Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

If it's Friday, it's a current events episode, and if it's current events, we're probably talking about Donald Trump. We begin, however, with a hopefully infrequent segment about stuff Andrew gets wrong.  In this case, patron Sean Keehan corrects Andrew's numbers regarding Congressional votes. After that, we answer the actual legal question behind #covfefe -- namely, whether Donald Trump can delete his Tweets.  The answer... might surprise you! In our main segment, we look at the ongoing Senate investigation regarding Trump's ties with Russia and break down the Congress's power to conduct investigations and issue subpoenas, and the reasons people can give for failing to comply with them. After that, fan favorite Breakin' Down the Law returns with the question on everyone's lips:  is it legal for Kathy Griffin to have posed with Donald Trump's severed head? Finally, we end with a brand new (and tricky) Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #25 about the admissibility of a composite sketch after the primary witness has unexpectedly died.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. Andrew first made the erroneous claim regarding voting results in Episode #54 on Gerrymandering, and repeated it in Episode #72.  Oops.
2. The Presidential Records Act can be found at 44 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.
3. The case establishing the inherent power of the Congress to issue investigations dating back to the McCarthy era is Wilkinson v. U.S., 365 U.S. 399 (1961).
4. Finally, the landmark case establishing the applicable standard of "imminent incitement to lawless action" is Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

In this episode, the guys engage in a discussion with actor Travis Wester, who criticized the show's coverage of the Berkeley College Republicans' lawsuit back in the "C" segment of Episode #65. Travis comes on the show to criticize Berkeley's policy regarding the imposition of fees, while Andrew walks us through the various laws regarding the First Amendment's applicability to "time, place, and manner" restrictions in college classrooms. This episode went long, so we skipped our other segments, but obviously no Tuesday episode would be complete without the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam Question #25 about smokin' weed and crashin' cars. Recent Appearances: None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links Here are the resources discussed in this episode:

1. This is the link to the BCR/YAF (Ann Coulter) Complaint.
2. Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995) is the Supreme Court case decisively holding that campus groups allocating space in classrooms are a limited public forum.
3. Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989), is the landmark Supreme Court case on time, place, and manner restrictions.
4. Rock for Life-UMBC v. Hrabowski, 643 F.Supp.2d 729 (D. Md. 2009) is the D.Md. case that is directly on point with a university that has the exact same policies as Berkeley.
5. The authorizing regulation is 5 CCR § 100004.
6. The 5th Circuit case to which Travis kept referring is Sonnier v. Crain, 613 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2010), the opinion of which was subsequently withdrawn in part by Sonnier v. Crain, 634 F.3d 778 (5th Cir. 2011).
7. Finally, the Supreme Court case cited by Travis within the Sonnier opinion is Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992), in which the Supreme Court held that content-based restrictions, including excessive security fees, violate the 1st Amendment.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

This week, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that caught some Court-watchers off-guard. It ruled that North Carolina lawmakers had violated the Constitution by using race as a proxy for divvying up voters along partisan lines. And it was surprising because the swing vote invalidating the gerrymander came from none other than Justice Clarence Thomas. On this week’s episode, we parse the outcome of Cooper v. Harris -- and what it portends for future redistricting litigation -- with Slate legal writer Mark Joseph Stern.

We also sit down with Jorge Barón, executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. Each year, that group provides assistance to thousands of immigrants threatened with deportation. But last month, the NWIRP received a strange cease-and-desist letter from the U.S. Department of Justice, threatening its ongoing legal work and raising some concerns that the group is being singled out for its defense of immigrants caught up in the first iteration of President Trump’s travel ban. 

Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app.

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 Tony Field. 

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

This week, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that caught some Court-watchers off-guard. It ruled that North Carolina lawmakers had violated the Constitution by using race as a proxy for divvying up voters along partisan lines. And it was surprising because the swing vote invalidating the gerrymander came from none other than Justice Clarence Thomas. On this week’s episode, we parse the outcome of Cooper v. Harris -- and what it portends for future redistricting litigation -- with Slate legal writer Mark Joseph Stern.

