Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

On October 31, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Jam v. International Finance Corporation, a case involving the scope of the International Organizations Immunities Act.
The International Finance Group (IFC) is an international organization which provides loans to projects in developing countries that do not have the necessary private capital for projects. Under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), the IFC is an organization designated to “enjoy the same immunity from suit … as is enjoyed by foreign governments, except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract.” The IFC funded the construction of the Tata Mundra Power Plant in Gujarat, India, with a proviso that the plant had to follow an Environmental and Social Action Plan to protect the surrounding community; failure to follow the Plan would result in a loss of financial support. The power plant did not follow the Plan, but the IFC did not revoke funding. Members of the surrounding community sued the IFC in district court, claiming that the IFC is responsible for their injuries because it continued funding the project despite the plant’s clear failure to follow the Environmental and Social Action Plan. The district court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the IFC was immune from suit. The petitioners appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which agreed with the district court.
The US Supreme Court then granted certiorari to address whether the International Organizations Immunities Act—which affords international organizations the “same immunity” from suit that foreign governments have, 22 U.S.C. § 288a(b)—confers the same immunity on such organizations as foreign governments have under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-11.
To the discuss the case, we have Mike Ramsey, Professor of Law at University of San Diego School of Law.

Today's deep-dive Tuesday tackles that viral case caption you've probably seen floating around Twitter:  "United States v. 1,855.6 pounds of American Paddlefish Meat."  Is the sack of fish meat really going to have to show up in court?  Will it have a lawyer??!?  Listen and find out!

We begin, however, with a roundup of all the lawsuits filed against Matthew Whitaker, including the most recent one brought by Senators Blumenthal and Hirono.  Oh, and we check with an op-ed written by... the Torture Guy?  What's going on here??

The main segment delves into in rem jurisdiction in order to explain the "paddlefish meat" caption.  If you like legal minutiae -- and let's be honest, you're listening to this podcast -- you'll love this segment.

Then, it's time for a truly great listener question holding Andrew's feet to the fire on Net Neutrality and the Munsingwear doctrine.  It's not an Andrew Was Wrong, but it is an... Andrew Could Have Explained That Better?  Either way, you won't want to miss it.

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #102 on hearsay.  Find out if Thomas's coin can pass the bar exam!  And as always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

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. Click here to check out Lawfareblog's clearing house for Whitaker complaints, and click here to read John Yoo's (surprising) op-ed arguing that Whitaker's appointment was illegal.
2. If you want to read the actual meat filing, click here.
3. Special shout-out to law professor Brian L. Frye for tipping us off to United States v. 43 1/2 Gross Rubber Prophylactics!

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!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Ted Boutrous, who represented CNN and Jim Acosta in their case against the White House. Jim Acosta’s “hard pass” or permanent press pass, was revoked by the Trump administration after Acosta clashed with the President at a November 7th news conference. Dahlia Lithwick and Ted Boutros examine questions of due process and free speech thrown up by the case.

Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.

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

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Ted Boutrous, who represented CNN and Jim Acosta in their case against the White House. Jim Acosta’s “hard pass” or permanent press pass, was revoked by the Trump administration after Acosta clashed with the President at a November 7th news conference. Dahlia Lithwick and Ted Boutros examine questions of due process and free speech thrown up by the case.

Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.

---

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

Today's Thanksgiving Special / Rapid Response episode takes a look at the single most important Yodel Mountain case pending right now:  Andrew Miller's lawsuit before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  Find out what it all means!

We begin, however, with a brief Andrew Was Right and roundup on the status of the Jim Acosta lawsuit, which has been mooted thanks to the injunctive relief won by CNN (and the White House's decision to restore Acosta's credentials).

Then, it's time for the deep dive into Andrew Miller and his Don Quixote-esque foray into our legal system to challenge Robert Mueller's authority.  Along the way you'll find out who Andrew's Shattered Glass doppelganger is, and learn more than you ever thought possible about the U.S. Constitution's "Appointments Clause."

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #102 on evidence and the admissibility of hearsay.  Find out how Thomas outsources the decision and more.  And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry!

