Podcasts about openargs

T3BE71 If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate T3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.

T3BE70 - As is typical for Wednesdays these days, we've got some Lydia and Thomas nonsense to kick off the show, but Heather swiftly swoops in to save us from ourselves, reveal the answer to last week's T3BE69 (nice), and set up the question for T3BE70. If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate T3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.

After some Thomas-Lydia nonsense and updates, Heather gives us the answer to question 68, a fiendishly difficult real property one. Did you get the right answer? Then we get a new question 69! If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate T3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.

T3BE68 - Professor Heather Varanini returns to spill the beans on how Thomas did for Question 67 before taking us down another Bar prompt. If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.

T3BE67 - It's another bar question with Heather Varanini! First we get the answer to last week's very bad and ungrateful father question, and then it's time for our next one! We crown some new winners, and then thank the best winners of all - our patrons! If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.

It's Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question 66! Heather's here to break down the answer to T3BE65, and Lydia jumps in (because of reasons we explain in the show) to help us congratulate the winners and tackle the question for T3BE66. If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate T3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.

Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code OPENING at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: http://incogni.com/opening OA1145 and T3BE65 - Lydia joins this Wild Card Wednesday to discuss the awful, inhumane HHS layoffs. Workers were lined up around the block to wait hours to find out if they were fired or not. These are human beings. The people responsible for this should be imprisoned. (awkward transition) and then it's time for a bar exam question! If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law! This content is CAN credentialed, which means you can report instances of harassment, abuse, or other harm on their hotline at (617) 249-4255, or on their website at creatoraccountabilitynetwork.org.

OA1142 and T3BE64 - The State Bar of California wanted to save a buck or two, so they switched from paying a company to administer a real bar exam to a company that... didn't do that. It's an absolute fiasco. Heather is pulling double duty today on Wildcard Wednesday (tm) as she is our expert on this nonsense, in addition to giving us the usual Thomas Takes the Bar Exam treatment! If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate T3BE posting. Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

OA1139 and T3BE63 - Lydia's back this week to walk us through Trump's very fashy takeover of The Kennedy Center. She watched it unfold in real-time and while it is obviously disturbing, listening to some leaked audio from the first board meeting provides a lot of laughs. It's somehow real, folks. And we've got Professor Heather Varanini as always to walk us through the answer to T3BE62, and to set up the question for T3BE63! If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Brought to you by Trade Coffee! Get 40% off your first order with Trade at drinktrade.com/OA! OA1136 and T3BE62- Matt swings by a Wednesday episode, and we welcome Dr. Jenessa Seymour as well! Jenessa is a disability voting access advocate and New York attorney, and she's here to break down the SAVE Act. What exactly is it supposed to be "saving" for voting rights, who is going to be most impacted by its provisions, and do we have any chance in stopping this thing? Professor Heather Varanini joins after, of course, to share the answer to T3BE61 and present the next question in the Bar Exam! If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate T3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there!  Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!  To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1133 and T3BE61 - Lydia joins today to discuss Trump's 3/4/2025 address to Congress regarding his vision for the next 4 years. Leading up to the evening, there were reports that quite a few Democrats would opt to not attend. We highlight the different approaches folks in the party took to resist in the face of chaos and authoritarianism, and discuss what we might do if we were in that position. After that, Professor Heather Varanini comes in to share the answer to T3BE60 and present the next question in the Bar Exam! If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there!  Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA 1130 and T3BE60 - We're so excited to kick off this episode with an interview with Amanda Litman, the co-founder and President of an amazing organization called Run for Something. We discuss who they are and how they support folks in state and local races in all 50 states, answer questions for those who may be listening and considering throwing their hat in the ring to run for political office, and get energized from Amanda's contagious hope for what can very much come in 2026 and 2028 if we put in the work now. After our chat with Amanda, Thomas meets up with Professor Heather Varanini to reveal the answer to T3BE59, and tackle the next question! Be sure to stick around for our T3BE winners and patron shoutouts! If you're feeling inspired and hopeful after today's show, consider making a donation to Run for Something to help elevate progressive leaders in state and local elections across the country! And if you're thinking you might Run for Something, check out their resources to help you along every step of the way! If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there! 

Brought to you by Trade Coffee! Get up to 3 bags free with any new Trade subscription at drinktrade.com/OA OA1127 + T3BE59! Our breakdown of the Thursday Night Massacre continues, with Liz Skeen. Then, it's T3BE time! If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1124 and T3BE58 - Emil Bove drafted an insanely stupid and corrupt memo ordering SDNY to stop prosecuting the case against the insanely stupid and corrupt (and guilty) Mayor Eric Adams. This is absolutely a scandal and we have lost the ability to properly articulate how much of a scandal this is in light of all the other nonstop scandals. But, unlike mainstream media, AT LEAST WE'RE TRYING. We've brought in the big guns - Liz Skeen (and Matt joining on a Wednesday!) Then, it's the usual Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, with Heather Varanini! Question 58. If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1121 and T3BE57 - Senator Bill Cassidy is one of the few remaining Republicans in national politics that resembles a normal human being. He is a doctor, and is very pro-vaccine. And he had a critical hand in RFK Jr.'s confirmation process. There seemed to be a decent chance he might not vote for the brain worms that run RFK Jr.'s flesh suit, but in the end, he did. How did he get there? How did he justify it? It's an interesting story and it says a lot about where we are right now. If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1118 and T3BE56 - Russell Vought lied in his confirmation hearing, but who is Vought and why should we care? Lydia gets us up to speed on this capital-d Doozy, with his background, some highlights from his confirmation hearing, and the great reporting that lets us confidently state that he lied in his hearing with the Senate Budget Committee. Then Heather Varanini joins for the answer to T3BE question 55 and brand new question 56! Who Is Russell Vought? Probably the Most Important Person in Trump 2.0., New York Times Opinion “Put Them in Trauma”: Inside a Key MAGA Leader's Plans for a New Trump Agenda, ProPublica Undercover in Project 2025, Centre for Climate Reporting If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there!

