Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Today's episode features a deep dive on a completely frivolous lawsuit filed by Donald Trump against a Wisconsin TV station for simply airing an ad created by Priorities USA that... uses a pastiche of Trump's own words talking about COVID-19. Learn why Trump (and his corrupt lawyers at Husch Blackwell) are transparently trying to silence any public criticism of this President.

First, we begin with an update on the various emoluments clause cases and we learn a) the status of all three cases and b) why none are likely to be decided before the next Presidential election.

Then, it's time for that deep dive into Trump for President, Inc. v. Northland Television d/b/a WJFW-NBC, a nonsense lawsuit designed to intimidate a local TV station for airing a garden-variety attack ad against Trump's handling of COVID-19.

After that, it's time to decipher whether Trump can actually de-fund the World Health Organization (WHO), as he's threatened. (Hint: no.)

Then, of course, it's time for the answer to a thrilling #T3BE involving breach of contract by a beloved aunt and her niece over the ownership of a business, the transfer of a lease, and some slow lawyers. Will Thomas's win streak continue? Listen and find out!

Patreon Bonuses

We just 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

None! 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

1. Whatever you do, don't share out this anti-Trump ad created by Priorities USA on social media, or you might get sued by Trump via his lawyers at Husch Blackwell.
2. You can read the Trump for President, Inc. v. Northland Television d/b/a WJFW-NBC lawsuit for yourself.

-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 this special episode, prepared for PODAPALOOZA, Leah, Melissa, Jaime, and Kate discuss some COVID-related Court issues. That includes the Court’s upcoming telephonic arguments; its order in the Wisconsin election case; and some other COVID-related cases that might make their way to the Court soon.

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 breaks down the latest threat by Donald Trump to "adjourn" the House and Senate, and explains why a) you shouldn't be scared and b) he's unlikely to do it. This is a stunt designed to distract us from how badly Trump has handled COVID-19; we recognize we're sort of falling for it, so we're bringing you a deep dive on appointments and good news as well!

We begin, however, with that good news, including an update on the HUGE VICTORY for the forces of democracy in Wisconsin in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's shameful decision that we discussed in Episode 376. And, to pile on, we talk about good news in all of the abortion cases, even those in Texas!

After that, it's time for the main segment breaking down whether Trump can adjourn the House and Senate (probably), whether he will (almost certainly not), and why not (because there's not much to be gained and a ton to risk). Along the way, we'll do a deep dive into NLRB v. Noel Canning, a 2014 Supreme Court decision that constrains Presidential "recess appointments" -- which is what Trump would presumably adjourn the Senate to do.

Then it's time for a brand new #T3BE about an aunt who changes her mind about selling her business to her niece. Can she be sued? Listen and find out! And, as always, if you want to play along on social media just share out this episode along with your answer!

Appearances

None! 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

1. Here's Trump's threat to adjourn Congress.
2. We begin with an analysis of the Senate's rules on advice-and-consent in approving Presidential appointments.
3. You'll want to read NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014).
4. Finally, here's the Tweet by Steve Vladeck with which Andrew disagrees.

-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 Nov. 25, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a summary opinion in Thompson v. Hebdon, a case involving campaign-finance law. Specifically at issue was whether Alaska’s political contribution limits are consistent with this Court’s First Amendment precedents.
Currently, Alaska’s law imposes (among other things) a $500 annual limit on individual contributions to a political candidate and to any group other than a political party.
The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the limits, ruling that they were drawn narrowly to prevent quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of such corruption.
The Supreme Court, in an per curiam opinion, granted the petition of cert, vacated the decision below and remanded the case back for the 9th Circuit to revisit. Justice Ginsburg filed a statement.
To discuss the case, we have Derek Muller, Professor of Law at Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

In its very first case on copyright, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall was faced with the question of whether its own reports are protected by copyright, and decided in the negative. This term, the Supreme Court is called upon to clarify the scope of that decision, which it has not further clarified since two cases heard in 1888. The question presented in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. is whether the annotations to the Official Code of Georgia are "government edicts" and thus not within the scope of copyright, even though they lack the force of law. This case also raises implicit questions as to other quasi-governmental publications of which the copyright status is often surprisingly amorphous.
To discuss the case, we have Zvi Rosen, Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law at George Washington University School of Law and Sy Damle, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On March 23, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court released a decision in Allen v. Cooper, which is the latest development in a decades-long series of Congressional enactments and Supreme Court rulings over whether and how Congress can abrogate the sovereign immunity of States from intellectual property infringement suits. This all-star panel will discuss the Court’s most recent decision in the context of the evolution of the Court’s sovereign immunity jurisprudence, the policy concerns of Congress and intellectual property owners, and where we might go from here.
To discuss the case, in this special panel episode, we have:
Prof. Steven Tepp, Professorial Lecturer in Law, George Washington Law, and President and Founder of Sentinal Worldwide
Prof. John T. Cross, Grosscurth Professor of Intellectual Property Law and Technology Transfer, University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law
Prof. Ralph Oman, Pravel, Hewitt, Kimball and Kreiger Professorial Lecturer in Intellectual Property and Patent Law
Prof. Ernest A. Young, Alston & Bird Professor, Duke Law School

As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Today's episode features one of our most-requested return guests, AG of the Mueller She Wrote and Daily Beans podcasts. AG joins us for "Below the Radar," stories that you might have missed while your eyes glazed over during the 11th consecutive coronavirus press conference.

