Dahlia Lithwick is joined by three women using their legal experience to advocate for people trying to navigate the ever-changing, labyrinthine process of claiming asylum in the United States. It’s tough work, and they are volunteering in the face of mounting obstacles. Liz Willis and Dennise Moreno are from ASAP , and Kristin Clarens is with Project Adelante. Next, Dahlia talks to Susan Hennessy of Lawfare to understand the intertwined significance of impeachment, the Mueller Report, and the Department of Justice inspector general’s report.
Send in your questions for our Roberts Court special episode with Mark Joseph Stern on Jan. 4. Submit questions by Jan. 1 to amicus@slate.com.
On Dec. 2, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, a case involving a dispute over whether New York City rules limiting transportation of licensed firearms to ranges within New York City limits (and certain state-designated hunting areas) violate the Second Amendment, the dormant Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel. Under New York state law, possessing a firearm without a license is prohibited. New York City issues “premises” licenses that permit possession of a pistol or revolver at a particular address, and under city “Rule 5-23” such firearms may not be lawfully removed from that address except for transport directly to or from authorized shooting ranges within New York City limits (as well as certain state-designated hunting areas). Plaintiffs, who hold New York City premises licenses, wished to transport their firearms to shooting ranges, competitions, and/or homes outside of New York City. They sued for injunctive relief in federal district court, alleging that Rule 5-23’s restrictions violated the Second Amendment and were otherwise invalid under the dormant Commerce Clause, the First Amendment right of expressive association, and the fundamental right to travel. The district court rejected all these claims and dismissed the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, applying intermediate scrutiny to the Second Amendment claims, affirmed. The Supreme Court, however, subsequently granted certiorari to address whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel. To discuss the cases, we have Robert Leider, professor at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Today's episode takes a deep dive into the recent 5th Circuit ruling you may have heard about that... is supposed to have declared the ACA unconstitutional? How can that possibly be the case? We break it all down for you. Oh, and yeah, we also talk about the fact that the third president in American history has been impeached.
We begin, however, with an Andrew Was Wrong segment about the procedural history underlying the Syed appeal.
Then, it's time to break down the 5th Circuit's ACA opinion. How is it possible? How is the case ripe? Wasn't all of this decided in 2012 in the NFIB v. Sebelius case? We explain everything you need to know -- and what you need to know about the future -- in this main segment.
Then, it's time to tackle some impeachment questions like, "what the hell is going on?" and "is it true that the President can't be pardoned for crimes over which he's been impeached?" (No.) You definitely won't want to miss this one.
After all that, it's time for a brand new #T3BE involving jury instructions during a criminal trial. Can Thomas build on his amazing 1-question winning streak? There's only one way to know for sure!
Appearances
None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
Show Notes & Links
We tackled the Syed case for the very last time in Episode 340.
If you have any school-aged children in your life, you know that lockdown and active shooter drills have become a routine part of their school experience. These drills now take place in 95 percent of American schools.
What you’re about to hear is a collaboration between Slate and The Trace, a nonprofit newsroom covering gun violence in the United States. It’s an audio project featuring firsthand accounts from kids of all ages about what it’s like to go through these drills. We hear a lot about school shootings, but we’re only starting to have a larger conversation about how they affect even those kids who may never go through one.
Today's episode takes a deep dive into something the Supreme Court didn't do last week -- namely, it declined to grant certiorari to reverse an obviously incorrect decision of the Sixth Circuit (EMW Women's Surgical Center v. Meier), in which that court upheld a blatantly unconstitutional Kentucky law mandating that women undergo a medically unnecessary ultrasound and listen to a script before undergoing an abortion.
We begin, however, with a delightful Frozen-themed listener question about the extent of copyright law and whether Josh Gad can start singing songs about how Brett Kavanaugh is a monster. (Hint: this is a fantastic idea.) We truly drill down on all the different ramifications of when you create an original character for yourself versus your employer.
After that, it's time for the main sequence deep dive on EMW Women's Surgical Center v. Meier and exactly why it's surprising -- and depressing -- that the Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari in this case.
Then, it's time to check in on #T3BE and see if Thomas can get this homebuying question right. Do you get to cancel a sale when the buyer hides water damages, and if so, why? Listen and find out!
Appearances
None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
Melissa and Jaime deck the halls with argument recaps, cert grants, and opinions-- plus some speculation about upcoming wardrobe choices for Chief Justice Roberts.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
Today's episode breaks down the Articles of Impeachment currently being debated in the House Judiciary Committee. Find out Andrew's disappointment, the hidden clause that lets the Senate consider Mueller evidence (if they want), and what these articles can't let the Senate evaluate in determining whether to impeach Trump. You won't want to miss it! Oh, and also, you'll get a mini-deep-dive on the Espinoza decision and so much more!
We begin with an important listener question about whether Donald Trump could plead the 5th Amendment during the impeachment process. The answer might surprise you -- and you'll enjoy the deep dive into the Constitutional protections against self-incrimination.
Then, during the main segment, we tackle the two articles of impeachment in depth, evaluating what crime(s) the articles consider, how they respond to the Republican arguments, and much, much more.
After that, we're excited to bring you a segment in which law students can win up to $10,000 in an essay-writing contest that also gives you a chance to make a real difference in a case pending before the Supreme Court, Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue.
Then, of course, it's time for another #T3BE, this time about a homeowner who paints over some water damage. Is there a viable reason for the buyer to rescind the contract, or is it "buyer beware"? Listen and play along on social media!
Appearances
None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
Show Notes & Links
Our opening segment discusses the 1957 Supreme Court case of Watkins v. U.S. and also references this 1956 law review article.
Also, don't forget that we broke down Trinity Lutheran before the Supreme Court ruled way back in Episodes 14, 17, and 18, and then dissected the travesty of an opinion in Episodes 82 and 85. Phew!
Jaime, Kate, and Melissa break down the DACA argument and speak with Luis Cortes, who worked on the DACA case and is a DACA recipient himself. They also talk about their favorite Thanksgiving sides and desserts.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
Perhaps against our better judgment, we once again return to the Adnan Syed case narrated so beautifully in season 1 of Serial. If you haven't heard our take on the case itself, you might want to go back and listen to Episode 107. Today, we're not discussing the underlying merits but rather what the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled and why the Supreme Court declined to review that decision. Love us or hate us, if you love Serial, you won't want to miss this episode!
We begin, however, with a look at how President Trump has reshaped the federal courts by the numbers. Is it as bleak as some sources say? Or is there merit to the counter-argument that Trump isn't doing anything much differently than his predecessors -- it's just that we're in the middle of his Presidency, so of course his effect is outsized. We delve beneath the op-eds to tell you what the cold hard facts are.
Then, it's time to describe exactly what's happened to Adnan Syed in the courts since Serial, culminating with a 4-3 decision in the Maryland Court of Appeals that was left undisturbed by the Supreme Court when they denied certiorari last week. What does it all mean? We break it down for you.
After that, it's time for a bonus mini-"Breakin' Down the Law" segment integrated with Thomas's fiendishly hard #T3BE question. If you've ever wondered about motions for new trials and Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, well, this is the show for you!
Appearances
None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
Show Notes & Links
We first broke down the Adnan Syed case (and Serial's portrayal of it) in Episode 107.
Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Kate Shaw, a professor of law at Cardozo Law School and the co-director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy. They talk about presidential speech, impeachment, and why figuring out what happens next involves taking a close look at what happened in 1868.