OA1112 and T3BE55!  But who will watch the doozy watchers? We will. We watched Pete Hegseth's confirmation hearing, but our focus might have been a bit different than elsewhere. Here at Doozywatch(tm) HQ our concern wasn't with Hegseth as much, because every single one of us and them already knows he isn't fit to be Secretary of Defense. Our focus, and the focus on today's OA is - how did the Democrats do? We've been quite nervous about to what extent the Democrats will obey in advance. So what did this hearing tell us? Lydia Smith is here and lordy there are tapes! Then, it's Thomas Takes the Bar Exam 55! That means we've got the answer to last week's question, as well as a fresh new one. Heather Varanini is in the house! If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

OA1109 and T3BE54 - John Eastman is many things: a hack, a liar,  a disgraced law school dean, a failed Wikipedia editor, and a mostly-disbarred, twice-indicted traitor to the Constitution on a desperate PR campaign to distance himself from the violent insurrection of January 6, 2021 which he set in motion with his  patently bad-faith legal advice to the Trump campaign. But did you know that he also isn't even a person? Our Profiles in Fascism series continues with a have-to-hear-this-to-believe-it reading from the pages of the Claremont Institute's deranged American Mind. (There's just too much good stuff here for the regular show, so the last half is for patrons only!)  Then, Heather is back with the answer to T3BE Q53 and a fresh new question 54! “The Unpersoning of John Eastman,” TJ Harker, The American Mind (5/2/24) The 65 Project's complaint re: John Eastman to the CA bar (7/28/22) CA Bar Court Judge Yvette Roland's recommendation in John Eastman's disbarment proceedings (3/27/24) If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

OA1106 and T3BE53 The Law'd Awful Movies this month was so much fun, I wanted to give everyone the first ~30 minutes of it. After that, it's the usual Thomas Takes the Bar Exam answer to Q52 and the new Q53. If you are one of the lucky patrons who has already heard LAM1006, feel free to skip to 31:04. If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

*CW - discussion of sexual harassment and assault* In this episode I talked to Eiynah Nicemangos, host of the podcast Polite Conversations. Eiynah has been podcasting for a long time and does high quality work around the far right and the so-called intellectual dark web. Her series debunking and calling out Sam Harris for his bigotry is some of my favorite content covering Sam and the people like him. In this chat we talk about some stuff that happened adjacent to my old online community, the atheist community. There are some reactions to being called out that were truly shitty and there were some allegations of supposed progressive guys that came out a little while ago that exposed some hypocrisy among the men who claimed to be progressive. In some ways this may appear to be a drama episode but that isn't the intent. People with privilege have to be more aware of and more thoughtful about the ways they behave even when the consequences could be potentially harmful to them.  Here are some links for things we talked aboutNew Atheism and the far right https://www.salon.com/2021/06/05/how-the-new-atheists-merged-with-the-far-right-a-story-of-intellectual-grift-and-abject-surrender/ https://soundcloud.com/politeconversations/newatheism https://twitter.com/nicemangos/status/1406646731933167619?s=21 https://soundcloud.com/politeconversations/panel-24-defending-new-atheism-maybe-just-dont-pt-1 https://soundcloud.com/politeconversations/panel-24-defending-new-atheism-maybe-just-dont-pt-2 Andrew Torrez allegations https://religionnews.com/2023/02/01/american-atheists-board-members-exit-dogged-by-misconduct-allegations/ https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenArgs/comments/10u2u8i/summary_of_all_the_accusationsallegations_against/ https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RVYJE0ljCsHLJFiIAP5aMGVhaA1_XmLi2R5wVmB_EwQ/edit Here are some links where you can find, follow, and support Eiynah https://twitter.com/NiceMangos https://bsky.app/profile/nicemangos.bsky.social https://www.instagram.com/nicemangosart/  https://soundcloud.com/politeconversations https://www.patreon.com/nicemangos/ Check out my websitehttps://www.skepticalleftist.com/  My Linktreehttps://linktr.ee/Skepticalcory --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/skepticalleftist/message

