On June 1, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision, in GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC.
By a vote of 9-0, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the 11th Circuit. Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, held that “The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards does not conflict with domestic equitable estoppel doctrines that permit the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories to those agreements.” Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.
To discuss the case, we have Sadie Blanchard, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
SCOTUScast - CO Dept. of State v. Baca and Chiafalo v. WA Post-Argument SCOTUScast
On May 13, 2020, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a pair of cases concerning the Electoral College.
In Colorado Department of State v. Baca, the Court will consider the claim of a presidential elector in Colorado who attempted to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won Colorado's popular vote, and was replaced by another elector.
In Chiafalo v. Washington, the Court will hear the claims of three presidential electors who were each fined $1000 after they voted for a candidate other than Hillary Clinton in 2016, who also won Washington's popular vote. The cases will examine state power to regulate the actions of presidential electors and could affect how electors behave in the 2020 election.
To discuss the cases, we have Michael Morley, Assistant Professor at Florida State University College of Law.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
In Colorado Department of State v. Baca, the Court will consider the claim of a presidential elector in Colorado who attempted to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won Colorado's popular vote, and was replaced by another elector.
In Chiafalo v. Washington, the Court will hear the claims of three presidential electors who were each fined $1000 after they voted for a candidate other than Hillary Clinton in 2016, who also won Washington's popular vote. The cases will examine state power to regulate the actions of presidential electors and could affect how electors behave in the 2020 election.
To discuss the cases, we have Michael Morley, Assistant Professor at Florida State University College of Law.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
SCOTUScast - Holguin-Hernandez v United States – Post-Argument SCOTUScast
On Dec. 10, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, a case involving a dispute over whether making a formal objection after pronouncement of the defendant’s sentence is necessary to invoke appellate review of the reasonableness of the sentence’s length.
In 2016, Petitioner Gonzalo Holguin-Hernandez pled guilty in federal district court to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. As a citizen of Mexico, he also admitted to being unlawfully present in the United States. In October 2017, after completing his term of incarceration and starting his supervised release, Holguin-Hernandez was removed from the United States. In addition to the condition that he not commit another federal, state, or local crime, the terms of supervised release required that Holguin-Hernandez not illegally reenter the United States. In November 2017, was arrested by Border Patrol agents, admitted having carried marijuana into the U.S. from Mexico, and again pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment and 5 more years of supervised release. The U.S. Probation office then alleged that Holguin-Hernandez had violated the terms of supervised release relating to his initial conviction and sought revocation. In a subsequent hearing he admitted the violations and was sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment, to run consecutively to the 60-month term of imprisonment for the second drug trafficking offense. Although Holguin-Hernandez’s counsel argued against a consecutive sentence during the hearing as unnecessary in light of the considerably longer drug trafficking one, she did not formally object or seek reconsideration after the judge imposed the revocation sentence.
On appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence. Although Holguin-Hernandez argued that his sentence was longer than necessary to effectuate the statutory factors to be considered when imposing a sentence, the Court reasoned that he had not actually raised that objection in district court and therefore the sentence would be reviewed for plain error only. The Court found no plain error, indicating that the sentence fell within the Guidelines range and noting the Guidelines recommendation that a term of imprisonment for violation of supervised release be imposed consecutively to any other term the defendant might be serving. Other federal circuit courts of appeals had taken a different approach, however, and the Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to address whether a formal objection after pronouncement of sentence is necessary to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of a defendant’s sentence.
