Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Michele Goodwin, Chancellor’s Professor of Law at the University of California, Irvine, for a wide reaching conversation about race and gender and the stories America tells itself so it can sleep at night. Starting with Trump’s tweets about Baltimore, Professor Goodwin offers an expert survey of centuries of racist and sexist narratives in the legal system and the country at large. This week’s show also features excerpts from a live discussion Dahlia moderated at the 92 St Y with Heidi Shreck (What the Constitution Means to Me) and Professor Laurence Tribe (Harvard Law School).
Today's episode is all about democracy -- from the Russian efforts to de-legitimize a Clinton victory in 2016 with the #DemocracyRIP hashtag and media storm to those very same tactics being employed right now in 2019. Is a new California law requiring a presidential candidate to disclose his or her tax returns the answer? Listen and find out!
We begin with the release of the (Republican) Senate Intelligence Committee Report, Vol. I, which details the extent of the Russian government's activities to infiltrate U.S. elections in 2016, including de-legitimatizing an expected Hillary Clinton victory with social media storming (and the #DemocracyRIP hashtag). It's truly terrifying. And then we move from that report to something that looks to be in exactly the same vein after the second night of the Democratic primary debate. Coincidence or conspiracy? You decide!
After that, it's time for a deep dive into California Bill SB27 which requires Presidential (and gubernatorial) candidates to disclose their tax returns. Find out what the media has mis-reported, what this bill actually does, why Andrew Was Wrong, and where the future is headed for mandatory disclosure requirements.
Then, we tackle another potential conspiracy theory -- this time, that the California State Bar secretly leaked bar exam questions to certain elite law schools. Is it true? (Not really.)
After all that, it's time for a brand new #T3BE on regulations regarding pasteurized beer. Will Thomas break his losing streak?
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.
On June 24, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Iancu v. Brunetti, a case considering whether a provision of the Lanham Act prohibiting the registration of “immoral or scandalous” trademarks infringes the First Amendment. Business owner Erik Brunetti applied to register his clothing brand’s trademark, “FUCT,” (pronounced as the individual letters F-U-C-T) but was refused by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) because the Lanham Act prohibits registration of marks that consist of or comprise “immoral or scandalous” matter. The PTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board deemed the mark vulgar and indicated that it carried “negative sexual connotations,” and in association with Brunetti’s website imagery and products conveyed misogyny, depravity, and violence. Brunetti then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which held that the Lanham Act’s prohibition violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari to address the lower court’s invalidation of the federal statute. By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Federal Circuit. In an opinion delivered by Justice Kagan, the Court held that the Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks constitutes viewpoint discrimination that infringes the First Amendment. Justice Kagan’s majority opinion was joined by which Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer and Chief Justice Roberts filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Breyer joined. To discuss the case, we have Thomas Berry, Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Today's episode focuses on a number of actual good developments in the news! From the second half of the Mueller testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, to a court's issuance of an injunction blocking Trump's illegal efforts to change the rules on asylum, it's a (rare) week of good news! Oh -- and there's a brand new intro for your enjoyment as well!
We begin with an update on Mueller's second round of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, and answer some questions about whether Rep. Nadler can launch "an impeachment inquiry" without Nancy Pelosi's approval.
Then, it's time for some good news out of the courts, including a sweeping injunction handed down in Arkansas with respect to three laws that restrict and/or prohibit abortion, including Act 493, which purported to ban all abortions after 18 weeks. This is exactly what we predicted would happen at the district court level -- and you can learn why this particular (159-page!) decision is particularly useful going forward.
But the good news doesn't stop there! We also break down the Northern District of California's injunction with respect to the joint DOJ/DHS rule regarding asylum that was rammed through without the appropriate notice-and-comment period last week.
Then, it's time for a fun segment regarding disciplinary proceedings against everyone's favorite crazy person, Larry Klayman!
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.
It's Mueller Time! Today's episode drops early to give you our instant reaction to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. (This only covers the testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, not the subsequent testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.)
We break down everything that transpired -- the high points, the low points, and whether anything Moved The Noodle(TM). Specifically, we point out the factual and legal background underlying Mueller's testimony, the 24 OLC memorandum that is the subject of Mueller's declination decision, and the standards for indicting a person under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c).
Plus, you'll learn the totally misleading takes that right-wing sources are sure to run with, and we'll equip you with everything you need to rebut those.
After a lengthy breakdown of the day's events, we head to #T3BE, which involves a breach-of-contract claim against a bar exam tutor and a rather disappointed new lawyer.
