On February 28, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases challenging the Biden Administration's student loans forgiveness program: Board of Education v. Brown and Biden v. Nebraska.
In August 2022, the Biden Administration's Department of Education announced plans to forgive up to $20,000 in federal student loans for borrowers who qualified. In order to do this, the DOE relied on the HEROES Act, which allows the government to modify student loans, among other things, during a national emergency.
Both cases challenge this action. Biden v. Nebraska involves a challenge to the Executive action from six states who contend they will suffer direct harm based on a loss of tax revenue. In Department of Education v. Brown, two individual borrowers, one of whom has loans that are fully intelligible for forgiveness under the program, and one of whose loans only qualify for part of the maximum relief possible, also challenge the legitimacy of the program.
The Court is faced with two questions in both cases: first, do the challengers, whether they be the states or the individual borrowers, have standing to sue? The Biden administration contends neither of the respondents possess standing. Second, assuming the Court decides there is standing to sue, the Court will face the question “Does the plan exceed the statutory authority available to the Secretary of Education, and adopted in a procedurally proper manner?”
We will break down and analyze how oral argument went in both cases in this program.
Featuring:
Mark Chenoweth, President and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
Opening Arguments - OA727: No, Dominion Did Not Just ‘Walk Away’ From Half a Billion Dollars
Today, Liz and Andrew go out on a limb and discuss reasons why the Dominion v. Fox defamation trial scheduled to start today was postponed for a day. Along the way, they break down Fox's latest motion for "clarification" and what it means for the network that brought us Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Donald Trump's insane claims of a stolen election that they knew to be false.
Notes OA 243 https://openargs.com/oa243-build-that-wall-2/
OA 718 https://openargs.com/oa718-why-fox-news-has-a-nuanced-approach-to-falsity/
Fox Motion for Clarification https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23780752/fox-motion-for-clarification.pdf
Delaware Court of Chancery Rules https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=160908
Sun Printing & Publ’g Ass’n v. Schenck, 98 F. 925 (2d Cir. 1900) https://cite.case.law/f/98/925/
Marinaccio v. Town of Clarence, 20 N.Y.3d 506, 986 N.E.2d 903 (2013) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17916567453327988927
-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
-Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
-Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/
-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki
-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com
Opening Arguments - OA726: Will SCOTUS Abort the Fifth Circuit’s Insane Mifepristone Ruling??
Liz and Andrew work through the best arguments being raised by the DOJ in its emergency Supreme Court petition to stay the 5th Circuit's mifepristone ruling. Will any of them work? Listen and find out! The duo also break down Trump's latest LOLsuit against Michael Cohen. In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew discuss the intricacies of the most recent SCOTUS standing decision, TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez. You won't want to miss it! Notes Trump v. Cohen Docket https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67175870/trump-v-cohen/ Trump v. Cohen Complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.645291/gov.uscourts.flsd.645291.1.0_2.pdf Alito stay order https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22a901.html DOJ SCT admin stay application https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A902/263491/20230414103258942_Alliance%20for%20Hippocratic%20Med%20%20application.pdf Danco Stay application https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A901/263483/20230414093601611_SCOTUS%20Stay%20Application%204-14-23%20Final.pdf -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
-Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
-Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/
-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki
-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com
Strict Scrutiny - The Ultimate in Anti-Abortion Exceptionalism
Kate and Leah talk to ProPublica's Justin Elliott about the latest findings in Clarence Thomas and Harlan Crow's friendship. First luxury vacations, then undisclosed real estate deals. Then, if you're wondering about the latest in the mifepristone cases, the hosts breakdown the latest news and what it all means for abortion care nationwide. Kate and Leah also preview two court cases that will be argued at the Supreme Court next week, recap an opinion, and highlight a concerning grant.
- We want to hear from you! Submit your questions to strictscrutiny@crooked.com (If sending a voice memo, please keep it to 20 seconds or less)
- Read ProPublica's reporting on Justice Clarence Thomas's home sale to billionaire republican Harlan Crow.
- Here's a twitter thread from Leah on the consequences of the Mifepristone ruling
- Follow @CrookedMedia on Instagram and Twitter for more original content, host takeovers and other community events.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
- 6/12 – NYC
- 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
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Anti-Abortion Lawyers Love this Zombie Law
There’s a terrible legal Easter egg in Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk’s ruling on the abortion medication, Mifepristone. And that same Easter egg makes an appearance in the Fifth Circuit’s partial stay. It’s the Comstock Act - a mostly forgotten 19th century vice statute that is suddenly the anti-abortion movement’s favorite zombie legislation. On a special extra episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Mary Ziegler, an expert on the law, history, and politics of reproduction, health care, and conservatism in the United States from 1945 to the present. Together, they tackle the chaos upon chaos of the past week’s medication abortion cases, and take a long hard look at the next steps in the anti-abortion movement’s fight for a nationwide ban.
In this week’s Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern to discuss the “quid pro Crow” of Justice Clarence Thomas’ real estate deals with GOP mega donor, and avid court-watcher, and amicus-brief-funder Harlan Crow.
Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Opening Arguments - OA725: The Future of Mifepristone
In this SUPER-SIZED episode, Liz and Andrew look beneath the headlines and correct misimpressions regarding both E. Jean Carroll's defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump and the 5th Circuit's mifepristone ruling.
In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew discuss an important certified question to the DC Court of Appeals.
If you’re not following us on Twitter, you’ve missed out on a lot of updates. We’re @openargs and Liz is @5dollarfeminist.