Today's episode brings you a trio of timely stories that all revolve around taxes: the Michael Avenatti indictment (for 29 courts of tax fraud), proposed legislation that some are arguing hamstrings the IRS, and (of course) the status of Congress's efforts to get Trump's tax returns. We also learned about very cool free online tax filing (Free File)... albeit too late to help most of you. Sorry about that. We begin with the lawyer who will never come on our show -- Michael Avenatti, who rose to fame on the back of the genius of Stormy Daniels, and whom we first debunked as a grifter just a few months later (way back in Episode 181!) Turns out he's been arrested for tax fraud. Who could have seen that coming? (Oh yeah, everyone.) After that, it's time for a deep dive into HR 1957, the Taxpayer First Act of 2019. Is it really a Democratic-sponsored sellout to Turbotax, as some folks are saying? Listen and find out! Then, it's time to revisit the question of Trump's taxes. Can Trump really stonewall indefinitely on his taxes? (No.) Does the law pave the way for Democrats to get his tax returns? (Yes.) After all that, it's time for the answer to TTTBE #122 regarding the nonexistence of official documents.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone! Andrew will be at the American Atheist convention in Cincinnati, Ohio this weekend, April 19-21. And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links For 2020: Click here to access Free File. You can read Avenatti's indictment, and/or catch up on all his scumbaggery by re-listening to Episode 181. This is the text of H.R. 1957, this is the text of the Eighth Memoradum of Understanding between the IRS and Free File, and this is the text of 67 Fed. Red. 67247 which references the MOU. Here's an example of an alarmist op-ed in the Washington Post, and this is the initial article from ProPublica. We first outlined how to get Trump's tax returns back in Episode 226; that's still the right plan. We covered Rep. Neal's request in Episode 267. The applicable statute is 26 U.S.C. § 6013. You can read Consovoy's totally crazy crazypants letter here. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Today's episode breaks down the recent arrest of Julian Assange in England and what it means for Chelsea Manning (and Donald Trump!) We begin, however, with two separate sports-related stories: the improbable success of Marcus Rademacher in the Opening Arguments March Madness pool, and the (far sadder) saga of the Trump Administration's indefensible decision to overrule the MLB's deal with Cuba that would have brought an end to the dangerous human trafficking of ballplayers. After that, it's time for our deep dive into the sealed Julian Assange indictment and his arrest in England. We also discuss at great length exactly why Chelsea Manning is apparently being held in solitary confinement in prison -- even though her crime was commuted by President Obama -- and whether this indictment is relevant to the Mueller investigation. Oh, and Thomas gives you something to look out for! And if all that isn't enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #122 involving hearsay and a search for public records. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None! If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links 1. Marcus Rademacher’s winning entry is linked here. 2. If you want football-themed Opening Arguments, check out Episode 57 and Episode 58, which tell the tale of Donald Trump singlehandedly destroyed the USFL.  3. Trump reportedly wanted to buy the Cubs in 2006. 4. We covered the MLB-Cuba deal in OA 237. 5. The Assange Indictment. 6. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (computer fraud) 7. Chelsea Manning’s 4th Circuit brief can be found here. 8. And the Government’s response written by G. Zachary Terwilliger, who we covered in OA 212. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Today's episode revisits the topic Andrew discussed briefly in Episode 252:  Article V conventions convened for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.  Joining Andrew is Prof. Lawrence Lessig, perhaps the most vocal liberal proponent of such conventions.  Andrew, you may recall, was skeptical and concerned about the risks that such conventions could pose. Join Thomas, Andrew, and Prof. Lessig for a special 70-minute very deep dive and see if either one changes their minds! After that, it's time for TTTBE #121 regarding executive orders.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest on Episode 464 of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast as their legal expert.  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Here are the 14 states with Democratic legislatures and governors. This is the CNN/ORC poll Andrew referenced showing consistent high support for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.  And this is the Koch Brothers-funded ALEC initiative to convene Article V conventions. Click here to read Owings v. Speed, 18 U.S. 420 (1820), the first case Andrew discussed. Andrew also discussed Dyer v. Blair, 390 F.Supp. 1291 (N.D. Ill. 1975), and both lawyers talked about Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) as the primary case for the political question doctrine. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's breaking news episode takes an in-depth look at Bucklew v. Precythe, a recent Supreme Court decision that lays bare the "originalist" view of the Eighth Amendment.  Is it as bad as you think it is?  (Yes.) We begin, however, with a look at Texas v. U.S. and the recent news that the Trump administration "changed its mind" and "will no longer defend" the Affordable Care Act.  What does that mean?  Listen and find out! Then, it's time for our deep dive into Bucklew v. Precythe, the Supreme Court's analysis of how the 8th Amendment applies in capital punishment cases. After that, we go back to Yodel Mountain for some updates on the congressional investigations, including the Congressional request for Trump's tax returns and an EPIC FOIA request. And if all that isn't enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #121 involving the constitutionality of Presidential executive orders.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Thomas was just a guest on the Cognitive Dissonance podcast; go check it out!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links 1. Wikipedia entry on sodium thiopental can be found here. 2. Glossip v. Gross (2015) 3. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bucklew v. Precythe (Apr. 1, 2019) 4. 8th Circuit’s opinion below in Bucklew 5. Congressional letter requesting Trump’s taxes 6. Bonus! Zuckerman amicus brief in the ACA litigation. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's classic, deep-dive Tuesday takes an in-depth look at two critical issues in the news:  first, the recent effort by the Republican governor and state legislature in Florida to undo the broadly popular Constitutional Amendment passed during the 2018 midterms to restore voting rights to felons who have completed their sentences, and second, the Supreme Court's next assault on the "administrative state," this time, by likely ending the doctrine of Auer deference. We begin with an update about pending oral arguments before the Supreme Court, as well as a notice that this episode was bumped from last Tuesday to make way for our emergency Barr Summary episode. Then, it's time for a deep-dive into Florida, the process of citizen-driven ballot initiatives, and exactly what the state legislature intends to do to undermine the will of the public. After that, it's time for yet another deep dive, this time into Kisor v. Schulkin, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court, in which the petitioners have asked the Court to flat-out overrule yet another well-established conservative doctrine simply on the grounds that the Federalist Society doesn't like it. Then, as always, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #120 regarding a light touch on the bus.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was recently a guest on Episode 19 of the Glass Box podcast discussing this same subject (but with respect to Utah).  