On June 20, 2019, the Supreme Court decided The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, a case considering whether state funding of a war memorial in the form of a religious symbol is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In 1925, the American Legion erected a memorial cross (Peace Cross) in Bladensburg, MD, to honor 49 soldiers who died fighting in World War I. In 1961, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (Commission) acquired the land and has maintained the memorial using public funding. In 2014, the American Humanist Association (AHA) and other civil associations filed suit in District Court, alleging that the presence and publicly-funded maintenance of the Peace Cross violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. AHA sought relocation, demolition, or removal of the cross’s arms. The district court ruled in favor of the American Legion, applying the Supreme Court precedents Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and Van Orden v. Perry (2005), concluding that the Peace Cross did not violate the Establishment Clause. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed that judgment, applying the same precedents as the district court--but concluding that the Peace Cross conveyed to a reasonable observer the impression of state endorsement of Christianity, and excessively entangled the Commission with religion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the Establishment Clause issue. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held that “[t]he Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause.” Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–B, II–C, III, and IV, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh. Justice Alito’s opinion with respect to Parts II–A and II–D was also joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Kavanaugh, but not Justice Kagan. A concurring opinion was filed by Justice Breyer in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion and Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. To discuss the case, we have Christopher DiPompeo, Partner at Jones Day.
Today's episode takes a deep dive into an 1832 decision, Worcester v. Georgia, to try and answer the question of what happens when the executive and judicial branches come into conflict. Yes, there's a lesson to be drawn to today's Supreme Court-vs.-Donald Trump showdown over the citizenship question on the census.
We begin, however, with a pair of updates to previous shows, including "Joey Salads" and his nonsense "complaint" against AOC, and a listener email and update from our friend Seth Barrett Tillman regarding the status of the emoluments clauses litigation in both Maryland and DC. In fact, a late-breaking decision in the DC case led to a Patreon-only bonus extraon the topic!
Then, it's time for the main event: breaking down the case that led to the famous aphorism, "Justice Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." As is usually the case with these deep dives, there isn't an easy answer as to what the outcome will be when the executive and judiciary stare each other down, but we can always learn from history.
In the "C" segment, we check out an update from friend of the show Randall Eliason, who taunts us with an Andrew Was Wrong about the future of Bridgegate (from Episode 232). Learn what issue is in fact going before the Supreme Court and why Prof. Eliason thinks the Bridgegate conspirators are going to get off scot-free.
After all that, it's time for #T3BE #135, in which Thomas once again manages to analyze a question absolutely perfectly... only to pick the wrong answer yet again. You won't want to miss the full discussion.
In the second summer episode, Leah, Melissa and Jaime keep things light with a discussion of the Court's death penalty docket, the Armed Career Criminal Act cases from this past term, and Justice Kavanaugh's opinion in Flowers v. Mississippi. Kate also joins them to reflect on her time clerking for Justice John Paul Stevens. Last episode was our testing pancake, and this one is B-A-N-A-N-A-S.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
In a week marked by rising rancor, when racist rhetoric ricocheted out of the president’s twitter feed and into a chanting crowd at his reelection rally, the end of an era almost slid under the radar. Dahlia Lithwick reflects on the passing of Justice John Paul Stevens, and the more than symbolic shift from his jurisprudence, his character, to our current state of affairs at the high court and beyond. You can read more here. And Dahlia is joined by Professor Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami Law School to talk about her book, “The Cult of the Constitution”, how growing up among christian fundamentalists helped her write a book about constitutional extremists, and why there’s still hope for America’s faulty founding document.
Slate Plus members get bonus segments and ad-free podcast feeds. Sign up now.
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, a case considering whether states maintain sovereign immunity from private suits in the courts of other states. In the 1990s, Gilbert Hyatt moved from California to Nevada. Following an investigation and audit, however, the Franchise Tax Board of California (FTB) claimed that he had misstated the date of his move and therefore owed California millions in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest. Hyatt then brought a tort suit against FTB, which is a California state agency, in Nevada state court--and won a jury verdict of nearly $500 million. Although the Nevada Supreme Court set aside much of the award on appeal, it nevertheless affirmed an award of $1 million for fraud--even though a Nevada statute would have capped such damages in a similar suit against Nevada officials at $50,000. Nevada’s interest in providing adequate redress to its own citizens, the court concluded, superseded the application of any statutory cap for California’s benefit. In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that judgment, concluding that the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause required Nevada courts to grant the FTB the same level of immunity that Nevada agencies enjoy. The Court divided equally, however, on whether to overrule its 1979 precedent Nevada v. Hall, which holds that the Constitution does not bar private suits against a State in the courts of another State. By statute, the Court was therefore required to affirm the jurisdiction of the Nevada Supreme Court. On remand, that court instructed the trial court to enter damages against FTB in accord with the statutory cap for Nevada agencies. Thereafter the U.S. Supreme Court again granted certiorari to reconsider Nevada v. Hall. By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Nevada Supreme Court and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court overruled Nevada v. Hall, holding that states retain their sovereign immunity from private suits brought in courts of other states. Justice Thomas’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. To discuss the case, we have Stephen Sachs, Professor of Law at Duke University.
