Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

With impeachment in full swing, today's episode reminds you that we already have more than enough evidence to impeach & remove Donald Trump from office for the nine distinct crimes documented by Robert Mueller in Vol. II of the Mueller Report.

We begin, however, with a pre-show update: the 4th Circuit has just voted to rehear the Maryland emoluments lawsuit en banc on Dec. 12, 2019.

After that, it's time to check in on the latest Republican argument: that Democrats need to authorize an impeachment inquiry via a full floor vote in the House of Representatives. Learn why Nancy Pelosi said "Nope!" and why that might be shots fired... at the Supreme Court.

Then, it's time for the deep dive into the nine unambiguous, inarguable crimes that we already have proof Donald Trump has already committed, thanks to Vol. II of the Mueller Report. You will get a choose-your-own-adventure guide for how to steer your disbelieving Uncle Frank through the Mueller Report and prove that Trump acted with criminally corrupt intent to obstruct justice. "The cover-up is [still] worse than the crime"... isn't it?

After all that, it's time for an all-new #T3BE involving a hate crime. Is the Intellectual Dark Web correct that such things are protected by "free speech?" If not, why are they wrong? Play along on social media -- remember to #T3BE with your answer!

Upcoming 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. Here's the latest ruling from the 4th Circuit on the emoluments litigation.
2. Don't forgot to follow along with this week's episode by reading the actual Mueller Report.

-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!

The live show in Los Angeles was an absolute blast. We had so much great content that we're going to use it in bits and pieces here for the next few Tuesday shows. But if you'd like to hear the entire live show right away, and also hear the special intro Brian and Thomas cooked up for it, go to patreon.com/law right now!

-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!

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by all-star SCOTUS experts to walk us through this week’s biggest legal and constitutional developments. First, Laurence Tribe answers the questions Amicus listeners have been asking about the next steps in the impeachment process. Next, Pamela Karlan takes us inside the chamber for Tuesday’s oral arguments in a trio of Title VII cases at the high court. 

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

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by all-star SCOTUS experts to walk us through this week’s biggest legal and constitutional developments. First, Laurence Tribe answers the questions Amicus listeners have been asking about the next steps in the impeachment process. Next, Pamela Karlan takes us inside the chamber for Tuesday’s oral arguments in a trio of Title VII cases at the high court. 

---

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

On May 28, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Nieves v. Bartlett, a case that considers the conditions a plaintiff must meet to prevail on a claim of retaliatory arrest by law enforcement.
State troopers Luis Nieves and Bryce Weight arrested Russell Bartlett during the 2014 “Arctic Man” winter sports festival held in Alaska’s Hoodoo Mountains. According to the officers, an apparently intoxicated Bartlett started yelling at Sergeant Nieves when the latter asked partygoers to move a beer keg to make it less accessible to minors. Several minutes later, when Trooper Weight asked a minor whether the minor and underage friends had been drinking, Bartlett approached, inserted himself between Weight and the minor, and yelled that Weight should not speak with the minor. Weight contends Bartlett then approached him combatively and Weight pushed him back. Sergeant Nieves, seeing the altercation, hurried over and arrested Bartlett. When Bartlett was slow to comply, the officers forced him to the ground. Bartlett denies being aggressive, and contends that after he was handcuffed Nieves said: “[B]et you wish you would have talked to me now.”
Although Bartlett was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, the State ultimately dismissed the criminal charges against him. Bartlett then sued the officers in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that they had arrested him in retaliation for his speech, thereby violating his First Amendment rights. The court granted judgment in favor of the officers, concluding that they had probable cause to arrest Bartlett and that the existence of probable cause necessarily defeated Bartlett’s retaliation claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, however, arguing that even in the face of probable cause a claim of retaliatory arrest can prevail where the officers’ conduct would chill a person of ordinary firmness from First Amendment activity, and where the desire to chill speech was a “but for” cause of the arrest. The U.S. Supreme Court then granted certiorari to clarify the applicable legal standard.
By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the court held that the existence of probable cause defeats a claim of retaliatory arrest as a matter of law--unless the plaintiff presents objective evidence that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been. The Chief Justice’s majority opinion was joined by Justices Breyer, Alito, Kagan, and Kavanaugh in full, and by Justice Thomas except as to Part II-D. Justice Thomas also filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Justice Sotomayor also dissented.