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links  In the pre-show, we discuss gerrymandering, which we last talked about in depth in Episode 251. We mentioned the Washington Post story about the DC City council overturning the $15/hr minimum wage initiative. This is the text of PCB CRJ 19-03, the Florida bill under consideration.  And here, by the way, is the link to Andrew Gillum's voter registration initiative, Bring It Home Florida. We've never talked about Auer deference before, but we have discussed Chevron deference at great length, most recently in Episode 136. You can click here to read Auer v. Robbins, that 9-0 liberal decision authored by noted socialist Antonin Scalia. Finally, click here to read the underlying CAFC-Opinion in Kisor v. Schulkin. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's breaking news episode contains a long interview with everyone's favorite former prosecutor, Randall Eliason, who helps answer some nagging questions about what we do know about the Mueller Report (alongside all the things we don't). We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Right (about the Barr Summary and the news cycle!) and Wrong (about the specifics of the Assange indictment). Then, it's time for our main segment with Professor Eliason; you won't want to miss it! And if all that isn't enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #120 involving touching a very sensitive woman on the bus.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was recently a guest on Episode 19 of the Glass Box podcast discussing Utah referendums, and Episode 188 of God Awful Movies (reviewing "Dead Man Rising").  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links [None] Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's emergency, late-breaking episode breaks down the Barr Summary of the Mueller Report and gives you some advance warning that the narrative on the Mueller report is about to shift very quickly in the opposite direction.  Get ahead of the story by listening today! Due to the length of the breakdown, we don't have our regular segments today, but we do have (as always), the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #119 regarding contracts for the sale of wheat.  Can Thomas keep his streak alive?  Listen and find out!  And, as always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links 1. This is the Barr Summary of the Mueller Report. 2. Ken Dilanian's tweet. 3. Glenn Greenwald's tweet. 4. We discussed disaggregation of the investigations in Episode OA: 259. 5. Confirms the Senate Intelligence Committee report we talked about in Episode OA: 190. 6. Russian Lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya’s OPEN SDNY criminal trial as of 1/8/2019 for obstruction of justice. 7. Mueller’s NFL report is here. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's breaking news episode contains your guide to the hotly-debated Supreme Court decision in Nielsen v. Preap, regarding how and whether aliens can be detained without due process.  What does it all mean?  Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a brief update on the Congressional Investigations we discussed in Episode 259 with the news that Hope Hicks will cooperate.  Listen to our past episode if you don't realize how huge this is. Then, we move on to some news regarding a recent order handed down by Judge Kollar-Kotelly in the District Court for the District of Columbia with respect to the trans ban.  We dive into the unique procedural issues giving rise to this order and tamp down on your enthusiasm that this may put the trans ban in jeopardy. Then, it's time for our main segment breaking down Nielsen v. Preap. We tell you exactly what this decision means along with the reasons why the Court reached the result it did. But that's not all!  After that, we have our weekly trip to Yodel Mountain with two items:  (1) an Andrew Was Right about the source of the National Enquirer's acquisition of compromising material about Jeff Bezos; and (2) a follow-up on the New York indictment of Paul Manafort. And if all that isn't enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #119 involving long-term contracts for the sale of wheat.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links 1. First discussed trans ban back in Episode OA: 247 2. We were assisted by Alice Ashton – trans Arabic linguist who contributed to the Advocate article located here and by Deirdre Anne Hendrick. 3. Here is a link to Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 19-004. 4. Pre Show: Hicks to cooperate. This is HUGE! 5. 1/4 – DC Cir. Reversed and vacated the injunction. 6. 1/22 – Supreme Court lifted the stays in two of those cases. We covered it the next day on Episode OA: 247. 7. Next day, on 3/8, the government filed a notice and this is the Plaintiffs’ response. 8. Here is the link DC Circuit's Opinions issued 3/8 9. Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s 3/19 Order 10. 3/20 Gov’ts Motion to Clarify 11. Nielsen v. Preap is linked Here 12. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) vs. (c) – 1952 13. Demore v. Kim, 538 US 510 - Supreme Court 2003 14. Wall Street Journal article on Becker/Bezos 15. CHN article on the problems with New York’s double jeopardy. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode is inspired by the 56th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright, one of the most famous and celebrated landmark Supreme Court cases that guarantees indigent defendants the right to a court-appointed lawyer.  Is it under attack from our right-wing Supreme Court?  (You bet it is.) We begin with a quick update on the recent district court opinion in California v. Ross and what that means for the 2020 Census. Then, it's time for an Andrew Was Right segment a update on the New York appellate court's ruling in the Summer Zervos lawsuit.  As it turns out, Donald Trump does have to respond to Summer Zervos's lawsuit -- just like Bill Clinton had to respond to Paula Jones's. Then it's time for a terrifying deep dive into Clarence Thomas's dissent in the Supreme Court's recent decision in Garza v. Idaho.  What's the case about, and why is Thomas using it as a vehicle to try and overturn one of the most basic and fundamental rights criminal defendants enjoy today?  Listen and (sadly) find out. After all that, it's time for a fun listener question about footballer Wayne Rooney and public obscenity laws. Then, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #118.  Did Thomas get a dreaded real property question correct??  Listen and find out!  And, as always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the recent district court opinion in California v. Ross. Check out the New York appellate court's ruling in the Summer Zervos lawsuit. If you have the stomach for it, read Clarence Thomas's dissent in the Supreme Court's recent decision in Garza v. Idaho. In the question-and-answer section, we discussed this statute, Rooney's arrest record, and Cohen v. California. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's extra-long episode contains your guide to all of the developments involving Paul Manafort over the past week.  What does it all mean and what can we expect next?  Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a brief update on Episode 247 now that the Department of Defense has issued a Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM 19-004) implementing the ban on transgender service in the military.  With the help of some friends of the show, we break down the most pressing issues on the near horizon. Then, it's time for All Things Manafort (TM), which sneakily includes a deep dive into exactly how the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines came into effect, when they were mandatory, how they became advisory, and what the hell happened in the Eastern District of Virginia. But that's not all!  After that, we have a discussion on when sentences should run consecutively versus concurrently, and how that interacts with Judge Amy Berman Jackson's sentencing decision in Manafort's DC case. AND we also have breaking news regarding new state charges brought against Manafort as soon as both federal sentences were handed down. And if that's not enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #118 that's a dreaded real property question.