Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

What’s going to happen to the federal student debt relief plan? Melissa, Leah and Kate give listeners some answers as they break down last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments on the cases blocking 20 million borrowers from seeing between $10,000 and $20,000 of forgiveness on their federal student loans. They also discuss how those arguments could affect a pending federal court ruling that could force the FDA to reverse its approval of mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortion.

• Listen to last week’s episode previewing the student debt relief cases
• Listen to this episode on the federal court case regarding the FDA approval of mifepristone.
• Follow Strict Scrutiny on Instagram and Twitter.
• Follow Crooked Media 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! 

• 3/6/26 – San Francisco
• 3/7/26 – Los Angeles

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

Today, Liz and Andrew break down two stories that are all over the news: a proposed new bill in Texas that is an assault on both marriage equality and families. And then we have an update on how Dominion is doing in its defamation lawsuit against Fox News. You won't want to miss it!

Notes Texas HB 2889 https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB02889I.htm

TX Biennial Property Tax Report 2020-2021 https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Biennial-Property-Tax-Report-Texas.pdf

2005 IRS bulletin - Frivolous Tax arguments https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb05-14.pdf

2007 IRS bulletin - more frivolous Tax arguments https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb07-14.pdf

Flora v. US, 362 U.S. 145 (1960) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13305625317215905

Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391 (1938) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1082206999326140100

US v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15904210835021146815

Equal Dignity for  Married Taxpayers Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3833/text?r=98&s=1

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

-Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos!

-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!

Today, Liz and Andrew take a deep dive into Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, a case that the Supreme Court just granted certiorari to review. Is the conservative Roberts court going to gut Liz Warren's signature accomplishment, the CFPB? Listen and find out!

(Yes, Andrew screwed up the numbering so you got episode #700 before #699... now everything should be good!)

Notes CFPB v. CFSAA cert petition and 5th Circuit opinion https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-448/246429/20221114155607407_No.%20CFPB%20et%20al.%20v.%20CFSA%20et%20al.pdf

Responsible lending https://www.responsiblelending.org/research-publication/fact-v-fiction-truth-about-payday-lending-industry-claims

The Victims of Payday Lending https://www.responsiblelending.org/issues/victims-payday

OA 126 https://openargs.com/oa126-mick-mulvaney-consumer-financial-protection-bureau/

12 C.F.R. § 1041.8 https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/1041/8/

12 U.S.C. § 5511 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5511

Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 207 (2020) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14557349188638541514

12 U.S.C. 5497 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/5497

OPM v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1013607894853666546

Kate Stith, Congress’s Power of the Purse, 97 Yale L.J. 1343 (1988) https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/16554/62_97YaleLJ1343_June1988_.pdf?sequence=2

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

-Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos!

-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!

This week we take your questions; our listeners are engaged and clever, so Professor Amar is challenged again and again.  How far do his 4th and 5th amendment views extend - do they reach torture?  A fellow law professor asks a deep question about Reconstruction and Women’s suffrage which has deep implications.  And we take a trip back in time to Akhil’s most treasured constitutional moments.  Meanwhile, there’s more on Moore v. Harper and mootness.

You may have seen the news accounts that a court ordered Donald Trump (and FBI director Chris Wray) to be deposed in connection with a lawsuit. Well, today, Liz and Andrew break down the DOJ's ongoing battle with Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Why is the government still fighting this? Will they really get to depose Trump? Listen and find out!

Notes 5 U.S.C. 552a https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a

Lisa Page's story to Molly Jong-Fast https://www.thedailybeast.com/lisa-page-speaks-theres-no-fathomable-way-i-have-committed-any-crime-at-all

Hatch Act https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2015-title5/html/USCODE-2015-title5-partIII-subpartF-chap73-subchapIII.htm#:~:text=%C2%A77321.,political%20processes%20of%20the%20Nation

Strzok response https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963.88.0.pdf

EO 13233 https://sgp.fas.org/news/2001/11/eo-pra.html

Strzok opposition https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963.100.0.pdf

Strzok filing re motion to quash subpoenas for Trump and Wray, apex doctrine https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963/gov.uscourts.dcd.209963.88.0.pdf

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

-Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos!

-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!

Liz and Andrew break down a much-requested case, Gonzalez v. Google, that the Supreme Court just heard on oral argument. Will it break the Internet? Listen and find out!

