Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew discuss the scandal regarding Cambridge Analytica.  Is there a legal angle?  Have crimes been committed?  Listen and find out! In the pre-show segment, Andrew helps out our reporters by giving theme the question they need to be asking regarding Stormy Daniels, which is:  "Now that you’ve acknowledged that you’re DD, and you’ve sued Stormy Daniels for $20 million, can you tell us what claims you had against Ms. Daniels that you believe you settled in that agreement?  What could you have sued her for?"  You're welcome. That segues into the "A" segment, where the guys discuss the differences (and one strange overlap) between the recent lawsuit filed by Karen McDougal and the top-of-Yodel-Mountain Stormy Daniels lawsuit. After the main segment, we tackle a listener question regarding the difference between textualism and originalism, inspired by our most recent episode, Episode 157. Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #68 that requires some math to figure out the appropriate measure of damages for 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!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. This is the National Review article that actually gets Stormy's story right.
2. Here's Mike Murphy's article expressing skepticism of CA's claims.
3. This is the Price v. Facebook class action civil lawsuit, arising out of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.  And here's the statement from NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
4. If you wanted to set up a SuperPAC, Andrew's old pals at Covington & Burling have drafted a simple how-to guide for you.
5. Finally, here's a hilarious Tweet from Peter Drice Wright that highlights a key problem with textualism.

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 19, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Sveen v. Melin, a case involving the relationship between Minnesota’s revocation-upon-divorce statute and the U.S. Constitution’s “Contracts clause,” which declares that no state may pass a law “impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”
In 2002, Minnesota amended its probate code to incorporate life insurance beneficiary designations into its revocation-upon-divorce statute. Mark Sveen purchased a life insurance policy in 1997, months before marrying Kaye Melin, who Sveen designated as the primary beneficiary on the policy. His two adult children, Ashley and Antone Sveen, were listed as contingent beneficiaries. Melin and Sveen divorced in 2007, but Sveen never removed Melin as the primary beneficiary of his life insurance policy.
Both Melin and Sveen’s adult children sought to claim the insurance proceeds. In light of Minnesota’s extension of the revocation-upon-divorce statute to life insurance policies, Sveen’s insurance company sought clarification in federal district court regarding whether Melin should still be considered the primary beneficiary. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Sveens, applying the revocation-upon-divorce statute retroactively to remove Melin as a beneficiary.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit reversed that judgment, however, reasoning that retroactive application of the statute in these circumstances would violate the Contracts clause. The Supreme Court thereafter granted certiorari to consider that core issue: whether the application of a revocation-upon-divorce statute to a contract signed before the statute’s enactment violates the contracts clause.
To discuss the case, we have Prof. James Ely, Professor of Law Emeritus at Vanderbilt University Law School.

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 February 27, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, a case involving a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim.
Fane Lozman moved to Riviera Beach, Florida in 2006, where he lived on a floating home in the Riviera Beach Marina. Shorty after moving to Riviera Beach, Lozman learned of the City’s new redevelopment plan for the Marina, which, by using eminent domain, sought to revitalize the waterfront. Lozman, who opposed this plan, became known as an “outspoken critic.” During the finalization of the redevelopment plan, the state legislature passed a bill prohibiting the use of eminent domain for private development; however, in order to push through the plan, the Riviera Beach City Council held a special emergency meeting the day before the Governor signed the bill into law. In response, Lozman filed suit against the City in June 2006.
At a City Council regular public session in November 2006, Lozman was granted permission to speak during the “non-agenda” public comments portion of the meeting. Lozman’s comments were interrupted by a member of the City Council, who, after a quick interchange with Lozman, called a city police officer to dismiss Lozman from the podium. Lozman refused to be seated without finishing his comments, and the police officer warned him that he would be arrested if he did not comply. Lozman continued his comments, was arrested, and was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest without violence. These charges were later dismissed.
In 2008, Lozman filed suit in district court against the City of Riviera Beach, arguing that his arrest had constituted unlawful retaliation by the City because of Lozman’s earlier opposition to the redevelopment plan. A jury found in favor of the City, however, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that judgment. The jury’s determination that the arrest had been supported by probable cause, the court concluded, defeated Lozman’s First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim as a matter of law. The federal circuit courts of appeals have divided on that issue, however, and the Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to address whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim as a matter of law.
To discuss the case, we have Lisa Soronen, Executive Director of the State & Local Legal Center.

Way back in Episode 49, Andrew argued that lawyers who claim to follow in the footsteps of Antonin Scalia-style originalism should be disqualified from serving on the U.S. Supreme Court, and that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee need to be challenging Scalia's acolytes (like Neil Gorsuch) on their underlying philosophy and not just their compassion (or lack thereof). In this episode, friend of the show David Michael challenges some of the points made by Andrew in the original episode , as well as raises new ones.  Along with Thomas, we have a great three-way discussion about U.S. history, the Federalist papers, key cases, the underlying work of Robert Bork, and more.  Does Andrew change his mind?   Does Thomas?  Listen and find out! After the lengthy interview, we end with the answer to an all-new TTTBE #67 about a gang party where the boss just wanted to "send a message."  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!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. You can listen to our (ahem) original episode on originalism, Episode 49.
2. Please also check out David Michael's new podcast, The Quorum!
3. Here’s a link to the full text of the Federalist Papers.
4. United States v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938).
5. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) is the infamous decision in which Scalia declared that the Eighth Amendment only bars punishments that are both “cruel” and “unusual in the Constitutional sense.”

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  

This week Dahlia Lithwick calls on white-collar-crime specialist Jennifer Taub to follow the money in the Mueller investigation. She also speaks with  Bob Bauer, a former White House counsel under President Barack Obama, about the relationship between presidents and their lawyers, and between this president and his lawyers. Bauer discusses when professional duty can stray into enabling, a question facing Trump’s personal and institutional lawyers as cases involving the president accumulate.

