Today's show could also be called "the worst good news possible" because, yes, the Supreme Court declined to completely gut Roe v. Wade (despite the fact that Roe is effectively dead in many ways), but this was not John Roberts turning into AOC. Find out why in Andrew's breakdown! Before that main story though, our first segment is about some reallllly bad news out of Florida. Remember when Florida voters came out overwhelmingly in supermajority numbers to restore voting rights to ex-felons? Yeah Republicans said "nah." We last covered this, when we thought the courts scored us a victory, in Episode 363. We also discuss the Supreme Court granting cert for some Mueller Report cases, which is NOT good news.
We've got a special treat for you fine folks today! This is the Law'd Awful Movies from last month where Thomas delivers his Amicus Brief in the Flynn case and Andrew and Morgan discuss the process of writing their brief! Heads up, this episode contains explicit language. Hope you enjoy!
Plus, Andrew breaks down (or has a breakdown over) the viral photo of a card that purportedly allows the holder to enter any business without wearing a mask. Is it real or... really stupid?
Then we take a deep dive into DHS. v. Thuraissigiam, the asylum case recently decided by the Supreme Court.
This episode breaks down exactly what happened in the Supreme Court's surprising 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County holding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity is discrimination "because of sex" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's a great decision, we tell you why, and we give you some additional insights about Neil Gorsuch.
We begin by diving into the case! We tell you exactly what it does (and doesn't) mean, figure out why this case took so long to get to a decision, and how it's exactly the ruling we thought might have been possible ever since the 7th Circuit's en banc decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech that we discussed way back in Episode 60.
In figuring that out, we discuss the narrow differences between "texualism" and "originalism," even though this show tends to lump them together.
As part of the analysis, we take a look into Neil Gorsuch's voting patterns to see if he's a secret liberal. Hint: he isn't.
After all that, it's time for the #T3BE answer on Constitutional law. Can the university fire a professor for her political views? Listen and find out!
None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
Today's bonus episode takes a deep dive into the lawsuit brought by the Trump Administration to try and block the publication of John Bolton's tell-all book. We break down the legal arguments and tell you whether you can look forward to getting that copy you ordered or not. (And seriously, you shouldn't give money to John Bolton. He's still a scumbag.)
Then, it's time to break down the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 which just passed the House Judiciary Committee and is an unambiguously good bill. Listen and find out why!
After that, it's time to dig in to both the Complaint and the motion for TRO filed by the United States on behalf of Donald Trump because John Bolton's book made Trump feel bad. Do we really live in a society in which that happened? Yes. Do we live in one in which the court will grant injunctive relief? No. Listen and find out why.
No #T3BE in this bonus episode but there's lots and lots of great content!
None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
Today's episode might have been titled "Andrew Was Really, Really Wrong," as we break down this rather surprising week in the Supreme Court, including the Title VII cases, the Court's refusal to grant cert on any gun case, and the DACA decision.
We begin with a quick Happy Juneteenth!
From there, we tackle the ways in which Andrew Was Wrong, starting with the Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the consolidated case in which the Court has now held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects sexual orientation and gender identity. We promise you it isn't a poison pill; it's an unambiguously good decision.
After that, it's time to talk about another thing Andrew was wrong about that's kind of flown under the radar -- the fact that the Supreme Court denied certiorari in all 10 of the pending gun cases, allowing some good rulings to stand and forestalling some bad new law on the Second Amendment.
Then, it's time to break down the Court's ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Trump, the case involving whether the Trump administration can unilaterally end DACA. The Court ruled they can't -- but this decision has a number of red flags in it that we discuss on the show.
After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE about constitutional law and whether a religious university can fire a professor for what she writes in an op-ed?
None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
Today's show takes a deep dive into the Supreme Court, with the theme of "Shame Justice Roberts," and we recorded this... just before Justice Roberts (and, surprisingly, Neil Gorsuch) voted to affirm in the Zarda cases, recognizing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's prohibition "on the basis of sex" includes sexual orientation. Andrew was (happily) wrong indeed.
