Month: July 2018

Today's Rapid Response Friday breaks down the recent lawsuit filed by the Mandalay Bay casino regarding the 2017 Las Vegas shooting.  Is it true that the casino is suing the victims?  What's that all about??  Listen and find out!  Also, we check in with Yodel Mountain and figure out, once and for all, if this is really worse than Watergate.  (Hint:  yes.) We begin, however, with everybody's favorite segment, Andrew Was Wrong, in which we revisit the Supreme Court with a few corrections. The main segment tackles the Mandalay Bay lawsuit and explains the concept of a declaratory judgent as well as the 2002 SAFETY Act upon which Mandalay Bay is attempting to rely. Next, we return to Yodel Mountain to discuss the recent Mueller indictments, Donald Trump's Treason Summit with Russia, and ingenue Mariia Butina.  It's as salacious as OA ever gets! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #85 involving (ugh) real property.  If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances If you didn't see Andrew's live appearance on Left-Right Radio with Chuck Morse, you can check out the YouTube archive of it.  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. This is the link to the 2011 Ethics Report authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
2. Here's the Above The Law article we mentioned at the start of the main segment.
3. We've uploaded a copy of the MGM/Mandalay Bay lawsuit so you can read it for yourself.
4. The SAFETY Act can be found at 6 U.S.C. § 441 et seq., and the implementing regulations are at 6 CFR § 25.7.
5. We discussed the Senate Intelligence Committee's report in Episode 190.
6. Here's the link to the Mother Jones article about Butina documenting the claims made in the C 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 And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

On June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Gill v. Whitford, a case considering claims of partisan gerrymandering.
In Wisconsin’s 2010 elections, Republicans won the governorship and acquired control of the state senate. In 2011, pursuant to the state constitution’s requirement that the legislature must redraw the boundaries of its districts following each census, the Wisconsin legislature adopted a redistricting plan, Act 43, for state legislative districts. With Act 43 in effect Republicans expanded their legislative control in subsequent elections, reportedly winning 60 of 99 seats in the State Assembly with 48.6% of the statewide two-party vote in 2012, and 63 of 99 seats with 52% of the statewide two-party vote in 2014. In 2015 twelve Wisconsin voters sued in federal court, alleging that Act 43 constituted a statewide partisan gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment were denied, and following trial a divided three-judge district court panel invalidated Act 43 statewide. Act 43, the majority concluded, impermissibly burdened the representational rights of Democratic voters by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats even when Republicans were in an electoral minority. The court enjoined further use of Act 43 and ordered that a remedial redistricting plan be enacted, but the United States Supreme Court stayed that judgment pending resolution of this appeal.
By a vote of 9-0, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for a new trial. In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that the plaintiffs--Wisconsin Democratic voters who rested their claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering on statewide injury--had failed to demonstrate Article III standing.
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, in which Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined except as to Part III. Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, which was joined by Justice Gorsuch.
To discuss the case, we have David Casazza, Associate at Gibson Dunn.