We also sit down with Jorge Barón, executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. Each year, that group provides assistance to thousands of immigrants threatened with deportation. But last month, the NWIRP received a strange cease-and-desist letter from the U.S. Department of Justice, threatening its ongoing legal work and raising some concerns that the group is being singled out for its defense of immigrants caught up in the first iteration of President Trump’s travel ban. 

Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app.

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 Tony Field. 

---

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

In this episode, we revisit what Andrew has called the worst problem in American politics:  gerrymandering -- but this time with a twist. We begin, however, with a listener question from Anna Bosnick, who is also our special guest for Law'd Awful Movies #7 - Legally Blonde! Anna watched the movie and listened to our intro and wants to know:  what exactly is habeas corpus, anyway? Then, we tackle the recent news about Montana Congressional candidate Greg "Body Slam" Gianforte.  Can he really take office if he's convicted of assault? In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas walk through the recent Supreme Court decision in Cooper v. Harris and discuss what it might mean for the future of gerrymandering legislation. After that, Andrew answers another listener question, this one from the exceptionally prescient Garry Myers, who wants to know whether corporations can assert 5th Amendment rights. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #25 about smoking pot and crashing cars.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None!  But check out our Law'd Awful Movies guest, Anna Bosnick, and her amazing ukulele work over at worthyfools.com. Show Notes & Links

1. Don't forget to check out our prior Episode #54 on Gerrymandering.
2. In the case of Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), Scalia opined that "of course" being actually innocent isn't grounds for habeas corpus relief, although that was walked back by the Supreme Court in McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S.Ct. 1924 (2013).
3. You can also check out the Cooper v. Harris decision here.
4. Finally, the case discussed in the C segment is Hale v. Henkel, 204 U.S. 43 (1906).

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

In this episode, the guys address whether the political left or the political right is the biggest threat to freedom of speech in the United States.  Their answer probably won't surprise you, but it will give you some ammunition during your next twitter fight with some dude with a Pepe the Frog icon. To tee up this subject, the guys examine the case of journalist Dan Heyman, who was just arrested (!) for trying to ask a question about the AHCA to a rather reluctant Tom Price, the guy who's Secretary of Health and Human Services and who's job description includes answering these kinds of questions. In the main segment, the guys compare the real threat to free speech with the latest complaint filed by our friends over at the Alliance Defending Freedom.  This particular lawsuit was filed on behalf of creationist lunatic Andrew Snelling, who wants to steal rocks from the Grand Canyon so he can prove something something Jesus moon lasers something and therefore, the earth is only 6,000 years old.  What you won't expect:  Andrew actually praises this Complaint!  Multiple times! After that, Andrew tackles a question from listener Thomas McCormick who -- perhaps somewhat tongue-in-cheek? -- wonders why churches are tax-exempt at all.  In (not) answering the question, Andrew also points out some special benefits churches get under the tax code. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #24 about double hearsay.  We'll release a new #TTTBE question this Friday, and, as always, answer that question the following Tuesday.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s), and don't forget that patrons who support us at any level get early access to the answers (and usually a fun post analyzing the question in more detail). Recent Appearances: None, but you should check out Thomas's other show, Serious Inquiries Only, and in particular episode #41 featuring Michael Shermer backpedaling on his the-left-is-killing-free-speech tweets and articles. Show Notes & Links

1. Mediaite has the video and some contemporaneous tweets of the Heyman arrest.
2. This is a copy of the Complaint the ADF filed on behalf of Andrew Snelling.
3. Finally, two of the special statutes that benefit churches (and only churches) cited by Andrew in the "C" segment are 26 U.S.C. § 508(c) and 26 U.S.C. § 7611.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

On April 19, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Weaver v. Massachusetts. Kentel Myrone Weaver was convicted of first degree murder for the 2003 shooting of Germaine Rucker. In 2011, Weaver filed a motion for a new trial, claiming that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. A court officer had closed the court to Weaver’s family and other members of the public during jury selection because of overcrowding. Weaver claimed that this closure violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, and his counsel had failed to object to the closure. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed Weaver’s conviction on direct appeal and declined to grant relief on his Sixth Amendment claim. -- The question before the Supreme Court is whether a defendant asserting ineffective assistance that results in a structural error must, in addition to demonstrating deficient performance, show that he was prejudiced by counsel's ineffectiveness, as held by four circuits and five state courts of last resort; or whether prejudice is presumed in such cases, as held by four other circuits and two state high courts. -- To discuss the case, we have Peter M. Thomson, who is Special Counsel at Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann LLC.

