Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Leah, Kate, and Melissa bring you a jam-packed show recapping news, arguments, and opinions from the Supreme Court in the past couple weeks. Recaps include "the praying coach case," aka Kennedy v. Bremerton School District [10:26], Shoop v. Twyford [45:27], and Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta [50:05]. We also do some math trying to figure out who might-- or might not-- have the still-to-come opinion in Dobbs [57:21], and get out the kleenex for the Chief Justice's teary tribute to Justice Breyer [1:06:44].

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

We continue the fascinating deep-dive into the NOT FINAL deal for Musk to buy Twitter. This part goes more into the financing and highlights even more ways the deal might not go through. Then, we've got some updates in key stories! Trump has been held in contempt! And briefs for the MTG case are due today. Links: Musk Loses $32 Billion in Tesla Wealth, proxy statement (shareholders vote), TrumpContemptOrder4_26_22

The answer may surprise you! When it was announced that Elon Musk bought Twitter, I had a billion and one questions for Andrew about it. Andrew being Andrew, he commenced deep-diving and turned up a ton of interesting info about this deal and the legality around deals like this. And to his surprise... it's FAR from a done deal! Listen in for the dive so deep that it actually will require a surprise bonus episode! This is part 1, part 2 will be out as soon as thomasly possible to edit and release it!

Links: Surely We Can Do Better Than Elon Musk, Elon, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, 15 US Code Chapter 2B - SECURITIES EXCHANGES, 17 CFR Part 240, 17 CFR § 243.100 - General rule regarding selective disclosure, 17 CFR § 243.101 - Definitions, Form 8-K, 17 CFR § 240.10b-5 - Employment of manipulative and deceptive devices, Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), Twitter's 8k, material agreement with Musk

Professor Amar, it is frequently said (by him, among others), has been cited by the Supreme Court more than anyone else in his generation.  This week, he is once again cited.  We discuss the case, the citation, the underlying theory, and citation in general.  Along the way we find ourselves in company with the Great Dissenter, with his namesake John Marshall, and many more.  This small citation in a concurrence takes us to a legal theory that has enormous implications.

Past OA guest Sarah Henry is running for the Florida House in the 38th district! We talk about the absolute hell that is Florida Republicans, and what she intends to do about it. Then, a breakdown of the civil contempt motion against Donald Trump for never complying with anything. Will he get those Alex Jones type contempt fines? Find out!

Links: Make sure to support Sarah! Trump contempt motion, SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL VERIFIED PETITION, AG James Files Motion to Hold Donald J. Trump in Contempt

Kate's off glamping, so Leah and Melissa are left to their own devices to recap SCOTUS news [1:37], arguments from the first week in the April sitting [27:09], and fresh opinions [54:00]. Plus, a new game: X-Treme Textualism.

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

On this episode of Amicus – in studio edition! – host Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Professor 

Lawrence O. Gostin, professor of global health law, at Georgetown University, among many other things. They talk about the federal district court in Florida’s decision to lift the mask mandate for public transportation. While it may seem like a small deal given that the mandate was set to expire in a few weeks anyway, the decision was built on a very labored and tortured interpretation of the word “sanitation.” Professor Gostin explains that this case could have a chilling effect on government agencies. They also discuss why the decision by the Biden administration to appeal involved a lot of political calculous.

In our Slate Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Mark Joseph Stern to talk about a death penalty decision at the Supreme Court and an upcoming case about school prayer.  

Podcast production by Cheyna Roth.

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

As you've no doubt already heard, a totally unqualified, Trump appointed, 34 year old Florida Judge has completely destroyed the national travel mask mandate with the stroke of a pen. Andrew breaks down how dumb the opinion is, and Thomas laments that Democratic leaders are somehow still pretending we live in a society. After that, we've got a deep-dive into bankruptcy, inspired by both Alex Jones and the Health Care Sharing Ministry Sharity. Sharity declared bankruptcy leaving 10,000 members holding the bag for $50 million in unpaid bills. Who could have possibly predicted this except oh yeah see OA497: Christian Health Sharing Is a Scam.

Links: 86 Fed Reg 8025, The Opinion, 42 US Code § 264, Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, Sharity Leaves 10K Families with Millions in unpaid bills, Infowars Bankruptcy Petition, Infowars form 202, Jones thinks he set up a trust, 28 US Code § 1334 - Bankruptcy cases and proceedings, 28 US Code § 1452 - Removal of claims related to bankruptcy cases, CT bankruptcy removal, Sharity Plan, Objection, Summary

On February 23rd, the Court heard arguments in Arizona vs. City and County of San Francisco, California, a case which concerned whether states with interests should be permitted to intervene to defend a rule when the United States ceases to defend. Joining to discuss arguments in the case is Hon. Elizabeth Murrill, Solicitor General in the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office.

On November 10th, the Court heard arguments in City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising, a case which concerned whether the Austin city code’s distinction between on-premise signs, which may be digitized, and off-premise signs, which may not, is a facially unconstitutional content-based regulation under Reed v. Town of Gilbert. We are joined by Trevor Burrus, research fellow at the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, for this installment.