Dahlia Lithwick talks with Slate’s own Mark Joseph Stern about what to look out for this term. Professor of law and political science at UC Irvine, Rick Hasen discusses how free and fair the midterm elections will be in light of recent Supreme Court rulings on voting rights.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.
Today's Rapid Response Friday takes us back to a well-worn trope here at OA that we can't emphasize enough in late October: elections have consequences! Specifically, we take a look at the importance of past and future elections in the pivotal swing state of Florida.
We begin, however, with a quick statement on the Trump administration's apparently-leaked policy regarding trans people and some new developments.
After that, it's time for the ever-popular Andrew Was Wrong segment, with two things that.. well, Andrew got wrong: Whitewater and Paul Manafort (!)
Then it's time for a deep dive into the Florida Judicial Nominating Commission and various constitutional amendments that are on the ballot this November, including one that takes a swipe at our favorite doctrine.
But that's not all! We move on to discuss 202 Democratic Presidential Candidate Michael Avenatti. It's not pretty.
Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #99 regarding criminal procedures. After getting it wrong last week, Thomas needs to go 2-for-2 to get to the coveted "60% at the half" -- can he do it?!?? You'll have to listen and find out! And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry!
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.
Today's Rapid Response Tuesday takes an in-depth look at OA's new favorite clownhorn, Carter Page, and his delightfully mad lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee, the law firm of Perkins Coie, and (I think) the Ancient Order of the Illuminati. Strap in!
We begin with some good ol'-fashioned yodeling, with a roundup of stories with Yodel Mountain implications, including (1) the report that Mueller's probe will conclude after the midterms; (2) Paulie Manafort's latest motion; (3) the departure of White House counsel Don McGahn; and (4) some news regarding Michael Avenatti's White House run in 2020.
After all that, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #98 regarding constitutional law standards for a group home. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
Recent 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.
The courtroom can be a battlefield over money, people’s rights, and even their lives. For some cases, the consequences can affect us long after the verdict is read. Based on extensive interviews and court transcripts, Wondery’s new podcast LEGAL WARS puts you inside the jury box of some of the most famous court cases in American history. Subscribe to Legal Wars today at wondery.fm/amicus
Today's Rapid Response Friday takes us to the front lines of the affirmative action debate with the trial of Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard, a lawsuit brought by a single-issue right-wing activist determined to end diversity as a criterion in school admissions. (And yes, we tell you what we really think!)
We begin, however, with some news regarding the Monsanto trial we profiled back in Episode 202.
After that, it's time for a deep dive into the nuances of affirmative action with the SFFA v. Harvard lawsuit. What exactly does it allege? What's the status of affirmative action law? Where is this lawsuit going? Listen and find out!
Then it's time for a brief Andrew Was segment, in which Andrew Was Wrong about the UK Supreme Court, and Andrew Was... Something... about the good news coming out of the Florida Supreme Court.
Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #98 regarding constitutional standards. Thomas needs to go 2-for-3 after a recent audit showed a bank error in his favor. Can he do it? You'll have to listen and find out! And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry!
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.
To understand the history of affirmative action, listen to our Episode 93, and check out both Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) and Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), the cases we discussed in the episode.
On October 10, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Nielsen v. Preap, a case involving the exemption of a criminal alien from mandatory detention without bond due to a delay in arrest after release from criminal custody. As codified, § 1226(c) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) provides for the mandatory detention of criminal aliens “when [they are] released” from criminal custody, and for the holding of these aliens without bond. The three plaintiffs in this case are lawful permanent residents who have committed crimes that could lead to their removal from the United States but after serving their criminal sentence were released and returned to their families and communities in the United States; however, years later, each was arrested by immigration authorities and detained without bond hearings under § 1226(c). The plaintiffs filed a class action petition for habeas relief in district court arguing that since they were not detained “when...released” from criminal custody, they are not subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c). The district court granted their motion for class certification, issued a preliminary injunction requiring the government to provide all class members with bond hearings under § 1226(a), and concluded that under § 1226(c) aliens can be held without bound only if taken into immigration custody immediately upon release from criminal custody, not if there is a lengthy gap after their release. The government appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the statute “does not suggest that immigration officials lose authority if they delay.” The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s class certification order and preliminary injunction, and held that the mandatory detention provision of § 1226(c) applies only to those criminal aliens detained promptly after their release from criminal custody, not to those detained long after. The US Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether a criminal alien becomes exempt from mandatory detention under § 1226(c) if, after the alien is released from criminal custody, the Department of Homeland Security does not take him into immigration custody immediately. To the discuss the case, we have Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions are those of the speaker.
Today's (thankfully) Kavanaugh-free episode -- in honor of Thomas's appearance at QED in Manchester -- takes an in-depth look at the Ashers Baking Co. case, as well as developments at the state level to push for Net Neutrality. Oh, and we revisit OA's favorite legal genius, Stormy Daniels. Strap in, it's going to be a fun ride!
We begin with a lengthy discussion of the UK Supreme Court's ruling in Ashers Baking Co., which has been called the "Masterpiece Cakeshop of the UK." Is that accurate? Listen and find out!
Next, we walk through California's effort to protect Net Neutrality in that state, and the lawsuits filed by parties on all sides. What's going to happen? We tell you!
Finally, we take a brief look at Stormy Daniels and update you on the status of her lawsuit in California.
And then, of course, we end with an all new Thomas (and Chad) Take The Bar Exam #97 regarding the tort of negligent misrepresentation. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
Recent 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.
Dahlia Lithwick talks with Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon about the “deep wounds” in the senate following Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation. And she’s joined by Vox’s Matthew Yglesias who brings his nihilism about the institution of the Supreme Court to the show.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.
Today's Rapid Response Friday follows up on the State of Florida and... sadly... returns one last time to the story of Brett Kavanaugh and the ethics complaints lodged against him and referred to the Tenth Circuit. Oh, and we give you real stuff you can do to make a positive difference! You have to listen!
Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #97 regarding the tort of negligent misrepresentation. Thomas needs to go 4-for-4... can he do it? You'll have to listen and find out! And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry!
Today's (thankfully) Kavanaugh-free episode takes a look at Florida Governor Rick Scott's blatant court packing attempt with the Florida Supreme Court, and the lawsuit filed by Common Cause to try and stop him. What will happen? Listen and find out!
First, though, we begin by revisiting our controversial episode (197) on 3-D printed guns by bringing on a real-life expert in 3-D printing to handle some technical questions and understand the arguments and counter-arguments regarding the proliferation of cheap and dangerous handguns.
After that, we delve into Florida Gov. Rick Scott's transparent attempt to game the system to pack the Florida Supreme Court. What does this mean for "Constitutional Hardball" and the state of the law in Florida? Listen and find out!
Then, we give you a brief preview of next week's story on California's net neutrality law.
Finally, we end with an all new Thomas (and Chad) Take The Bar Exam #96 regarding the breach of an employment contract. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
