Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Join us for yet another Rapid Response Friday, in which we continue to evaluate claims on the left challenging the legality of the NFL's policy regarding the national anthem, as well as discuss two items that are also of interest to Donald Trump. We begin with a listener question we didn't get to during our Q&A regarding the similarities and differences between the John Edwards affair and the Stormy Daniels affair.  Is this the kind of thing that should give Trump comfort?  (Hint:  no.)  Oh, and you might also learn something about an "Allen charge" if you follow us all the way down all our rabbit trails! After that, we break down the "state action doctrine" while considering some liberal arguments making the rounds ostensibly challenging the legality or constitutionality of the NFL's new rules.  Andrew still isn't buying it! Then, we trek back to Yodel Mountain to discuss the recent developments in Michael Cohen's case in the Southern District of New York.  Was Andrew... wrong?  Listen and find out! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #78 regarding whether the jury can read a treatise on mill grinding.  It's more interesting than it sounds, we promise!  If you'd like to play along , just retweet our episode on Twitter or share 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!  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. In the pre-show, we (don't) discuss, among other things, the Trump administration's breaking decisions on steel tariffs; for analysis, we refer you to our coverage of this issue back in Episode 162.
2. This is the text of the 6-count John Edwards indictment, and we also quoted from the coverage of the acquittal by ABC News.
3. We covered the "Paid Patriotism in the NFL" report in Episode 108; you can also read that report directly by clicking here.  Oh, and this is the Mike Florio PFT article, if you want to read more about how the NFL is in Jerry Jones's pocket.
4. If you like semi-old-timey Supreme Court decisions, you should definitely read Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) about First Amendment rights in a company town.  Once you've gotten through that, you can tackle Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961) on the entanglement doctrine.
5. This is the Ben Sachs Vox article we discussed.
6. Your guide to Yodel Mountain includes this awesome NYT flowchart as well as this solid narrative article in Politico.
7. Finally, this is the full text of Avenatti's withdrawal of his pro hac vice motion.

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! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

On April 17, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Wilson v. Sellers, a case involving the standard federal courts should use to analyze a state appellate court’s summary denial of habeas relief when applying federal habeas law.
In 1996, Marion Wilson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, and both his conviction and sentence were confirmed on direct appeal. Wilson then sought habeas relief in state superior court, claiming that his trial counsel offered ineffective assistance in investigating mitigation evidence for purposes of sentencing. The superior court denied habeas relief, concluding that any new evidence was cumulative of evidence presented at triall as well as inadmissible, and likely would not have changed the outcome. In a one-sentence order the Georgia Supreme Court summarily denied Wilson’s subsequent application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal. Wilson then filed a habeas petition in federal district court, which also denied relief. Even assuming Wilson’s counsel had been deficient, the court deferred to the state habeas court’s conclusion that these deficiencies did not ultimately cause prejudice to Wilson. On appeal a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, held that--rather than “looking through” the Georgia Supreme Court’s summary denial to the reasoning of the lower state habeas court--the district court should have considered what reasons “could have supported” the state supreme court’s summary decision. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the resulting split among the circuit courts of appeals on whether federal habeas law employs a “look through” presumption.
By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held that a federal habeas court reviewing an unexplained state-court decision on the merits should “look through” that decision to the last related state-court decision that provides a relevant rationale and presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning; the state may rebut the presumption by showing that the unexplained decision most likely relied on different grounds than the reasoned decision below.
Justice Breyer’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas and Alito.
To discuss the case, we have Lee Rudofsky, Solicitor General for the State of Arkansas.

Today's episode takes a deep dive into the recent Supreme Court decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, a Gorsuch opinion that is exactly what we told you to expect back when he was nominated to the Court.  Oh, and we also tackle the latest policy issued by the NFL with our four-time guest, Chris Kristofco. And that's where we begin:  with a detailed breakdown of the legal implications of the NFL's just-announced policy prohibiting on-field peaceful protests during the national anthem.  You won't want to miss it! During the main segment, we break down the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision upholding the use of mandatory arbitration clauses that waive the right to class action lawsuits in take-it-or-leave-it contracts of adhesion.  But -- because this is a Gorsuch opinion -- you won't be surprised to learn that it's so very much worse than you thought. After that, we move into a listener comment on plea bargaining that foreshadows an upcoming episode.... Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #77 about the constitutional requirements (if any) to a 12-person jury and/or a unanimous one.  Remember 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 the Dumb All Over Podcast, episode 70.  Go check it out! Show Notes & Links

