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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
Today's episode takes an in-depth look at gun control. First, we answer two listener questions about originalism and the Second Amendment, including a provocative one about whether DC v. Heller deserves stare decisis respect under Andrew's model of jurisprudence. The answer may surprise you! In the main segment, we examine HR 5087, the most recent gun control bill to be introduced in Congress. What's in it? What kinds of laws are Democrats looking to pass in light of the Parkland massacre? After that, we check in on the state of Pennsylvania's efforts to combat gerrymandering. Could there actually be good news in this episode? Listen and find out. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #69 about the firefighter's rule. 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 Andrew was recently a guest on Episode 255 of the Phil Ferguson Show and Episode 96 of the Naked Mormonism Podcast. 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
On this week’s show, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Priscilla Smith, director of the Program for the Study of Reproductive Justice at Yale Law School, to unpack the oral arguments in NIFLA v Becerra, the latest case on the calendar that seems to be about one thing but is being argued under the all-encompassing umbrella of speech.
Dahlia also speaks with Walter Dellinger, former acting solicitor general, about why President Donald Trump can’t get a lawyer. Spoiler: It’s because he lies.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.
In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew take a look at the things Andrew Was Right about over the past few weeks (yay!) as well as the things Andrew Was Wrong about (boo!). It's Schrödinger's Andrew Day! In the pre-show segment, the guys go through the scenario for all of our Opening Arguments Community March Madness potential winners. After that, it's time for Andrew Was Right! (TM). We cover the Alex van der Zwaan sentencing memorandum and what it means for Yodel Mountain, as well as both the Amended Complaint and the Motion for Expedited Trial filed by our next Attorney General, Stormy Daniels. You won't want to miss it! After that, it's time for Andrew Was Wrong (TM), in Andrew owns up to a few corrections about Watergate and revisits the emoluments lawsuit discussed way back in Episode 78. Andrew was skeptical then; has he changed his mind? Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #69 that questions your knowledge of the "firefighter's rule" and whether it protects cops who get sideswiped. 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 Andrew was recently a guest on Episode 255 of the Phil Ferguson Show and Episode 96 of the Naked Mormonism Podcast. 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
On February 28, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, a case involving a Minnesota statute that broadly bans all political apparel at the polling place. Minnesota Statute § 211B.11 prohibits voters from wearing a “political badge, political button, or other political insignia… at or about the polling place on primary or election day.” State election officials indicated that “political” apparel included “issue oriented material designed to influence or impact voting” or “material promoting a group with recognizable political views.” If a person arrived at a polling place wearing a political item, the election judges were instructed to ask the individual to remove or cover the item. If the individual refused to comply he or she would still be allowed to vote, but the person’s name and address would be recorded for a potential misdemeanor prosecution. An association of various Minnesota political groups known as Election Integrity Watch (EIW) sued the Secretary of State and county election officials in federal district court, alleging that the statute was invalid--both facially and as-applied--under the First Amendment, and violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause due to selective enforcement. Although the district court initially dismissed all claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed that judgment with respect to EIW’s as-applied First Amendment claim, and remanded the case. On remand, the district court again ruled against EIW, granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. On a second appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment--but the United States Supreme Court thereafter granted certiorari to determine whether Minnesota Statute Section 211B.11 is facially overbroad under the First Amendment. To discuss the case, we have Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Litigation at the Goldwater Institute.
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 takes our time machine back to 1972, as Richard Nixon's Committee to Re-Elect the President ("CREEP") planned the break-in to the Watergate Hotel Complex that set in motion the criminal conduct that led to the only time in our nation's history when a President has resigned in disgrace. Exactly what happened? In this episode, we talk about the "Saturday Night Massacre," and what it means today. First, though, we examine the unintended consequences of the Republican tax bill crammed through the Senate in the waning moments of 2017. Might the bill actually prevent the major sports franchises, such as Major League Baseball, from trading players?? Listen and find out! After the main segment, Andrew tackles a listener question regarding the "Guarantee Clause" of the Constitution. What is it, and why should you care? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #67 about breach of contract. 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! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links
The primary cases we discussed regarding Watergate were Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700 (D.C. Cir. 1973) and United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).
