Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Today's episode tackles the recent Supreme Court orders in the Trump ban on transgender service members.  How did we get here and what's next?  Listen and find out.

We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Wrong segment regarding the history and modern politics of the State of the Union.

After that, it's time for the main segment, which dives deeply into the history of trans service in the U.S. military, including a discussion of what it means to bring a case pursuant to the equal protection clause and what the future likely holds.

Then, it's time for a rapid-fire round of questions about Trump's shutdown.  Why is Congress still getting paid?  Who can sue, and why haven't they?  Find out the answers to these questions and more!

We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #111 regarding the delivery of water bottles.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Appearances

Thomas was just the guest host on Episode 179 of God Awful Movies.  Give it a listen!  And 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. The must read Advocate Article interviewing long-standing friend of the show Alice Ashton. 2. 2016 Open Service Directive: Directive-type Memorandum (DTM) 16-005, "Military Service of Transgender Service Members" 3. 2017 Trump Memorandum rescinding the Open Service Directive 4. 2018 Mattis Policy: Military Service by Transgender Individuals 5. Mattis “Study”: Dept of Defense Report and Recommendations on  Military Service by Transgender Persons 6. We last discussed Hively v. Ivy Tech (7th Cir.) and Zarda v. Altitude Express (2nd Cir.) in Episode 152 7. Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011) 8. FLSA lawsuit regarding the Shutdown 9. Federal Judiciary extended to February 1st 10. 13 U.S.C. § 1350 - Criminal penalty

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

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 email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Today's episode features a deep dive into the latest developments in the lawsuit brought by parents of the victims in the Sandy Hook Massacre against Alex Jones and Infowars for repeatedly portraying the school shooting as a hoax.

We begin, however, with a question regarding our views of the 2016 Presidential Election from a Trump supporter who's hate-funding us.  Hey, we're good to our word!

After that, it's time to dig in to the defamation lawsuit against Alex Jones.  We tackle the minutiae -- standing, jurisdiction, statute of limitations -- and the big issues as well.  If you want to know where defamation law is headed in this era of "fake news," well, this is the show for you!

Then, it's time for a quick visit to Yodel Mountain to check in on Rudy Giuliani and Michael Cohen.  Because of course it is.

Finally, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #110, which involved a dentist being sued for malpractice and product liability. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest on Episode 138 of the Naked Mormonism podcast.  Give it a listen!  And 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. NYT articles on using third-party votes to hack elections. The Secret Social Media Experiment in Alabama Senate Race Imitated Russian Tactics and how the Democrats Faked Online Push to Outlaw Alcohol in Alabama Race. 2. Politico story on the Justice Democrats plans to mount primaries against incumbent Democrats it deems too moderate with the apparent backing of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 3: NYT on Alex Jones and Sandy Hook 4. Media Matters 7 minute, 13 second compilation on Alex Jones about Sandy Hook. 5. Media Matters timeline of Jones promoting conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook. 6. Yodel Mountain: Rudy Giuliani is not helping! 7. WSJ on Cohen and poll-rigging and Cohen's response on the story: "As for the @WSJ article on poll rigging, what I did was at the direction of and for the sole benefit of @realDonaldTrump @POTUS. I truly regret my blind loyalty to a man who doesn’t deserve it." 8. The GLORIOUS "Women for Cohen" Twitter account: Because some things on twitter make you ask, "Why?".

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

Don't forget the OA Facebook Community!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

UPDATE: On the evening Friday January 18th, after production of this episode of Amicus had wrapped, special counsel spokesman Peter Carr issued the following statement: "BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate.” Ben Smith, editor-in-chief of Buzzfeed News says the publication stands by its reporting.

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Asha Rangappa, a former FBI special agent specializing in counterintelligence investigations and now a senior lecturer at Yale University’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs. Together, they unpack the counterintelligence angle of the Mueller probe.

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.

This episode is brought to you by the following advertisers:

Simplisafe, start protecting your home today at simplisafe.com/AMICUS.

The Great Courses Plus, for 50% off your first three months, go to thegreatcoursesplus.com/AMICUS.

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

Today's episode covers the William Barr confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee to become the next Attorney General, as well as the ongoing legal battles regarding Trump’s shutdown of the government.

We begin with Barr, who’s proven to be a complex individual.  How did he fare in his testimony before the Senate?  Are there reasons for optimism? Is his notorious memorandum (which we covered in Episode 237) not really that bad?  The answers… are all over the map, and will certainly surprise you.

Then, we discuss the ongoing shutdown, which looks to prove Andrew Wrong by not ending tomorrow.  What are the legal implications?  How are they going to be resolved?  Is there any hope, either politically or legally?  Listen and find out!

