- Here's the link to Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003).
- Click here to read the $95 million lawsuit filed by Roy Moore against Sacha Baron Cohen.
Opening Arguments - OA207: Brett Kavanaugh’s Confirmation Hearings
- Here are the Kavanaugh email and Kavanaugh email 2 documents discussed during the main segment. For more Kavanaugh document fun, check out this comprehensive New York Times article.
- This is W. Samuel Patten's Criminal Information, to which he pled guilty, and here is the Statement of the Offense, which explains the connection to the Trump campaign and White House.
- Finally, this is the late-breaking document showing possible perjury.
Opening Arguments - OA206: Will This ONE WEIRD TRICK Unravel the Mueller Investigation?
- Here's the injunction granted in the 3-D guns case.
- This is the Politico story regarding McKeever v. Sessions.
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Back to School Protest Special
Student activism is back in America’s schools. Young people mobilizing around gun safety and social justice issues are heading back to school. We talk to Mary Beth Tinker, who took her fight for the right to protest at school all the way to the Supreme Court back in 1969. And we hear from noted First Amendment scholar Geoffrey R. Stone of the University of Chicago Law School, who tells us what rights students have to raise their voices—or wear t-shirt slogans—in schools today.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Opening Arguments - OA205: More on Masterpiece, Younger & the Catholic Church (w/guest Andrew Seidel)
- To sign up for the FFRF's action alerts, text FFRF to 52886.
- We first discussed the new Masterpiece proceeding in Episode 201; you can also check out the case we discussed on Younger abstention, Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools, 477 U.S. 619 (1986).
- You can click here to read the full Pennsylvania grand jury report.
- Please read Andrew Seidel's article, "It's Time To Quit the Catholic Church."
Opening Arguments - OA204: The Perjury Trap (w/guest Randall Eliason)
- Prof. Eliason first guested on the show way back in Episode 70.
- Here is the link to the NPR interview with Prof. Eliason discussed on the show.
- To read more of Prof. Eliason's work, click here to visit the Sidebars blog.
- Here is a transcript of Prof. Eliason's statement on reporter's privilege in the age of Trump.
Opening Arguments - OA203: Paul Manafort Convicted, Michael Cohen Pleads
- You'll want to start with the Manafort indictment, and you can also read the Manafort verdict. Of the eight guilty counts, Manafort was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1344, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), and 31 U.S.C. § 5322.
- We first discussed the Federal Sentencing Guidelines back in Episode 162; you can check out the full manual (long!) and also the FSG Sentencing table to figure out how long Paulie M is going away.
- And don't forget Manafort still has another trial pending in DC! We gave you a primer on that back in Episode 194, and you can check out the pending indictment in that case.
- If Paulie M flips, it will be to take advantage of Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
- Of course, we first covered how Stormy Daniels is a Legal Genius back in Episode 154, and then the Karen McDougal story in Episode 158.
- Here's Cohen's plea deal; here are the conditions of his release; and here's the article quoting his allocution.
- Sneak preview of the bonus episode: here's the DOJ manual on prosecuting campaign finance violations that proves Alan Dershowitz is lying. Again.
Opening Arguments - OA202: Roundup (With Special Guest the SciBabe!)
- If you'd like to read some of the original court documents, here's the Roundup complaint, the Roundup motion to strike; and finally, here's the Roundup verdict.
- In the legal analysis, we discussed Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
- And, of course, you should check out the SciBabe's website.
SCOTUScast - Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, FL – Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Fane Lozman moved to Riviera Beach, FL in 2006, where he lived on a floating home in the Riviera Beach Marina--a part of the city designated for redevelopment under the City’s new redevelopment plan that would use eminent domain to revitalize the waterfront. After hearing news of the plan, Lozman became an “outspoken critic,” and filed suit against the City in June 2006 after a special City Council emergency meeting to push through the redevelopment plan before the Governor of Florida signed a bill into law that would prohibit the use of eminent domain for private development.
Later at a public City Council meeting in November 2006, Lozman began to discuss the arrest of a former county official during the public comments portion of the meeting. He was interrupted by a member of the City Council, who, after exchanging words with Lozman, called a city police officer to dismiss Lozman from the podium. Lozman refused to leave the podium without finishing his comments, the police officer warned him that he would be arrested if he did not comply, and, upon the continuance of his comments, Lozman was arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest without violence (charges later dismissed). In 2008, Lozman filed suit in federal district court against the City of Riviera Beach, claiming that his arrest had constituted unlawful retaliation by the City due to Lozman’s earlier opposition to the redevelopment plan. The jury found that the arrest had been supported by probable cause, which the District Court concluded must defeat Lozman’s First Amendment claim of retaliatory arrest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that judgment, but the Supreme Court then granted certiorari to address whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment claim for retaliatory arrest.
By a vote of 8-1, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that the existence of probable cause for Lozman’s arrest for disrupting a city council meeting did not bar his First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim under the circumstances of this case.
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.
To discuss the case, we have Lisa Soronen, Executive Director of the State & Local Legal Center.
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Barbie, Bratz, and Who Owns Your Dreams?
You Don’t Own Meis Orly Lobel’s fascinating examination of a landmark legal battle between plastic dolls. The Mattel v MGA, Barbie v Bratz case exposed questions about gender, culture and rights in the workplace. This episode of Amicus takes you inside a case involving corporate espionage, intellectual property, and icons of American girlhood.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.
Podcast production by Sara Burningham.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices