This week Dahlia Lithwick calls on white-collar-crime specialist Jennifer Taub to follow the money in the Mueller investigation. She also speaks with Bob Bauer, a former White House counsel under President Barack Obama, about the relationship between presidents and their lawyers, and between this president and his lawyers. Bauer discusses when professional duty can stray into enabling, a question facing Trump’s personal and institutional lawyers as cases involving the president accumulate.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.
This week Dahlia Lithwick calls on white-collar-crime specialist Jennifer Taub to follow the money in the Mueller investigation. She also speaks with Bob Bauer, a former White House counsel under President Barack Obama, about the relationship between presidents and their lawyers, and between this president and his lawyers. Bauer discusses when professional duty can stray into enabling, a question facing Trump’s personal and institutional lawyers as cases involving the president accumulate.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com.
In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew discuss Congressman-elect Conor Lamb's victory in Tuesday's PA-18 special election and whether the Republicans will be able to recount the results. After that, Andrew walks through the history of prior restraint under the First Amendment in light of a recent Nevada decision denying the request of the family of one of the Las Vegas massacre victims to suppress his autopsy report... and what that might mean for friend of the show Stormy Daniels. That segues into another Q&A segment where we tackle Yet More Of Your Stormy Questions; this time relating to (1) choice of law and (2) whether Stormy can simply buy back the settlement for $130,000. Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #67 about a gang party where the boss just wanted to "send a message." Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing 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! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links
Today's episode tackles a popular article in The Atlantic which implies that, but for the machinations of one dude in the 1880s, corporations might not be "people," today. Is it true? Listen and find out! First, though, we continue to examine the legal genius of Stormy Daniels by answering some of the most common questions raised in response to our episode. This begins (sadly) with a brief "Andrew Was Wrong" clarification about the operative campaign disclosure requirements as well as an analysis of the arbitration order that came to light just after we went to press with Episode 154, and more! In the main segment, Andrew takes a trip through the history of corporate personhood. After that, we answer a delightful question about hearsay from listener Dr. Jeff Otjen. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas (and David) Take the Bar Exam Question #66 about murderous political candidates appearing on an "Iron Chef" knockoff... look, you'll just have to listen for yourself. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links
Finally, the answer to Dr. Jeff's question references two different provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence: Rule 801 (defining hearsay) and Rule 803 (listing the exceptions).
This emergency episode examines the Complaint filed by Stormy Daniels seeking a legal determination that the Settlement Agreement entered into between her, Donald Trump's lawyer, and (allegedly) Donald Trump is not legally binding. We honestly believe that this is a much bigger bombshell than is being portrayed by the press. Listen and find out why. We also end with an all-new TTTBE #66 featuring David Michael. You won't want to miss it! Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! 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 an in-depth look at the recent FBI investigation into NCAA basketball. First, though, the guys take another trip to Yodel Mountain, stopping at base camp to discuss Michael Rogers, Hope Hicks, Jared Kushner, Rick Gates, and everyone's favorite villain, Paul Manafort. During the main segment, Andrew and Thomas cover the recent expose by Yahoo regarding college basketball coaches allegedly paying for top talent. What does this mean for the future of the sport right before March Madness? Listen and find out! After that, we revisit the funniest lawsuit in recent memory, namely, Bob Murray of Murray Energy's defamation lawsuit against John Oliver, which we first covered back in Episode 84. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #65 about an overzealous Eli Bosnick disciple who accidentally poisoned a meat-eater. Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links
We first discussed the Murray Energy lawsuit in Episode 84 and the amicus brief filed by Jamie Lynn Crofts ("the best legal brief ever written") in Episode 93.
On February 21, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Digital Realty Trust v. Somers. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) endeavors to protect “whistleblowers,” who are defined as persons who provide “information relating to a violation of the securities to the [U.S. Securities and Exchange] Commission.” Employers are liable for discharging, harassing, or otherwise discriminating against a whistleblower “because of any lawful act done by the whistleblower” with respect to (1) “providing information to the Commission in accordance with [securities laws],” (2) “initiating, testifying in, or assisting in any investigation or … action of the Commission based upon” information provided to the Commission in accordance with securities laws, or (3) “making disclosures that are required or protected under” various statutes and regulations. In 2014, then-Vice President of Digital Realty Trust, Inc. Paul Somers reported to his senior management that he suspected securities-law violations by the company. He was subsequently terminated. Prior to his termination, Somers had expressed his concerns internally only and not to the Securities and Exchange Commission. He sued Digital Realty Trust in federal district court, alleging unlawful whistleblower retaliation under Dodd-Frank. Digital Realty moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Somers did not qualify as a whistleblower because he had not reported his suspicions to the Commission. The district court rejected that argument and a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that whistleblower protection can extend to persons who have not actually reported suspected violations to the Commission. This decision aggravated a split in the federal circuit courts of appeals on the issue, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. By a vote of 9-0 the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation whistleblower protection does not extend to an individual who has not reported a violation of securities laws to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Justice Ginsburg’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Breyer. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, which was joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch. To discuss the case, we have Todd Braunstein, Global Head of Legal Investigations at Willis Towers Watson.
On this week’s show, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler to talk about his new book We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights. Together, they also examine what the constitutionalizing of corporate rights can tell us about the current gun debate.
And Dahlia steps inside the chamber for oral arguments in the hugely significant public sector union case we previewed last show. She is joined by the Solicitor General of Illinois, David Franklin, who argued the case. There were explosive contributions from the justices on the bench, but notable silence from the court’s newest member, Justice Neil M Gorsuch.
On this week’s show, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler to talk about his new book We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights. Together, they also examine what the constitutionalizing of corporate rights can tell us about the current gun debate.
And Dahlia steps inside the chamber for oral arguments in the hugely significant public sector union case we previewed last show. She is joined by the Solicitor General of Illinois, David Franklin, who argued the case. There were explosive contributions from the justices on the bench, but notable silence from the court’s newest member, Justice Neil M Gorsuch.
In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew discuss the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals' en banc decision in Zarda v. Altitude Express, ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's ban on discrimination on the basis of sex applies to sexual orientation as well. This is a follow-up to our prior discussions of this issue back in Episode 60 and Episode 91. In the initial segment, Andrew tackles a question from Twitter about the James Damore lawsuit and employment law in general after our most recent coverage in Episode 150. After the main discussion of Zarda, the guys discuss some of the fallout from the Parkland shooting, including decisions by Dick's Sporting Goods and Wal-Mart to cease certain kinds of gun sales. Is this inappropriate age discrimination? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #65 about vegan criminal law. You won't want to miss it! Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing 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! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links
