Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Today's episode tackles a bunch of important developments in the new year -- and not all of them are even Trump-related! Our main segment features a deep dive into the recent voter purge decision in Georgia and what that has to do with the Eleventh Amendment and the Pennhurst doctrine. We also tackle the latest scare meme regarding 2020 and update you on all the developments in pending litigation regarding Donald Trump. Buckle up, it's going to be a fun ride!

We begin with a quick off-the-white-board note about the "$100,000 verdict" in the Alex Jones defamation lawsuit that isn't what it appears to be.

After that, we take a look at a recent meme that's circulating regarding 2020. Should you be concerned about the legal implications of writing 1/1/20 on your documents?? Why or why not?

Then it's time to check in on the status of several pending cases involving Congressional subpoenas, including a decision that's being mischaracterized as a setback for impeachment (it isn't), and a bunch of irons that are still in the fire.

Then it's time for our deep dive into Pennhurst and the recent denial of injunctive relief to Stacey Abrams's organization dedicated to restoring the voter rolls in 2020 in Georgia. Find out what happened & what's going to happen next.

After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE in the New Year: can a bakery tell a flaky flour supplier to go clownhorn itself? Don't forget to play along via 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. Click here to read the New York Times article about Alex Jones's lawsuit.
2. The article we referenced on FOIA documents connected to OMB from Kate Brannen at Just Security is here.
3. Filings: click here to read the Order of Dismissal in the Kupperman lawsuit, and here to read the Court's Order denying injunctive relief in the voter registration lawsuit.
4. Oh, and feel free to brush up on your Supreme Court decisions by reading Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984).

-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!

Today's episode features an in-depth interview with Prof. Lawrence Lessig, counsel for the Colorado faithless electors, about the electoral college system.

We also go through the answer to last week's #T3BE about the differences and similarities between burglary and larceny. You won't want to miss it!

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.

-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!

Happy Holidays, everyone! Today, we tackle a number of issues that managed to distract us over the holidays regarding impeachment and do a deep dive into Nixon v. US -- all while weaving in a John-Roberts-as-the-Grinch-Who-Saved-the-Country-From-Mitch-McConnell story. Can it happen? Absolutely. Will it? We don't know. Do you need to listen? ABSOLUTELY.

We begin, however, with the recent filing by the lawyer for the House Judiciary Committee suggesting it might "impeach Donald Trump again." What on earth does that mean, and why is he taking this position? We explain it all.

Then it's time for a brief foray into the debate between Noah Feldman, Laurence Tribe (and Jonathan Turley for good measure) as to whether Trump has really been impeached given that the House has not yet transmitted the articles to the Senate.

As we all know, that question is really academic -- the real issue is: what power does Mitch McConnell have to transform impeachment into a sham proceeding? The answer lies in a 1993 Supreme Court case, Nixon v. US , 506 U.S. 224 -- and it may just reside in Chief Justice John Roberts. You won't want to miss this deep dive storytelling.

After all that, it's time for a brand new #T3BE involving burglary, larceny, and the world's angriest ex-employee. Remember to play along 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. Click here to read the House's filing before the D.C. Circuit in the McGahn subpoena litigation.
2. In the battle of expert turncoats, we have Noah Feldman arguing that Trump hasn't been impeached, and Jonathan Turley arguing that he has.
3. Finally, make sure you read Nixon v. U.S., 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

-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!

Today's episode combines a deep dive into the IRS's tax exemptions with some breaking news about allegations made by a whistleblower that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (that is, the Mormon Church) has hidden over $100 billion in assets that should otherwise be taxed. Grab some yarn and pushpins, and we'll try and disentangle this conspiracy together!

Joining us is the host of the Naked Mormonism and Glass Box podcasts, Bryce Blankenagel, who has first-hand knowledge of some of these events and has done serious work trying to parse through the documents and help us figure out what the mainstream reporting on this story might have missed! Along the way you'll learn a ton about the various corporate entities owned by the Mormon Church.

After that, we return to a popular #T3BE question involving whether the court can instruct the jury as to one of the elements of a crime. Can Thomas add to his amazing one-question win streak??? Listen and find out!

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. Click here to read the whistleblower's 78-page letter to the IRS, and here to watch his 7-minute video summary. NOTE: We do not endorse all of the claims and/or analysis made in that video.
2. Check out 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) for the statutory provisions regarding non-profits, and here to read the special rules as to when the IRS can investigate or audit a church.

-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!

