Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

This week's episode breaks down the 357-page state court gerrymandering decision in North Carolina striking down that state's legislative districts. We explain in depth exactly what happened -- and exactly why cases like there are the future for political gerrymandering claims in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Rucho v. Common Cause.

We begin, however, with a couple of Andrew Was Wrong segments, including a sad update on Gavin Grimm as well as feedback from the entire state of Idaho!

Then, it's time for a deep dive into the recent ruling in North Carolina, which includes an analysis of both the facts -- featuring "Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites" Dr. Evil stand-in Thomas Hofeller -- and the law. If political gerrymandering is now perfectly okay by the U.S. Supreme Court, what can we do? Listen and find out!

After that, it's time for a brief Yodel Mountain update regarding Don McGahn, as well as a Jeffrey Epstein update.

And then it's time for #T3BE on the formation of contract: when, exactly, does a contract to buy a truck get made? You won't want to miss this one.

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. We last discussed Gavin Grimm's case in Episode 306.
2. Click here to check out the populations of the various states, including Idaho.
3. This is the North Carolina gerrymandering opinion.

-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!

In our final summer episode, it’s a reproductive rights and justice block party (or wake, depending on your perspective). Leah, Melissa, and Kate discuss the reproductive rights and justice cases that made their way to the Supreme Court, the cases that almost made their way to the Court, and the cases that might make their way to the Court soon. They also point out how many of the Court’s cases have implications for reproductive justice before walking through some recent reproductive justice litigation involving the Supreme Court bar.

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 takes an in-depth look at the recent landmark trial ruling in Oklahoma that the opioid epidemic constitutes a "public nuisance" in that state, and that Johnson & Johnson must pay $572 million to abate it. What do all of those crazy legal words mean? Is this a "good" result or a "bad" one? What's next? Listen and find out!

We begin, however, with -- at long last! -- the in-depth discussion of the shameful history of the Mann Act in the United States as a way of answering why Jeffrey Epstein wasn't charged with offenses under it. Along the way, you'll learn about the worst guy's weekend ever!

Then, it's time for the main segment about the public nuisance trial in Oklahoma that resulted in a landmark first-of-its-kind verdict. Find out what that means for future lawsuits and so much more.

After all that, it's time for a quick follow-up on the Sheldon Whitehouse brief and some statistical analysis... as well as a call for more stats geekery from our highly-educated fans!

And finally, we end the show with #T3BE 142 involving Not Taking Legal Advice From Your Tenant. Did Thomas finally manage to break the streak? 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. On Epstein: you can read his (now-dismissed) SDNY indictment, as well as the news of its dismissal.
2. On the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C § 2421 et seq.; you'll also want to check out the case we discussed, Caminetti v. U.S., 242 U.S. 470 (1917).
3. We first discussed the Oklahoma trial in Episode 292, and you can read the judge's trial verdict here.

-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!

Hey folks! We thought we'd release this LAM to everyone, because it was particularly interesting and educational. We hope you enjoy it, and maybe it will inspire some new folks to hop on over to patreon.com/law to get more fun bonus stuff like this! 

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Julian Mortenson, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan to discuss his work to re-frame the conversation around “the executive power”. His paper, “Article II Vests Executive Power, Not The Royal Prerogative” traces the constitutional history of the three words that have grown to encompass so much. 

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

Today's Rapid Response Friday takes a look at the recent Trump Administration memorandum "clarifying" the rules on military citizenship for children born to U.S. employees -- largely, those in the armed forces -- serving overseas. Is it as bad as you've heard? (Yes.) Is it actually worse than that? (Yes.)

First, though, we continue to revisit the apportionment question discussed in Episode 307. Have we finally crowdsourced a solution? The answer may surprise you!

After that, it's time for a deep dive into the latest policy manual update from the department of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services "clarifying" that servicemembers living overseas don't actually count as "living in the United States." Will this cause Trump-supporting military members to vote for Elizabeth Warren in 2020? (No.) Should it? (Yes.) Is it way, way worse than you could possibly imagine? Oh yes.

After that, it's time for a very brief Andrew Was Wrong (the best kind!).

Then, it's time for an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, in which we have... something approaching "Don't Take Legal Advice From A Podcast" Law? You won't want to miss this question involving a disgruntled landlord and a put-upon law student. Can Thomas break his losing streak? 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. We first covered the potential apportionment crisis in Episode 307.
2. You can read the latest policy manual update from the department of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for yourself.
3. The relevant legal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act are 8 U.S.C. § 1401, 8 U.S.C § 1431, and 8 U.S.C. § 1433.
4. This is the August 15th, 2019 story about how the Trump administration continues to use the "out-of-wedlock" rule against LGBTQ couples.
5. Finally, this is the garbage, racist National Review article on birthright citizenship, and this is U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S> 649 (1898).

-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!

Today's episode is one you've requested for a while now: revisiting perhaps America's greatest legal mind, Stormy Daniels. This time, we'll learn how the Stormy saga has gotten Hope Hicks to (almost certainly) have her lawyers lie to Congress... and we'll figure out what that means for the future.

First, though, we take a look at some impressive research on the Roberts Court that was put together by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse -- hi, Sen. Whitehouse! We know you're listening! -- and the amicus brief it inspired. You know just how bad this Supreme Court is... but only Sen. Whitehouse has quantified it for you. And yes, that makes it much, much worse.