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 discuss Congressman-elect Conor Lamb's victory in Tuesday's PA-18 special election and whether the Republicans will be able to recount the results. After that, Andrew walks through the history of prior restraint under the First Amendment in light of a recent Nevada decision denying the request of the family of one of the Las Vegas massacre victims to suppress his autopsy report... and what that might mean for friend of the show Stormy Daniels. That segues into another Q&A segment where we tackle Yet More Of Your Stormy Questions; this time relating to (1) choice of law and (2) whether Stormy can simply buy back the settlement for $130,000. Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #67 about a gang party where the boss just wanted to "send a message."  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!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. Thomas discussed the political implications of the Lamb election on Episode 128 of Serious Inquiries Only.
2. We discussed con artist Jill Stein's "recounts" way back in Episode 25 of this show, and the Pennsylvania order denying standing is here.  You can also read up on Pennsylvania's Election law, Title 25, Chapter 14.; we specifically discussed §§ 3154(g) (mandatory recounts); 3261-63 (voluntary recounts); and 3459 (bonding requirement).
3. The key case for prior restraint is New York Times v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971); you can also read the Nevada Supreme Court opinion.
4. Please also check out David Michael's new podcast, The Quorum!

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  

Today's episode tackles a popular article in The Atlantic which implies that, but for the machinations of one dude in the 1880s, corporations might not be "people," today.  Is it true?  Listen and find out! First, though, we continue to examine the legal genius of Stormy Daniels by answering some of the most common questions raised in response to our episode.  This begins (sadly) with a brief "Andrew Was Wrong" clarification about the operative campaign disclosure requirements as well as an analysis of the arbitration order that came to light just after we went to press with Episode 154, and more! In the main segment, Andrew takes a trip through the history of corporate personhood.  After that, we answer a delightful question about hearsay from listener Dr. Jeff Otjen. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (and David) Take the Bar Exam Question #66 about murderous political candidates appearing on an "Iron Chef" knockoff... look, you'll just have to listen for yourself.  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

1. We first discussed the Stormy Daniels lawsuit (and linked her complaint) back in Episode 154.  Since then, Susan Simpson has done some pretty top-notch investigative work as to where the Trump campaign may have hid the payoff to Stormy.
2. The case referred to in the "A" segment is Amendariz v. Foundation Health, 6 P.3d 669 (Cal. 2000).
3. Our main segment discusses Adam Winker's article in The Atlantic, focusing on Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R.R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886).
4. Finally, the answer to Dr. Jeff's question references two different provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence:  Rule 801 (defining hearsay) and Rule 803 (listing the exceptions).

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  

This emergency episode examines the Complaint filed by Stormy Daniels seeking a legal determination that the Settlement Agreement entered into between her, Donald Trump's lawyer, and (allegedly) Donald Trump is not legally binding. We honestly believe that this is a much bigger bombshell than is being portrayed by the press.  Listen and find out why. We also end with an all-new TTTBE #66 featuring David Michael.  You won't want to miss it!  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! 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  

Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the recent FBI investigation into NCAA basketball. First, though, the guys take another trip to Yodel Mountain, stopping at base camp to discuss Michael Rogers, Hope Hicks, Jared Kushner, Rick Gates, and everyone's favorite villain, Paul Manafort. During the main segment, Andrew and Thomas cover the recent expose by Yahoo regarding college basketball coaches allegedly paying for top talent.  What does this mean for the future of the  sport right before March Madness?   Listen and find out! After that,  we revisit the funniest lawsuit in recent memory, namely, Bob Murray of Murray Energy's defamation lawsuit against John Oliver, which we first covered back in Episode 84. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #65 about an overzealous Eli Bosnick disciple who accidentally poisoned a meat-eater.  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

1. Here is the link to the New York Times story about Adm. Michael Rogers's testimony.
2. This is the superseding indictment filed against Gates and Manafort.
3. This is the Yahoo story on the FBI probe into the NCAA. and these are the NCAA bylaws.
4. We first discussed the Murray Energy lawsuit in Episode 84 and the amicus brief filed by Jamie Lynn Crofts ("the best legal brief ever written") in Episode 93.

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 February 21, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Digital Realty Trust v. Somers. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) endeavors to protect “whistleblowers,” who are defined as persons who provide “information relating to a violation of the securities to the [U.S. Securities and Exchange] Commission.” Employers are liable for discharging, harassing, or otherwise discriminating against a whistleblower “because of any lawful act done by the whistleblower” with respect to (1) “providing information to the Commission in accordance with [securities laws],” (2) “initiating, testifying in, or assisting in any investigation or … action of the Commission based upon” information provided to the Commission in accordance with securities laws, or (3) “making disclosures that are required or protected under” various statutes and regulations.
In 2014, then-Vice President of Digital Realty Trust, Inc. Paul Somers reported to his senior management that he suspected securities-law violations by the company. He was subsequently terminated. Prior to his termination, Somers had expressed his concerns internally only and not to the Securities and Exchange Commission. He sued Digital Realty Trust in federal district court, alleging unlawful whistleblower retaliation under Dodd-Frank. Digital Realty moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Somers did not qualify as a whistleblower because he had not reported his suspicions to the Commission. The district court rejected that argument and a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that whistleblower protection can extend to persons who have not actually reported suspected violations to the Commission. This decision aggravated a split in the federal circuit courts of appeals on the issue, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.
By a vote of 9-0 the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation whistleblower protection does not extend to an individual who has not reported a violation of securities laws to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Breyer. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, which was joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch.
To discuss the case, we have Todd Braunstein, Global Head of Legal Investigations at Willis Towers Watson.