Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Today's episode features a deep dive into what used to be a core Republican program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. Did you know that every year, over a thousand people -- most of them with homes -- freeze to death in the U.S.? Did you know that both political parties used to want to do something about that?

We begin, however, with some listener feedback from our popular recent Episode 330 in which we broke down a recent decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court regarding "pre-embryos" and in vitro fertilization (IVF). Hear from a published scientist and an IVF mom!

Then, it's time for our deep dive into LIHEAP, 42 U.S.C. § 8621 et seq. You'll learn all about the problem of home heating in this country and what we do about it... at least for now. You'll also learn exactly how much the Trump administration would like to fund this program, which you won't be surprised to learn is $0.

But that's not all! Our "C" segment features a lengthy explanation from election law expert Beth Kingsley who answers the question "Could Donald Trump just hire Vladimir Putin to work on his 2020 re-election campaign if he discloses it?" The answer is more complicated than you'd expect and just might surprise you.

After all that, it's time for the answer to Friday's #T3BE 153 about the admissibility of a doctor's note in court. Will Thomas get this one right?? 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.

Show Notes & Links

1. Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to vulgarityforcharity@gmail.com along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice.
2. We discussed both the IVF decision and the election hypothetical back in Episode 330.
3. You can read the LIHEAP law for yourself; it's 42 U.S.C. § 8621 et seq. The data we discussed on the episode comes from Olivia Wein's study, and the funding numbers come from this government document.
4. This is the link to the FEC's guidance we discussed in the "C" segment.
5. Finally, check out an actual IVF contract, thanks to Valerie Smith!

-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

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

The case of Hernandez v. Mesa arises from a 2010 confrontation on the U.S.-Mexican border in which U.S. Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa shot and killed Sergio Hernandez, a teenage Mexican national. Although the FBI apparently cleared Mesa of wrongdoing, and Hernandez was not standing on American soil at the time he was shot, the Hernandez family filed suit against Mesa and the federal government based on the Supreme Court's decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, which held that a federal agent can be found liable in damages under the Fourth Amendment for committing an unconstitutional search and seizure.
The central issue now before the Supreme Court is whether the Hernandez family can recover damages in a Bivens action for the killing of their son in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments when there is no other available remedy under federal law.
To discuss the case, we have Peter Thomson, Special Counsel, Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann LLC.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Leah and Jaime recap a lot of the big November cases, including Kansas v. Glover, County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, Hernandez v. Mesa, and IBM v. Jander. They deduce that Justice Breyer was on fleek and that Justice Ginsburg’s clerks need to take a lesson about herd immunity. 

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 was so much to discuss, we had to record an extra episode!

Recorded at the Miami Book Fair, in partnership with the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Laura Moscoso from the Centro de Periodismo Investigativo in Puerto Rico; Norah Gamez-Torres, who covers Cuba for the Nuevo Herald and the MIami Herald; and Emily Michot from the Miami Herald, who worked with Julie K. Brown to break the Jeffrey Epstein story. This fascinating discussion serves as a timely reminder of the centrality of journalism to the health of our democracy.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's episode ran so long that we're going to give you a BONUS episode tomorrow. What did we get through? Well, we break down almost everything about the first day of televised public hearings in the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry. You absolutely, positively do not want to miss this!

We begin, however, with a plug for our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to vulgarityforcharity@gmail.com along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice.

After that, it's time to tackle a wide variety of legal topics related to the Taylor and Kent testimony, including: (a) how their testimony fits into the elements of the crime of bribery; (b) the Republicans' evolving defenses of Donald Trump; (c) the two lawyers picked to handle the bulk of the questioning; and much, much more.

Along the way, we also discuss the significance of the D.C. Circuit's en banc refusal to rehear the subpoena decision in Trump v. Mazars and what comes next, as well as the status of Mick Mulvaney's continuing efforts to defy the Congressional subpoenas.

After all that, it's time for a milestone #T3BE involving hearsay and expert witness testimony.

