Month: February 2019

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

 

On November 26, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Nieves v. Bartlett, a case considering the merit of retaliatory arrest claims in the presence of probable cause for arrest.
In 2014, Russell Bartlett was arrested by two police officers, Sergeant Nieves and Trooper Weight, during an outdoor party that was part of the annual “Arctic Man” festival held in Alaska’s Hoodoo Mountains. Bartlett, who appeared intoxicated, approached Trooper Weight, who had been speaking to a minor regarding suspected underage drinking, and loudly demanded that Weight stop. When Trooper Weight pushed Bartlett back to create space between the two men, Nieves, who had observed the contact, ran over and a struggle ensued. The officers subdued and arrested Bartlett, who was later released from detention without injury. Although the state ultimately declined to prosecute Bartlett on charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, the prosecutor indicated his belief in the existence of probable cause for that arrest.
Bartlett filed suit against the officers in federal district court, claiming false arrest, excessive force, malicious prosecution, and retaliatory arrest. The district court granted summary judgment to Sergeant Nieves and Trooper Weight on qualified immunity grounds, but the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed that judgment as to the retaliatory arrest claim and remanded the case. Under circuit precedent, the Court concluded, “an individual has a right to be free from retaliatory police action, even if probable cause existed for the action.” The Supreme Court granted the officers’ subsequent petition for certiorari, however, to address whether probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim under the civil rights statute 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
To discuss the case, we have Lisa Soronen, Executive Director of the State and Local Legal Center.