Finally, it's time for Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #110 which involves a dentist being sued for malpractice and product liability.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest on Episode 138 of the Naked Mormonism podcast.  Give it a listen!  And 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. Kamala Harris' statements regarding her opposition to Barr's nomination.2. Former Justice Department official of the George H.W. Bush administration Zachary Terwiliger and the speculation that he will once again be Barr's deputy. 3. Barr’s concerning views on executive power and reasons he has drawn so much criticism. 4. We discuss our past Episode OA 237: Lowering the Barr (Memo) 5. Jonathan Turley, GWU Law professor and gadfly, arguing about Barr 7. Jack Goldsmith, HLS professor, has written a response.  “A Qualified Defense of the Barr Memo: Part I” 8. The 1995 OLC memo: Application of 28 U.S.C. § 458 to Presidential Appointments of Federal Judges 9. 28 U.S.C. § 458: Relative of Justice or Judge Ineligible to Appointment10. Marist polling data on the Shutdown 11. NTEU v. Mulvaney 12. Barr's written testimony

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

Don't forget the OA Facebook Community!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

On November 27, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, a case considering whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which imposes a 14-day deadline for appealing from a grant or denial of class-action certification, can be equitably tolled.
Troy Lambert bought a dietary supplement that claimed to be an aphrodisiac containing sexual performance-enhancing herbs. He thereafter brought a class action in federal district court against the drug’s manufacturer, Nutraceutical Corp., alleging violations of U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirements and various California consumer protection statutes. The district court initially certified the class action, but following reassignment of the case to a new judge and discovery raising concerns about Lambert’s classwide damages model, Nutraceutical moved to decertify the class and the district court granted the motion on February 20, 2015.
On March 2, 10 days after the class had been decertified, Lambert informed the court that he intended to file a motion for reconsideration. The district court instructed him to file the motion within 10 days, which was 20 days in total from the original class desertification. Lambert moved for reconsideration on March 12 with further evidence to support his full refund damages model. The district court denied his motion in June. Fourteen days later, Lambert filed a petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) for permission to appeal the district court’s orders granting decertification and denying reconsideration to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit conditionally granted the petition but instructed the parties to address whether it was timely.
Under Rule 23(f), a petition for permission to appeal must be filed with the circuit clerk “within 14 days” after the order “granting or denying class-action certification” was entered. Although Lambert’s petition came within 14 days of denial of his motion for reconsideration, it was filed months after the actual order granting decertification. The Ninth Circuit held that Lambert’s petition was nevertheless timely. Rule 23(f) is not jurisdictional, the court determined, and its deadline should equitably tolled by a timely motion for reconsideration such as Lambert’s. Reaching the merits, the Ninth Circuit then reversed and remanded, holding that the district court had abused its discretion in decertifying the class.
The U.S. Supreme Court, however, granted certiorari to address whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it held that equitable exceptions apply to mandatory claim-processing rules—such as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)—and can excuse a party’s failure to file timely within the 14-day deadline, in conflict with the decisions of 7 other Circuit Courts of Appeals.
To the discuss the case, we have Michael Morley, Assistant Professor of Law at Florida State University College of Law.

Today's episode features a little more about Corey Robin, including the argument addressed on the show that criticisms of Clarence Thomas's competence are a racist echo of similar claims made against Thurgood Marshall.  Find out why Andrew made the mistake he did in Episode 242, and also why Andrew still stands behind his answer to that question.

We begin with Robin, winding our way from his blog posts to the jurisprudence of two of Andrew's heroes, Laurence Tribe and Ronald Dworkin!  Ultimately, you'll learn why Andrew continues to defend the proposition that attacks on Thomas's competence are not inherently racist.

After that, it's time for some behind-the-scenes news about Attorney General nominee William Barr just in time for his confirmation hearings.  What company does he keep when it comes to interpreting the Founding Fathers?  Listen and find out!  (Hint:  this isn't good.)