It's a mash-up! Kate Shaw joins Why Is This Happening? with Chris Hayes to talk all things impeachment.

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 is joined by three women using their legal experience to advocate for people trying to navigate the ever-changing, labyrinthine process of claiming asylum in the United States. It’s tough work, and they are volunteering in the face of mounting obstacles. Liz Willis and Dennise Moreno are from ASAP , and Kristin Clarens is with Project Adelante. Next, Dahlia talks to Susan Hennessy of Lawfare to understand the intertwined significance of impeachment, the Mueller Report, and the Department of Justice inspector general’s report. 

Send in your questions for our Roberts Court special episode with Mark Joseph Stern on Jan. 4. Submit questions by Jan. 1 to amicus@slate.com.

Podcast production by Sara Burningham.

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

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by three women using their legal experience to advocate for people trying to navigate the ever-changing, labyrinthine process of claiming asylum in the United States. It’s tough work, and they are volunteering in the face of mounting obstacles. Liz Willis and Dennise Moreno are from ASAP , and Kristin Clarens is with Project Adelante. Next, Dahlia talks to Susan Hennessy of Lawfare to understand the intertwined significance of impeachment, the Mueller Report, and the Department of Justice inspector general’s report. 

Send in your questions for our Roberts Court special episode with Mark Joseph Stern on Jan. 4. Submit questions by Jan. 1 to amicus@slate.com.

Podcast production by Sara Burningham.

---

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

On Dec. 2, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, a case involving a dispute over whether New York City rules limiting transportation of licensed firearms to ranges within New York City limits (and certain state-designated hunting areas) violate the Second Amendment, the dormant Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.
Under New York state law, possessing a firearm without a license is prohibited. New York City issues “premises” licenses that permit possession of a pistol or revolver at a particular address, and under city “Rule 5-23” such firearms may not be lawfully removed from that address except for transport directly to or from authorized shooting ranges within New York City limits (as well as certain state-designated hunting areas). Plaintiffs, who hold New York City premises licenses, wished to transport their firearms to shooting ranges, competitions, and/or homes outside of New York City. They sued for injunctive relief in federal district court, alleging that Rule 5-23’s restrictions violated the Second Amendment and were otherwise invalid under the dormant Commerce Clause, the First Amendment right of expressive association, and the fundamental right to travel. The district court rejected all these claims and dismissed the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, applying intermediate scrutiny to the Second Amendment claims, affirmed. The Supreme Court, however, subsequently granted certiorari to address whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.
To discuss the cases, we have Robert Leider, professor at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the recent 5th Circuit ruling you may have heard about that... is supposed to have declared the ACA unconstitutional? How can that possibly be the case? We break it all down for you. Oh, and yeah, we also talk about the fact that the third president in American history has been impeached.

We begin, however, with an Andrew Was Wrong segment about the procedural history underlying the Syed appeal.

Then, it's time to break down the 5th Circuit's ACA opinion. How is it possible? How is the case ripe? Wasn't all of this decided in 2012 in the NFIB v. Sebelius case? We explain everything you need to know -- and what you need to know about the future -- in this main segment.

Then, it's time to tackle some impeachment questions like, "what the hell is going on?" and "is it true that the President can't be pardoned for crimes over which he's been impeached?" (No.) You definitely won't want to miss this one.

After all that, it's time for a brand new #T3BE involving jury instructions during a criminal trial. Can Thomas build on his amazing 1-question winning streak? There's only one way to know for sure!

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 tackled the Syed case for the very last time in Episode 340.
2. You can read the 5th Circuit's ACA opinion here.
3. Finally, on impeachment, don't forget to check out (a) Episode 90 where we explain that Trump can probably pardon himself, and also (b) Laurence Tribe's article that changed how the House handles impeachment.
4. Oh, man, and if you missed last episode's humor, check out “Larry ‘Bud’ Melman” advertising “Mr. Larry’s Toast on a Stick” from the old Late Night With David Letterman show.

-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!

If you have any school-aged children in your life, you know that lockdown and active shooter drills have become a routine part of their school experience. These drills now take place in 95 percent of American schools.

What you’re about to hear is a collaboration between Slate and The Trace, a nonprofit newsroom covering gun violence in the United States. It’s an audio project featuring firsthand accounts from kids of all ages about what it’s like to go through these drills. We hear a lot about school shootings, but we’re only starting to have a larger conversation about how they affect even those kids who may never go through one. 

You can hear more from the students at slate.com/lockdown.

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