Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

The courtroom can be a battlefield over money, people’s rights, and even their lives. For some cases, the consequences can affect us long after the verdict is read. Based on extensive interviews and court transcripts, Wondery’s new podcast LEGAL WARS puts you inside the jury box of some of the most famous court cases in American history. Subscribe to Legal Wars today at wondery.fm/amicus

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

The courtroom can be a battlefield over money, people’s rights, and even their lives. For some cases, the consequences can affect us long after the verdict is read. Based on extensive interviews and court transcripts, Wondery’s new podcast LEGAL WARS puts you inside the jury box of some of the most famous court cases in American history. Subscribe to Legal Wars today at wondery.fm/amicus

---

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

Today's Rapid Response Friday takes us to the front lines of the affirmative action debate with the trial of Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard, a lawsuit brought by a single-issue right-wing activist determined to end diversity as a criterion in school admissions.  (And yes, we tell you what we really think!)

We begin, however, with some news regarding the Monsanto trial we profiled back in Episode 202.

After that, it's time for a deep dive into the nuances of affirmative action with the SFFA v. Harvard lawsuit.  What exactly does it allege?  What's the status of affirmative action law?  Where is this lawsuit going?  Listen and find out!

Then it's time for a brief Andrew Was segment, in which Andrew Was Wrong about the UK Supreme Court, and Andrew Was... Something... about the good news coming out of the Florida Supreme Court.

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #98 regarding constitutional standards.  Thomas needs to go 2-for-3 after a recent audit showed a bank error in his favor.  Can he do it?  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. We first covered the Monsanto trial back in Episode 202; go check it out!
2. Click here to read the Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard lawsuit.
3. To understand the history of affirmative action, listen to our Episode 93, and check out both Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) and Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), the cases we discussed in the episode.
4. I mentioned the Etzkowitz et al. article on critical mass; you can read that 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

 

On October 10, 2018, the Supreme Court heard argument in Nielsen v. Preap, a case involving the exemption of a criminal alien from mandatory detention without bond due to a delay in arrest after release from criminal custody.
As codified, § 1226(c) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (“INA”) provides for the mandatory detention of criminal aliens “when [they are] released” from criminal custody, and for the holding of these aliens without bond. The three plaintiffs in this case are lawful permanent residents who have committed crimes that could lead to their removal from the United States but after serving their criminal sentence were released and returned to their families and communities in the United States; however, years later, each was arrested by immigration authorities and detained without bond hearings under § 1226(c). The plaintiffs filed a class action petition for habeas relief in district court arguing that since they were not detained “when...released” from criminal custody, they are not subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c). The district court granted their motion for class certification, issued a preliminary injunction requiring the government to provide all class members with bond hearings under § 1226(a), and concluded that under § 1226(c) aliens can be held without bound only if taken into immigration custody immediately upon release from criminal custody, not if there is a lengthy gap after their release. The government appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the statute “does not suggest that immigration officials lose authority if they delay.” The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s class certification order and preliminary injunction, and held that the mandatory detention provision of § 1226(c) applies only to those criminal aliens detained promptly after their release from criminal custody, not to those detained long after.
The US Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether a criminal alien becomes exempt from mandatory detention under § 1226(c) if, after the alien is released from criminal custody, the Department of Homeland Security does not take him into immigration custody immediately.
To the discuss the case, we have Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues. All opinions are those of the speaker.

Today's (thankfully) Kavanaugh-free episode -- in honor of Thomas's appearance at QED in Manchester -- takes an in-depth look at the Ashers Baking Co. case, as well as developments at the state level to push for Net Neutrality.  Oh, and we revisit OA's favorite legal genius, Stormy Daniels.  Strap in, it's going to be a fun ride!

We begin with a lengthy discussion of the UK Supreme Court's ruling in Ashers Baking Co., which has been called the "Masterpiece Cakeshop of the UK."  Is that accurate?  Listen and find out!

Next, we walk through California's effort to protect Net Neutrality in that state, and the lawsuits filed by parties on all sides.  What's going to happen?  We tell you!

Finally, we take a brief look at Stormy Daniels and update you on the status of her lawsuit in California.

And then, of course, we end with an all new Thomas (and Chad) Take The Bar Exam #97 regarding the tort of negligent misrepresentation.  Remember 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

1. Click here to read the UK Supreme Court's ruling in Ashers Baking Co.
2. We first discussed the Trump FCC's decision to roll back Net Neutrality in Episode 125.  You can read the 22-state lawsuit challenging that order here.
3. This is California's Bill SB-822, and you can also check out the industry brief filed in the lawsuit challenging it.  Oh, and if you need more Hobbs Act (28 U.S.C. § 2342) in your life, we've got you covered.
4. Finally, click here to check out Trump's motion to dismiss Stormy's lawsuit, and here to read her interview in "The Cut" (??) where she regrets body-shaming Trump.

