Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Today's episode tackles the recent (and shocking) Supreme Court decision in which Neil Gorsuch voted with the Court's liberal justices to produce a very unusual 5-4 alignment.  Is this a sign that Gorsuch isn't the right-wing hack we all thought he was?  Listen and find out!  (Hint:  No.) After that, we break down the 6th Circuit's recent opinion in EEOC v. R.G & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., the first decision of its kind recognizing that discrimination on the basis of an individual who is transgender or transitioning violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After that, we answer a listener question about selecting a contingent fee attorney and discuss some of the actual pitfalls as well as misconceptions about those lawyers who take "no money down!" Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #72 about real property and the transfer of a deed.  Don't forget 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. Show Notes & Links

1. We first warned you about Neil Gorusch way back in Episode 40, and we're definitely not backing down now.  If you want to check out his concurrence, you can click here to read the Supreme Court's decision in Sessions v. Dimaya.  And, as we discussed on the show, the should-have-been-straightforward holding of this case stems directly from the Court's prior opinion in Johnson v. United States.
2. You can read the 6th Circuit's recent opinion in EEOC v. R.G & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., and for more coverage of Title VII, check out our discussion of Hively v. Ivy Tech from Episode 60, as well as our most recent update in Episode 152.

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! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

On March 21, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren, a case that considers whether a state court’s exercise of in rem jurisdiction can be blocked by a tribal assertion of sovereign immunity.
The Lundgren family owns land in Skagit County, Washington. A barbed wire fence with a gate runs across the southern portion of an adjacent lot, near--but not up against--the edge of the Lundgrens’ lot. Since 1947, however, the Lundgrens have treated that fence as the actual boundary line of their property, maintaining both the fence and the property along the southern side of the fence. In 2013, the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe (“Tribe”) bought the adjacent lot from the previous owner, though the Tribe only became aware of the fence when surveying the property following its purchase. In 2014, the Tribe notified the Lundgrens that the fence did not actually represent the boundary line between the two lots, and asserted ownership rights to the entire property, including any lying beyond the fence.
In 2015 the Lundgrens filed an action in state court to quiet title to the disputed strip of property along the fence, arguing that they had acquired title by adverse possession or mutual recognition and acquiescence well before the Tribe made its purchase. The Tribe countered by asserting that its sovereign immunity required dismissal of the Lundgrens’ action, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court ultimately rejected the Tribe’s argument and ruled in favor of the Lundgrens. Although the Tribe had refused joinder to the lawsuit, the court reasoned, ownership of the land could be determined without the Tribe’s participation because the court was proceeding in rem and asserting jurisdiction solely over the property, not the landowner. On direct review, a divided Supreme Court of Washington agreed and affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The United States Supreme Court, however, granted the Tribe’s subsequent petition for certiorari, to address whether a court's exercise of in rem jurisdiction overcomes the jurisdictional bar of tribal sovereign immunity when the tribe has not waived immunity and Congress has not unequivocally abrogated it.
To discuss the case, we have Tom Gede, principal in Morgan Lewis Consulting LLC and of counsel to Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

On April 2, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Kisela v. Hughes. In 2010, Andrew Kisela, a police officer in Tucson, Arizona, responded to a report of a woman hacking a tree with a kitchen knife before returning into her home. Two other police officers reported to the scene as well. At the scene, another woman, Sharon Chadwick, was standing in the driveway of a nearby house; Hughes re-emerged from her house and walked towards Chadwick. A chain-link fence with a locked gate separated the officers from Hughes and Chadwick. The officers told Hughes to drop the knife, but she did not acknowledge the officers’ presence nor did she put down the knife. Kisela then shot Hughes from behind the fence, and the three officers jumped the fence and called paramedics who transported Hughes to the hospital to be treated for non-life-threatening injuries. At the time of the incident, all three officers believed Hughes to be a threat to Chadwick. It was later revealed that Chadwick was Hughes’s roommate and that Hughes suffers from mental illness.
Hughes sued Kisela in federal district court, alleging the use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Kisela, but the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the record, viewed in the light most favorable to Hughes, was sufficient to show that Kisela violated the Fourth Amendment. The excessive force violation, the Ninth Circuit held, was obvious--and the law was in its view clearly established under analogous circuit precedent. Kisela’s petition for rehearing en banc was denied over a seven-judge dissent, but the United States Supreme Court thereafter granted certiorari.
By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. In light of all the circumstances, the Court indicated in a per curiam opinion, it was “far from [] obvious” that a competent officer would have known that shooting Hughes to protect Chadwick would violate the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, the Court added, the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that its own precedent “clearly established” that Kisela’s use of force was excessive. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Ginsburg.
To discuss the case, we have Robert Leider, Associate at Arnold & Porter.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the attorney-client privilege issues relating to the FBI's search of the offices of Michael Cohen, alleged lawyer to Donald Trump and... Sean Hannity?!? First, we begin with a finishing move from one of our pro wrestler listeners, updating our story that we first covered in Episode 163.  (Is it the Million Dollar Dream?  Listen and find out!) In the main segment, we break down all that happened (and all that's yet to come!) in the ongoing legal case against Michael Cohen we first discussed in Episode 164.  How strong is Cohen's argument that he's entitled to protect the privilege of his legal clients? After that, we take a  look at three lawsuits against Alex Jones and InfoWars and start the discussion about what to do about blatantly false, politically-motivated conspiracy theories.  Are defamation lawsuits the answer? Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #72 about real property law.  If you've ever thought about playing along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! 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. Show Notes & Links