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

1. Please do participate in our favorite charity event of the year, Vulgarity for Charity! To participate, just donate $50 or more to Modest Needs, and then send a copy of the receipt to vulgarityforcharity@gmail.com along with your request for a roast. You can even request that Thomas & Andrew roast the victim of your choice.
2. Remember: this is about bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201.
3. This is the transcript of Sen. Kennedy on Face the Nation.
4. In terms of dirty tricks, here's the link to Taylor's closed-door deposition, where Castor outed the whistleblower, and here's a link to his laughing during Fiona Hill's deposition.
5. BONUS! Here's the Politico article we rip apart in Episode 333 ("There’s a Surprisingly Plausible Path to Removing Trump From Office") and... god help me.. the National Review article that actually gets it right.

-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

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

On Nov 6, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard County of Maui, Hawai’i v. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, which involves a dispute over whether the Clean Water Act’s permit requirement applies when pollutants originate from a concrete point but are only conveyed to navigable waters indirectly, via groundwater.
Under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), someone seeking to discharge a pollutant from a “point source,” such as a pipe or well, into navigable water must first obtain a permit via the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program (NPDES). The County of Maui, Hawai’i (the County), owns and operates four wells at a wastewater treatment plant that processes several million gallons of sewage per day. Treated wastewater from the plant is injected into groundwater via these wells, and some ultimately enter the Pacific Ocean via submarine seeps.
Hawai’i Wildlife Fund and various other organizations filed suit against the County, alleging that it was violating the CWA by discharging effluent through groundwater into the ocean without an NDPES permit. The district court agreed with the plaintiffs and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, rejecting the County’s argument that no violation occurred because the pollutants did not issue directly from the point source (the wells) into navigable water (the ocean), but rather traveled indirectly to the ocean via groundwater. The Ninth Circuit’s reading sharpened a split among the federal circuit courts of appeals on the proper interpretation of the CWA, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether the CWA requires a permit “when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source, such as groundwater.”
To discuss the cases, we have Glenn Roper, attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Nov. 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Kansas v. Glover, a case involving a dispute over the “reasonable suspicion” necessary to justify a traffic stop when the registered owner of a vehicle has a revoked license but the actual driver of the vehicle has not been identified.
A county sheriff’s deputy pulled over Charles Glover, Jr. after running a registration check on the vehicle Glover was driving and finding that the registered owner had a revoked license. Although Glover was, in fact, the registered owner, the deputy did not attempt to confirm his identity before making the stop; nor did he witness any traffic violations. The deputy had simply assumed the registered owner was the person driving the vehicle. Glover moved to suppress evidence obtained during the traffic stop, arguing that the officer had lacked the requisite “reasonable suspicion” of illegal activity to authorize the stop. The Kansas Supreme Court ultimately agreed with Glover, holding that the officer “lacked an articulable and reasonable suspicion that the unidentified driver did not have a valid driver's license.”
This decision conflicted with those of various other state supreme courts and federal circuit courts of appeals on similar questions, and the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently granted Kansas’s certiorari petition to consider whether, for purposes of an investigative stop under the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable for an officer to suspect that the registered owner of a vehicle is the one driving the vehicle absent any information to the contrary.
To discuss the cases, we have Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Today's episode is the final -- and dare we say it, the best -- part of our live show in Los Angeles where we were joined by the co-host of the popular podcast "Oh No Ross And Carrie" Carrie Poppy, and the show's lawyer, Matthew Strugar. Join us for a fascinating discussion as to who's threatened to sue the show and why....

And stick around for a special LIVE #T3BE!

After that, we also answer last week's #T3BE about breach of contract. Can Thomas continue his improbable one-question win streak? Listen and find out!

Show Notes & Links

1. You should definitely be listening to Oh No Ross and Carrie!
2. We last had Carrie and Matthew on our show in Episode 77.

The Supreme Court struck down bans on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, the landmark ACLU case decided in 1967. But the government‘s regulation of marriage and sex didn’t start with anti-miscegenation laws or end with Loving. Melissa Murray — an expert in family law, constitutional law, and reproductive rights and justice at the New York University School of Law — discusses why the institution looms so large in America's past and present. This episode was recorded live at the Brooklyn Public Library, as part of “‘Til Victory is Won,” an evening commemorating the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first enslaved Africans to America’s shores.

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