Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Today's episode updates two separate lawsuits related to the 1/6 insurrection: Rep. Eric Swalwell's suit against Trump, Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks and the ongoing drama surrounding sanctions for the Kraken lawyers in King v. Whitmer, the Michigan lawsuit that exposed just how nonsensical all of the Kraken election lawsuits were.

In the first segment, we learn that neither Merrick Garland's Department of Justice nor counsel for the House of Representatives believe that "inciting insurrection" is within the scope of your employment if you're a member of the House of Representatives, so... Mo Brooks is on his own on this one. This is all about the Westfall Act, which we last discussed in Episode 498.

In the main segment, we check back in now that all the supplemental briefs have been filed after the mammoth 6-hour Michigan sanctions hearing. Learn who had the worst filing (hint: someone did worse than Lin Wood!), who had the... least worst?... and what is in store for all of the Kraken lawyers! BONUS: We've attached the complete six-hour hearing transcript.

Links:

1. Swalwell v. Trump: (a) docket report; (b) Swalwell's opposition to Brooks's Westfall Act motion; (c) decision of House counsel to decline to represent Brooks; and (d) DOJ's decision to decline to represent Brooks. We last discussed the Westfall Act in Episode 498.
2. King v. Whitmer transcript of the sanctions hearing.
3. Lin Wood's (a) brief 1 and brief 2; and (b) prior inconsistent brief in the Delaware Supreme Court admitting he represented plaintiffs in Michigan.
4. Donald Campbell's brief on behalf of Sidney Powell, Howard Kleinhendler, and the rest of the Kraken idiots.
5. Hoo boy, the brief filed by Stefanie Lambert Junttila on her own behalf... maybe don't represent yourself, Stef? And just because Stef didn't read it doesn't mean you shouldn't read Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712 (6th Cir. 2005).
6. The City of Detroit's (a) Safe Harbor letter and attached motion; and (b) supplemental brief (that's fire)!
7. Remember all of this is about Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
8. Finally, if you search the transcript you'll see Howard Kleinhendler make the "fraud vitiates everything" argument, for which David Fink rightly skewers him in the City of Detroit's supplemental brief. Check out more on this stupid argument here.

Appearances

None. Invite us on!

-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/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

-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!

In these days of Zoom, Professor Amar’s testimony before The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States looks a lot like the old TV show, the Hollywood Squares, and Akhil is in the center square.  This is fitting, because his proposal for 18-year terms of active en banc service on the Court is front and center in these hearings.  Akhil and Andy review the work done in advance of this testimony, recapitulate the major arguments in the proposal, and look at the Q&A that followed in depth, along with the arguments of other panelists.

Will and Dan deal with listener feedback that prompts them to recall some of the Court's most bad-faith decisions in recent years. They then do a deep dive into Transunion v. Ramirez, the Court's major standing decision from the end of the Term. 

In a dizzy euphoria at having had a single good interaction with a stranger on Facebook, Andrew decided to listen to an episode of Bari Weiss's podcast featuring a debate between Chris Rufo and David French on Critical Race Theory. Apparently, Andrew has too much free time and not enough things to be mad at. But it inspired part 3 on Critical Race Theory and what the likely next Pokemon evolution of the moral panic will be.

Links: The Argument of “Afropessimism”, The Political Economy of Reparations, Black Nihilism and the Politics of Hope, Idaho HOUSE BILL NO.377, AZ HOUSE BILL 2898, AG Knudsen Issues Binding Opinion on Critical Race Theory, SC Bill H.4100

It’s Supreme Court reform summer! On this episode, Leah talks to Professor Nikolas Bowie about his testimony to the Presidential commission on the Supreme Court and whether we have or should have a democracy.

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

It’s Supreme Court reform summer! On this episode, Leah talks to Professor Nikolas Bowie about his testimony to the Presidential commission on the Supreme Court and whether we have or should have a democracy.

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

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Will and Dan deal with some tough but fair listener feedback, and then get through AFP v. Bonta (finally). Listen to see if they get further!

The main segment of today's show is what is known in the industry as a huge bummer. Liberty University is facing a lawsuit filed by 12 women who allege that they were sexually assaulted, and that their assault was handled horribly by the University. They also allege that Liberty's code of conduct made it more likely that they would be assaulted. It's grim, but it's a necessary story to cover and Andrew has the full legal breakdown for us. In our first segment, we hear from some people who are on the ground at the Texas legislature.

Links: Abbott vetoes funding, The Liberty Way, lawsuit against Liberty University, 20 U.S. Code Chapter 38, John ED Larkin, 18 US Code § 2255

We continue to profile, recap, analyze, and learn from the nine Supreme Court Justices.  This week our focus turns to those justices appointed by Trump, and the seat that would be Garland’s instead went to Neil Gorsuch.  Akhil looks at cases old and new to find the highs and lows in Justice Gorsuch’s jurisprudence, and this justice who studied in two countries and clerked for two SCOTUS members, who calls neither of them his great influence, comes under our microscope.

I'm going to go ahead and say this sanctions hearing was the most popular one in the history of law. It was so good, expect it on a future Law'd Great Sanctions Hearings, available on Patreon! Andrew breaks down some highlights here and lays out what we can expect to actually happen. Then, it's the Cosby case revelation Andrew has teased for weeks. Why is that entire saga even more worse than we originally said? Find out.

Links: the hearing, multiple sanctions requests by... everyone, Rule 11, Emily P. Newman - Lawyer working to suppress legally cast votes, Lin Wood in Delaware case, Wood needs sanctions on top of sanctions, Campbell motion to release video, Rule 413, Cosby opinion, Cosby civil suit docket, motion for sanctions, Cosby motion to strike, response, forgotten until 10 yrs, Rule 5.1.5, AP renews motion, granted