To discuss the case, we have Daniel Guarnera, Associate at Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
In 2016, Petitioner Gonzalo Holguin-Hernandez pled guilty in federal district court to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. As a citizen of Mexico, he also admitted to being unlawfully present in the United States. In October 2017, after completing his term of incarceration and starting his supervised release, Holguin-Hernandez was removed from the United States. In addition to the condition that he not commit another federal, state, or local crime, the terms of supervised release required that Holguin-Hernandez not illegally reenter the United States. In November 2017, was arrested by Border Patrol agents, admitted having carried marijuana into the U.S. from Mexico, and again pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment and 5 more years of supervised release. The U.S. Probation office then alleged that Holguin-Hernandez had violated the terms of supervised release relating to his initial conviction and sought revocation. In a subsequent hearing he admitted the violations and was sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment, to run consecutively to the 60-month term of imprisonment for the second drug trafficking offense. Although Holguin-Hernandez’s counsel argued against a consecutive sentence during the hearing as unnecessary in light of the considerably longer drug trafficking one, she did not formally object or seek reconsideration after the judge imposed the revocation sentence.
On appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence. Although Holguin-Hernandez argued that his sentence was longer than necessary to effectuate the statutory factors to be considered when imposing a sentence, the Court reasoned that he had not actually raised that objection in district court and therefore the sentence would be reviewed for plain error only. The Court found no plain error, indicating that the sentence fell within the Guidelines range and noting the Guidelines recommendation that a term of imprisonment for violation of supervised release be imposed consecutively to any other term the defendant might be serving. Other federal circuit courts of appeals had taken a different approach, however, and the Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to address whether a formal objection after pronouncement of sentence is necessary to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of a defendant’s sentence.
To discuss the case, we have Daniel Guarnera, Associate at Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Opening Arguments - OA393: Gabe Roth of Fix the Court
Today we're joined by Gabe Roth, executive director of https://fixthecourt.com/. Fix the Court is a national, nonpartisan organization that advocates for non-ideological “fixes” that would make the federal courts, and primarily the U.S. Supreme Court, more open and more accountable to the American people. In his work, Gabe has been tracking some curious financial dealings of "friend" of the show Justin Walker. We discuss that, and other ethics questions and reforms related to the court system.
SCOTUScast - McGirt v. Oklahoma – Post-Argument SCOTUScast
On May 11, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which involves a dispute over whether the prosecution of an enrolled member of the Creek Tribe for crimes committed within the historical Creek boundaries is subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.
Petitioner Jimcy McGirt was found guilty of one count of first degree rape by instrumentation, one count of lewd molestation, and one count of forcible sodomy. McGirt was sentenced to 500 years in prison without parole. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court declined to review McGirt’s petition. He then filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Oklahoma courts lacked jurisdiction because the crimes occurred in Indian Country where McGirt was a member of the Creek Nations of Oklahoma.
To discuss the case, we have Troy Eid, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig LLP.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Petitioner Jimcy McGirt was found guilty of one count of first degree rape by instrumentation, one count of lewd molestation, and one count of forcible sodomy. McGirt was sentenced to 500 years in prison without parole. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court declined to review McGirt’s petition. He then filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Oklahoma courts lacked jurisdiction because the crimes occurred in Indian Country where McGirt was a member of the Creek Nations of Oklahoma.
To discuss the case, we have Troy Eid, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig LLP.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Strict Scrutiny - Made Up Immunities
Kate and Jaime discuss contributors to injustice--doctrines that encourage (or at least immunize) racial profiling and police misconduct-- with Fred Smith Jr, associate professor at Emory University School of Law. They also discuss some recent court news and recap a few opinions.
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
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Race, Police, and The Law
Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Dean Angela Onwuachi-Willig of Boston University School of Law to share the feelings and thinking behind her letter to her students reflecting on recent protests and killings. (Also mentioned, the letter from the Washington State Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.)
Next, Vanita Gupta of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and former head of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department in the Obama administration discusses America’s overpolicing problem and what’s needed for real change.
In the Slate Plus segment, Mark Joseph Stern on the midnight decision in a case brought by churches who objected to state lockdown orders, and why the GOP strategy to block voting by mail has a big swing state problem.
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
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Race, Police, and The Law
Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Dean Angela Onwuachi-Willig of Boston University School of Law to share the feelings and thinking behind her letter to her students reflecting on recent protests and killings. (Also mentioned, the letter from the Washington State Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.)
