Month: May 2020

Today's episode checks back in with the status of the consolidated cases pending before the Supreme Court regarding Trump's tax returns. As it turns out, this overlaps pretty strongly with the show's "B" segment about the potential for abuse in the CARES Act.

We begin with a colossal "Andrew Was Wrong" -- in which Andrew optimistically predicted we'd see Trump's tax returns in 2019. That... turned out not to be the case. So what are the odds that we'll see Trump's taxes before the November elections? Listen and find out!

After that, it's time for another semi-deep-dive, and this time we're checking back in with the just-passed CARES Act as Andrew talks about a provision we missed the first time around that has the potential to... well, you'll just have to listen and find out!

Then, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 176 involving burning a copy of the IRS Code. Is it illegal? If so, why?

Patreon Bonuses

If you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here!

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest on Episode 121 of the Skepticrat, talking about the abuse of the Paycheck Protection Program and other crazy legal stories in the news. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. Click here to read the letter sent by Liz Warren & other Democratic Senators to Deutsche Bank.
2. Our comprehensive overview of the CARES Act was in Episode 372, and you can read the final CARES Act here.
3. The Sunshine Act is 5 U.S.C. § 552b.

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials!

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

On April 23, 2020, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided Barton v. Barr, a case involving a dispute over whether, for the purposes of the “stop-time rule,” a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible”.
The stop-time rule affects the discretion afforded the U.S. Attorney General to cancel the removal from the United States of a lawful permanent resident who has resided in the U.S. continuously for 7 years. Under the stop-time rule, the requisite continuous residence terminates once the alien commits any of a certain number of offenses that render the alien inadmissible to (or removable from) the United States under federal law. Thus, committing a listed offense may cause an alien to fall short of the continuous 7-year residence requirement and thereby become ineligible for cancellation of removal.
Andre Martello Barton, after receiving lawful permanent resident status, was convicted in 1996 on three counts of aggravated assault, one count of criminal damage to property, and one count of firearm possession during commission of a felony, all in violation of state law. In 2007 and 2008, he was also convicted of several state law drug offenses. The federal government then initiated proceedings to remove Barton based on his various convictions. He conceded removability on the basis of his controlled substance and gun possession offenses but applied for cancellation of removal based on continuous residence. The government argued that Barton’s 1996 convictions triggered the stop-time rule, thereby disqualifying him for cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge ruled in favor of the government and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Barton then petitioned for relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which rejected his argument that the stop-time rule only applies to aliens seeking admission to the United States, and therefore denied his petition.
In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that eligibility for cancellation of removal of a lawful permanent resident who commits a serious crime during the initial seven years of residence need not be one of the offenses of removal.
The opinion was written by Justice Kavanaugh on April 23, 2020. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan joined.
To discuss the case, we have Amy Moore, Professor of Law at Belmont University College of Law.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.