Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Episode Notes:

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, to discuss voting and the crisis of legitimacy facing a Supreme Court embroiled in politics, the election, and an epochal shift to the right. 

In our Slate Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Brian Fallon of Demand Justice to discuss the whys and the wherefores of court reform. 

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

Podcast production by Sara Burningham.

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

Kavanaugh, in a disgrace of an opinion, just signaled that he and enough of his fellow hack justices are willing and able to hand a disputed election to Trump. Andrew has the full breakdown, and what we can do to stop it. But that last part is very obvious: vote vote vote vote vote vote vote vote.

IT IS NOW TOO LATE TO MAIL IN YOUR BALLOT. So in the first segment, we go over every which way you still are able to vote even if you've got a mail-in ballot you have yet to drop in the mailbox.

Links: Even Fox News says results won't be know on election night, I Will Vote.com, Slate - Naked ballots, signature mismatch, and other pitfalls to avoid when voting by mail, NYT How Long Will Vote Counting Take? Estimates and Deadlines in All 50 States, Wisconsin §6.86(6), OA425: 'The Election That Could Break America' ???, Trump’s Upcoming Refusal to Leave Office: The Very Bad News, Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election, Supreme Court 2020 Opinions not up currently for some reason, How to Accommodate a Massive Surge in Absentee Voting, Lawfare blog Reducing One Source of a Potential Election Meltdown, North Carolina Injunctive Relief Denied.

Leah, Melissa, and Kate, discuss some recent activity on the Court’s “shadow docket” related to the election. Oh, and the fact that we have a new Supreme Court Justice.

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 a Tr*** free day here at OA! Not even one mention of that entity. It's all about some major stories in the law. Google has been sued by the DoJ and a number of individual states for unlawfully maintaining monopolies for search services. And Purdue Pharma has reached a plea agreement involving billions of dollars. One of these is good and the other... isn't... Listen to the Andrew Torrez Mr. Fantastic Signature Breakdown to found out!

Links: Google Complaint, 15 US Code § 2 - Monopolizing trade a felony, Purdue Pharma plea deal

Kate and Melissa talk with Julie Suk, author of We the Women: The Unstoppable Mothers of the Equal Rights Amendment.

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

Regardless of the outcome of the election, the Supreme Court has already entered a new era. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Heather Cox Richardson for a big-picture conversation about what that means: minority rule and the court’s role, past and present, in changing visions of democracy. 

In our Slate Plus segment, Mark Joseph Stern updates us on all the election-law cases. OK, not all of them—there are more than 300 cases going on in 46 states—but Mark brings us up to speed on the key cases and the worrying signals they send about what happens if the election results are contested. 

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

Podcast production by Sara Burningham.

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

On October 14, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Torres v. Madrid. The question before the court was whether an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force is a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th, 9th and 11th Circuits and the New Mexico Supreme Court hold, or whether physical force must be successful in detaining a suspect to constitute a “seizure,” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals hold.
Kent Scheidegger joins us to discuss this case’s oral arguments. Scheidegger is Legal Director and General Counsel at the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

On October 14, 2020, the Supreme Court heard Pereida v. Barr, an immigration case. The question before the court was whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act. More specifically, the Court heard arguments regarding whether Mr. Pereida, who used a false Social Security card to get a job, could legally seek relief from deportation since he was never charged with any specific violation of Section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Brian Fish joins us today to discuss this case’s oral arguments. Mr. Fish is Special Assistant to the United States Attorney of Baltimore, Maryland.

In a steroid-induced haze, Trump may have inadvertently declassified all Russia documents by Tweeting: “I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!” BuzzFeed News jumped on the opportunity and took Trump to court. Andrew has the full break down!

Before that, we talk about updates in the E. Jean Carroll case. That case centers around the (for some reason) difficult question of whether or not slandering your own sexual assault victim is somehow within your job duties as President.

Links: OA420: DoJ Defending Trump in Carroll Case?, Carroll's opposition, Trump reply, Oral argument scheduled for 10/21, BuzzFeed v DoJ, Leopold Reply, ACB responses to QFR, Senate Rule III, Pennsylvania decision, Alabama decision

On October 13, 2020, The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding United States v. Collins (consolidated with United States v. Briggs). The question before the court was whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding – contrary to its own longstanding precedent – that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.
Arthur Rizer and Richard Sala join us to discuss this case’s oral arguments. Rizer is the Director of the Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties program and Resident Senior Fellow at the R Street Institute. Sala is an Assistant Professor of Law at the Vermont Law School.