1. We first discussed the search of Cohen's offices in Episode 164.  You can read Michael Cohen's Motion for TRO, which was denied on Monday April 15, as well as his revised request for a special master, which remains pending.
2. This is the Gilmore Complaint filed and Alex Jones, and here is a New York Times story on the other two defamation complaints filed by parents of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting.

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! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Note:  The "C" segment of this episode (and the show notes) contain hilarious explicit language in order to discuss a recent development in trademark law.  You've been warned! In the preshow, we tamp down on some unwarranted liberal freakout regarding a recent White House Executive Order regarding the last few fraying strands of our social safety net. After that, we revisit three cases we told you we'd be keeping an eye on.  First, we look at the aftermath of Jane Doe v. Wright, which we first discussed in Episodes 117 and 133.  Back then, we told you about the fate of a single young woman in state custody who was denied her right to an abortion; today, we tell you about the nationwide class action that was just certified in Garza v. Hargan. Next, we revisit Kolbe v. Hogan, which we called a "landmark" case way back in Episode 47.  Find out how a federal district court judge in Massachusetts just applied Kolbe in upholding the Massachusetts ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines. For our third revisit, we take a look at another trademark case in light of the Slants case (Matal v. Tam) that we first discussed with Simon Tam way back in Episode 33 and reported on Tam's victory before the Supreme Court in Episode 80.  The Slants's victory paved the way for disparaging and offensive trademarks, but what about garden-variety "immoral or scandalous" ones, like FUCT clothing or "Big Dick Nick" towels?  Listen and find out! Finally, we end with the answer to the fiendishly hard Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #71 about whether a state can discriminate against out-of-state competitors.  Don't forget 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. Show Notes & Links

1. This is Alphr's list of the "15 Best Podcasts of 2018" -- and wow, we're in some good company!
2. You can click here to read the White House Executive Order on "Reducing Poverty in America;" we quoted from Section 5 at the end.
3. We first discussed Jane Doe v. Wright in Episodes 117 and 133.
4. We first told you about Kolbe v. Hogan in Episode 47; now, you can read the Massachusetts decision in Worman v. Healey.  Also, if you like briefs, you can read the petition for certiorari, the State of Maryland's opposition, and the petitioners' reply.
5. We told you about the Slants's case back in our Episode 33 interview with Simon Tam and reported on Tam's Supreme Court win in Episode 80; today, we discuss In re Brunetti, which applies the Matal v. Tam holding to the rest of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a).
6. Finally, the link you've been waiting for: the Deadspin article about "Big Dick Nick."

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! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

It seems as though a slow motion constitutional crisis may be upon us. In this episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Lawfare blog editor and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, Ben Wittes, to assess the threats to the rule of law posed by presidential pique, and whether fired FBI director James Comey’s book could be used as a pretext for ending 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.

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

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the FBI's search of the offices of Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's personal lawyer and alleged "fixer." First, we begin with a discussion of a curious legal move by the Miami Marlins, alleging that they are, in fact, a ... citizen of the British Virgin Islands?? In the main segment, we find out that Andrew Was Right when he declared Stormy Daniels "A Legal Genius."  How right?  Listen and find out! Next, we take a return trip to Yodel Mountain, where we discuss Paul Ryan's impending retirement, Wendy Vitter's comically bad confirmation hearing, and more! Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #71 about constitutional law that is the toughest question we've asked to date.  If you've ever thought about playing along, now's the time; just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! 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. Show Notes & Links

1. This is Alphr's list of the "15 Best Podcasts of 2018" -- and wow, we're in some good company!
2. If you love procedural questions (and you hate Derek Jeter), you'll want to read the Marlins Notice of Removal as well as Miami's Opposition.  Oh, and this is the relevant legal provision, 9 U.S.C. § 202.
3. This is the U.S. Attorneys' Manual; § 9-13.420 governs searching law firm offices.
4. Here's the report on Paul Ryan's fundraising from Politico, announced two days before he decided to retire.
5. Finally, here's a link to the video of Wendy Vitter refusing to answer whether she supports Brown v. Board of Education.

