Today's episode features a full-length interview with former naturopath turned whistleblower Britt Marie Hermes. We talk about her amazing career and the recent defamation lawsuit filed against her under German law. After that, we answer a question from Very Special Listener Lydia S. about a viral tweet suggesting that Native Americans grant honorary citizenship to DACA enrolees. And, as always, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #61, the end of our three-part Dungeons & Dragons question about ogres, assault, trespass, electrical storms, and deadly arrows. 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
This week the high court is on its winter break, but the team here at Amicus wanted to talk about DACA, the travel ban, and issues around immigrants, refugees, and the law. We talk Americanism. Who is American and how? What do the courts have to say about who can be here and who cannot? What role do the courts play in figuring out who belongs here and who doesn’t? To tackle these thorny and sometimes super-wonky questions, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Stephen Vladeck who teaches law at the University of Texas. Vladeck’s teaching and research focus on federal jurisdiction, constitutional law, and national security law. He’s CNN's Supreme Court analyst, co-editor in-chief of the Just Security blog, and a senior contributor to the Lawfare blog.
Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members several days after each episode posts. To learn more about Slate Plus, go to slate.com/amicusplus.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.
If you want football-themed Opening Arguments, check out Episode 57 and Episode 58, which tell the tale of how one Donald J. Trump destroyed the USFL. Everyone else can enjoy today's sports-free episode, which begins with a discussion of California SB 183 and so-called "sanctuary cities" in light of the State of the Union. In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas break down news about a proposed Department of Labor rule regarding the "tip credit." After that, the guys discuss yesterday's landmark opinion holding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau constitutional. Finally, we end with our third Dungeons & Dragons-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam (Question #61) involving lightning, wildfires, an experienced woodsman, and possible assault by an errant crossbow bolt. 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
Today's episode features a deep dive into two recently-filed lawsuits on behalf of same-sex couples where the government literally wants to break up their families. And don't forget to tune in for our LIVE Q&A this Wednesday, 1/31, at 7 pm EST / 4 pm Pacific. First, though we return to the wild and wacky world of sovereign citizens by examining a recent bill introduced in the New Hampshire state legislature. Does it really threaten cities in New Hampshire with a $10,000 fine if they don't subscribe to sovereign citizen nonsense? Listen and find out! In the main segment, we cover the Blixt and Dvash-Banks lawsuits. Did INS really make a determination that one twin is a U.S. citizen and the other isn't? The answer (yes) probably won't surprise you. After that, we answer a listener question about whether the Supreme Court is as political as it seems. And, as always, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #60 about trespass, signs, electrical storms, and deadly arrows. 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
Oh, and don't forget to check out Wes Jensen's amazing sovereign citizen wackiness ("Hiding Behind the BAR") if you want to know the secrets they won't tell you.
On November 28, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, a case involving a dispute over the concurrent jurisdiction of federal and state courts regarding class-action lawsuits that allege securities law violations. In 1995, Congress enacted the Private Securities and Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) to address various abuses then taking place with respect to securities litigation. When plaintiffs then proceeded to file securities actions in state rather than federal courts in an effort to avoid PSLRA restrictions, Congress enacted the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), to “prevent certain State private securities class action lawsuits alleging fraud from being used to frustrate the objectives of the [PSLRA].” Among other things, SLUSA amended the concurrent jurisdiction of federal and state courts over enforcement suits under the 1933 Securities Act to except “covered class actions,” which were otherwise provided for in Section 77p(c) of the Act. That section precludes covered class actions alleging state-law securities claims and permits precluded actions to be removed to and dismissed in federal court. In 2014, Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund brought a “covered class action” against Cyan, Inc. in California Superior Court, alleging violations of the 1933 Securities Act’s disclosure requirements. The Fund alleged no state law claims, only the federal Securities Act violations. Arguing that the state courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims in the wake of SLUSA, Cyan sought judgment on the pleadings. The Superior Court denied relief, following precedent from the California Court of Appeal (Second District) indicating that “concurrent jurisdiction of a covered class action alleging only claims under the 1933 Act ‘survived the amendments’ that SLUSA had made to that statute.” The California Court of Appeal (First District) affirmed the Superior Court, and the Supreme Court of California denied further review. The U.S. Supreme Court then granted certiorari to resolve whether state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over “covered class actions” that allege only claims under the Securities Act of 1933. To discuss the case, we have Thaya Brook Knight, Associate Director of Financial Regulation Studies at the Cato Institute.
Today's episode features a deep dive into our nation's opioid crisis. First, the guys take a look at a recent bad court thingy filed by Paul Manafort's lawyers in connection with his criminal prosecution. What does it mean? Listen and find out! In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas break down the just-released Senate Subcommittee Report on illegal opioid use in this country and discuss how an obscure 1874 treaty organization affects international drug trafficking. You won't want to miss it! After the main segment, Andrew answers a question from one of our youngest listeners, high school sophmore Brian about a recent free speech case at the University of Alabama. You may be surprised at the answer! Finally, we end with our second of three Middle Earth-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam (Question #60) involving lightning, wildfires, an experienced woodsman, and an errant crossbow bolt. 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
Today's episode features a full-length interview with Tony DiFatta, accountant to the podcasting stars. He answers your questions about the 2017 omnibus tax bill that were posted in this Patreon thread. First, though, we take a look at whether Stormy Daniels can be silenced (or sued) because of the NDA she presumably signed with the Trump organization. After a deep dive into the new tax bill, we we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #59 about trespass, signs, electrical storms, and deadly arrows. 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
We’re inside the chamber for the high-profile case involving a death row inmate from Louisiana who’s asking for a new trial after his lawyer told the jury his client was guilty, despite the client’s insistence that he was innocent. Jay Schweikert, a policy analyst with the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice and co-author of an amicus brief filed in this case, joins Dahlia Lithwick to sift through the arguments and legal principles at play. Veteran Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse talks about shifting positions from the solicitor General’s office, tees up a key case at the intersection of abortion and free speech that will be heard by the high court this term, and gives her take on the status of the truth in the courts and the country in the age of Trump.
Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members several days after each episode posts. To learn more about Slate Plus, go to slate.com/amicusplus.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.
Today's episode features a deep dive in the latest legal news surrounding the DACA program. First, the guys tackle a listener question regarding the difference between the James Damore case against Google and Colin Kaepernick's grievance against the NFL. Are the two cases similar? After the main segment, Andrew walks us through a case that was just argued before the Supreme Court, McCoy v. Louisiana, in which a lawyer conceded his client's guilt during a capital murder trial over the client's objections. Finally, we end with an all-new Game of Thrones-themed Thomas Takes the Bar Exam (Question #59) involving lightning, wildfires, an experienced woodsman, and an errant crossbow bolt. 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 a guest on This Week In News With Kevin and Benedict, talking felon voting rights; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links
Today's episode features a full-length interview with the one and only Cara Santa Maria! First, though, we pore through the Fusion GPS testimony that was leaked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and we look at a companion defamation lawsuit filed by one of Trump's lawyers, Michael Cohen, against Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson. Click here to read the Cohen Complaint. Andrew also sneakily uses this as an excuse to teach us all about federal motions to dismiss and the Iqbal and Twombly cases. Next, we talk to Cara, who talks skepticism, the law, and science education with us. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas and CaraTake the Bar Exam Question #58 about breach of contract for the hottest tech gadget of 1987, the Walk-n-Talkman. 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 just a guest on Episode 111 of Serious Inquiries Only, discussing the James Damore lawsuit against Google, as well as This Week In News With Kevin and Benedict discussing felon voting rights. Check 'em out! Show Notes & Links