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. The "recalcitrant witness" statute is 28 U.S.C.  § 1826.
2. Click here to read Judge Howell's U.S.D.C. trial court opinion.
3. We pulled a ton of documents for you in the Miller case, including (a) Concord's motion to intervene; (b) Concord's amicus brief on the merits; (c) the eminently silly Sibley amicus brief; (d) Robert Mueller's merits brief; (e) Andrew Miller's merits brief; (f) Andrew Miller's supplemental brief; and (g) Rober Mueller's supplemental brief.  Phew!
4. Don't be afraid to check out In Re Sealed Case, 829 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1987) for the case that's directly on point.
5. Finally, you can read the "nearly a heart attack" regs on Mueller's funding (28 CFR § 600.8(a)(2)) here.

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!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Today's Deep Dive Tuesday tackles the motion for preliminary injunction and underlying lawsuit brought by CNN and Jim Acosta against the Trump White House for revoking his press credentials.  You'll get to hear about how Andrew Was Right... last Thursday (!)  As a bonus, you'll get a listener question that segues into a mini-deep-dive on the "sovereign immunity" doctrine!

We begin, however, with some initial information about the still-sketchy situation surrounding Michael Avenatti and his arrest for domestic violence.

After that, it's time to traipse through the CNN/Acosta lawsuit, which is still relevant today (even though the PI was, as Andrew predicted, granted).

Then, it's time to answer a really interesting listener question about Oklahoma's new anti-vax governor that winds up with a discussion of the sovereign immunity doctrine.  It's a rabbit trail you'll want to go down!

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #101 on SPACE LAW.  Find out Lando's (and Thomas's!) fate! Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

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. On Avenatti, you can see the "SurefireIntel" tweet here.
2. You can read the Acosta/CNN underlying complaint, the accompanying memorandum of law supporting the Acosta TRO motion, and the Trump response.

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!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Today's Rapid Response Friday takes a deep dive into the recent lawsuit filed (actually, amended) by Maryland's ace Attorney General, Brian Frosh, challenging the appointment of Matthew Whitaker as Acting Attorney General.

We begin, however, with an Andrew Was Right (and Wrong, sadly) roundup of a bunch of issues:  (1) whether the midterm elections were a "Blue Wave" (they were); (2) the formation of a new breakaway conservative legal group; (3) Jeff Flake's efforts to protect Robert Mueller; (4) Whitaker's recusal status; and (5) the election of Kyrsten Sinema to the U.S. Senate in Arizona.  Phew!

After that, it's time for the deep dive into Maryland's ACA lawsuit that.. somehow morphed into a judicial request to determine that Matthew Whitaker cannot be the Attorney General?  How is that even possible??  We explain it all... and along the way, we let you know what arguments the State of Maryland has raised that the next Attorney General should be Rod Rosenstein instead.  It's a fascinating lawsuit, and you'll even get a brief discussion of the "canon of constitutional avoidance." (!!)

After that, we (briefly) discuss the California wildfires in light of.. SEC disclosure requirements??!?  Hey, that's why you listen, right?

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #101 on SPACE LAW, involving deadbeat Ewoks and Lando Calrissian.  (No, really.)  You'll have to listen and find out!  And, of course, if you'd like to play along with us, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry!

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. Click here to read 538's "Yes, It Was a Blue Wave" article.
2. Here is the announcement of the formation of the "Checks and Balances" legal society.
3. Lawfare has filed a FOIA request for all documentation regarding Whitaker's ethics advice and potential recusal.
4. Click here to read Maryland's motion for preliminary injunction; here to read the Flood memorandum that contains Trump's likely responses; and here to read the court's scheduling order.
5. Finally, click here to read the SEC's guidelines on when to file a form 8-K, and here to read the 8-K filed by PG&E.

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!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

...using this one weird trick! (but for real.) It's a new intro this week and Thomas hopes you don't mind the departure from the regular quotes. After that Andrew has updates on several cases for us! They involve: the Emoluments Clause, a 40 foot cross, Net Neutrality, and Monsanto!

Then we get to the meat of our episode, which is about how the Democrats in the House can now use their power to force Trump's tax returns out. It has lots of twists and turns and isn't as straightforward as you might think!

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!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Neal Katyal, former acting Solicitor General under President Barack Obama and co-author of this op-ed in The New York Times. Also on Amicus this week, Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s voting rights project on why their current litigation over the 2020 census is so crucial, and concerning.

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

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Neal Katyal, former acting Solicitor General under President Barack Obama and co-author of this op-ed in The New York Times. Also on Amicus this week, Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s voting rights project on why their current litigation over the 2020 census is so crucial, and concerning.

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.

---

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