On October 7, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ramos v. Louisiana.
In Ramos, Evangelisto Ramos was convicted of second-degree murder by the vote of 10 of 12 jurors. Challenging his conviction, Ramos argued that Louisiana’s statutory scheme permitting non-unanimous jury verdicts in non-capital felony cases violated his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Relying on its precedent, the Louisiana Supreme Court rejected Ramos’ argument. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to consider whether the Fourteenth Amendment fully incorporates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a unanimous jury verdict (in criminal cases) against the states.
In a vote of 6-3, the court reversed. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court with respect to Parts I, II–A, III, and IV–B–1, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kavanaugh joined; an opinion with respect to Parts II–B, 4–B–2, and 5, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor joined; and an opinion with respect to Part 4–A, in which Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring as to all but Part 4–A. Justice Kavanaugh filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts joined, and in which Justice Kagan joined as to all but Part III–D.
To discuss the case, we have John C. Richter, Partner, Special Matters and Government Investigations, King & Spalding LLP.
Strict Scrutiny - Pit of Piranhas
In this episode, Melissa talks shop with Jess Bravin, who covers the Court for the Wall Street Journal.
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 - Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – Post-Argument SCOTUScast
On March 3, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the case of Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). At issue is "whether the Securities and Exchange Commission may seek and obtain disgorgement from a court as “equitable relief” for a securities law violation even though the Supreme Court has determined that such disgorgement is a penalty."
To discuss the case, we have Todd F. Braunstein, General Counsel - International, Willis Towers Watson.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
To discuss the case, we have Todd F. Braunstein, General Counsel - International, Willis Towers Watson.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Opening Arguments - OA381: The Legal Eagle Interview!
Today's episode... was supposed to have two bookend segments and legal analysis, but we wound up having so much fun talking to Devin Stone, the Legal Eagle himself about nontraditional careers in the law, Tiger King and Better Call Saul, and so much more!
After that, it's time for the answer to the first Thomas and Devin Take The Bar Exam in which it was literally Hammer Time for two friends watching football. Did Thomas and Devin get it right or wrong? Listen and find out!
Patreon Bonuses
Our next LIVE Q&A is scheduled for Friday, May 1, at 8 pm Eastern / 5 pm Pacific, and you can post and vote on which questions you want to see answered! And don’t forget that we’ve released Law’d Awful Movies #39, Class Action, starring Gene Hackman and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, and featuring guest performer Matt Donnelly of the Ice Cream Social podcast!
Appearances
Andrew was just a guest on Episode 121 of the Skepticrat, talking crazy legal stories in the news, and Episode 375 of the Scathing Atheist, breaking down the latest legal nonsense from Kansas. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
Show Notes & Links
- Don't forget to check out the Legal Eagle YouTube channel.
-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!
Strict Scrutiny - Workplace Misconduct And The Federal Courts
Leah and Jaime are joined by Deeva Shah (from Law Clerks for Workplace Accountability) and Sejal Singh and Emma Janger (from People’s Parity Project) for a discussion about workplace misconduct and the federal courts.
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
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - States’ Rights
Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Colorado State Attorney General Phil Weiser to talk about how states’ rights fit into the picture of America that’s emerging in this pandemic.
In the Slate Plus segment, Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to talk about the big decisions that came down from the high court this week and what they mean for other, even bigger, decisions yet to come this term. 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
Strict Scrutiny - Podapalooza Live Event
We'll be hosting a live Q&A event as part of podapalooza this Sunday (April 26) at 1 PM ET!
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
Opening Arguments - OA380: This Week at the Supreme Court
Today's episode breaks down two significant Supreme Court decisions released this week, including Barton v. Barr (involving immigration) and Ramos v. Louisiana (involving unanimous jury verdicts). We break down each one and explain the short- and long-term implications.
First, though, it's time for a bit of Andrew Was Right and Andrew Was Wrong. The good news: Texas has changed its Executive Order formerly prohibiting abortions and has now affirmed in open court that it will not use the COVID-19 pandemic as pretext for denying reproductive health rights! Best of all, this is exactly the result we've been telling you would happen over the past few weeks -- even though it took us a bit to get there. But also Andrew Was Wrong? Yeah, Andrew also has a correction to issue regarding lifetime judicial appointments in Episode 378.
Then, it's time for the main segment in which we break down the Supreme Court's completely predicable -- and utterly unjustifiable -- 5-4 decision in Barton v. Barr to restrict the remedies available to legal aliens to challenge removal decisions. Find out why Neil Gorsuch openly admits that the interpretation he votes for makes no sense, textually. (Hint: it's because these justices don't care about jurisprudence, just about outcomes.)
After that, we tackle a second key Supreme Court decision that came out this week, Ramos v. Louisiana, in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury was incorporated to the states. Find out why this case presents a "stare decisis trap" for the Court's liberal justices and how that explains this unique 6-3 alignment with Roberts, Alito, and Sotomayor in dissent (!)
Then, of course, it's time for an all-new Thomas (and Devin) Take the Bar Exam, in which we preview next week's special guest and they try and break down a criminal question about football. You won't want to miss it!
Patreon Bonuses
Our next LIVE Q&A is scheduled for Friday, May 1, at 8 pm Eastern / 5 pm Pacific, and you can post and vote on which questions you want to see answered! And don't forget that we've released Law’d Awful Movies #39, Class Action, starring Gene Hackman and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, and featuring guest performer Matt Donnelly of the Ice Cream Social podcast!
Appearances
Andrew was just a guest on Episode 375 of the Scathing Atheist, breaking down the latest legal nonsense from Kansas. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
Show Notes & Links
- For a sneak peek at next week's guest, check out the Legal Eagle YouTube channel.
- Click here to read the Court's decisions in Barton v. Barr (involving immigration) and Ramos v. Louisiana (involving unanimous jury verdicts).
- In the A segment, we discuss the hilariously-secretive announcement of GA-15, the text of GA-15 itself, and quote extensively from the reply brief filed by Texas in Judge Yeakel's court (W.D. Tex.).
- Our previous immigration discussions were in Episodes 301 and 314. We talked about how subsection d(1)(B) was buried on page 596 of the 750-page Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, and also broke down the text of both 8 U.S.C. § 1229b and 8 U.S.C. § 1282.
- Finally, please read this amazing piece by Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times analyzing the Court's decision in Ramos v. Louisiana.
-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!
SCOTUScast - Kahler v. Kansas – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On March 23, 2020, the Supreme Court held by a vote of 6-3 that the federal Due Process Clause does not require a state to adopt an insanity test that turns on a defendant’s ability to recognize that his or her crime was morally wrong. In an opinion written by Justice Kagan, the Court reaffirmed its 1968 plurality opinion in Powell v. Texas, 392 U. S. 514, declaring that criminal responsibility "is animated by complex and ever-changing ideas that are best left to the States to evaluate and reevaluate over time." The Court explained that the relationship between mental illness and criminal liability, in particular, is an ongoing dialogue between the law and psychology, and the Due Process Clause does not require that dialogue be frozen in "a rigid constitutional mold."
Justice Kagan’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
To discuss the case, we have GianCarlo Canaparo, Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
Justice Kagan’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
To discuss the case, we have GianCarlo Canaparo, Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
Strict Scrutiny - Podapalooza Teaser
This is just a reminder to sign up for podapalooza -- happening this weekend! You can sign up at plza.org
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