Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to talk about lessons learned from this election cycle, and what it’s like to be in the eye of the “unleash the kraken” storm. 

Next, Dahlia talks with Professor Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law about Bill Barr’s departure from the Justice Department, and they try to shed some light on the latest signals emerging from the Supreme Court’s shadow docket. 

In our Slate Plus segment, Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia for all the Supreme Court news we couldn’t cram into the main show, including analysis of the Covid closure cases and Mitch McConnell’s unprecedented lame-duck judicial appointment spree.  

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

Podcast production by Sara Burningham.

---

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On December 1 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cargill v. Doe I. There were two legal questions before the Court. The first was whether the presumption against extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute is displaced by allegations that a U.S. company generally conducted oversight of its foreign operations at its headquarters and made operational and financial decisions there, even though the conduct alleged to violate international law occurred in – and the plaintiffs suffered their injuries in – a foreign country. The second question before the Court was whether a domestic corporation is subject to liability in a private action under the Alien Tort Statute.
David Rybicki is Partner at K&L Gates LLP. He joins us today to discuss this case’s oral argument.

COME WATCH OUR LIVESTREAM TO "GRAB 'EM BY THE GAVEL" AND TAKE BACK THE SENATE! Sunday at 4pm eastern! Donate here!

In what will surprise no one who listens to this show, Sidney Powell's double secret expert military intelligence witness on election theft is.... a dude named Josh who is actually none of those things. Andrew takes us through the latest from the top notch legal team trying to overturn the election, and how it differs from actual lawsuits filed in Georgia for good reasons.

Links: Spyder affidavits, FRE rule 702, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), WaPo: Sidney Powell’s secret ‘military intelligence expert,’ key to fraud claims in election lawsuits, never worked in military intelligence, real law suits: Plaintiff, v. MIKE KAPLAN, SU20CV0594, 20-CV-003112, 2020V123366K, Calendar law: Georgia Code Title 21. Elections § 21-2-385, § 21-2-14

On December 10, 2020 the Supreme Court decided the case of Tanzin v. Tanvir. In an 8-0 ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgement of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that "appropriate relief" under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) includes claims for money damages against government officials in their individual capacities.
Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel at First Liberty, joins us to discuss the ruling and its implications.

On December 2, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Edwards v. Vannoy. The question before the court was whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana applies retroactively to cases on federal collateral review.
William S. McClintock is an Associate at King & Spalding LLP. He joins us today to discuss this case’s oral argument.

On November 30, 2020 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Van Buren v. United States. The question before the court was whether a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates Section 1030(a)(2) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if he accesses the same information for an improper purpose.
Orin Kerr is a Professor of Law at UC Berkeley School of Law and he joins us to discuss this case’s oral argument.

Recently, friend of the show Randall Eliason published an opinion piece for the Washington Post that got a ton of pushback. We voiced our strong disagreement to it on OA443: The (Terrible) Case Against Indicting Trump. We're very pleased to have Randall on the show to have a lively debate on the topic! We went so long that there is a part 2 airing next week! Make sure to become a patron and gain access to part 2 very early!

On November 30, 2020 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. New York. The first legal question before the Court was whether a group of states and local governments have standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge a July 21, 2020, memorandum by President Donald Trump instructing the secretary of commerce to include in his report on the 2020 census information enabling the president to exclude noncitizens from the base population number for purposes of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. The second legal question before the court was whether the memorandum is a permissible exercise of the president’s discretion under the provisions of law governing congressional apportionment.
Professor John S. Baker joins us today to discuss this case’s oral argument. Professor Baker is Professor Emeritus at Lousiana State University's Paul M. Hebert Law Center.

Leah and Melissa are joined by the first repeat guest on Strict Scrutiny, Elie Mystal, to discuss his recent column about Democratic leadership on the Senate Judiciary Committee. They also provide some dramatic readings and reenactments of some of the hearings and filings from the (poorly run) coup attempt.

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

There aren't words harsh enough to describe how disgusting, anti-American, and undemocratic the Texas v. Pennsylvania complaint is. Believe me, I checked my thesaurus. 18 Republican attorneys general have joined in this horrific, garbage attempt to keep their emperor Trump in power despite the wishes of 80+ million voters. We get Andrew's deep-dive, as he's as angry as he's ever been (which sounds pretty much like normal Andrew.)

Before that, we talk about the closing of the Flynn case, and how Opening Arguments is now super famous for having influenced Judge Sullivan!

Links: Flynn final order, compare p 21 with our brief, Texas v. Pennsylvania, Arizona v. California, Arizona insane amicus brief, Trump motion to intervene, terrible constitutional attorneys amicus, Foster v. Love