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links First discussed trans ban back in Episode OA: 247 We were assisted by Alice Ashton – trans Arabic linguist who contributed to the Advocate article located here and by Deirdre Anne Hendrick. Here is a link to Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 19-004. This is the Feb. 22, 2018 Mattis directive. Here are the DSM-5 guidelines on gender dysphoria We first discussed the Sentencing Guidelines in Episode OA: 162. The accompanying statute is 18 U.S.C. §3553. For a primer on “variances” versus downward departures, check out the Sentencing Commission guidelines. Judge Ellis transcript can be found here. Concurrent/consecutive is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3554. Manafort’s NY State indictment involves Residential Mortgage Fraud 1st degree (4 counts) under Penal Law § 187.25 and Falsifying Business Records 1st Degree (8 counts) under §175.10. We discussed Gamble v. U.S. in Episode Episode OA: 215. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode is inspired by a law student listener question about a recent Thomas Takes The Bar Exam hypothetical, and takes a deep dive into the wonderful and wacky world of res ipsa loquitur.   What does that even mean?  You'll have to listen and find out! We begin with a brief Andrew Was Wrong segment about Donald Trump and drone use, followed up by an Andrew Was Right segment about multiple states suing to block the implementation of Trump's HHS regulations relating to Title X that we discussed in Episode 258. Then it's time for that deep dive into res ipsa loquitur that you didn't know you wanted until now! After all that, it's time for some Bonus Tuesday Yodeling, in which we check in on Roger Stone's "Motion to Clarify" that was denied by Judge Jackson and an update on the House Republicans' hilariously misguided efforts to try and discredit Michael Cohen by pointing out that he sure seems to like to lie on behalf of his client.  You won't want to miss it! Then, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #117.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Here's a link to the Daily Beast article about Trump and drone strikes we teased in the opening segment. We've uploaded both Title X complaints:  the one filed by California as well as the multistate complaint. More on Title X:  click here for the actual law (42 U.S.C. § 300 et seq.); click here for the accompanying regulations (42 C.F.R. Part 59), and click here to read the new final rule promulgated by HHS regarding Title X.  And, of course, you can click here to read Rep. Cummings's letter regarding the rule. This is Rep. Jordan's "own goal" letter. Finally, here's Judge Jackson's Order regarding Roger Stone. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's extra-long episode contains your guide to the Congressional Investigations, and specifically the 81 document requests sent out by Rep. Jerry Nadler to various Trump-related individuals and entities in connection with the Democratic Congress's larger investigation into corruption, ties with Russia, and general criminal behavior by the administration.  What does it all mean?  Who are the key players?  Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Right -- Michael Cohen is producing drafts of his Congressional testimony, which may support his claim that Trump's personal lawyer, Jay "ACLJ" Sekulow edited his testimony to suborn perjury. Then, it's time for an in-depth look at the various documents requested by Rep. Nadler.  What does it all mean?  We break down the four major "buckets" of inquiries and tell you about some familiar faces... and some surprising new ones. After that, it's time to take a look into recent developments in the Jeffrey Epstein case and correct some reporting as to whether his non-prosecution agreement has really been torn up by the courts.  (It hasn't.) We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #117 about the use of university space for a debate on affirmative action.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest host on Episode 91 of the Skepticrat; go check it out!  And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links 1. Cohen to produce drafts of his testimony to Congress. 2. Congressional Investigations 162 documents served on 81 different people. Documents here: 3. Here’s a handy guide to who’s who in the investigation. 4. Here’s Hope Hicks’s documents request. 5. Here’s our tweet out to Rep. Nadler regarding Nader’s document requests: 6. Epstein. This is the text of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. 7. Judge Marra’s ruling can be found here. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the latest regulations promulgated by Trump's Department of Health and Human Services regarding Title X funding.  What does all this mean?  Listen and find out! We begin by breaking down Title X, the only federal grant program to poor people for family planning.  And -- as you might imagine -- Title X explicitly excludes funding for abortions, but remains a critical source of funding for the critical work Planned Parenthood does with low-income women, including breast and pelvic examinations, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and screenings and treatments for sexually-transmitted infections and HIV.  So, of course, the Trump Administration just defunded all of that.  Find out how terrifying the new regulations are. After that, it's time for a ... lighter(?) segment in which we discuss the difference between clickwrap, browsewrap, and sign-in-wrap (?) agreements and learn about interesting new research into the readability (or lack thereof) of those agreements. Then, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #116 about a Weekend-at-Bernie's-style auto accident.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest host on Episode 91 of the Skepticrat; go check it out!  And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links On Title X:  click here for the actual law (42 U.S.C. § 300 et seq.); click here for the accompanying regulations (42 C.F.R. Part 59), and click here to read the new final rule promulgated by HHS regarding Title X. Here's the Sacramento Bee article indicating that California and other states intend to sue to block this rule from going into effect; and click here to read Rep. Cummings's letter regarding the rule. Here's a link to "The Duty to Read the Unreadable," the research paper we discussed in the last segment. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode continues our breakdown of ex-Trump fixer Michael Cohen's testimony before the House of Representatives and all the Yodel Mountain implications that stem from it that we started in Episode 257.  What's next?  Listen and find out! We begin where we left off -- with Michael Cohen.  Find out how Cohen's testimony (and documents) implicate our favorite legal genius, Stormy Daniels! After that, it's time to check in on Roger Stone's former flunky, Andrew Miller, and his quixotic quest to undo the Mueller investigation.  That effort was just slapped down by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and we've got the full opinion covered for you. Then, it's time to check in on an odd development in the sentencing saga of Paul Manafort.  What does the government's latest (redacted) filing portend?  We're not entirely sure... but we want you to know what we know. And then -- after all that! -- we  end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #116 regarding a rather odd traffic accident.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest on HBO's Vice News!  And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links1. Here are the documents Michael Cohen brought to Congress. 2. Marcy Wheeler’s article: How Trump Suborns Perjury. 3. DC Circuit’s opinion in Andrew Miller’s In Re: Grand Jury appeal. 4. Court’s sua sponte order. 5. Government’s sentencing memo in Manafort’s DC trial. 6. Manafort’s response memo. 7. Government’s Supplemental heavily redacted memo. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Download Link