Finally, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #108 regarding real property.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

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. We first discussed Robin in Episode 242 as part of a listener question.  You can click here to read his Tweet criticizing us for engaging in "tribalism" and playing identity politics.
2. We discuss two Robin blog posts in depth:  (a) "Everything is in the Hands of Heaven Except the Fear of Heaven", and (b) "The Scandal of Democracy"
3. It was, in fact, Elena Kagan who said "we're all textualists now" in 2015.
4. Click here to check out Tribe's 2008 book, The Invisible Constitution, which openly contests originalism (and directly engages Scalia in particular).
5. You should also check out the Ronald Dworkin speech that was turned into an article in the Fordham Law Review.
6. This is the 2001 Keith Whittington law review article that credits Robin with an assist.  This is Whittington's page at the Federalist Society.
7. We engage with this tweet from Robin listing four supposed examples of intellectual laziness leveled against Thurgood Marshall.
8. Some Thurgood Marshall links:  (a) his confirmation as reported by the New York Times; and (b) this lovely retrospective on Thomas's career penned by Juan Williams for the Washington Post.
9. Finally, you can read some more stuff on Clarence Thomas:  (a) the 2014 rates of agreement among Supreme Court justices; and (b) this anecdote reported by attorney Matt Howell.
10. If you have HeinOnline, you can read the Mark Tushnet law review article in the Georgetown Law Review we discuss on the show.  (Otherwise, you're stuck reading the first page only.)

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

Don't forget the OA Facebook Community!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

What would a national emergency look like, and why hasn't Trump declared one yet? Dahlia Lithwick has answers and joins What Next, Slate's new daily news podcast, Plus: Was it weird that Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn't at work this week?

Tell us what you think by leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sending an email to whatnext@slate.com. Follow us on Instagram for updates on the show.

Podcast production by Mary Wilson and Jayson De Leon. Subscribe to What Next on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen. 

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

Today's episode tackles the mechanics of the shutdown and whether (and how) Donald Trump can build that wall despite widespread opposition.

We begin with an Andrew Was Wrong about the identity of Corey Robin and the incorporation doctrine.  Enjoy a fun segue to Gitlow v. New York and why you should never repeat the trope that free speech doesn’t include the right to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.

After that, it’s a deep dive into… what exactly is a “government shutdown,” anyway?  What laws govern this? Why do some federal employees have to keep showing up?  Isn’t that “involuntary servitude?” And can Trump declare a state of emergency or use “military eminent domain” to just build the wall anyway?

Then, it’s time for our weekly trip back to Yodel Mountain.  In Rod We Trust… so why is he stepping down? And what’s the deal with that secret foreign-owned corporation that shut down an entire floor right before the holidays?  Listen and find out!

Finally, it's time for Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #109, another dreaded real property question! As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

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. Serious Inquiries Only Episode 175
2. Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
3. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)
4. Anti-Deficiency Act 31 U.S.C. § 1341 et seq.
5. Federal courts notice
6. Futurama “pain monster” clip
7. Military eminent domain:  10 U.S.C. § 2663
8. 1973 report on delegated powers
9. National Emergencies Act: 50 U.S.C. § 1621
10. Search the federal register for “National Emergency”
11. 10 U.S.C. § 2808
12. 33 U.S.C. § 2293
13. Ackerman op-ed
14. -DC Circuit Court opinion in mystery foreign corporation case
15. Manafort sentencing memo

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

Don't forget the OA Facebook Community!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com[podcast src="https://html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8220119/height/360/theme/standard/thumbnail/yes/preload/no/direction/forward/" height="360" width="100%" placement="bottom" theme="standard"]

Download Link

Today's episode features a deep dive into the Bivens action, with a little help from everyone's favorite nutso conspiracy theorist lawyer, Larry Klayman -- and his newest client, Roger Stone sidekick Jerome Corsi.  Find out what sorts of wacky shenanigans these guys have been up to, and why they think they've hit a $350 million jackpot.  (Hint:  they haven't.)

First, though, we begin with an insightful question from a listener regarding Clarence Thomas's jurisprudence and whether the frequent criticism of Justice Thomas as lazy is tinged with racism.

During the main segment, it's time for the breakdown of the latest Corsi lawsuit.  It's a doozy -- it's everything you'd expect from someone who hired Larry Klayman (on purpose!) to be his lawyer.

Then, we answer a fun listener question about court filings, time zones, and the international date line.  It's Around Opening Arguments In 80 Days!

After all that, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #108 regarding civil procedure.  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

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. This Vice article collects some of the strangest facts about Clarence Thomas, and this is the Jeff Jacoby op-ed that (factually) reports regarding Thurgood Marshall's declining years and -- in Andrew's opinion -- was misrepresented by Corey Robin.
2. Click here to read Corsi's lawsuit against Robert Mueller, and here to read Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017), the recent Supreme Court case limiting Bivens actions.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

Don't forget the OA Facebook Community!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Joan Biskupic, CNN legal analyst and author of the upcoming book The Chief: The Life and Turbulent Times of Chief Justice John Roberts, to unpack John Roberts’ State of the Judiciary address, and to examine the state of the Chief Justice.

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