Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

On February 25, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 7-2 opinion in Lackey v. Stinnie. The Court held that a party that receives a preliminary injunction but does not obtain a final judgment on the merits before a case becomes moot is not a "prevailing party" eligible for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b)

Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.

Featuring:
William Maurer, Managing Attorney of the Washington Office, Institute for Justice

Brought to you by Trade Coffee! Get 40% off your first order with Trade at drinktrade.com/OA!

OA1136 and T3BE62- Matt swings by a Wednesday episode, and we welcome Dr. Jenessa Seymour as well! Jenessa is a disability voting access advocate and New York attorney, and she's here to break down the SAVE Act. What exactly is it supposed to be "saving" for voting rights, who is going to be most impacted by its provisions, and do we have any chance in stopping this thing?

Professor Heather Varanini joins after, of course, to share the answer to T3BE61 and present the next question in 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! 

To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Our recent episodes on constitutional questions such as the unitary executive have looked at founding history, but less so the cases of the founding period.  In this episode we take a look at one of the most famous cases of all, Marbury v. Madison.  But this isn’t primarily a look at judicial review, but instead Marbury reveals itself, in Professor Amar’s hands, as a key administrative law case, with surprising relevance for, among other things, questions of presidential transition and unitary executive theory.  How did a change of party in the White House lead to tension with an unpredictable, even rash, president?  The answers will surprise you, and may be further explored in briefs in the Supreme Court case that is sure to come before long.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Brought to you by Trade Coffee! Get 40% off your first order with Trade at drinktrade.com/OA!

OA1135 - Even with everything that Trump has already done to raise consumer prices, contribute to mass unemployment and inflation,  and stress-test the market, many people still believe that Trump and MAGA conservatives are “better for the economy.” The Groundwork Collaborative is a nonprofit organization which helps to build the kind of messaging that we need to show a better way . Executive director Dr. Lindsay Owens joins to discuss–among many other things–what we talk about when we talk about “the economy,” the DOGE crisis, the true causes of inflation, and what the loss of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau means for us all.

• Groundwork Collaborative website

• U.S. and Plaintiff States v. RealPage, Inc.

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

To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

After covering the latest goings-on in Trumpland, Melissa and Kate turn to this week’s SCOTUS arguments and opinions, touching on the Court’s decision to weaken the EPA’s clean water regulations and Mexico’s bid to hold American gun manufacturers liable for cartel violence. In the second part of the episode, Kate and Melissa talk with David Enrich of the New York Times about his new book, Murder the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment, and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful. 

Hosts’ favorite things this week: 

• Melissa: Never Caught: The Washingtons' Relentless Pursuit of Their Runaway Slave, Ona Judge by Erica Armstrong Dunbar; Due Care in a Conservative Court by Hila Keren (forthcoming in the Wisconsin Law Review); With Love, Meghan (Netflix)
• Kate: Towards A New Equal Protection Paradigm by Issa Kohler Hausmann, co-authored with Kevin Yang and Charlotte Lawrence; Severance (Apple TV+)

Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE - The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! Listener presale Wednesday March 12 at 10am local time - Thursday March 13 at 10pm local time with code YOLO, general sale starts Friday March 14

• 5/31 - Washington DC
• 6/12 - NYC
• 10/4 - Chicago

Learn more: http://crooked.com/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

Elon Musk’s moves at DOGE have been legally dubious from the start. And the more we learn, the more questions we have about this not-an-agency helmed by Musk –– who is apparently both in charge, and also not in charge. That’s why we wanted to talk with Kate Shaw, University of Pennsylvania law professor and co-host of the Strict Scrutiny podcast, about the very real constitutional issues raised by DOGE and Musk and his minions. Shaw spoke with Dahlia Lithwick about what is and isn’t legal about DOGE, and the impossible bind that creates for government lawyers tasked with defending his devastation of the government. 

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

OA1134 - Mere hours after a literal pat on the back from Donald Trump on live TV, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a 5-4 decision against him in the emergency litigation over Trump’s unconstitutional efforts to eliminate foreign aid funding. How much of a win was this really, and why did Samuel Alito spend eight pages in dissent pretending to be “stunned” by the majority’s radical assertion that the federal government should pay out debts incurred by valid acts of Congress? We then turn to a less-noticed recent Supreme Court decision with concerning implications for the future of civil rights litigation before appreciating recent Congressional wins: blue city mayors schooling the House Oversight Committee without ever giving up even a  single point in six hours, and Senate Democrats taking a meaningful united stand for trans lives.

• U.S. Supreme Court’s order in Department of State et al v. AIDS Vaccine Coalition (3/5/25)

• Lackey v. Stinnie, Supreme Court #23-621 (2/25/2025) 

• Full video of House Oversight Committee’s hearing with mayors of Boston, New York, Denver, and Chicago, Associated Press (3/5/25)

• Boston Mayor Michelle Wu performs George Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue” with the Boston Pops (9/22/2024)

• “Senate Dems Show Spine, and National Sports Bill Dies,” S. Baum, Erin in the Morning (journalist Erin Reed’s Substack)(3/3/25)

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

To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

President Trump continues to wield the ax in a manner consistent with Unitary Executive theory.  The question is, is it also consistent with the Constitution, and with the various statutes on the books that are at odds with that theory?  Professor Calabresi returns for more discussion of this crucial question; in this episode, Akhil is pressing a number of challenges to the theory.  Among these is an important example from the early Republic, which indeed followed soon after the Decision of 1789, which is so heavily relied upon by proponents of the unitary executive.  History, text, structure  - all come together in a lively debate.

On Wednesday morning the Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Trump administration's effort to withhold $2 billion promised for foreign aid work. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss the Court’s decision to reject the Trump administration's request to halt a lower court's order, by a five to four vote, compelling the State Department to resume payments. While Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett sided with the court's liberal justices, Justice Samuel Alito offered a “stunned” dissent, reacting to the Court’s surprising rebuke to the Trump administration with few facts but plenty of fury. 

This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you’ll also 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

OA1133 and T3BE61 - Lydia joins today to discuss Trump's 3/4/2025 address to Congress regarding his vision for the next 4 years. Leading up to the evening, there were reports that quite a few Democrats would opt to not attend. We highlight the different approaches folks in the party took to resist in the face of chaos and authoritarianism, and discuss what we might do if we were in that position.

After that, Professor Heather Varanini comes in to share the answer to T3BE60 and present the next question in 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!

To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!