Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Leah, Melissa, and Kate offer a quick recap and analysis of the 6-3 opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County that came out this morning, ruling that LGBTQ are afforded workplace protections under Title VII. 

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 May 14, 2020, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor the Supreme Court, in a vote of 9-0, reversed and remanded the case Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashions Group holding:
Because the trademark action at issue challenged different conduct—and raised different claims—from an earlier action between the parties, Marcel cannot preclude Lucky Brand from raising new defenses, including a defense that Lucky Brand failed to press fully in the earlier suit.
To discuss the case, we have Paul Stancil, Professor of Law at Bingham Young University.

Because constitutional law makes everything more fun, Leah and Melissa decided to spot constitutional law issues in Netflix’s quarantine hit, Joe Exotic.  They are joined by Delci Winders, Assistant Clinical Professor & Director of Animal Rights Clinic, Lewis & Clark Law School, who shares some of the important animal rights and animal welfare issues the show left out. This one goes out to you, Carole Baskin!

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

Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the concept of an amicus brief, explaining why we filed one in the Flynn case, what it means, and what's next for the guy who sold out his country... and his partner.

We begin with a brief update on the Flynn trial (in the District Court for the District of Columbia) and the mandamus action pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Then, it's time to talk about all the various amicus briefs that were filed, with special attention to a pro-Flynn brief filed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Why does this liberal group want Judge Sullivan to grant the government's motion? Listen and find out!

After a breakdown of all the amicus, we talk about the case in which Lt. Gen. Flynn was supposed to be the star witness for the government -- the case against Flynn's partner, Bijan Rafiekian. Find out what's up next for Kian, and how this all involves friend of the show G. ZACHARY TERWILLIGER!

After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE, this one involving... real property. Can Thomas manage to figure out the relationship between a buyer, a mortgagor, a developer, and an unsigned deed? Listen and find out, and play along if you want on social media!

Patreon Bonuses

We posted six separate updates to the amicus brief in progress, and there's more where that came from!

Appearances

Andrew was just on the latest episode of the Daily Beans Podcast. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. Make sure you check out the Opening Arguments Amicus Brief!
2. You can also click here for the reply brief just filed by G. Zachary Terwilliger in the Bijan Kian case.

-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

-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

-Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials!

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

On June 1, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision, in GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC.
By a vote of 9-0, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the 11th Circuit. Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, held that “The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards does not conflict with domestic equitable estoppel doctrines that permit the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories to those agreements.” Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.
To discuss the case, we have Sadie Blanchard, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On May 13, 2020, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a pair of cases concerning the Electoral College.
In Colorado Department of State v. Baca, the Court will consider the claim of a presidential elector in Colorado who attempted to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won Colorado's popular vote, and was replaced by another elector.
In Chiafalo v. Washington, the Court will hear the claims of three presidential electors who were each fined $1000 after they voted for a candidate other than Hillary Clinton in 2016, who also won Washington's popular vote. The cases will examine state power to regulate the actions of presidential electors and could affect how electors behave in the 2020 election.
To discuss the cases, we have Michael Morley, Assistant Professor at Florida State University College of Law.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Dec. 10, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, a case involving a dispute over whether making a formal objection after pronouncement of the defendant’s sentence is necessary to invoke appellate review of the reasonableness of the sentence’s length.
In 2016, Petitioner Gonzalo Holguin-Hernandez pled guilty in federal district court to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. As a citizen of Mexico, he also admitted to being unlawfully present in the United States. In October 2017, after completing his term of incarceration and starting his supervised release, Holguin-Hernandez was removed from the United States. In addition to the condition that he not commit another federal, state, or local crime, the terms of supervised release required that Holguin-Hernandez not illegally reenter the United States. In November 2017, was arrested by Border Patrol agents, admitted having carried marijuana into the U.S. from Mexico, and again pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment and 5 more years of supervised release. The U.S. Probation office then alleged that Holguin-Hernandez had violated the terms of supervised release relating to his initial conviction and sought revocation. In a subsequent hearing he admitted the violations and was sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment, to run consecutively to the 60-month term of imprisonment for the second drug trafficking offense. Although Holguin-Hernandez’s counsel argued against a consecutive sentence during the hearing as unnecessary in light of the considerably longer drug trafficking one, she did not formally object or seek reconsideration after the judge imposed the revocation sentence.
On appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence. Although Holguin-Hernandez argued that his sentence was longer than necessary to effectuate the statutory factors to be considered when imposing a sentence, the Court reasoned that he had not actually raised that objection in district court and therefore the sentence would be reviewed for plain error only. The Court found no plain error, indicating that the sentence fell within the Guidelines range and noting the Guidelines recommendation that a term of imprisonment for violation of supervised release be imposed consecutively to any other term the defendant might be serving. Other federal circuit courts of appeals had taken a different approach, however, and the Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to address whether a formal objection after pronouncement of sentence is necessary to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of a defendant’s sentence.
To discuss the case, we have Daniel Guarnera, Associate at Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Today we're joined by Gabe Roth, executive director of https://fixthecourt.com/. Fix the Court is a national, nonpartisan organization that advocates for non-ideological “fixes” that would make the federal courts, and primarily the U.S. Supreme Court, more open and more accountable to the American people. In his work, Gabe has been tracking some curious financial dealings of "friend" of the show Justin Walker. We discuss that, and other ethics questions and reforms related to the court system.

On May 11, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which involves a dispute over whether the prosecution of an enrolled member of the Creek Tribe for crimes committed within the historical Creek boundaries is subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.
Petitioner Jimcy McGirt was found guilty of one count of first degree rape by instrumentation, one count of lewd molestation, and one count of forcible sodomy. McGirt was sentenced to 500 years in prison without parole. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court declined to review McGirt’s petition. He then filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Oklahoma courts lacked jurisdiction because the crimes occurred in Indian Country where McGirt was a member of the Creek Nations of Oklahoma.
To discuss the case, we have Troy Eid, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig LLP.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Kate and Jaime discuss contributors to injustice--doctrines that encourage (or at least immunize) racial profiling and police misconduct-- with Fred Smith Jr, associate professor at Emory University School of Law.  They also discuss some recent court news and recap a few opinions.

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