Student activism is back in America’s schools. Young people mobilizing around gun safety and social justice issues are heading back to school. We talk to Mary Beth Tinker, who took her fight for the right to protest at school all the way to the Supreme Court back in 1969. And we hear from noted First Amendment scholar Geoffrey R. Stone of the University of Chicago Law School, who tells us what rights students have to raise their voices—or wear t-shirt slogans—in schools today.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.
Student activism is back in America’s schools. Young people mobilizing around gun safety and social justice issues are heading back to school. We talk to Mary Beth Tinker, who took her fight for the right to protest at school all the way to the Supreme Court back in 1969. And we hear from noted First Amendment scholar Geoffrey R. Stone of the University of Chicago Law School, who tells us what rights students have to raise their voices—or wear t-shirt slogans—in schools today.
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 tackles two big church/state separation stories currently circulating right now: the recent lawsuit filed by the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, and the Pennsylvania grand jury investigation of the Catholic Church. And, of course, there's no better guide to these issues than friend of the show and Director of Strategic Response for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Andrew Seidel. We begin the Masterpiece, going in depth on the case we first discussed back in Episode 201. Find out what the Andrews think will happen to this case -- and along the way, you'll learn something about Younger abstention! After that, we turn to the Pennsylvania grand jury investigation regarding the Catholic Church, discuss statutes of limitation, and learn what we can do about it going forward. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas (and Andrew!) Take The Bar Exam #91 involving -- by sheer coincidence! -- the First Amendment and prayers at a student graduation. If you'd like to play along, 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! 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
To sign up for the FFRF's action alerts, text FFRF to 52886.
Today's episode welcomes back one of our favorite guest experts, former prosecutor and current law professor Randall Eliason of the Sidebars blog, who will help us break down what exactly a "perjury trap" is -- and whether Robert Mueller is laying one for the President. Of course, when we have a guest this good, we also have to take advantage of his expertise in a couple of other areas. So we begin by checking in on the news of the day: Mueller has already reportedly offered immunity to David Pecker, the CEO of the National Inquirer, whom we discussed at great length on Episode 203 in connection with the Cohen plea. After that, we delve into Rudy Giuliani's contention that Mueller is laying a "perjury trap" for the President. Is that a thing? Is that what he's doing? Listen and find out! After that, we revisit the issue of reporters and confidential sources, where Professor Eliason has been a consistent voice opposing a federal privilege. Is that a view he still holds? There's only one way to know for sure! Finally, it's time for the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, where our intrepid hero tries to inch closer to the coveted 60% mark with a question about torts. 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
Prof. Eliason first guested on the show way back in Episode 70.
Today's extra-long, extra-early Rapid Response episode tackles the two biggest stories in the news right now: Paul Manafort's conviction, and Michael Cohen's plea deal. We tell you exactly what these two big stories actually mean. We begin with Paul Manafort. What did the jury decide? Why did they fail to reach a verdict on 10 counts? What were those counts? How long is Paulie M going to stay in prison and what's next? And, most importantly: what does this mean for Yodel Mountain? How likely is Paulie M to flip on Donald Trump? We answer all of these questions and more! After that, we turn to everyone's favorite weasel, Michael "I Would Take A Bullet For Donald Trump" Cohen, who... has not taken a bullet for Donald Trump but has in fact pled guilty to eight separate crimes. What are they, what does it mean, and what comes next? Listen and find out! And if all that wasn't enough, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #90 involving foreseeability, cross-motions for summary judgment, and tortious conduct. If you'd like to play along, 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! 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
And don't forget Manafort still has another trial pending in DC! We gave you a primer on that back in Episode 194, and you can check out the pending indictment in that case.
Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the recent $289 million dollar verdict handed down by a California state jury for a man who alleges that the herbicide Roundup (TM) gave him cancer. First, we break down the facts of the lawsuit. Then, we have on special guest Yvette d'Entremont -- a.k.a. the SciBabe -- to break down the science behind glyphosate (the active chemical in Roundup). After that, it's time for everyone's favorite Thomas (& Yvette) Take the Bar Exam, where our dynamic duo attempts to get it right when it comes to the proper measure of damages for breach of contract. 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
On June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, FL, a case involving a claim of retaliatory arrest in violation of the First Amendment. Fane Lozman moved to Riviera Beach, FL in 2006, where he lived on a floating home in the Riviera Beach Marina--a part of the city designated for redevelopment under the City’s new redevelopment plan that would use eminent domain to revitalize the waterfront. After hearing news of the plan, Lozman became an “outspoken critic,” and filed suit against the City in June 2006 after a special City Council emergency meeting to push through the redevelopment plan before the Governor of Florida signed a bill into law that would prohibit the use of eminent domain for private development. Later at a public City Council meeting in November 2006, Lozman began to discuss the arrest of a former county official during the public comments portion of the meeting. He was interrupted by a member of the City Council, who, after exchanging words with Lozman, called a city police officer to dismiss Lozman from the podium. Lozman refused to leave the podium without finishing his comments, the police officer warned him that he would be arrested if he did not comply, and, upon the continuance of his comments, Lozman was arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest without violence (charges later dismissed). In 2008, Lozman filed suit in federal district court against the City of Riviera Beach, claiming that his arrest had constituted unlawful retaliation by the City due to Lozman’s earlier opposition to the redevelopment plan. The jury found that the arrest had been supported by probable cause, which the District Court concluded must defeat Lozman’s First Amendment claim of retaliatory arrest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that judgment, but the Supreme Court then granted certiorari to address whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment claim for retaliatory arrest. By a vote of 8-1, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that the existence of probable cause for Lozman’s arrest for disrupting a city council meeting did not bar his First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim under the circumstances of this case. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. To discuss the case, we have Lisa Soronen, Executive Director of the State & Local Legal Center.
You Don’t Own Meis Orly Lobel’s fascinating examination of a landmark legal battle between plastic dolls. The Mattel v MGA, Barbie v Bratz case exposed questions about gender, culture and rights in the workplace. This episode of Amicus takes you inside a case involving corporate espionage, intellectual property, and icons of American girlhood.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.
You Don’t Own Meis Orly Lobel’s fascinating examination of a landmark legal battle between plastic dolls. The Mattel v MGA, Barbie v Bratz case exposed questions about gender, culture and rights in the workplace. This episode of Amicus takes you inside a case involving corporate espionage, intellectual property, and icons of American girlhood.
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 Rapid Response Friday is actually a Follow Up Friday! We revisit four stories from recent episodes and go into more depth on each one, particularly in light of recent developments. We begin with our most recent story regarding reporter's privilege in Episode 200. What's the other side of the argument? Find out why friend of the show Randall Eliason thinks that reporter's ought not to have the right to keep their sources confidential! After that, we move back one more episode to Episode 199 and tackle some important listener questions about asbestos. Along the way, we discuss the difference between strict liability and negligence and delve into theories of market share liability. Our main segment covers the unsurprising fact that Masterpiece Cakeshop is back in the news. What does this mean? How has the Supreme Court's decision changed the landscape for religious exemptions to laws? Listen and find out! After that, we go back to Yodel Mountain and check in with the conclusion of the Manafort trial. Phew! And if all that wasn't enough, we end with an all new Thomas (and Yvette) Take The Bar Exam #89 involving the appropriate damages for breach of contract. If you'd like to play along, 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! 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
