Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

VR1 - Welcome to Vapid Response Wednesday! Rather than explaining law in the news as we have for years on Rapid Response Friday, Thomas, Lydia, and Matt are going on the offensive in this live video series to respond and react to the stupidest takes that we can find--and we’ve got just the guy for our first pick! We begin with former Jeffrey Epstein defense attorney Alan Dershowitz’s recent piece in the Wall Street Journal in which he literally claims that “there is nothing more to see here” on the Epstein case while filling in the facts of what we know from reliable reporting and court records. What is Dersh not telling us here about his own involvement with Epstein, the unbelievably corrupt federal non-prosecution agreement which he secured for his client in 2007, and all of the other many reasons that he might not be a trustworthy source on this question? We then take on one of Matt’s all-time favorites: a well-known 1996 video presentation from far-right immigration restrictionist organization NumbersUSA in which founder Roy Beck takes the stage to set the Guinness world record for Biggest Strawman Made Entirely Out of Gumballs.

• “The Inside Scoop on Jeffrey Epstein,”  Alan Dershowitz, The Wall Street Journal (7/15/2025)

• “Alan Dershowitz: Devil’s Advocate,” Connie Bruck, The New Yorker (7/29/2019)

• “Immigration, World Poverty, and Gumballs,” NumbersUSA (originally distributed in 1996, uploaded to YouTube in 2010)

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

The Supreme Court’s term is long since complete, but we turn back the clock and take a deep dive into one of the major cases of the term, United States v. Skrmetti.  This case addressed questions of gender dysphoria treatment and transgender rights, but fundamentally, it was a case about the law of equality, say the brothers Amar.  Yes, Vik Amar is back as a guest, and our two experts go back and listen to the oral argument and react to the Justices and the advocates as they present.  It turns out that this is an excellent case for learning about how the law attempts to implement the equality promises of the Constitution, and you will hear the Justices engage in this action, or inaction.  Our experts add more than their take on the arguments - they have theories that go beyond anything said in Court that day or written in the opinions that followed.  This is part one of a multi-part summer treat from Amarica’s Constitution.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

OA1177 - We are excited to welcome former San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin for the first half of this unique two-part interview! Chesa is a very notable representative of the “progressive prosecutor” movement. His time as SF DA shows both the promise of this movement, and the limitations. But before we dig into all that, we begin with Chesa’s unique background as the child of incarcerated parents and how this experience inspired him to dedicate his life to bringing a new approach to the criminal legal system.

• Chesa Boudin’s faculty page at UC Berkeley Law

• Chesa Boudin’s academic publications, SSRN

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!

We finally circle back to the two big structural constitutional law cases from the last day of the term. First is Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, which upheld the appointment structure of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force under the Affordable Care Act. Then is FCC v. Consumers' Research, which upheld the universal-service contribution scheme against a pair of non-delegation challenges. Our second-longest episode of the season.

Kate and Leah break down the week’s legal happenings, including Trump’s flailing efforts to manage the Epstein fallout, the latest abomination from the shadow docket, and the legal quagmire surrounding Trump lackey Alina Habba’s appointment as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. Then, they speak with law professors—and former clerks for David Souter—Allison Orr Larsen and Erin Delaney about the late justice’s legacy.

Hosts’ and guests’ favorite things:

• Kate: The Power Broker, Robert Caro; Will to Resist: What Dartmouth Teaches Harvard About Protecting American Freedom, Bruce Swartz (Just Security)
• Leah: The Palace of Rogues Series, Julie Anne Long
• Erin: Tucci in Italy (National Geographic); Marjorie, Taylor Swift
• Allison: How to Hide an Empire; A History of the Greater United States, Daniel Immerwahr

Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 

• 10/4 – Chicago

Learn more: http://crooked.com/events

Order your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes

Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Civil rights are under attack. The Supreme Court seems to have its sights set on the Voting Rights Act. The Trump administration, meanwhile, is taking every issue to the court knowing that it will never have to face accountability there. And with states like Texas considering unpopular redistricting plans, the administration may never face it at the ballot box either.

Put more bluntly, many of our elected officials are operating with a perceived immunity from accountability of any sort. This week Dahlia spoke about the deleterious effects of these actions on voting rights with Maya Wiley, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. They discuss the damage done to our civil rights by the current Department of Justice, and what we can learn about accountability from recent developments in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. 

Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Acting with unpredictable alacrity and unpredictable brevity, we break down the Supreme Court's recent interim order in Trump v. Boyle, and discuss what it means for the unitary executive, and for the shadow docket. We also debate the best name for the Court's emergency/interim orders docket.

OA1176 - Six years after his death in a filthy Manhattan jail cell, Jeffrey Epstein’s disgusting ghost is now haunting Donald Trump--his former “best friend” of more than a decade. What are the “Epstein files” and why has the demand to see them turned MAGA world against itself now?  We go beyond the headlines to explain how one of the most notorious criminals  in recent American history has become this week’s top legal story so long after his death, and why DOJ’s recent efforts to cover for Trump should constitute a ten-alarm scandal. We then review Trump’s attempt to sue the Wall Street Journal for revealing his surprisingly artistic birthday wishes to his “pal,” why his administration is so intent on unsealing grand jury records which DOJ knows can’t be released, how this whole mess has reached the point that the Supreme Court might actually have a good legal reason to reverse Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction (!), and why Trump might be about to pardon Maxwell even if it doesn’t. Also discussed: the history of Epstein’s astonishing 2007 non-prosecution agreement and its legacy, the real “Epstein files” that no one has been talking about, and how the President of France might be about to righteously bankrupt MAGA mouthpiece Candace Owens. 

• Complaint in Trump v. Wall Street Journal (filed 7/18/25)

• Undated July 2025 FBI memo summarizing recent Epstein file review 

• Judge Robin Rosenberg’s order denying DOJ motion to unseal Epstein grand jury records in the Southern District of Florida (7/23/25)

• Jeffrey Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement (signed 9/24/2007)

• Ghislaine Maxwell’s petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (filed 4/10/25)

• Complaint in Macron v. Owens (filed 7/23/25)

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Professor Heather Varanini has brought us our next question as we study for 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!

We pay tribute this week to a titan in the field whom you may not have heard of.  Professor Richard Fallon, the Joseph Story Professor of Law at Harvard, passed away last week.  As you will hear from his collaborator and friend, our guest Professor Michael Dorf, Dick Fallon had a deep impact in the law and the academy, and did so with grace, class, and integrity.  The parallels between his career and Professor Amar’s are striking, but so is the divergence in their constitutional approaches.  And this makes for a fascinating and instructive episode as we probe, rather deeply, the nature of these divergences and how they appear in various places in the law.  Meanwhile this also brings us back to a fundamental matter for this podcast, namely, the nature of and validity of originalism as opposed to or in concert with other methods of interpreting and understanding the constitution and applying it in today’s, and tomorrow’s, America.  That America must now, sadly, go on without Dick Fallon, but it will do so informed by his career and his greatness.  We are fortunate to have Michael Dorf to show us why this is so. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.