Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Today's episode revisits a narrow area of administrative law we last discussed in Episode 266, namely, Auer deference. Andrew made a bold prediction in that episode, and find out where he was wrong -- and where he was right now that the Supreme Court has ruled in Kisor v. Wilkie. We also discuss the recent unsealing of court records thanks to a CNN reporter and we witness the return of listener favorite segment "Are You A Cop?" with a fabulous question about drinking and driving. Buckle up!

We begin, however, with a look at a recent request made by CNN's Katelyn Polantz regarding certain court proceedings and records relating to the Mueller Investigation. Does this mean that "BILL BARR KILLED 7 OPEN INVESTIGATIONS?" (No.) But it is significant, and you won't want to miss why.

Then, it's time for a deep-dive explainer that starts with a reminder on the principles of agency deference. Don't remember the exact difference between Chevron deference and Auer deference? We've got you covered -- including, in particular, how the latter came under attack in Kisor v. Wilkie, a case involving a retired servicemember challenging the internal agency regulations governing disability pay. Should the courts defer to an agency's interpretation of its own rules, or should it be wildly activist and defer to Neil Gorsuch's interpretation of those rules? Kisor gives us a slightly different answer than you might expect, all while angling us towards the day soon to come in which the Supreme Court greatly expands the power of the judicial branch.

After that, it's time for Are You A Cop? featuring some truly terrible advice for how to beat a DUI arrest. (Please do not do this.) We talk about standards of evidence while debunking the notion that you should... drink more when you're pulled over? (It's a weird question.)

As if that wasn't enough, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #132 about an escaped, de-fanged, venomous snake. Who's responsible? Listen and find out!

Appearances

Andrew will be a guest at the Mueller She Wrote live show in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2019; click that link to buy tickets, and come up and say hi! And remember: if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. This is the Raw Story article we criticize during the "A" segment, and to verify what we've said is correct, you can read (a) Polantz's request; (b) the Court's order; (c) Exhibit A (Search Warrants); (d) Exhibit B (Wiretapping); and (e) Exhibit C (Pen Register/Trap & Trace). Phew!
2. We previewed Kisor v. Wilkie (read decision) in Episode 266. And, in breaking down Justice Roberts's holding in Kisor, we also expose shoddy journalism like this Daily Beast article.

-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!

In the inaugural episode of Strict Scrutiny, Leah, Melissa, Jaime, and Kate recap two of this term's biggest opinions--partisan gerrymandering and the census. They also walk through a theme of this term (stare decisis) before talking about the podcast's role in Supreme Court legal culture. It's Strict Scrutiny's test pancake, so enjoy the show!

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

A round table round-up of the 2018 Supreme Court term with Dahlia Lithwick, Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, Professor Pam Karlan of Stanford and Professor Leah Litman of the University of Michigan Law School. Analysis of the census case, the gerrymandering cases, and the down-docket items you might have missed, but whose repercussions you won’t. 

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

A round table round-up of the 2018 Supreme Court term with Dahlia Lithwick, Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, Professor Pam Karlan of Stanford and Professor Leah Litman of the University of Michigan Law School. Analysis of the census case, the gerrymandering cases, and the down-docket items you might have missed, but whose repercussions you won’t. 

---

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

Today's rapid response episode breaks down the latest decisions from the Roberts court, including the ostensible "win" in Dep't of Commerce v. Ross (the citizenship question case), and the crushing loss in Rucho v. Common Cause (the gerrymandering cases). Oh, and along the way we'll also discuss the opioid crisis and the news that Robert Mueller will testify before the House Judiciary Committee. It's going to be a long and wild ride, so strap in!

We begin by taking a quick trip to Yodel Mountain to discuss the significance and substance of the Congressional subpoena issued to Robert Mueller. What does it all mean? Listen and find out!

Then, it's time to break down the theory and developments in State of Oklahoma v. Purdue Pharma, et al., CJ-2017-816, the case that's at the forefront of the efforts to hold pharmaceutical companies responsible for their role in causing the opioid crisis in this country. Find out what a "public nuisance" is, whether manufacturing and selling opioids is one, why this case is important, and much, much more!

After all that, it's time for the main event: breaking down the Supreme Court's decisions in Ross and Rucho. Find out why Andrew thinks that John Roberts wrote the Ross opinion going the other way until the evidence broke regarding Thomas Hofeller, and how that means the entirety of the new game is: Shame Justice Roberts. (Oh, and also you'll learn along the way that our democracy is screwed.)

After all that, it's time for an all-new, all-awesome Thomas Takes The Bar Exam about strict liability and de-fanged venomous snakes. What madness transpires? Listen and find out, and then play along with #TTTBE on social media!