We begin, however, with a nice grab-bag of Andrew Was Rights (and Wrongs, sadly) from the Carolinas to Illinois to the CARES Act to the sad and perhaps inevitable ascension of 37-year-old Federalist Society hack Justin Walker, Andrew Was... Something.

After that it's time to welcome on AG to discuss a recent ruling requiring the Trump crime syndicate in both their individual and corporate capacities to actually litigate claims rather than shunt them off into arbitration. Andrew and AG break down the significance of last week's ruling, which may have flown... Under The Radar (TM).

Then, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 173 involving an auto accident, contributory negligence, and one of our favorite lawyers. Did Thomas and Andrew get it right? Listen and find out!

Patreon Bonuses

We just did an amazing SIO crossover with an Australian lawyer on the Cardinal Pell decision, and don’t forget you can also participate in the Transformers coloring book challenge! And, if you missed it, don’t forget to listen to the audio from March’s LIVE Q&A and Andrew’s Lecture, “We’re All Gonna Die!” and the accompanying slides! PHEW!

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest host on the Talk Heathen live call-in show, so you can see how he handles religious apologists. 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

1. We broke down the CARES Act in Episode 372, and you can check out the final "no offset" provision here, on p. 154.
2. For more on Justin Walker, check out his debate with Andrew on Episode 224 and our breakdown of his lack of qualifications to serve on the federal bench in Episode 289.

-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!

Back in February, when crowds were still a thing, Melissa interviewed Adam Cohen about his new book, Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court's Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America.

Adam examines the conservative tilt of the Supreme Court since the Nixon administration and forward through the last 50 years. The Supreme Court after Justice Earl Warren no longer protected the rights of the poor, the disadvantaged, equally and instead moved forward to deprioritize such issues as school desegregation, voting rights and the protection of workers and instead, prioritize decisions that favored wealthy and corporate interests.

Thanks to the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law for letting us share this riveting conversation with Strict Scrutiny listeners.

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

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Marc Elias, chair of Perkins Coie’s Political Law Group, he represents the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. Together, they reconstruct how the Supreme Court stepped into Wisconsin’s April election, and what the path to that decision—and the fallout from it—can teach us ahead of November. 

In the Slate Plus segment, Mark Joseph Stern talks about Mitch McConnell’s continued campaign to stack the judiciary, the dissonance between conservative positions on election law and reproductive rights in the time of COVID, and the piece he wishes he and Dahlia had written together this week, but didn’t. 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

Today's episode updates you on litigation in three states: in Texas, where the 5th Circuit blocked the lower court injunction, allowing the anti-abortion executive order to go into place; in Wisconsin, where the Supreme Court literally killed people; and in Washington, where publicity-seeking idiots have some liberals convinced Fox News is about to file for bankruptcy.

We begin in Texas, with an Andrew Was Wrong -- and also, a hidden message of solidarity from the dissent in In re Greg Abbott as to how abortion clinics can stay open despite Executive Order GA-08. You won't want to miss it!

Then, we have on Wisconsin citizen Andrew Seidel to break down the Supreme Court's decision forcing people to the polls during an epidemic. Bonus: you can count the number of relevant citations in the majority opinion (0).

After that, it's time to check out the Complaint in WASHLITE v. Fox News, which will probably get us sued by litigation-happy buffoons. As you can imagine, we are NOT KIND to this wadded-up diaper full of nonsense.

Then, you know it's time for a brand-new #T3BE where Thomas and Andrew S. tackle a civ pro question framed around a car accident. Want to play along? Just share out this episode on social media with #T3BE and we'll pick a winner....

Patreon Bonuses

We just did an amazing SIO crossover with an Australian lawyer on the Cardinal Pell decision, and don't forget you can also participate in the Transformers coloring book challenge! And, if you missed it, don’t forget to listen to the audio from March’s LIVE Q&A and Andrew’s Lecture, “We’re All Gonna Die!” and the accompanying slides! PHEW!

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest host on the Talk Heathen live call-in show, so you can see how he handles religious apologists. 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

1. Here is the Supreme Court's opinion in connection with the Wisconsin election.
2. Here's the headquarters of WASHLITE - 1826 Berry Street NE, Olympia, Washington, and here are the articles on Arthur West (Seattle Times) and Liz Hallock (Yakima Herald).
3. The binding decision in the Washington courts is Fidelity Mortgage Corporation v. Seattle Times Co., 131 Wn. App. 462 (2005).

-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!