Notes Habba 4/13 Letter Motion https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.109.0.pdf
Kaplan 4/13/2023 Letter Response https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.109.0.pdf
CNN article on E. Jean Carroll https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/13/politics/trump-carroll-case-delay-request/index.html
Court ruling in E. Jean Carroll https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.110.0.pdf
CWA 2002 Petition https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067.1.14.pdf
Complaint Exhibit 30 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067.1.31.pdf
Washington v. FDA ruling https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.waed.102225/gov.uscourts.waed.102225.91.0.pdf
Alliance v. FDA 5th Cir. ruling https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145/gov.uscourts.ca5.213145.183.2_1.pdf
-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
-Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
-Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/
-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki
-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com
SCOTUScast - Dubin v. United States – Post-Argument SCOTUScast
On February 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Dubin v. United States.
At issue in the case is whether, when using (reciting, mentioning, or employing) someone else’s' name or identifying information in the committing a predicate offense, one also commits aggravated identity theft.
Petitioner David Dubin was convicted of healthcare fraud for submitting a factually inaccurate reimbursement claim to Medicaid that mischaracterized the nature of the provider, the time spent on the testing in question, and the date of the test. Additionally, because he used the name and identifying information of a real patient, Dubin was also convicted of one count of aggravated identity theft. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit upheld the convictions on appeal.
Dubin claims that the Fifth Circuit’s decision, if upheld, has massive and undesirable implications for a spectrum of other white collar crimes.
Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.
Featuring:
John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding
At issue in the case is whether, when using (reciting, mentioning, or employing) someone else’s' name or identifying information in the committing a predicate offense, one also commits aggravated identity theft.
Petitioner David Dubin was convicted of healthcare fraud for submitting a factually inaccurate reimbursement claim to Medicaid that mischaracterized the nature of the provider, the time spent on the testing in question, and the date of the test. Additionally, because he used the name and identifying information of a real patient, Dubin was also convicted of one count of aggravated identity theft. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit upheld the convictions on appeal.
Dubin claims that the Fifth Circuit’s decision, if upheld, has massive and undesirable implications for a spectrum of other white collar crimes.
Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.
Featuring:
John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding
Opening Arguments - OA724: Alvin Bragg, No Longer Chickensh*t?
After updating you on a bunch of cases, Liz and Andrew break down Alvin Bragg's just-filed lawsuit against Jim Jordan.
In the Patreon bonus, Liz and Andrew break down a recent D.C. Circuit ruling with huge implications for hundreds of 1/6 defendants and possibly Trump!
Notes OA 705 https://openargs.com/oa705-can-dominion-really-take-down-fox-news/
OA 716 https://openargs.com/oa-716-jim-jordan-is-not-alvin-braggs-daddy/
OA 718 https://openargs.com/oa718-why-fox-news-has-a-nuanced-approach-to-falsity/
Bragg v. Jordan https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.597015/gov.uscourts.nysd.597015.1.0.pdf
NFIB v. Sebelius https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12815172896965834886
Younger v. Harris https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2453423928277325927
Pomerantz Resignation Letter https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/nyregion/mark-pomerantz-resignation-letter.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article
Pomerantz Subpoena Letter https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-04-06-jdj-to-pomerantz-subpoena_0.pdf
-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
-Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
-Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/
-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki
-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com
SCOTUScast - Gonzalez v. Google LLC – Post-Argument SCOTUScast
On February 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google LLC.
After U.S. citizen Nohemi Gonzalez was killed by a terrorist attack in Paris, France, in 2015, Gonzalez’s father filed an action against Google, Twitter, and Facebook. Mr. Gonzalez claimed that Google aided and abetted international terrorism by allowing ISIS to use YouTube for recruiting and promulgating its message. At issue is the platform’s use of algorithms that suggest additional content based on users’ viewing history. Additionally, Gonzalez claims the tech companies failed to take meaningful action to counteract ISIS’ efforts on their platforms.
The district court granted Google’s motion to dismiss the claim based on Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The question now facing the Supreme Court is: does Section 230 immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information?
Join us as Erik Jaffe breaks down the oral argument.
Featuring:
Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP
After U.S. citizen Nohemi Gonzalez was killed by a terrorist attack in Paris, France, in 2015, Gonzalez’s father filed an action against Google, Twitter, and Facebook. Mr. Gonzalez claimed that Google aided and abetted international terrorism by allowing ISIS to use YouTube for recruiting and promulgating its message. At issue is the platform’s use of algorithms that suggest additional content based on users’ viewing history. Additionally, Gonzalez claims the tech companies failed to take meaningful action to counteract ISIS’ efforts on their platforms.
The district court granted Google’s motion to dismiss the claim based on Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The question now facing the Supreme Court is: does Section 230 immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information?
Join us as Erik Jaffe breaks down the oral argument.
Featuring:
Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP
Amarica's Constitution - Doubting Thomas, and doubting the doubters
Judges are in the news - all over it, in fact. Donald Trump, arrested and charged, attacks the judge in his case, and the judge is under a microscope. Deserved? Meanwhile, a judge is elected in Wisconsin. Many say this is the result of actions other judges took in Washington last year, and judges in Wisconsin react - and find themselves under scrutiny, too. Most prominently of all, a Supreme Court Justice’s lifestyle collides with disclosure requirements, drawing fire. How can citizens view these controversies in a reasonably objective light, and what are the standards? We take a shot at it.