Today's episode breaks down the recent news relating to (1) legal efforts to subpoena Donald Trump's taxes, (2) the latest kerfuffle over the standing House rules and whether the impeachment inquiry is "unconstitutional" and "illegal" (it isn't), with a bonus (3) rant about PG&E's blackouts -- excuse me, "public safety power shutoff events" in Northern California. Phew!

We begin with a discussion surrounding PG&E's decision to shut off power for up to five days, affecting potentially two million people. These blackouts will have a tremendous economic and social cost -- and may cost lives, as well. Why are they happening? What's the law? Can we do anything about it? Listen and find out!

Then, it's time for a deep dive into breaking legal news this week. You may have heard that a court ordered the release of Trump's tax returns, and then that order was immediately appealed and blocked. What does it all mean and why? We dive deeply into this issue, and on the way you'll learn about Younger abstention, § 1983 cases, and much, much more!

After that, it's time for a look at the latest goalpost-moving excuse by the Republicans, this time the honestly-not-very-good argument that the impeachment inquiry is "illegal" unless authorized by the entire House of Representatives. Find out why this just isn't so.

Then, it's time for a follow-up #T3BE to last week's child-on-thin-ice. This time, we want to know: can her parents sue the day care? Listen and find out!

Upcoming 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. Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!!
2. The "de-energization events" are authorized, at least implicitly, by Section 451 of the California Public Utilities Code, as further interpreted by recent rules. PG&E, of course, is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
3. The anti-injunction act is 22 U.S.C. § 2283 , and you can brush up on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) while you're at it.
4. We discussed the OLC memos in Episode 290, and then again in Episode 300.
5. You should definitely read Judge Marrero's order, even though it's been appealed to the Second Circuit.
6. Here are the standing House Rules (check out pp. 322-323), and the 2015 CRS report referenced during the 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!

Today's episode is an interview and a deep dive with British solicitor Emma McClure, who helps walk us through the recent activity regarding #Brexit and also gives us some signposts as to what's next for our wacky neighbor across the pond.

This episode is a follow-up to our first #Brexit show, which was Episode 315. Find out what, if anything, Andrew got wrong in that show, while Emma also helps us break down the U.K. Supreme Court's (shocking to Andrew) 11-0 decision that PM Boris Johnson's decision to prorogue Parliament was an abuse of his powers and done for an improper purpose. We compare legal systems and learn a ton about what law is like in England. You won't want to miss this episode!

After the interview, we head back to a tricky #T3BE regarding a 12-year-old who sneaks out and falls in thin ice. This is one of those questions that Andrew admits he would have gotten wrong! Did Emma or Thomas manage to get it right?? Listen and find out!

Upcoming 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. Don’t forget Opening Arguments LIVE in Los Angeles, CA on October 12, 2019. Here is the link!!

-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!

Download Link

On this episode, Melissa and Kate break down the Harvard affirmative action case just decided by a Massachusetts district court; go deep on some of our favorite classic and recent books on the Supreme Court; preview the first two weeks of the Supreme Court’s 2019 Term; and dish about clerking. (This last is a conversation to be continued -- we got tons of questions we didn't have time to discuss, so stay tuned for more on clerkships down the road!)

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 Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, who explains the biggest cases facing the Supreme Court this term. Then Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, explains why the justices have decided to take up June Medical Services v Gee, the first big abortion case of the Kavanaugh era. 

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

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, who explains the biggest cases facing the Supreme Court this term. Then Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, explains why the justices have decided to take up June Medical Services v Gee, the first big abortion case of the Kavanaugh era. 

---

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