Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Today's episode is a continuation of Part 1, in which we discuss Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin's "All the Music" project and the history and future of music copyright. We've got a special treat for you in that Damien and Noah are both on the show to answer our (tough!) questions. You won't want to miss this fun discussion!

We begin, however, with a listener question/comment about attending law school and balancing costs, risks, and budgets that many of our listeners will undoubtedly find timely.

Then it's time to bring on Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin for a fascinating deep dive into the mechanics, the law, and the public policy behind their "All the Music" project. Where should our sympathies lie? What changes to copyright law would better benefit music creators? How do Riehl and Rubin see the fundamental issues in music copyright? You won't want to miss this!

After the interview, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 169 involving a tainted witness identification and the permissibility of eliciting testimony in court. Can Thomas start a new winning streak?? Listen and find out!

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest speaker at Houston OASIS, and we'll be working to bring you the audio of his speech from that event. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. Our basics on music and copyright were covered in Episode 236 and then with a follow-up in Episode 288. Of course, we also covered Riehl and Rubin's project in Episode 365 ("Every Melody Ever, Part 1").
2. For (some of) the details on Riehl and Rubin’s project, check out Riehl's fascinating TEDx talk.

-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!

On March 4, 2020, the Supreme Court oral argument in consolidated cases June Medical Services v. Russo and Russo v. June Medical Services (formerly June Medical Services v. Gee and Gee v. June Medical Services), which involve the constitutionality of Louisiana's law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and whether abortion providers can be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations, such as Louisiana's admitting privileges law, on behalf of their patients.
To discuss the case, we have Steven Aden, Chief Legal Officer & General Counsel at Americans United for Life
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of the CFPB, an agency long criticized not just by the business community but also constitutional scholars who see major problems a single-director agency seemingly unaccountable to the president or anyone else. The lawsuit was brought by a law firm that assists in resolving personal-debt issues, among other legal work that puts it in the crosshairs of those who want greater regulation of consumer-facing financial services. The CFPB is the most independent of independent agencies, with power to make rules, enforce them, adjudicate violations in its own administrative hearings, and punish wrongdoers. It doesn’t need Congress to approve its budget, because its funding requests are met by another agency insulated from political control: the Federal Reserve. Even CFPB supporters concede that the CFPB structure and authority is unique.
To discuss the case, we have Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Today's episode breaks down force majeure clauses in contracts and takes a look at what might happen in the next few weeks as the world prepares to deal with COVID-19 coronavirus. Along the way we also tackle the news of the week, including the baffling decision out of the DC Circuit not to require Don McGahn to testify. You won't want to miss this episode!

We begin, however, with some recurring Vice Presidential/line of succession questions and take a mini-deep-dive into the absolutely bonkers elections of 1796 and 1800 that produced the 12th Amendment, and what it says about vice-presidential qualifications.

After that, it's time for our main segment on coronavirus, which includes a deep dive into various cases where contracts have been broken due to "acts of god." Is a global pandemic an "act of god?" Listen, find out, and you'll soon be able to whip out four-part tests if your hotel tries to cancel your room due to coronavirus scares.

Then, it's time to pick apart the D.C. Circuit's 2-1 baffling opinion that the House Oversight Committee lacks standing to go to a court to enforce its subpoena over Don McGahn. This is technically an "Andrew Was Wrong," because Andrew did not imagine that any judges with functioning brain cells could have authored an opinion this bad. Find out what's next!

After all that, it's time for a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam involving a tainted witness identification. And remember that you too can play along by sharing out this episode on social media and using the hashtag #T3BE.

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. For all your Vice Presidential qualification questions, check out the 12th Amendment!
2. Here's the D.C. Circuit's decision in McGahn, and we also referenced Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) and, of course, Opening Arguments's good friend Richard Nixon in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 696-97 (1974).
3. Finally, you can read Josh Chafetz's law review article, "Executive Branch Contempt of Congress."

-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!

On February 25, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of United States v. Sineneng-Smith. At issue is "whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), is facially unconstitutional."
To discuss the cases, we have Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Today's episode brings you our first look at the efforts by Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin to copyright "every melody ever" as part of a way of reconceptualizing copyright law as it applies to music. SPOILER: We're going to have Riehl and Rubin on the show to discuss their work in more depth. We also discuss Chevron deference and a recent dissent by Clarence Thomas that's No Laughing Matter.