This episode begins the switch to a new, more responsive format in which we are better able to cover breaking news within a day of its release.  And, of course, what better way to kick off that format by addressing the most pressing topic of the moment:  is Donald Trump guilty of obstruction of justice in his firing of James Comey in light of the recent evidence?  We break it down for you with the help of a guest expert, Prof. Randall Eliason of the Sidebars blog. First, though, we continue our ascent up Yodel Mountain with the question as to whether it's legal for Donald Trump to surreptitiously record White House conversations (as Press Secretary Sean Spicer recently failed to deny). In the main segment, the guys turn to a former prosecutor and expert on public corruption and the obstruction of justice, Prof. Randall Eliason, and ask about the strengths and weaknesses of mounting a case against the President for obstruction of justice. After that, Andrew answers a question from Jake (the Fake Jake) who wants to know whether the President has immunity from civil lawsuits, as he's claimed. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #24 about hearsay-within-hearsay.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None!  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

1. Check out Prof. Eliason's blog, Sidebars, and in particular the most recent post on this subject.
2. Here is the link to the L.A. Times story about how Press Secretary Sean Spicer won't deny that President Trump is secretly taping White House conversations, and this is the link to the operative statute, § 23-542 of the D.C. Code.
3. This is the text of Acting AG Rod Rosenstein's order appointing Robert Mueller as special counsel.
4. The operative regulations governing the special counsel can be found at 28 CFR § 600.4 et seq.
5. This is a link to the CNN story regarding Gen. Flynn's refusal to comply with the Senate's subpoena duces tecum.
6. Finally, here is a link to Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), the Supreme Court case that established that Presidents do not have immunity from civil suit while in office.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

On March 29, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Turner v. United States, which was consolidated with Overton v. United States. In 1984, the body of Catherine Fuller was discovered in an alley after she had been beaten and raped. Sufficient physical evidence to identify the perpetrators was not recovered, and the medical examiner could not determine the number of attackers involved. Thirteen teenagers were initially indicted for being involved in a group effort to originally rob and subsequently assault and kill her. Two of them, Harry Bennett and Calvin Alston, pled guilty and agreed to testify, but the details in their accounts differed. Turner and nine other defendants were found guilty by a jury, and their convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Nearly 25 years later, Turner and several of the other original defendants moved to have their sentences vacated, claiming that they had not received fair trials because the government had withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland. They also argued that newly discovered evidence, including the recantations of Bennett and Alston, established that they were actually innocent of the crime. The trial court denied the motion, and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court held that the defendants had not shown a reasonable probability that the outcome of their trials would have been different with the new evidence. -- The question now before the Supreme Court is whether the petitioners' convictions must be set aside under Brady v. Maryland. -- To discuss the case, we have Brian Lichter, who is Associate at Latham & Watkins.

On April 17, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities. Between July 2007 and January 2008, Lehman Brothers raised over $31 billion through debt offerings. California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), the largest pension fund in the country, purchased millions of dollars of these securities. CalPERS sued Lehman Brothers in 2011, and their case was merged with another retirement fund’s putative class action suit against Lehman Brothers and transferred to a New York district court. Later that year, the other parties settled, but CalPERS decided to pursue its own claims individually. The district court dismissed for untimely filing, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. -- The questions now before the Supreme Court is whether the filing of a putative class action serves, under the American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah rule, to satisfy the three-year time limitation in Section 13 of the Securities Act with respect to the claims of putative class members. -- To discuss the case, we have Paul Stancil, who is Professor of Law at Brigham Young University.