Today's episode breaks down ex-Trump fixer Michael Cohen's testimony before the House of Representatives and all the Yodel Mountain implications that stem from it.  What's next?  Listen and find out! We begin, however, with an update on the American Legion v. American Humanist Association case where Andrew recently spoke at the AHA's #HonorThemAll rally. After that, it's time to find out about Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz who attempted to intimidate Michael Cohen and... may have gotten into some legal trouble thanks to this show and it's listeners! Then, we begin breaking down the Cohen testimony... but there's so much here to cover, we decided to  keep going for yet another hour, and you'll get that tomorrow! For the first time, we don't end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question, but you'll get #116 tomorrow.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesNone!  And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links1.18 U.S.C. § 1512  Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant. (B) governs witness tampering 2. Gaetz timeline from The Washington Post 3. Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4-8.4(d) "prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." 4. Isaac Dovere at the Atlantic tweeting about Gaetz 5. Cohen is subject to 18 U.S.C. § 1001: Statements or entries generally (a)(2) "makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or" 6. 18 U.S.C. § 1622  Subornation of perjury 7. Marcy Wheeler’s article: How Trump Suborns Perjury 8. Here are the documents Michael Cohen brought to Congress 9. Kansas potential emoluments violation Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the Bladensburg Cross case currently pending before the Supreme Court with special guest Sarah Henry of the American Humanist Association.  You'll learn that Andrew is going to speak at the AHA rally on Wednesday, February 27 right before oral arguments! We bookend the interview with an Andrew Was Right segment about the recent Supreme Court ruling in Timbs v. Indiana first discussed back in Episode 234. And on the back end, we briefly discuss Clarence Thomas's bizarre and dangerous concurrence in McKee v. Cosby.  Did Justice Thomas really call for the reversal of New York Times v. Sullivan?  (Hint:  yes, yes he did.) After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #115 about whether you can use facts contained in settlement negotiations.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest on Episode 87 of the So Here's My Story podcast; go check it out!  And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Click here to check out the American Humanist Association. We first analyzed Timbs v. Indiana back in Episode 234. Click here to read Thomas's concurrence in McKee v. Cosby., and here to brush up on the classic New York Times v. Sullivan. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode breaks down Trump's recent declaration of a state of national emergency as a pretext to build his big, dumb wall.  What's being done about it?  What can be done about it?  Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a trip up Yodel Mountain to observe one of its most bizarre members, Roger Stone, who recently posted a "notice of apology" after having uploaded a picture to Instagram of Judge Jackson with a reticule nearby.  What does this mean for the gag order entered in his case?   We tell all -- even before the court ruled! Next, it's time for our main segment about the wall.  Andrew breaks down exactly where the funding is going to come from, and details all the lawsuits to try and block it.  We end the segment, of course, with a (pessimistic) prediction. Then, it's time for even more yodeling.  Is the Mueller investigation really coming to an end? If so, what's next?  And what about We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #115 about offers to compromise.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! AppearancesAndrew was just a guest on Episode 87 of the So Here's My Story podcast; go check it out!  And if you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links1. Stone's notice of apology. 2. Stone's original partial gag order. 3. 18 U.S. Code § 1512: Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant. 4. The Emergency Declaration. 5. The Presidential Border Security Victory Proclamation 6. Episode OA 243: BUILD THAT WALL!! where we first discussed states of emergency. 7. The Landowners lawsuit filed in DC, Sierra Club/ACLU lawsuit, and finally the California lawsuit filed by 16 states discussed in the show: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Virginia. 8. 31 U.S.C. § 9703 (TFF). 9. Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. 10. 10 U.S. Code § 284 - Support for counterdrug activities and activities to counter transnational organized crime. 11. 10 U.S. Code § 2808 - Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency - discussed in OA: 243 and "Military construction" defined in 10 U.S.C. § 2801(a). 12. Cummings report on Saudi Arabia. 13. Manafort sentencing discussed DC in OA 253: Religious Freedom and Domineque Ray 14. The transcript of Judge Jackson's findings on Manafort's lies 15. Manafort gets a 38 in the E.D.Va sentencing memo 16. Cohen to testify publicly before the House Oversight Committee on Feb. 27th. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode features a long interview with AG, the spectacular co-host of the Mueller, She Wrote podcast.  She helps break down everything in the news that's Yodel Mountain-worthy... and along the way, you'll learn what might be next, what we might be overplaying, and much, much more! After the interview, it's time for the answer to Thomas (& AG) Take The Bar Exam #114, in which you always bet on bank!.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Somewhat coincidentally, Andrew was just a guest on S3E6 of the Mueller, She Wrote podcast; go check it out! Andrew was also a guest on Episode 87 of So Here's My Story.  If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode tackles the recent Dunn v. Ray decision in which the Supreme Court used a procedural mechanism to allow the State of Alabama to execute a devout Muslim without affording him the same sorts of religious freedom they do to Christian inmates.  Is it as bad as it looks? (Yes.) We begin, however, with an unfortunate Andrew Was Wrong (and a promise to get better)! Then, it's time for a depressing deep dive into Dunn v. Ray and what 'religious freedom' actually means to this Supreme Court. After that, it's time for a trip to Yodel Mountain where we review the latest ruling from Judge Amy Berman Jackson about exactly how big a liar Paul Manafort is.  (Hint:  yuge.)  What does this mean for a potential Manafort pardon, and does the federal system have parole?  Listen and find out! We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas (& AG!) Take the Bar Exam Question #114 about whether banks own everything.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on S3E6 of the fabulous Mueller, She Wrote podcast; go check it out! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links1. Supreme Court – Dunn v. Ray order 2. 11th Circuit ruling in Dunn v. Ray 3. We discussed Manafort’s plea on Episode OA: 211 4. Text of Manafort plea deal 5. Judge Jackson’s determination 6. 18 U.S.C. § 3624 Release of a prisoner (b) Credit Toward Service of Sentence for Satisfactory Behavior Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Download Link

