Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

 Amicus’ summer of exploring great legal writing continues this week with Jeff Rosen, whose biography of William Howard Taft reveals a president who was scrupulous in observing constitutional boundaries, and much happier on the bench than in the White House.

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 Rapid Response Friday breaks down all of the legal wrangling regarding the Trump Administration's secret settlement with a self-described "crypto-anarchist" who uploaded material that allows anyone with access to a 3-D printer to make their own plastic, undetectable, untraceable firearm. We begin, however, with a  listener who's considering coming over to the "dark side" and wants an honest answer about getting electoral help from overseas.  What if the Irish want to help elect Liz Warren in 2020?  Listen and find out! The main segment breaks down the "Defense Distributed" settlement and subsequent litigation -- and along the way you'll learn about Cold War arms sales, the Export Control Act, F-15s, Richard Nixon, and... well, let's just say there's a lot on the table! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #87 regarding a state supreme court ruling over whether witnesses must face their accusers.  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

1. We most recently discussed election law and the relevant statute, 52 U.S.C. § 30121, back in Episode 116 with Beth Kingsley.
2. The seminal Foreign Affairs (1982) article referenced by Andrew is here; and you can also verify the current arms sales numbers from this report in Newsweek.
3. This is the confidential Trump administration's settlement with Defense Distributed; here is the Complaint filed by 8 states, along with the opposition brief filed by Wilson as well as the one filed by the Government.  Ultimately, the Court granted the TRO.
4. You can read the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2751 et seq., and the implementing regulations at 22 C.F.R. § 125.4(b).
5. The Pentagon Papers case is more formally known as New York Times Co. v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971).
6. Here's a Harvard Law Review article summarizing Wilson's loss at the 5th Circuit.
7. Finally, check out the author note for (but please do not buy!) the Anarchist Cookbook, for sale on Amazon.

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 episode tells you everything you need to know about voting, including in particular West Virginia's "Sore Loser" law and whether it applies to big fat racist criminal loser Don Blankenship... and, in turn, what that means for Joe Manchin's chances of holding on to his Senate seat in the 2018 midterms.  Phew! We begin, however, with... *sigh*... Andrew Was Wrong.  This time, an astute listener clarifies where Andrew elided over two different sections of the Voting Rights Act when discussing the Supreme Court's opinion in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). Oh, and we have more on McDonald's, too!  After that, it's time to dig into West Virginia's "sore loser" law.  What does this mean for the upcoming Senate elections?  Listen and find out! Then, the guys tackle a very good listener question from listener Greg regarding freedom of the press, freedom of speech, limited public fora, and more. Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #86 regarding the sale of an automobile and a slippery salesman.  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. Don't forget to tune in to our live Q&A this Tuesday, 7/31, at 7 pm Eastern / 4 Pacific.  And, of course, participate in the questions thread!
2. We most recently discussed the Voting Rights Act and Shelby County v. Holder back in Episode 188.
3. If you want to know more about big fat racist criminal loser Don Blankenship, heck, you could start with his Wikipedia page.  He's not shy about being a big fat racist criminal.  (He does not yet grasp that he's a loser, though.)
4. We cited two provisions of the West Virginia Code:  W. Va. Code §§ 3-5-7(d)(6) and 3-5-23.
5. And just in case you've forgotten how conservative Patrick Morrisey is, here's the quote he gave to CBS news.

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 June 11, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Washington v. United States, a case considering off-reservation fishing rights of multiple Native American Tribes in the State of Washington.
The 1854-1855 Stevens Treaties were a series of treaties between several Native American Tribes and the State of Washington. As part of these treaties, the Tribes relinquished land, watersheds, and offshore waters adjacent to a particular area, “Case Area,” in exchange for guaranteed off-reservation fishing rights. In 2001, twenty-one tribes and the United States complained in federal district court that the State had been building and maintaining culverts that impeded the transit of mature and juvenile salmon between the sea and their spawning grounds. In 2007, the district court issued an injunction requiring the State to correct these culverts, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address (1) whether a treaty “right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations ... in common with all citizens” guaranteed “that the number of fish would always be sufficient to provide a ‘moderate living’ to the tribes”; (2) whether the district court erred in dismissing the state's equitable defenses against the federal government where the federal government signed these treaties in the 1850s, for decades told the state to design culverts a particular way, and then filed suit in 2001 claiming that the culvert design it provided violates the treaties it signed; and (3) whether the district court’s injunction violates federalism and comity principles by requiring Washington to replace hundreds of culverts, at a cost of several billion dollars, when many of the replacements will have no impact on salmon, and plaintiffs showed no clear connection between culvert replacement and tribal fisheries.
In a per curiam opinion, an equally divided Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit.
To discuss the case, we have Lance Sorenson, Olin-Darling Fellow in Constitutional Law at Stanford Law School.