Appearances

Andrew will be a guest at the Mueller She Wrote live show in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2019; click that link to buy tickets, and come up and say hi! And remember: if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. You can read the Court's opinion in Dep't of Commerce v. Ross (the citizenship question case) as well as Rucho v. Common Cause (the gerrymandering case).
2. Click here to read the Complaint in State of Oklahoma v. Purdue Pharma, et al., CJ-2017-816.
3. Finally, you can check out the Los Angeles Times article on Purdue Pharma we referenced on the show as well as click here for more information on the MDL litigation pending before U.S. District Judge Dan Polster.

-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 joins Trumpcast as a special guest co-host for an intimate conversation with journalist E. Jean Carroll, author of "What Do We Need Men For."

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

Dahlia Lithwick joins Trumpcast as a special guest co-host for an intimate conversation with journalist E. Jean Carroll, author of "What Do We Need Men For."

---

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

Today's SUPER SPECIAL BONUS EPISODE tackles a bunch of issues that came up during the week that we didn't want to get buried on the whiteboard, including the Flores settlement, a deep dive into non-compete clauses, and a really good Andrew Was Right & Wrong segment about the Hatch Act. It's everything you love about Opening Arguments, only more so!

We begin with an examination of the oral arguments before the 9th Circuit regarding ICE detainment centers and whether those comply with the conditions mandated by the Flores settlement that require "safe and sanitary" conditions for minors separated from their families at the border.

After that, it's time for a deep dive into a really good listener question from Erin regarding covenants not to compete. Learn all about the "Legitimate Business Interest" (LBI) test and how to gauge whether a noncompete clause is (likely) enforceable, plus learn about the recent economic and political trends surrounding noncompetes that may surprise you.

Then, it's time for a very insightful set of comments from a listener regarding the Hatch Act; it's an Andrew Was Right/Andrew Was Wrong compliment sandwich, but we all wind up better for it!

No #TTTBE this episode since it's a special bonus.

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 Flores settlement and border policy back in Episode 184. For a recent report on the oral argument, check out this Courthouse News article referenced on the show.
2. We last discussed non-compete clauses in Episode 75.

-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 takes a deep dive into executive privilege, evaluating the legal arguments being raised by the Trump administration asserting executive privilege over former communications director Hope Hicks and former counsel Don McGahn. Find out how good those arguments are -- spoiler: some aren't terrible! -- and what's next for the Congressional Democrats.

First, though, we begin with coverage of the American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n decision from last week; that's the Bladensburg Cross case that we've discussed at some length on this show. How bad is this decision? (Bad.)

Then, it's time for the intersection of Rapid Response Friday and Deep Dive Tuesday in which we time travel all the way back to 1971 to evaluate the Trump Administration's claims regarding executive privilege "over the last five decades." As you've come to expect from OA, we tell you what the administration got right... and, of course, what they got wrong. If you want to know if and when Congress will ever get meaningful testimony out of Hope Hicks or Don McGahn, you need to listen to this show.

Then, it's time for the answer to TTTBE #131 about the propriety of a specific question during cross-examination of a witness who testified as to the defendant's "reputation for honesty." If you love the Federal Rules of Evidence -- and really, who doesn't? -- you'll love this segment.

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 Bladensburg Cross case in Episode 256 with Sarah Henry of the AHA, and then got first-hand testimony about the oral argument in Episode 274 with Monica Miller.
2. Click here to read the full Supreme Court opinion in American Legion v. American Humanist Ass'n. If you missed our coverage of Masterpiece Cakeshop, check out Episode 180.
3. We first broke down the importance of Hope Hicks to the Congressional investigations in Episode 259; and you can click here to read the letter and subpoena she received from Rep. Nadler.
4. NPR confirmed that Hicks's testimony was carefully managed by White House lawyers (and was therefore worthless).
5. Click here to read Rehnquist's 1971 memorandum on executive privilege, and click here to read how President Clinton's OLC cited that memo 25 years later.
6. Finally, this is Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F.Supp.2d 53 (2008), the district court opinion Andrew breaks down on 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!

A flurry of decisions this week, but few big-ticket items. Mark Joseph Stern takes us through  the opinions and dissents in Flowers v Mississippi, Gundy v United States and American Legion v American Humanist Association. Dahlia Lithwick is also joined by Jed Shugerman and Andrew Kent of Fordham University Law School, two of the authors of the Harvard Law Review article, Faithful Execution and Article II, which examines whether the constitution holds the President to some higher standard than just not doing crimes.

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