6/26) Complaint in Ashli Babbit wrongful death suit (filed 1/5/2024) Complaint in Sullivan v. U.S. (J6 suit) Complaint in Trump v. IRS Disciplinary summary from Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training ("POST") Commission Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
LAM1013: Bull
Hey folks! Instead of VR this week we're putting out an episode-length preview of the latest Law'd Awful Movies! It's the TV show Bull. It sucks. And it's supposed to be about Dr. Phil? This thing is weird.
Is Social Media the Asbestos of the Internet? with Matthew Bergman
The Social Media Victims Law Center just made history in a Los Angeles courtroom by holding Meta and Google accountable for mental health harms which they successfully argued to a jury knowingly caused harm to children. In a novel legal theory, these plaintiffs argued that they were harmed not through a lack of content moderation or other editorial choices which might otherwise be protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, but by the fundamental design of platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Youtube. SMVLC founder Matthew Bergman joins to share how his decades of litigating on behalf of people harmed by asbestos brought him to this groundbreaking lawsuit and what it might mean for the thousands of other actions the SMVLC has brought around the US, as well as the upcoming claims which will be litigated by state AGs later this year. Where do the immunities guaranteed by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act end and the harmful and potentially addicting features which social media platforms have knowingly baked into the design of their platforms begin? Is "social media addiction" a demonstrable mental health issue or just a way to pathologize a bad habit? And could these well-meaning suits pose any threats to our privacy and civil liberties in the name of protecting children? We take on these and many more of the questions raised by some of the most fascinating and controversial civil litigation of the 21st century so far. Attorney Matthew Bergman's bio from Lewis & Clark Law's website Social Media Victims Law Center website Addiction By Design, Natasha Dow Shull, Princeton University Press (2014) Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., 995 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2021) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
Thomas and Lydia Take the Marriage Exam
In this very special episode, Thomas and Lydia Smith celebrate their 11th wedding anniversary in the most normal and romantic way possible: subjecting themselves to an extended interrogation about their marriage by a federal agent. After setting the scene in a (very slightly) parallel universe in which Thomas was born in Canada and committed a series of Nickelback-related misdemeanors before overstaying his student visa, Matt draws from his twenty years of experience in sitting through hundreds of immigration interviews to play out an unscripted simulation of what his clients and their U.S. citizen spouses go through when they are applying for residency through marriage. We then reconvene to review how the Smiths did, and Matt takes us through some of the legal issues raised in this interview as well as some of the more interesting aspects of the residency process generally. Finally, we discuss some of the weirder aspects of the law surrounding immigration through marriage beyond the facts of this interview, including (among many others): --Do you really have to prove to the satisfaction of an immigration officer that your marriage includes sex? --Why might the US government refuse to recognize a prior divorce from your home country? --Will federal immigration authorities really recognize a Zoom wedding conducted from completely different continents? --Can you bring multiple partners if you are coming from a country where polygamy is legal? "Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status," U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (1/20/2025 edition) "Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity," Congressional Research Service (5/28/21) Matter of Peterson, 12 I&N Dec. 663 (BIA 1968) "Kicking the INA Out of Bed: Abolishing the Consummation Requirement for Proxy Marriages," 22 Hastings J. Gender & L. 55 (2011) "Second Wives Club: Mapping the Impact of Polygamy in U.S. Immigration Law," Claire A. Smearman, Berkeley Journal of Immigration Law (Dec. 2009)
DOJ Asks Judge to Grant Trump an Emergency Ballroom
The United States Department of Justice has reached a humiliating but undeniably hilarious new low in its defense of Donald Trump's illegal efforts to create a massive new building on the White House grounds without approval from his Congressional landlords.. Are the president's balls really a matter of national security? Did three of the most important people in DOJ really just put their names on a filing which reads more like a Trutth Social post than a serious motion in a serious case? We waltz in for a closer look. Judge Leon's order staying ballroom construction (3/31/2026) Defendant's Rule 62.1 Motion For An Indicative Ruling Staying the Court's Injunction (4/27/2026)
When You Oppose War, But Not Religiously