Today's Rapid Response Friday breaks down all of a busy week's developments in the Trump Administration's trip up Yodel Mountain, including the surprising revelation that Michael Cohen has audio tapes of his conversations with Donald Trump.  What does it all mean?  Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a challenging listener question regarding legal ethics and summer associates that hearkens back to our last episode. The main segment tackles an entire week's worth of yodeling, including the Cohen tapes, the emoluments lawsuit, and the Manafort trial.  Phew! After that, we check in with our buddy Andrew Seidel from the FFRF about a recent victory in the 9th Circuit regarding prayers at public school board meetings. Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #86 involving the questionable sale of a used car.  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

1. Don't forget to tune in to our live Q&A this Tuesday, 7/31, at 7 pm Eastern / 4 Pacific.  And, of course, participate in the questions thread!
2. Here's the Reuters report that there are 12 Cohen-Trump tapes; we've heard just part of the first one regarding Karen McDougal, whom we first discussed back in Episode 158.
3. You can read the Emoluments ruling for yourself; we covered this most recently back in Episodes 160 and 162.  For our original two-part interview with Seth Barrett Tillman, check out Episodes 35 and 36.
4. Some documents from the Manafort trial:  2018.07.22 Yanukovich govt response; 2018.07.20 Yanukovich motion in limine; 2018.07.25 orders on motions in limine; and 2018.07.26 government jury response.  And, of course, you should take a look at the government's Exhibit List.
5. We discussed the "Bernie Sanders" lawsuit against the DNC back in Episode 106.
6. Finally, for some good news, check out the 9th Circuit's opinion in FFRF v. Chino Valley Unified School District; we discussed Town of Greece v. Galloway in Episode 85.

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 episode tells you everything you need to know before Paul Manafort's trial in the Eastern District of Virginia, which begins Wednesday, July 25, 2018.  Oh, and we break down the recent lawsuit against McDonald's to boot! We begin, however, with a very good listener question from "Judicial Noir" regarding ethics, science, and a summer internship! After that, it's time to discuss an actual lawsuit over actual cheese.   Yes, there's a class action lawsuit against Thomas's favorite restaurant (McDonald's) -- and we're here to help you separate fact from fiction!  Oh, and along the way, you might learn something about Microsoft, illegal tying arrangements, and antitrust law! Then, it's back to Yodel Mountain to explain in depth exactly what's going on with our buddy Paulie M, and what you can expect over the next two weeks. Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #85 regarding real property.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances If you didn't see Andrew's live appearance on Left-Right Radio with Chuck Morse, you can check out the YouTube archive of it.  And 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. Before we get to McDonald's, you'll need to read all about US v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34 (2001).  While you're at it, you might as well brush up on the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
2. After that, you can read the class action lawsuit against McDonald's regarding the Quarter Pounder and Double Quarter Pounder.
3. Andrew first broke down Judge Ellis in Episode 172.

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  

In the first of a series of deep dives into great legal reads this summer, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Rick Hasen, author of “The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption” about civil discourse, rock star justices, and what Justice Scalia would have thought of President Trump.

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

In the first of a series of deep dives into great legal reads this summer, Dahlia Lithwick talks with Rick Hasen, author of “The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption” about civil discourse, rock star justices, and what Justice Scalia would have thought of President Trump.

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 breaks down the recent lawsuit filed by the Mandalay Bay casino regarding the 2017 Las Vegas shooting.  Is it true that the casino is suing the victims?  What's that all about??  Listen and find out!  Also, we check in with Yodel Mountain and figure out, once and for all, if this is really worse than Watergate.  (Hint:  yes.) We begin, however, with everybody's favorite segment, Andrew Was Wrong, in which we revisit the Supreme Court with a few corrections. The main segment tackles the Mandalay Bay lawsuit and explains the concept of a declaratory judgent as well as the 2002 SAFETY Act upon which Mandalay Bay is attempting to rely. Next, we return to Yodel Mountain to discuss the recent Mueller indictments, Donald Trump's Treason Summit with Russia, and ingenue Mariia Butina.  It's as salacious as OA ever gets! Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #85 involving (ugh) real property.  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 If you didn't see Andrew's live appearance on Left-Right Radio with Chuck Morse, you can check out the YouTube archive of it.  And 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. This is the link to the 2011 Ethics Report authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
2. Here's the Above The Law article we mentioned at the start of the main segment.
3. We've uploaded a copy of the MGM/Mandalay Bay lawsuit so you can read it for yourself.
4. The SAFETY Act can be found at 6 U.S.C. § 441 et seq., and the implementing regulations are at 6 CFR § 25.7.
5. We discussed the Senate Intelligence Committee's report in Episode 190.
6. Here's the link to the Mother Jones article about Butina documenting the claims made in the C segment.

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 June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Gill v. Whitford, a case considering claims of partisan gerrymandering.
In Wisconsin’s 2010 elections, Republicans won the governorship and acquired control of the state senate. In 2011, pursuant to the state constitution’s requirement that the legislature must redraw the boundaries of its districts following each census, the Wisconsin legislature adopted a redistricting plan, Act 43, for state legislative districts. With Act 43 in effect Republicans expanded their legislative control in subsequent elections, reportedly winning 60 of 99 seats in the State Assembly with 48.6% of the statewide two-party vote in 2012, and 63 of 99 seats with 52% of the statewide two-party vote in 2014. In 2015 twelve Wisconsin voters sued in federal court, alleging that Act 43 constituted a statewide partisan gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment were denied, and following trial a divided three-judge district court panel invalidated Act 43 statewide. Act 43, the majority concluded, impermissibly burdened the representational rights of Democratic voters by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats even when Republicans were in an electoral minority. The court enjoined further use of Act 43 and ordered that a remedial redistricting plan be enacted, but the United States Supreme Court stayed that judgment pending resolution of this appeal.
By a vote of 9-0, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for a new trial. In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that the plaintiffs--Wisconsin Democratic voters who rested their claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering on statewide injury--had failed to demonstrate Article III standing.
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, in which Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined except as to Part III. Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, which was joined by Justice Gorsuch.
To discuss the case, we have David Casazza, Associate at Gibson Dunn.