Notes Legal Eagle video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzNo5lZCq5M&ab_channel=LegalEagle

 OA 390 https://openargs.com/oa390-trumps-war-on-twitter-a-deep-dive-on-section-230/

OA 451 https://openargs.com/oa451-section-230-and-tulsis-transphobia/

47 U.S.C. § 230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software, 5902 U.S. ____ (2020) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1284_869d.pdf

Google Opp. Brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/252127/20230112144706745_Gonzalez%20v.%20Google%20Brief%20for%20Respondent%20-%20FINAL.pdf

Petitioners’ Brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/247780/20221130182721608_GonzalezPetMerits.pdf

Respondents’ Brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/252127/20230112144706745_Gonzalez%20v.%20Google%20Brief%20for%20Respondent%20-%20FINAL.pdf Petitioners’ Reply https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/254251/20230207191257813_GonzalezRepyMeritsPrinted.pdf

Government Brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/249441/20221207203557042_21-1333tsacUnitedStates.pdf

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

-Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos!

-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!

Leah and Kate recap the arguments in the big Internet cases the Supreme Court heard last week. Plus, they look ahead to the upcoming arguments in the student debt cancellation cases-- and to an election in Wisconsin that you should all be watching.

• Follow Strict Scrutiny on Instagram and Twitter.
• Follow Crooked Media 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

Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

For every person screaming about Section 230 (looking at you, Ted Cruz), there are approximately 0.0000001 Danielle Citrons, i.e. folks who actually understand it, what it does, and how it might be tweaked or interpreted to do better. Luckily, we have a whole Professor Danielle Citron on this week’s show. Professor Citron not only manages to make sense of Section 230 for us, she also takes us through this week's internet cases involving Twitter and Google, and content moderation and liability. She explains how eight out of nine justices apparently failed to read the briefs, instead deciding on an "it's so hard" shruggy head-scratch strategy instead. Danielle Citron’s latest book is The Fight for Privacy: Protecting Dignity, Identity, and Love in the Digital Age.

In this week’s Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern to look ahead to next week’s arguments about the Biden administration’s student debt forgiveness program, and to romp through some of the decisions that came down from the Supreme Court this week. Finally, Mark and Dahlia reflect on the results of the primaries in the race to elect a new Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice. Could it be a Mark and Dahlia Amicus plus segment that is not all bad news? 

Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. 

Dahlia’s book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout.

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

Today is one of those good news/bad news episodes. In good news, Arizona has shined some light on a report that election denier Mark Brnovich tried to bury regarding (nonexistent) voter fraud and the 2020 election. In bad news, Florida is trying to overturn the Supreme Court because Ron DeSantis hates the press. And in great news... well, you'll just have to listen and find out!

Notes OA 688 https://openargs.com/oa688-oh-no-the-privilege-is-mine/

Florida HB 951 https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/951/BillText/Filed/PDF

Florida HB 991 https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/991/BillText/Filed/PDF

Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11598860258825518787

Federal flag bill https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-120/pdf/STATUTE-120-Pg572.pdf#page=1

FL flag bill http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0720/Sections/0720.304.html

AZ Appellate decision in Lake v. Hobbs https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Lake-COA-Ruling.pdf

 Liz Wonkette on Kari Lake and Ryan Heath https://www.wonkette.com/breaking-kari-lake-still-not-governor

Executive Summary https://mcusercontent.com/cc1fad182b6d6f8b1e352e206/files/4ca5c5d9-3254-2b94-dbd8-bd2a6ea8b7c3/Election_Review_Summary.pdf

Email draft correcting Brnovich https://mcusercontent.com/cc1fad182b6d6f8b1e352e206/files/8295e52f-b336-c17e-8cbd-3c0255c99ab6/Kanefield_Fann_Document.01.pdf

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

-Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos!

-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

On January 17, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States.

Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. (“Halkbank”) was indicted by a grand jury in 2019, and charged with involvement in a scheme to launder billions of dollars worth of proceeds from Iranian oil and natural gas, which was in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran at the time.

Halkbank is majority-owned by the government of Turkey and moved to dismiss this indictment, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction. Halkbank contended that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the fact that the government of Turkey had a majority of its ownership made it immune to criminal prosecution in U.S. federal court. In relying on FSIA, Halkbank asserted that exceptions in FSIA apply only to civil cases, and that even if such exceptions applied in criminal cases, Halkbank Would still be immune under common law standards.

The U.S. District Court rejected the argument put forward by Halkbank, and the Second Circuit affirmed. This Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of whether US district courts may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and in light of FSIA.

Please join us to break down and analyze the oral argument!

Featuring:
Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP