In this “additional” episode, Andy and Akhil switch roles and put the US Constitution aside for an hour, as they take a deep dive into the governance and politics of their beloved alma mater. Yale recently initiated a scandal when their trustees abruptly eliminated most of the democratic elements whereby alumni participated in the governance of the University. Andy was a candidate for election to the Yale Corporation, and he leads us through the weeds “inside Yale.” Meanwhile, Nicholas Christakis, a Sterling Professor at Yale and an official of Yale’s Faculty Senate, joins us; he and Akhil offer a unique faculty-oriented perspective on events. Anyone who cares about Yale will want to learn the facts behind this outrage. And how does John Adams, a Harvard man, sneak his way in?
Strict Scrutiny - Tired of These Fools
On June 23rd, we joined the Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society, together with the Western District of Washington Federal Bar Association, for a “SCOTUS in FOCUS” event moderated by Cynthia Jones, the program chair of the Society.
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
Strict Scrutiny - Comrade Thomas
Kate and Leah recap the big FRIDAY, FRIDAY at the Supreme Court -- two statutory interpretation cases (Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation and Hollyfrontier Cheyenne Refining Co), and a major standing case (TransUnion v. Ramirez).
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
SCOTUScast - Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 23rd, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L., a case which concerned whether the First Amendment prohibits public school officials from regulating off-campus student speech. Justice Breyer authored the majority opinion in the 8-1 decision, holding that “while public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome the student’s interest in free expression in this case.” Justice Thomas offered the lone dissent in the decision. Joining me today to discuss this decision is Michael R. Dimino, Professor of Law at Widener University Commonwealth Law School.
SCOTUScast - Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 23rd, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, a case which concerned whether a California regulation granting labor organizations a “right to take access” to an agricultural employer’s property to solicit support for unionization constitutes a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court, holding that California’s access regulation constitutes a per se physical taking. Joining me today to discuss this decision in Wen Fa, attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Opening Arguments - OA502: Why Critical Race Theory is Indispensable
This is a continuation of Episode 501's exploration of a rather arcane bit of legal jurisprudence that has somehow become the target du jour of the right wing, from Matt Gaetz to Newsmax to... well, Matt Gaetz again. That's right, it's an explanation of what critical race theory actually is, and whether it should be banned. (Hint: no)
In this episode, you'll learn more about the definitely NOT Marxist postmodern critique of language and legal textbooks, including an in-depth discussion of a case you probably have never heard of -- Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823). And if you have heard of the case, then a) you're probably a lawyer or law student, and b) you should thank a critical legal studies theorist!
We'll also get in depth with two of the founders of the CRT movement, Mari Matsuda and Kimberle Crenshaw. Learn what their unique contributions to legal scholarship were and are, and decide for yourself whether this is too dangerous for grad students to even read.
Finally, we'll delve back into the one-man astroturf unit that is Christopher F. Rufo and learn how he's deliberately misleading everyone about what CRT is in order to stoke a moral panic. This is an episode you don't want to miss & might want to share even with your Uncle Frank!
Finally, we do an Andrew Was Wrong on Arrow's Theorem as math professors rise up and storm our studio.
Links
- We first discussed CRT in Episode 501; go check that out if you haven't yet.
- Andrew definitively stated that he was not a CRT theorist & believed there are right answers in the law in Episode 477 critiquing originalism.
- Florida's latest law is HB 233 on "intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity," which kind of contradicts the whole banning CRT thing.
- Check out Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic's "Rodrigo's Reappraisal" (2021).
- You can read Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823) for yourself.
- The Rufo timeline we mentioned was published in the Wall Street Journal, and you can check out the text of Trump's executive order here. You can also read his garbage article in the NY Post... you know what? I'm not going to link that. He's terrible.
- You should definitely read Mari Matsuda's Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim's Story (1989) and Kimberle Crenshaw's Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color from the 1991 Stanford Law Review.
- Finally, I would also recommend reading Aya Gruber's "Against Carceral Feminism" (2021).
Appearances
None! Have 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!
Divided Argument - House Parties
Will and Dan break down two more decisions from Wednesday. First is Collins v. Yellen, a complicated separation of powers and severability case with a lot of money on the line. Second is Lange v. California, a Fourth Amendment case about the "hot pursuit" doctrine, which gives rise to some high school confessions.
SCOTUScast - Collins v. Yellen – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 23rd, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Collins v. Yellen, a case which concerned the constitutionality of the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Joining me today to discuss this decision is Jason Levine, Partner at Alston & Bird, and Jeffrey McCoy, Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Strict Scrutiny - Cheerleaders for Democracy
Kate and Leah recap four opinions: Lange v. California; Mahanoy Area School District v. BL; Collins v. Yellen; and Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.
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
Divided Argument - Evil and Corrupt Language, Images, and Thoughts
The Court dropped four fascinating constitutional law opinions on Wednesday, and Will & Dan talk through two of them. First up is Mahanoy, which addresses First Amendment protections for Snapchatting school kids. Then we have Cedar Point, an important decision about the Takings Clause.