Today's episode features a deep dive into a listener question about Article V Constitutional Conventions.  Are they dangerous?  (Yes.)  Are they a good idea?  (No.)  We also discuss the latest ridiculous defamation lawsuit.. and discover why this one is a little different.  How?  You'll have to listen and find out. We begin with a little bit of news you might have missed regarding Attorney General nominee Bill Barr. After that, it's time to answer a listener question about liberal and conservative groups that are angling for an "Article V" Constitutional Convention to overturn Citizens United (or do other things).  We delve deeply into this provision of the Constitution and discuss the plusses and (mainly) minuses of this procedure. Then, it's time to dissect the recent lawsuit brought by Gavin McInnes, founder of the "Proud Boys," which Wikipedia calls "a far-right neo-fascist organization that admits only men as members and promotes political violence."  Find out why at least one formerly respectable lawyer thinks it's just crazy (and actionable!) that the Southern Poverty Law Center called this a "hate group."  And find out why the real question in this lawsuit involves something called "tortious interference" and not defamation. After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #113, which involved the constitutionality of abortion regulations.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on S3E6 of the fabulous Mueller, She Wrote podcast; go check it out!  And, as always, if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links This is the lawsuit filed by the "Proud Boys" against the SPLC. This is the Wikipedia entry on the "Proud Boys." Here's the full text of Article V of the Constitution. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode returns to one of the most critical political issues of our time:  gerrymandering of congressional districts, and in particular, the state of MD-6, which pits the Democrats as villains and Republican voters as the plaintiffs alleging disenfranchisement.  Will that role reversal be enough to win approval from SCOTUS?  Listen and find out! We begin, however, with an update on the June Medical Services v. Gee lawsuit we first discussed in Episode 249. After that, it's time for the deep dive into gerrymandering, which takes a look at the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland's 3-judge panel decision invalidating Maryland's 6th district; the motion to stay before the Supreme Court filed by the Plaintiffs; the opposition by the State of Maryland; and an amicus brief filed on behalf of the incumbent, Democrat David Trone. Then, we quickly clear up the status of Stormy Daniels' lawsuits.  Did the recent dismissal with prejudice have anything to do with Donald Trump?  (No.) We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #113 that's coincidentally about the constitutionality of abortion restrictions.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None!  If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links 1. Episode OA: 249 "Overturning Roe v. Wade Starts Today" for reference to our past discussion on the abortion cases. 2. Supreme Court’s docket in June Medical Services v. Gee 3. If you’re curious, this is what MD-6 looks like today, and this is what it looked like before the 2011 redistricting. 4. We last discussed gerrymandering in Episode OA: 185 5. We also did a deep dive into the Wisconsin case in Episode OA: 80 6. Here is the Maryland district court’s ruling court’s ruling 7. You can read the Plaintiffs’ brief 8. The state's opposition, filed by Brian Frosh 9. And the Trone amicus brief filed by Andrew’s friends at Zuckerman Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's very special episode is our 250th!  To celebrate, we've assembled a compilation of some of our favorite moments over the past two and  half years.  If you've ever wanted to share the show to friends and family, this is the episode to do it.   In this episode, we explain: What the show's all about How liberal we are (or aren't) Whether we talk about non-political stuff How Trump changed the show, what "Yodel Mountain" is, what #ClearAsKushner is How seriously we take ourselves And much more! Then, as always, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #112, which involved an angry drunken... murder (?)  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None!  If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links1. What’s the show about? It’s long-form investigative journalism into topics in the news that have a legal component to them from a left-leaning perspective. Shorter: If you like Rachel Maddow, you’ll like this show. 2. Things I’m most proud of: Stormy Daniels OA: 154 Hillary Clinton’s Damned Emails OA: 13 (36:35-38:16) Deep dives on abortion, on the Second Amendment, Abortion – OA: 27 and OA: 28 The Second Amendment  – OA: 21 and OA: 26 The 2000 Election and Bush v. Gore Eps. 2-5 OA: 02 - 3. How lefty are you guys? I mean, we definitely call out our own, like Jill Stein’s recounts. OA: 25 (24:38-29:50) Or Robert Reich OA: 59 (43:40-45:00) Or Occupy Democrats… 4 . So is it all politics? A.) Practical stuff like defining terms like spousal privilege OA: 99 (2:30-8:50) or … not advice on how to choose a lawyer OA: 12 (9:19-10:40) …every Tuesday we do deep dives into legal topics, often apolitical. PG&E in Episode OA: 241 B.) and the wacky and bizarre OA: 12: Sovereign Citizens (19:52-24:12) OA: 132: Earth Court (38:09-55:00) 5. So what changed? We elected a criminally insane game show host who’s looting the public treasury? Yodel Mountain OA: 45: (38:20-41:03) Clear as Kushner OA: 53 (57:00-57:33) 6. How seriously do you take yourself? Pretty clownhornin’ seriously! OA: 166 (32:10-40:47)and (1:30:55 to end – intro) Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode sounds the alarm as to whether our activist right-wing Supreme Court is ready to effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and essentially permit the entire state of Louisiana to all but ban the right to an abortion in that state.  We're NOT an alarmist podcast, but this is something you need to be watching.  We also follow up on the Trump Shutdown, answer a listener question regarding our discussion of the Hilton lawsuit from last episode, and (of course) take our weekly visit to Yodel Mountain, this time on the back of one Roger Stone.  Are these all just "process crimes?"  And what the hell does that mean, anyway?  Strap in and find out! We begin, however, with a brief look at the end of the Trump Shutdown and what's likely to come next. After that, we tackle some questions and misperceptions regarding our story of the lawsuit against Hilton hotels from Episode 248. Then, it's time for the main segment, which takes a look at a pending Supreme Court motion and discusses what this means for the future of Roe v. Wade and the right to a legal abortion in this country.  Yes, it really is that significant. Then, it's time for a trip to Yodel Mountain to discuss "process crimes" rapid-fire round of questions about Trump's shutdown.  Why is Congress still getting paid?  Who can sue, and why haven't they?  Find out the answers to these questions and more! We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #112 about murder most foul!  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None!  If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links 1. Ann Coulter was responsible for the shutdown and Trump's approval ratings take a hit. (Thomas Was Right) 2. A series of bipartisan proposals show support for ending shutdowns. 3. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 4. Several years ago, Andrew wrote on reasonable religious accommodations at Disney when he was still working for The Man. 5. We discussed Planned Parenthood v. Casey in OA: Episode 27 and OA Episode: 28. 6. Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt 136 S.Ct. 2292 (2016) 7. June Medical Services v. Gee, 905 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. 2018) 8. MOTION TO STAY filed by June. 9. Dershowitz – what the defenders are saying and why it’s Wrong . Followed by Seth Abramson’s Smackdown thread. 10. Stone Indictment 11. More on Randy Credico from his wiki entry and twitter. 12. Roger Stone will work the media 13. Concord Management & Consulting media discovery. 14. The joint motion in Roger Stone's case and the "voluminous and complex" evidence against him. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode features a deep dive into a bunch of different issues around granting the writ of certiorari -- "cert" -- and some of the intricacies of how the Trump administration is trying to take advantage of the activist Supreme Court.  Oh, and we also tackle a lawsuit that's being grossly misrepresented by the media. We begin with a discussion of the unique procedure of "cert before judgment."  What is it, how rare is it, and... why is the Trump administration trying to deploy it with alarming frequency?  Listen and find out! Then, we revisit litigation regarding the census that we first discussed back in Episode 232, and the administration's effort to... get cert before judgment (of course). Our main segment looks at something Andrew has never seen before:  essentially, a four-justice dissent from a denial of certiorari.  Why is this weird?  Listen and find out as we dissect that very opinion in Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist. Next, we tackle a recent clickbaity headline involving a dishwasher allegedly showered with money for "skipping work to go to church."  Find out why the reporting on this case has been totally irresponsible and what really happened. After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #111, which involved a contract for defective water bottles.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None!  If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links "Cert before judgment" is governed by Supreme Court Rule 11. We first discussed the census litigation back in Episode 232.  You can read the motion to dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, as well as the U.S. reply. Click here to read the "statement" regarding the denial of cert in Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist. Click here to read the CBS news report on the Hilton lawsuit, and here to read the (even worse) reporting by the Friendly Atheist blog. By contrast, you can read the actual Jean Pierre Hilton overtime lawsuit and the jury's verdict.  Oh, and here's the EEOC's statement limiting punitive damages in retaliation cases to just $300,000 (not $21 million). Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode tackles the recent Supreme Court orders in the Trump ban on transgender service members.  How did we get here and what's next?  Listen and find out. We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Wrong segment regarding the history and modern politics of the State of the Union. After that, it's time for the main segment, which dives deeply into the history of trans service in the U.S. military, including a discussion of what it means to bring a case pursuant to the equal protection clause and what the future likely holds. Then, it's time for a rapid-fire round of questions about Trump's shutdown.  Why is Congress still getting paid?  Who can sue, and why haven't they?  