On April 6, 2020, the Supreme Court held by a vote of 8-1 that when a law enforcement officer lacks information negating an inference that a vehicle’s driver is the registered owner, an investigative traffic stop made after running the vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner’s driver’s license has been revoked is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. In an opinion written by Justice Thomas, the Court invoked its 1981 decision in United States v. Cortez (1981), which indicates that an officer may initiate a brief investigative traffic stop if he or she has a “particularized and objective basis” to suspect legal wrongdoing. Here the officer’s inference that the vehicle’s registered owner--whose license was revoked--was also the current driver was a commonsense one; even if not invariably true the inference was reasonable, and the officer possessed no information sufficient to rebut it. Justice Thomas’ majority opinion was joined by all other justices except Justice Sotomayor, who dissented. In addition, Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Breyer. To discuss the case, 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 a fun interview with Dan and Jordan from the Knowledge Fight! podcast, your #1 source for deciphering the otherwise-indecipherable world of Alex Jones. We think you'll enjoy this interview; it's got a little bit of everything -- laughter, tears, and, of course, madness.
After the interview, it's time to answer an exciting new #T3BE civ pro question that involves res judicata — a concept so convoluted, courts often screw it up. Will Thomas get it right? Listen and find out!
Today's episode covers a number of stories that might be bad news for now, but each one, we think there's a reason to be optimistic beneath the surface. We also make sure we're holding Idaho's feet to the fire for the anti-trans bills that state tried to sneak past the radar this week, and we tell you the fate of states that have tried to restrict access to abortion using COVID-19 as pretext.
We begin with a survey of the landscape including the states that haven't issued stay-at-home orders. There's an interesting commonality among these states' governors; can you figure it out??
Then, it's time for our main segment which is a deep dive into Idaho HB 509 that attempts to prevent trans people from changing their gender on their birth certificate. The bill is horrible, bigoted, and mean... and yet why are we optimistic? You'll have to listen and find out!
After all that, it's time to take a look at the six states that have attempted to restrict access to abortion services during COVID-19 and examine the latest rulings by the Fifth Circuit. Why isn't it as bad as you've heard? We tell you exactly why.
We conclude, as always, with a brand-new #T3BE featuring a civ pro question that involves res judicata -- a concept so convoluted, courts often screw it up. Will Thomas get it right? Listen and find out!
Leah and Jaime recap other arguments from the February sitting that was a lifetime ago! They cover Sineneng-Smith v. United States, DHS v. Thuraissigiam, and of course a case argued by that guy Paul -- Seila Law v. CFPB.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Ian Bassin, former associated White House counsel from 2009-11 and co-founder of Protect Democracy for a look at the pain points, tensions, and glimmers of hope in how this constitutional democracy is handling the unprecedented challenges presented by COVID-19.
In the Slate Plus segment, Mark Joseph Stern on why Justice Elena Kagan is voting with the conservatives, the unanimous decision in Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American Media and what it means for future civil-rights cases, and the crisis unfolding in the immigration courts. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.
Today's episode breaks down the three main provisions of the just-passed CARES Act in terms of (1) additional unemployment benefits, (2) tax relief in the form of advance $1,200 "rebate" checks to taxpayers, and (3) the $500 billion "slush fund" for corporate giveaways. While there's more in this 880-page monstrosity, we break down the key parts for you!
We begin, however, with some good news about the impending retirement of Ohio Rep., Trump-supporting lunatic, and soon-to-be-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Does this violate the Ineligibility Clause of the Constitution? YOU BETCHA. Is it #ClearAsKushner? YEP! And this time, does it matter? YES IT DOES!
After that it's time for a full breakdown of the main components of the CARES Act, including how much money you'll be getting and when, what the costs are, and what the provisions are that can come into play to prevent all of this from winding up in Jared Kushner's pocket. You won't want to miss it!
After all that, it's time for a quick segment on IRS Form W-7, which allows you to pay your taxes if you're a nonresident alien.
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.
Just what you need for quarantine-- a whole episode recapping the arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo. Plus, our suggestions for making the justices WFH, and rumors on who President Joe Biden's SCOTUS picks might be.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!