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! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

On January 22, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Artis v. District of Columbia, a case concerning the scope of the tolling language contained in the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d). When a federal court dismisses the only claim serving as the basis for its exercise of jurisdiction, it ordinarily also dismisses (without resolving) any related non-federal claims that were part of the same case or controversy. Should the plaintiff wish to refile and pursue those claims in state court, questions may arise as to how any applicable statutes of limitations would apply. The language of § 1367(d) provides that such statutes of limitations “shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.”
In 2011, Stephanie Artis filed suit against DC in federal district court alleging unlawful termination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, along with various other claims arising under DC statutes and the common law. The district court granted DC judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Artis’s sole federal claim under Title VII in 2014. Fifty-nine days later, Artis refiled those claims in DC Superior Court. DC responded with a motion for dismissal on the grounds that the claims were time-barred based on the relevant statutes of limitations plus 1367(d). The Superior Court agreed and the DC Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment, concluding that § 1367(d) does not “stop the clock” on state statutes of limitations from the time of an unsuccessful federal filing until 30 days after dismissal, but rather merely creates a 30-day “grace period” for a claimant to refile his or her claims elsewhere.
The U.S. Supreme Court thereafter granted Artis’s petition for certiorari to resolve a split among state supreme courts regarding the proper interpretation of § 1367(d). By a vote of 5-4 the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the DC Court of Appeals and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court rejected the “grace period” reading and held that §1367(d)’s instruction to “toll” a state limitations period means to hold it in abeyance, i.e., to stop the clock.
Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito.
To discuss the case, we have Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General of Wisconsin.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Today's episode runs wild with an in-depth look a the CLOUD Act slipped in to the latest omnibus spending bill. First, however, we break down the recent viral video from Deadspin showing dozens of Sinclair-owned TV stations reading pro-Trump talking points on the air.  How did this happen?  What leverage does Sinclair have over your local newscaster?  Listen and find out. During the main segment, the guys break down the CLOUD Act and what it means for international data privacy. After that, we answer a listener question about the WWE and independent contractors. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #70 about contracts.  Don't forget 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. Show Notes & Links

1. Click here to watch the viral video from Deadspin; you can see excerpted bits from the Sinclair contract sent out via Twitter here and here.
2. This is the text of the CLOUD Act, and you can click here to read the EFF's warnings about it.
3. Finally, for guidance about independent contractors vs. employees, you can check out the Department of Labor's Fact Sheet 13 as well as the guidelines promulgated by the IRS.

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! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the Trump administration's recently-announced tariffs on China, China's response, and the future of free trade. In the pre-show segment, it's time for a lengthy Andrew Was Wrong segment.  From .22s to time zones, Andrew cops to the things he got wrong last week, ending with a discussion of the emoluments lawsuit discussed in Episode 160. In the main segment, Andrew discusses the Trade Act of 1974 and whether it allows Trump to wage a trade war with China. After that, it's time for our weekly trip to Yodel Mountain, this time with a breakdown of the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing as well as Paul Manfort's motion to dismiss and the government's response. Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #70 about breach of contract.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! 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. Show Notes & Links

1. Andrew was wrong links:  15 U.S.C. § 260a (time zones), Florida HB 1013, and, if you want to re-listen to our discussion of the emoluments lawsuit, check out Episode 160.
2. In the main segment, the guys discuss the Trade Act of 1974.  This is the CNN list of the 106 products on which China is raising tariffs, and this is a link to the New York Times article suggesting that the Trump administration is considering re-joining the TPP.
3.  This is the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing memorandum; he pled guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 1001.   If you'd like to plot that out on the Sentencing Guidelines table, you can do so by clicking here.
4. You can click here to read the Christopher Miller story suggesting that "Person A" is Konstantin Kilimnik; that was just validated by this report from Business Insider.
5. Finally, you can click here to read the DOJ's response to Manafort's motion to dismiss.  For reference, This is Rod Rosenstein’s Order appointing Mueller, No. 3915-2017, and this is 28 U.S.C. § 515, which plainly authorizes it.  We discussed this in full detail back in Episode 136.

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! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com