Find out the answers to these questions and more! We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #111 regarding the delivery of water bottles.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Thomas was just the guest host on Episode 179 of God Awful Movies.  Give it a listen!  And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links 1. The must read Advocate Article interviewing long-standing friend of the show Alice Ashton. 2. 2016 Open Service Directive: Directive-type Memorandum (DTM) 16-005, "Military Service of Transgender Service Members" 3. 2017 Trump Memorandum rescinding the Open Service Directive 4. 2018 Mattis Policy: Military Service by Transgender Individuals 5. Mattis “Study”: Dept of Defense Report and Recommendations on  Military Service by Transgender Persons 6. We last discussed Hively v. Ivy Tech (7th Cir.) and Zarda v. Altitude Express (2nd Cir.) in Episode 152 7. Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011) 8. FLSA lawsuit regarding the Shutdown 9. Federal Judiciary extended to February 1st 10. 13 U.S.C. § 1350 - Criminal penalty Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode features a deep dive into the latest developments in the lawsuit brought by parents of the victims in the Sandy Hook Massacre against Alex Jones and Infowars for repeatedly portraying the school shooting as a hoax. We begin, however, with a question regarding our views of the 2016 Presidential Election from a Trump supporter who's hate-funding us.  Hey, we're good to our word! After that, it's time to dig in to the defamation lawsuit against Alex Jones.  We tackle the minutiae -- standing, jurisdiction, statute of limitations -- and the big issues as well.  If you want to know where defamation law is headed in this era of "fake news," well, this is the show for you! Then, it's time for a quick visit to Yodel Mountain to check in on Rudy Giuliani and Michael Cohen.  Because of course it is. Finally, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #110, which involved a dentist being sued for malpractice and product liability. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 138 of the Naked Mormonism podcast.  Give it a listen!  And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links 1. NYT articles on using third-party votes to hack elections. The Secret Social Media Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics and how the Democrats Faked Online Push to Outlaw Alcohol in Alabama Race. 2. Politico story on the Justice Democrats plans to mount primaries against incumbent Democrats it deems too moderate with the apparent backing of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 3: NYT on Alex Jones and Sandy Hook 4. Media Matters 7 minute, 13 second compilation on Alex Jones about Sandy Hook. 5. Media Matters timeline of Jones promoting conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook. 6. Yodel Mountain: Rudy Giuliani is not helping! 7. WSJ on Cohen and poll-rigging and Cohen's response on the story: "As for the @WSJ article on poll rigging, what I did was at the direction of and for the sole benefit of @realDonaldTrump @POTUS. I truly regret my blind loyalty to a man who doesn’t deserve it." 8. The GLORIOUS "Women for Cohen" Twitter account: Because some things on twitter make you ask, "Why?". Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode covers the William Barr confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee to become the next Attorney General, as well as the ongoing legal battles regarding Trump’s shutdown of the government. We begin with Barr, who’s proven to be a complex individual.  How did he fare in his testimony before the Senate?  Are there reasons for optimism? Is his notorious memorandum (which we covered in Episode 237) not really that bad?  The answers… are all over the map, and will certainly surprise you. Then, we discuss the ongoing shutdown, which looks to prove Andrew Wrong by not ending tomorrow.  What are the legal implications?  How are they going to be resolved?  Is there any hope, either politically or legally?  Listen and find out! Finally, it's time for Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #110 which involves a dentist being sued for malpractice and product liability.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 138 of the Naked Mormonism podcast.  Give it a listen!  And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links 1. Kamala Harris' statements regarding her opposition to Barr's nomination.2. Former Justice Department official of the George H.W. Bush administration Zachary Terwiliger and the speculation that he will once again be Barr's deputy. 3. Barr’s concerning views on executive power and reasons he has drawn so much criticism. 4. We discuss our past Episode OA 237: Lowering the Barr (Memo) 5. Jonathan Turley, GWU Law professor and gadfly, arguing about Barr 7. Jack Goldsmith, HLS professor, has written a response.  “A Qualified Defense of the Barr Memo: Part I” 8. The 1995 OLC memo: Application of 28 U.S.C. § 458 to Presidential Appointments of Federal Judges 9. 28 U.S.C. § 458: Relative of Justice or Judge Ineligible to Appointment10. Marist polling data on the Shutdown 11. NTEU v. Mulvaney 12. Barr's written testimony Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode features a little more about Corey Robin, including the argument addressed on the show that criticisms of Clarence Thomas's competence are a racist echo of similar claims made against Thurgood Marshall.  Find out why Andrew made the mistake he did in Episode 242, and also why Andrew still stands behind his answer to that question. We begin with Robin, winding our way from his blog posts to the jurisprudence of two of Andrew's heroes, Laurence Tribe and Ronald Dworkin!  Ultimately, you'll learn why Andrew continues to defend the proposition that attacks on Thomas's competence are not inherently racist. After that, it's time for some behind-the-scenes news about Attorney General nominee William Barr just in time for his confirmation hearings.  What company does he keep when it comes to interpreting the Founding Fathers?  Listen and find out!  (Hint:  this isn't good.) Finally, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #108 regarding real property.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links We first discussed Robin in Episode 242 as part of a listener question.  You can click here to read his Tweet criticizing us for engaging in "tribalism" and playing identity politics. We discuss two Robin blog posts in depth:  (a) "Everything is in the Hands of Heaven Except the Fear of Heaven", and (b) "The Scandal of Democracy" It was, in fact, Elena Kagan who said "we're all textualists now" in 2015. Click here to check out Tribe's 2008 book, The Invisible Constitution, which openly contests originalism (and directly engages Scalia in particular). You should also check out the Ronald Dworkin speech that was turned into an article in the Fordham Law Review. This is the 2001 Keith Whittington law review article that credits Robin with an assist.  This is Whittington's page at the Federalist Society. We engage with this tweet from Robin listing four supposed examples of intellectual laziness leveled against Thurgood Marshall. Some Thurgood Marshall links:  (a) his confirmation as reported by the New York Times; and (b) this lovely retrospective on Thomas's career penned by Juan Williams for the Washington Post. Finally, you can read some more stuff on Clarence Thomas:  (a) the 2014 rates of agreement among Supreme Court justices; and (b) this anecdote reported by attorney Matt Howell. If you have HeinOnline, you can read the Mark Tushnet law review article in the Georgetown Law Review we discuss on the show.  (Otherwise, you're stuck reading the first page only.) Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode tackles the mechanics of the shutdown and whether (and how) Donald Trump can build that wall despite widespread opposition. We begin with an Andrew Was Wrong about the identity of Corey Robin and the incorporation doctrine.  Enjoy a fun segue to Gitlow v. New York and why you should never repeat the trope that free speech doesn’t include the right to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. After that, it’s a deep dive into… what exactly is a “government shutdown,” anyway?  What laws govern this? Why do some federal employees have to keep showing up?  Isn’t that “involuntary servitude?” And can Trump declare a state of emergency or use “military eminent domain” to just build the wall anyway? Then, it’s time for our weekly trip back to Yodel Mountain.  In Rod We Trust… so why is he stepping down? And what’s the deal with that secret foreign-owned corporation that shut down an entire floor right before the holidays?  Listen and find out! Finally, it's time for Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #109, another dreaded real property question! As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None!  If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Serious Inquiries Only Episode 175 Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919) Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) Anti-Deficiency Act 31 U.S.C. § 1341 et seq. Federal courts notice Futurama “pain monster” clip Military eminent domain:  10 U.S.C. § 2663 1973 report on delegated powers National Emergencies Act: 50 U.S.C. § 1621 Search the federal register for “National Emergency” 10 U.S.C. § 2808 33 U.S.C. § 2293 Ackerman op-ed -DC Circuit Court opinion in mystery foreign corporation case Manafort sentencing memo Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com[podcast src="https://html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8220119/height/360/theme/standard/thumbnail/yes/preload/no/direction/forward/" height="360" width="100%" placement="bottom" theme="standard"] Download Link

Today's episode features a deep dive into the Bivens action, with a little help from everyone's favorite nutso conspiracy theorist lawyer, Larry Klayman -- and his newest client, Roger Stone sidekick Jerome Corsi.  Find out what sorts of wacky shenanigans these guys have been up to, and why they think they've hit a $350 million jackpot.  (Hint:  they haven't.) First, though, we begin with an insightful question from a listener regarding Clarence Thomas's jurisprudence and whether the frequent criticism of Justice Thomas as lazy is tinged with racism. During the main segment, it's time for the breakdown of the latest Corsi lawsuit.  It's a doozy -- it's everything you'd expect from someone who hired Larry Klayman (on purpose!) to be his lawyer. Then, we answer a fun listener question about court filings, time zones, and the international date line.  It's Around Opening Arguments In 80 Days! After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #108 regarding civil procedure.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links This Vice article collects some of the strangest facts about Clarence Thomas, and this is the Jeff Jacoby op-ed that (factually) reports regarding Thurgood Marshall's declining years and -- in Andrew's opinion -- was misrepresented by Corey Robin. Click here to read Corsi's lawsuit against Robert Mueller, and here to read Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017), the recent Supreme Court case limiting Bivens actions. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com