1. If you liked Chris and want to hear more, you can check out his excellent sportsball podcast, Titletown Sound Off, or you can check out his  previous appearances on the show:  Episode 6 (on the NFL), Episode 32 (on Phil Ivey's gambling), and Episode 68 (on Aaron Hernandez).
2. Also, our guest Chris Kluwe predicted something like this back in Episode 115.
3. Click here to read the Supreme Court's opinion in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.  If you want to check out the data cited in Ginsburg's dissent; that's 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! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

While President Trump demands an investigation into the investigators investigating the investigation, the clamour to impeach grows ever more fervent in some quarters. Dahlia Lithwick explores the legal and constitutional questions surrounding impeachment with constitutional scholar and Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, co-author of To End a Presidency - The Power of Impeachment

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

While President Trump demands an investigation into the investigators investigating the investigation, the clamour to impeach grows ever more fervent in some quarters. Dahlia Lithwick explores the legal and constitutional questions surrounding impeachment with constitutional scholar and Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, co-author of To End a Presidency - The Power of Impeachment

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.

It's time for another Rapid Response Friday, which means we get to break down whether Donald Trump has to respond to the Summer Zervos defamation lawsuit.  (Hint:  yes) We begin, however,  with a potential Stormy Setback.  What's the deal with press reports of a $10 million judgment entered against Stormy Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti?  Could it jeopardize the pending litigation?  Listen and find out! After that, we break down the recent federal district court opinion in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, which we covered when the case was first filed way back in Episode 77.  Are Donald Trump's Tweets really a "protected forum" to which the First Amendment applies?  Listen and find out! Then, we break down exactly how duplicitious Donald Trump's personal lawyer has been regarding the Summer Zervos lawsuit.  It's exactly as much as you'd expect! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #77 regarding the constitutional requirement to a trial by jury.  If you'd like to play along with our new Patreon perk, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share 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 just a guest on the Dumb All Over Podcast, episode 70.  Go check it out! Show Notes & Links

1. We discussed Michael Avenatti's pro hac vice motion in Episode 174; you can also read the LA Times article about the bankruptcy judgment, as well as check out both the Avenatti involuntary bankruptcy petition and the Avenatti creditors list.
2. We analyzed several cases, the most hilarious of which is Kohlmayer v. AMTRAK, 124 F.Supp.2d 877 (D.N.J. 2000).
3. Trump's Tweets were first discussed in Episode 77, along with the Davison v. Loudon County decision.
4. You should read the Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump decision.
5. This is the Supreme Court's decision in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), and if you want to read Marc Kasowitz's deliberately misleading statements yourself, you can do so 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! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode takes a deep dive into two important Supreme Court opinions decided last week:  McCoy v. Louisiana, which prohibits attorneys from conceding their client's guilt over that client's objections in a capital murder trial, and  Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), 28 U.S. Code § 3701 et seq.  In both cases, we hope to show that these cases have two legitimate sides. We begin, of course, with sportsball.  What is PASPA, why did the Court strike it down, does it make sense, and most importantly:  when can you bet against the San Jose Sharks? In the main segment, we break down the difficult questions surrounding the representation of capital murder defendants. After that, we head back overseas with a really insightful listener comment that takes us deeper into the law of treaties. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #76 about present recollection refreshed.  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.  The first case we break down is  Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, 28 U.S. Code § 3701 et seq.
2. After that, we turn to McCoy v. Louisiana, which prohibits attorneys from conceding their client's guilt over that client's objections in a capital murder trial, distinguishing the Court's earlier decision in Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004).
3. We discussed treaty obligations in Episode 173.

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! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