Next, Vanita Gupta of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and former head of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department in the Obama administration discusses America’s overpolicing problem and what’s needed for real change.
In the Slate Plus segment, Mark Joseph Stern on the midnight decision in a case brought by churches who objected to state lockdown orders, and why the GOP strategy to block voting by mail has a big swing state problem.
Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.
Podcast production by Sara Burningham.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Opening Arguments - OA392: In the Aftermath of George Floyd
Today's extra-long show -- two hours if you're a patron! -- tackles all the issues surrounding the state of our Union in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder, including questions about which charges should be filed against Derek Chauvin, whether Trump can invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, and much, much more! Oh, and as a bonus, we also have a "lightning round" Yodel Mountain segment (with deep dives for patrons).
We begin with an in-depth discussion of an argument made by arguably the country's greatest legal mind, Laurence Tribe, that the murder-3 charge against George Floyd was sure to be dismissed. Find out why Andrew thinks Tribe is wrong, even in light of the Minnesota DA's decision to add a murder-2 charge to Chauvin's charges. After that, Andrew will explain one thing he was wrong about... due to a "quirk" in Minnesota's laws regarding felony murder and the merger doctrine.
Then, we discuss Trump's invocation of the Insurrection Act of 1807 to justify potentially sending armed forces into American cities. You'll learn exactly how not justified this is... and whether it matters.
After that, it's time to (briefly!) check in with Black Lives Matter and evaluate their lawsuit against Eric Garcetti for an injunction to block the Los Angeles curfew. Will it succeed? (No.)
We're not remotely done, though! After all that, it's time to head on up for a lightning round atop Yodel Mountain., were we check in on (1) Rod Rosenstein's Senate testimony, (2) Judge Sullivan's DC Circuit brief in the Flynn case, and (3) a weird story making the rounds regarding a 2016 lawsuit filed (and dropped) against Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.
After all that, it’s time for an all-new #T3BE involving character testimony. It's a tough question; can Thomas get it right? Listen and find out!
And remember -- if you're a patron, you get a ton of bonus content in this episode, including deep dives on each and every one of these stories!
Patreon Bonuses
There's a new Patreon amicus thread in addition to all the other patreon goodies.
Appearances
None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
Show Notes & Links
- COVID-19 is still a crisis.
- On Floyd: (a) you can click here to read the revised Chauvin charging document; (b) this is the here's the Laurence Tribe article; and (c) here's the Greg Egan law review article. We also discuss a number of cases including State v. Wahlberg, 296 N.W. 2d 408 (Minn. 1980), State v. Loebach, 310 N.W. 2d 58 (Minn. 1981), and State v. Barnes, 713 N.W.2d 325 (Minn. 2006).
- On the Insurrection Act of 1807, 10 U.S.C. §§ 251-255, we cited two specific provisions: § 252 and § 253. And we discussed Greg Gianforte back in Episode 72. During the bonus, we also discussed two executive orders from the George H. W. Bush presidency: EO 12690 and EO 12804, and two corresponding Proclamations: 6023 and 6427.
- During the bonus, we also break down how Vol. I of the Mueller Report contradicts Rosenstein's testimony.
- Finally, check out Sullivan's D.C. Circuit brief.
-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!
SCOTUScast - Trump v Pennsylvania – Post-Argument SCOTUScast
On May 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in the consolidated cases of Trump v. Pennsylvania and Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, which involve a dispute over:(1) Whether the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury had statutory authority under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to expand the conscience exemption to the contraceptive-coverage mandate; (2) whether the agencies’ decision to forgo notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing the interim final rules rendered the final rules – which were issued after notice and comment – invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in affirming a nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of the final rules.
To discuss the case, we have Erin Hawley, Senior Fellow at the Kinder Institute for Constitutional Democracy at the University of Missouri and former professor of law at the University of Missouri School of Law.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
To discuss the case, we have Erin Hawley, Senior Fellow at the Kinder Institute for Constitutional Democracy at the University of Missouri and former professor of law at the University of Missouri School of Law.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.