We begin with a deep dive into the Riehl and Rubin "Every Melody Ever" effort, which builds upon the music copyright episodes we've previously discussed in Episode 236 ("Stairway to the Supreme Court") and Episode 288 ("More on Led Zeppelin"). What exactly are Riehl and Rubin doing, and will it put an end to copyright lawsuits against musicians? Listen and find out!

After that, we check out a case (Baldwin v. U.S.) in which the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari -- and the dissent filed by Clarence Thomas. That prompted a headline that got some chuckles last week -- "Clarence Thomas cites Thomas in overruling Thomas" -- and we learn that (of course) this turns out to be no laughing matter, but part of a concerted effort to roll back not only a 2005 Clarence Thomas opinion, National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Svcs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005), but Chevron deference itself. Find out why even the howler monkey contingent wanted to take a pass on this case -- but not Clarence Thomas!

After all that, it's time for the answer to perhaps the easiest #T3BE ever -- or is it? (It is.) And remember, you can always play along with #T3BE by sharing out the show on social media!

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. Our basics on music and copyright were covered in Episode 236 and then with a follow-up in Episode 288.
2. For (some of) the details on Riehl and Rubin's project, you can read the write-up in Vice.
3. Finally, you can check out Thomas's cert dissent in Baldwin v. U.S. 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

-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!

Kate and Melissa join forces with Lauren Moxley, creator of The Ginsburg Tapes, for an exploration of the Equal Rights Amendment.

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

Dahlia Lithwick asks the new president of the American Constitution Society, Russ Feingold, if it’s too late for progressives to respond to the conservative steamroller that is the Federalist Society. 

Slate Plus members have access to a bonus segment in which Slate’s Mark Joseph

Stern breaks down the headlines, cases, cert grants, and conundrums from the Supreme Court and federal appellate courts. To start your free two-week trial go to slate.com/amicusplus

Podcast production by Sara Burningham.

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

Dahlia Lithwick asks the new president of the American Constitution Society, Russ Feingold, if it’s too late for progressives to respond to the conservative steamroller that is the Federalist Society. 

Slate Plus members have access to a bonus segment in which Slate’s Mark Joseph

Stern breaks down the headlines, cases, cert grants, and conundrums from the Supreme Court and federal appellate courts. To start your free two-week trial go to slate.com/amicusplus

Podcast production by Sara Burningham.

---

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the just-filed briefs in the Trump v. Mazars litigation pending before the Supreme Court regarding the legitimacy of the House's subpoenas for Trump's tax returns. Is the law on the House's side? (Yes, yes it is.) Are we confident that the Supreme Court will rule the right way in a case this bad? (Maybe?) In any event, you'll want to listen!

Announcements

1. Don't forget our YouTube Live Q&A this Sunday, March 1, at 1:30 pm Eastern / 10:30 am Pacific!
2. You still have two days to register for Voter Protection Law School Boot Camp!

We begin with an Andrew Was Wrong(-ish) from our good friend Randall Eliason on the actual frequency of below-guidelines sentences in light of Roger Stone's downward variance.

Then it's time for a deep dive into Mazars v. Trump, where we look at the briefs filed by the parties and evaluate the arguments made by the Trump administration that the subpoenas issued by the House are invalid. How bad are these arguments? They're bad.

Then, it's time to tackle the recent defamation lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign against the New York Times regarding a March 2019 op-ed by Max Frankel, in which Mr. Frankel argued that the campaign didn't need to coordinate with Russia to benefit from foreign assistance. Does this pave the way for really good discovery? (No.)

After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE involving a law prohibiting providing assistance to undocumented aliens. Can Thomas start a new winning streak? Listen and find out. And, of course, you can always play along on social media by using the hashtag #T3BE!

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. Remember to check out our YouTube Channel !
2. If you're thinking about Democratic Voter Protection Law School Bootcamp, check out the flyer and then apply online.
3. n the opening segment, Andrew references the U.S. Sentencing Commission (2018) report on sentences.
4. in Mazars v. Trump, check out the President's Jay Sekulow-penned brief as well as the just-filed response by the House of Representatives. You can also read the Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt (2019) decision.
5. Finally, check out the Trump Campaign v. New York Times defamation lawsuit.

-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!