On March 5, 2018, the Supreme Court decided U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, a case involving how appellate courts should review a lower court’s determination that a person related in some way to a bankruptcy debtor is an “insider”--and therefore subject to special restrictions that the federal Bankruptcy Code imposes on insiders.
In 2011, the Village at Lakeridge (“Lakeridge”) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which seeks to facilitate a reorganization that allows the debtor to maintain viability while restructuring debts. At the time, Lakeridge owed millions of dollars to its owner MBP Equity Partners (“MBP”), as well as to U.S. Bank. Lakeridge’s proposed reorganization plan placed both creditors in separate classes and would have impaired their interests. U.S. Bank objected, which precluded a consensual plan, but under the Code MBP’s status as an “insider”--being the owner of Lakeridge--meant that MBP could not provide the requisite consent to force a “cramdown” of the plan over U.S. Bank’s objections. Lakeridge was therefore faced with liquidation unless MBP could transfer its claim against Lakeridge to a non-insider who would agree to the reorganization plan. Kathleen Bartlett, a member of MBP’s board, persuaded retired surgeon Robert Rabkin--with whom she was romantically involved--to purchase MBP’s multimillion-dollar claim for $5,000. Rabkin then consented to the reorganization plan. U.S. Bank again objected, arguing that the transaction was not truly at arm’s length due to the romantic relationship between Bartlett and Rabkin; Rabkin was essentially a “non-statutory” insider. The Bankruptcy Court rejected this argument, deeming Rabkin’s purchase a “speculative investment,” and noting that Rabkin and Bartlett lived separately and managed their own affairs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that judgment, concluding that it could not reverse unless the lower court had committed a “clear error.” The Supreme Court then granted certiorari to address the proper standard of review.
By a vote of 9-0 the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit. In an opinion delivered by Justice Kagan, the Court held unanimously that the Ninth Circuit acted properly in reviewing the Bankruptcy Court’s determination of non-statutory insider status for clear error rather than undertaking de novo review.
Justice Kennedy filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor also filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Gorsuch.
To discuss the case, we have Tom Plank, Professor of Law, at the University of Tennessee School of Law.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

It's time for another Rapid Response Friday, which means we get to break down Michael Avenatti's response to the opposition to his motion to appear pro hac vice in the Southern District of New York -- amongst many, many other issues! We begin, however,  with a brief Andrew Lived Through The 1980s segment (formerly: Andrew Was Wrong), that segues into an update on the Panmunjom Declaration discussed in Episode 173. After that, it's time to go yodeling, where we break down Paul Manafort's other criminal trial, Michael Avenatti's ethical responsibilities regarding SARs,  Donald Trump's financial disclosures, and (sadly) much, much more. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #76 regarding the admissibility of witness testimony.  If you'd like to play along with our new Patreon perk, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share 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!  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. Here is the text of the Panmunjom Declaration we first discussed in Episode 173.
2. You can read Judge Jackson's ruling denying Manafort's Motion to Dismiss, and also Avenatti's Response to Michael Cohen's Opposition to his motion to appear pro hac vice.
3. The primary case relied upon by Avenatti in his response is In re JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., 799 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2015), which is directly on point.
4. We've also uploaded a copy of Trump's 2018 Financial Disclosures, which admits the Cohen payment.
5. Finally, we highly recommend Ronan Farrow's New Yorker reporting regarding the Cohen SARs.

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! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

Today's episode heads overseas to discuss foreign policy; specifically, the Trump administration's actions with respect to Iran and North and South Korea.  Is there a common thread here?  Listen and find out! First, though, we update you on the Young America Foundation lawsuit against the University of California at Berkeley regarding Ann Coulter and an (alleged) hidden Secret Evil Cabal Conspiracy to Silence Conservatives. After that, we crank up the time machine and go back... all the way back to World War II to discuss what happened on the Korean Peninsula that paved the way for the recent Panmunjom Declaration.  If you've ever wanted Opening Arguments to go all Ken Burns, well, this is the show for you! Then, we take a look at the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed in Vienna on July 14, 2015 -- or, as Trump calls it, the "terrible Iran deal."  Is it a terrible deal?  What are the legal ramifications?  We've got you covered! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #75 about subsequent oral modifications to contract.  Don't forget to listen and find out why Andrew would have gotten this question wrong!  Also, 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. We first discussed the "Ann Coulter" lawsuit during Episode 73; if you want to read the latest ruling, it's embedded in this article.
2. Click here to read the Howard Levie law review article from the Akron Law Review, and here to read the final Armistice Agreement (drafted by Levie).
3. This is the text of the original JCPOA; and click here to read the CFR's backgrounder on it that was referenced during the show.
4. If you want the Washington Post's fact-checker article on Trump's statements about the JCPOA showing that virtually everything he's said is a lie, that's here.
5. This is the link that contains the letter written by the Obama Administration to then-Rep. Mike Pompeo describing the JCPOA as a "political document."
6. Finally, if you want to read the 1969 Vienna Convention, grab a tall beverage and curl up with it right here.  The actual treaty begins on page 384.

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! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com