After that, it's time for the main segment, in which we head back to Yodel Mountain to examine Hope Hicks's transparently false statements to Congress. How can we prove they're false? It's all thanks to Stormy Daniels, of course! Andrew wades through hundreds of pages of affidavit testimony in connection with the Michael Cohen search warrants to prove that Hicks's claim that she didn't know anything about the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels definitely does not hold water.

Then, it's time for the conclusion to the fabulous Banana Law #T3BE! Did Thomas get it 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. You should definitely read the comprehensive Supreme Court report prepared by Sen. Whitehouse for the ACS, and also read the amicus brief he (and others) filed in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. New York case.
2. As everyone knows, we first broke the Stormy Daniels story in Episode 154, "Stormy Daniels is a Legal Genius." And she still is!
3. Then, we told you that Hope Hicks is the key to all of this in Episode 259 when we examined the Congressional investigations. We predicted that she will be compelled to testify in Episode 290.
4. We covered the release of the Cohen documents in Episode 298.
5. Finally, click here to read Rep. Nadler's letter to Hope Hicks, and here to read her (non-truthful) reply.

-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 April 1, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Bucklew v. Precythe, a case considering the standard applicable when an offender sentenced to death raises an Eighth Amendment challenge to the state’s lethal injection procedure.
Petitioner Russell Bucklew was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by lethal injection of a single drug, pentobarbital, by the State of Missouri. Bucklew challenged the State’s injection protocol under the Eighth Amendment, alleging that regardless of whether it would cause excruciating pain for all prisoners, it would cause him severe pain because of a particular medical condition he had.
The District Court dismissed his challenge. The U.S. Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit, applying Supreme Court precedent in Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross, remanded the case to allow Bucklew to identify a feasible, readily implemented alternative procedure that would significantly reduce his alleged risk of pain. Bucklew eventually suggested nitrogen hypoxia, but the District Court rejected his argument for lack of evidence. A divided Eighth Circuit panel affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Eighth Circuit. In an opinion delivered by Justice Gorsuch, the court held that Baze and Glossip govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain, and Bucklew’s as-applied challenge fails the Baze-Glossip test. He failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the viability of nitrogen hypoxia as an alternative method, and even if he had there was no showing that it would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain.
Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas and Justice Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined as to all but Part III. Justice Sotomayor also filed a dissenting opinion.
To discuss the case, we have Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

Today's Rapid Response Friday breaks down a just-released decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that has produced a ton of alarming media. Is that alarm warranted? (No.) What did the court actually decide, and how will it affect the 2020 Presidential Election? And what does any of this have to do with Lawrence Lessig?? Listen and find out!

We begin, however, with a grab-bag of questions arising out of Episode 307 on apportionment and revisit an issue that Andrew predicts will hang over the next Presidency. Are there any "quick fixes" to the problem or are we destined to be hung up in litigation?

Then, it's time for our deep dive into Baca v. Colorado, understanding (a) how this case came about, (b) what it says, and (c) what the implications are for the 2020 Presidential election. Is it some crazy ruling in favor of Trump? What's "the saddest Hamilton?" Listen and find out!

After that, it's time for a quick update on the emoluments clause litigation, this time examining a recent ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. What's the future for individual lawsuits against the President? (Hint: it's not good.)

And then it's time for a brand-new banana law-themed #T3BE! Will this slip-and-fall question be enough to get Thomas back in the win column? Listen, and then play along!

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. Check out Laurence Tribe's "Optimist Prime" article in the Raw Story.
2. For more on apportionment, you can read 2 U.S.C. § 2a and catch up on Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992), the controlling Supreme Court precedent.
3. Click here to read the 10th Circuit's decision in Baca, and for an example of unwarranted freakout over the Baca decision, check out this wildly-misleading NBC article.
4. If you love the deep dive, don't forget to refresh your memory by re-reading Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939).
5. We last updated you on emoluments in Episode 299 and in this fabulous Patreon-only bonus. You can also check out the latest DC ruling.

-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!

Today's episode, sadly, reminds you of an entirely new way that you should be terrified. In a "please, tell me that Donald Trump's lawyers aren't listening to this" episode, Andrew breaks down a 1990s court decision surrounding a 1920s law to talk about the ultimate endgame for Trump and the census. Is it horrible? Yes. Are you better off being prepared? Absolutely.

We begin, however, with a quick trip up a rare Tuesday Yodel Mountain by examining the transfer of the House Judiciary Committee's lawsuit seeking injunctive relief against Don McGahn. Was it a "huge victory" for the President that Chief Judge Beryl Howell transferred the case? (No.)

Then, it's time for a deep dive into the Presidential powers of apportionment and how Donald Trump can potentially do a court-clogging end-run around the Supreme Court's census decision even if he loses the 2020 election.

After that, it's time to check out a new segment from Cybertron -- the official "Optimist Prime" versus "Negatron" segment on impeachment. Who will stand victorious? Hint: he's got the energon axe.

Then, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 139, a dreaded real property question. Did Thomas manage to get it 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. You can read Judge Howell's order in the McGahn litigation here.
2. If you want to see a sitting federal judge call a DOJ lawyer's papers "halfhearted," check out this ruling, and turn to footnote 2 on page 6.
3. This is the Census Bureau's non-answer to Congresswoman Pressley, and this is the NPR story confirming that the White House won't commit on apportionment.
4. The transmittal law is 2 U.S.C. § 2.
5. Good news! Here's the latest tally on impeachment.

-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!