We begin, however, with a discussion of the latest madness coming out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and how Andrew would fight it.
Then, it's time for our Supreme Court roundup, which featured not only Zarda, but a look at the pending gun cases (all of which were denied) and an analysis of the South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom decision permitting California to establish medical restrictions on churches and other places of public accommodation.
After all that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE involving real property!
None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the concept of an amicus brief, explaining why we filed one in the Flynn case, what it means, and what's next for the guy who sold out his country... and his partner.
We begin with a brief update on the Flynn trial (in the District Court for the District of Columbia) and the mandamus action pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Then, it's time to talk about all the various amicus briefs that were filed, with special attention to a pro-Flynn brief filed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Why does this liberal group want Judge Sullivan to grant the government's motion? Listen and find out!
After a breakdown of all the amicus, we talk about the case in which Lt. Gen. Flynn was supposed to be the star witness for the government -- the case against Flynn's partner, Bijan Rafiekian. Find out what's up next for Kian, and how this all involves friend of the show G. ZACHARY TERWILLIGER!
After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE, this one involving... real property. Can Thomas manage to figure out the relationship between a buyer, a mortgagor, a developer, and an unsigned deed? Listen and find out, and play along if you want on social media!
Patreon Bonuses
We posted six separate updates to the amicus brief in progress, and there's more where that came from!
Appearances
Andrew was just on the latest episode of the Daily Beans Podcast. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
Today we're joined by Gabe Roth, executive director of https://fixthecourt.com/. Fix the Court is a national, nonpartisan organization that advocates for non-ideological “fixes” that would make the federal courts, and primarily the U.S. Supreme Court, more open and more accountable to the American people. In his work, Gabe has been tracking some curious financial dealings of "friend" of the show Justin Walker. We discuss that, and other ethics questions and reforms related to the court system.
Today's extra-long show -- two hours if you're a patron! -- tackles all the issues surrounding the state of our Union in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder, including questions about which charges should be filed against Derek Chauvin, whether Trump can invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, and much, much more! Oh, and as a bonus, we also have a "lightning round" Yodel Mountain segment (with deep dives for patrons).
We begin with an in-depth discussion of an argument made by arguably the country's greatest legal mind, Laurence Tribe, that the murder-3 charge against George Floyd was sure to be dismissed. Find out why Andrew thinks Tribe is wrong, even in light of the Minnesota DA's decision to add a murder-2 charge to Chauvin's charges. After that, Andrew will explain one thing he was wrong about... due to a "quirk" in Minnesota's laws regarding felony murder and the merger doctrine.
Then, we discuss Trump's invocation of the Insurrection Act of 1807 to justify potentially sending armed forces into American cities. You'll learn exactly how not justified this is... and whether it matters.
After that, it's time to (briefly!) check in with Black Lives Matter and evaluate their lawsuit against Eric Garcetti for an injunction to block the Los Angeles curfew. Will it succeed? (No.)
We're not remotely done, though! After all that, it's time to head on up for a lightning round atop Yodel Mountain., were we check in on (1) Rod Rosenstein's Senate testimony, (2) Judge Sullivan's DC Circuit brief in the Flynn case, and (3) a weird story making the rounds regarding a 2016 lawsuit filed (and dropped) against Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.
After all that, it’s time for an all-new #T3BE involving character testimony. It's a tough question; can Thomas get it right? Listen and find out!
And remember -- if you're a patron, you get a ton of bonus content in this episode, including deep dives on each and every one of these stories!
None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
On the Insurrection Act of 1807, 10 U.S.C. §§ 251-255, we cited two specific provisions: § 252 and § 253. And we discussed Greg Gianforte back in Episode 72. During the bonus, we also discussed two executive orders from the George H. W. Bush presidency: EO 12690 and EO 12804, and two corresponding Proclamations: 6023 and 6427.