Will there ever be a draft again? Who knows. But if there is, what does one have to do to claim "conscientious objector" status? During the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court grappled with how to apply that explicitly religious statutory exemption to people whose modern beliefs don't seem to fit the religious mold that Congress defined in the 40s. Jenessa walks us through the court's mental gymnastics to avoid ever admitting that anyone could be an atheist, and the concurrence that calls it out. Note: The analysis of the Free Exercise Clause in this episode is specific to the time period of these cases. It got more complicated in the 90s (see sources below). United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965). Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970). Military Selective Service Act 50 U.S.C.App. § 456(j) Roger M. Sanborn, The Anti-War Movement and the Seeger Decision, 6 Santa Clara Lawyer 230 (1965). Kali Martin, (October 16, 2020), Alternative Service: Conscientious Objectors and Civilian Public Service in World War II, The National WWII Museum. Albert Q. Maisel, (May 6, 1946), Bedlam: Most US Mental Hospitals are a Shame and a Disgrace, Life Magazine at 102-118. Reproduction (without the old-timey ads or graphic photos) Original LIFE publication (CW: Graphic photos of abuse of patients in mental health hospitals) Quaker FAQ. Friends United Meeting. Karlo Broussard, What is a 'Just War'?, Catholic Answers. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) 1963: Even facially-neutral generally-applicable laws have to pass strict scrutiny if they burden the free exercise of religion Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) 1990: Never mind it's rational basis Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) 1993: Just kidding it's strict scrutiny again Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb 1997: Just kidding that only applies to the federal government City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) 2000: Nope it's strict scrutiny for state and local government again (well… if it relates to land use or prisons) Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc For a summary: Cassandra M. Vogel, An Unveiling: Exploring the Constitutionality of a Ban on Face Coverings in Public Schools, 78 Brook L. Rev. (2013). Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
SPLC Indicted for Being the SPLC; 10 Commandments in Classrooms; Trump's Stupid Ballroom
Has the Southern Poverty Law Center really just been indicted for helping to provide information to the FBI? Did the Trump administration really just tell a federal judge that building a White House ballroom was a matter of "national security"? Did the 5th Circuit really just require Texas to display the 10 Commandments in every public school classroom? We take on these questions and many more before getting to our footnote: Did a Rolls-Royce hating bear really just commit insurance fraud in California? Indictment in U.S. v. Southern Poverty Law Center (filed April 21, 2026) Trump Administration Finally Discloses White House Ballroom Funding Contract in Response to Public Citizen's FOIA Lawsuit, Public Citizen (April 22, 2026) "The Reckoning of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center," Bob Moser, The New Yorker, (March 21, 2019) Memorandum opinion in National Trust For Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service et al, DC Dist. Ct. (Leon, J., 3/31/26) Nathan et al v. Alamo Independent School District, No. 25-56095 (5th Cir. April 21, 2026) "Operation Bear Claw," California Department of Insurance Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
Leaked Supreme Court Memos Reveal the Shadow Docket's Extremely Stupid (and Corrupt) Origins
Thomas, Lydia, and Matt go deep on the "Shadow Papers," the 2016 shadow docket memos recently leaked to The New York Times which reveal the truth about the deliberations preceding the first time of many times to come that the Supreme Court stopped the government from enforcing something before any court had a chance to rule on it. Can anyone still possibly believe that John Roberts is only there to call "balls and strikes" after seeing how enthusiastically he is pitching for the energy lobby in these documents? Why are these glorified work emails so important, and what can we learn about the current state of SCOTUS from them? Watch the episode on YouTube! Chief Justice John Roberts's confirmation hearing (Sep. 12, 2005) "Read the Supreme Court's Shadow Papers," The New York Times (April 18, 2026) West Virginia v. EPA, 597 US ___ (2022) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
An Under-the-Radar Copyright Case with Huge Implications
An underreported on case called Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment could be a much bigger deal than it seems. Record labels say Cox let repeat infringers run wild on its network and a jury hit them with a massive verdict. Cox says it's not the internet police and shouldn't be on the hook for what users do. So how far does that responsibility go? When does "you could have stopped this" turn into legal liability? We break down the DMCA's "repeat infringer" rules and why this case isn't just about piracy. The real question is whether companies can be forced to cut people off or redesign their services to prevent misuse and where that logic stops. If failing to stop wrongdoing makes you liable here, what does that mean for platforms, payment processors, or even industries like gun sales where the argument is also "you should have done more"? Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!