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 talks with Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon about the “deep wounds” in the senate following Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation. And she’s joined by Vox’s Matthew Yglesias who brings his nihilism about the institution of the Supreme Court to the show.

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 talks with Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon about the “deep wounds” in the senate following Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation. And she’s joined by Vox’s Matthew Yglesias who brings his nihilism about the institution of the Supreme Court to the show.

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.

Today's Rapid Response Friday follows up on the State of Florida and... sadly... returns one last time to the story of Brett Kavanaugh and the ethics complaints lodged against him and referred to the Tenth Circuit.  Oh, and we give you real stuff you can do to make a positive difference!  You have to listen!

We begin with a follow-up to Tuesday's episode where we break some news regarding the Democratic Party's lawsuit in Florida to extend registration for voting in the 2018 midterms before checking in on the Common Cause/League of Women Voters lawsuit we first discussed on Episode 216.

Then it's time to tackle the ethics complaints filed against Brett Kavanaugh and referred out by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #97 regarding the tort of negligent misrepresentation.  Thomas needs to go 4-for-4... can he do it?  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

Thomas will be at QED in Manchester, UK on Oct. 13 and 14.

Show Notes & Links

This episode is sponsored by Audible!  Go to audible.com/lawpod or text lawpod to 500500 for the 30-day trial and free audiobook!

1. Click here to read the court's denial of the TRO filed by the Democratic Party's in Florida to extend registration for voting in the 2018 midterms.
2. And click here to read the newly-filed Common Cause/League of Women Voters lawsuit we first discussed on Episode 216.
3. We first discussed the Code of Judicial Ethics on Episode 193.
4. This is the Roberts letter referring the Kavanaugh complaints to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
5. Click here to read the Rules of Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability, with proposed changes.
6. The law we discussed is 28 U.S.C. § 351 et seq.
7. WHAT YOU CAN DO!  Click here to comment on the proposed changes to the Rules of Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability.
8. And if you want to apply to work for Fix The Court, check out their notice 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 (thankfully) Kavanaugh-free episode takes a look at Florida Governor Rick Scott's blatant court packing attempt with the Florida Supreme Court, and the lawsuit filed by Common Cause to try and stop him.  What will happen?  Listen and find out!

First, though, we begin by revisiting our controversial episode (197) on 3-D printed guns by bringing on a real-life expert in 3-D printing to handle some technical questions and understand the arguments and counter-arguments regarding the proliferation of cheap and dangerous handguns.

After that, we delve into Florida Gov. Rick Scott's transparent attempt to game the system to pack the Florida Supreme Court.  What does this mean for "Constitutional Hardball" and the state of the law in Florida?  Listen and find out!

Then, we give you a brief preview of next week's story on California's net neutrality law.

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas (and Chad) Take The Bar Exam #96 regarding the breach of an employment contract.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Recent Appearances

Thomas will be at QED in Manchester, UK on Oct. 13 and 14.

Show Notes & Links

1. We first discussed 3-D printed guns back in Episode 197.
2. Click here to read the Slate article on Scott's effort to pack the Florida Supreme Court, and you can also read the 2017 lawsuit filed by Common Cause (and others) that was rejected by the Florida Supreme Court.
3. Check out guest Chad Schneider's business, Root3 Labs.

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 tackles the #1 emailed story to us this past week:  is the real story behind the Kavanaugh nomination that the Trump administration needs him on the Supreme Court to rule in Gamble v. U.S. regarding the dual sovereignty doctrine as it applies to double jeopardy?

We begin with a quick note about the New York Times story on Trump's taxes which will be covered on Serious Inquiries Only.

Then it's time to figure out this claim about Gamble v. U.S. that fact-checking website Snopes rated as "true."  Is it, though?  (Hint:  no.)  We'll tell you everything you need to know about the 5th Amendment's double jeopardy clause and what it might mean for anyone Trump pardons once Kavanaugh gets to the Court.

And speaking of which, we segue from that claim to an update on all things Kavanaugh this week, including the Mitchell letter, the FBI investigation, Flake's statements, and even (gasp!) an Andrew Was Wrong.

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #96 regarding the breach of an employment contract, with next week's guest Chad Schneider playing along.  Thomas needs to go 5-for-5... can he do it?  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

Thomas will be at QED in Manchester, UK on Oct. 13 and 14.

Show Notes & Links

1. You can read the New York Times story on Trump's taxes, and listen for Thomas's take on Serious Inquiries Only.
2. The leading case on the "dual sovereign" doctrine as applied to the double jeopardy clause is Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985).
3. Click here to read the administration's opposition brief in Gamble v. U.S., and here to check out the entire docket.
4. This is the Jed Shugerman article we referenced regarding New York's "dual sovereigns" law.

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

Download Link