A little more than a week after President Trump announced his ban on travel from a handful of majority-Muslim nations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this week refused to lift a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the new rule. This week, Dahlia sits down with fellow Slate legal writers Mark Joseph Stern and Jeremy Stahl for a special off-week episode to discuss the ruling and its implications.
Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here.
A little more than a week after President Trump announced his ban on travel from a handful of majority-Muslim nations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this week refused to lift a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the new rule. This week, Dahlia sits down with fellow Slate legal writers Mark Joseph Stern and Jeremy Stahl for a special off-week episode to discuss the ruling and its implications.
Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here.
On January 18, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Ziglar v. Abbasi, which was consolidated with the cases Ashcroft v. Abbasi and Hasty v. Abbasi. Ziglar v. Abbasi was part of a series of lawsuits brought by Muslim, South Asian, and Arab non-citizens who were who were detained after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and treated as “of interest” in the ensuing government investigation. These plaintiffs contended, among other things, that the conditions of their confinement violated their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. The defendants included high-level officials in the Department of Justice (DOJ) such as Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI director Robert Mueller, and Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner James Ziglar, as well various detention officials. Some of the parties reached settlements, and the district court eventually dismissed some of the allegations against the DOJ officials for failure to state claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ Free Exercise claims, but otherwise reversed most of the district court’s judgment. Plaintiffs, the Second Circuit held, had adequately pleaded claims for violations of substantive due process, equal protection, the Fourth Amendment, and civil conspiracy, and Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants then sought, and the Supreme Court granted, a petition for writ of certiorari. -- The questions now before the Supreme Court are threefold: (1) whether the Second Circuit, in finding that Plaintiffs’ due process claims did not arise in a “new context” for purposes of implying a remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, erred by defining “context” at too high a level of generality; (2) whether the Second Circuit erred in denying qualified immunity to Defendant Ziglar; and (3) whether the Second Circuit erred in holding that Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment Complaint met the pleading requirements identified by the Supreme Court in its 2009 decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal. -- To discuss the case, we have Jamil N. Jaffer, who is Adjunct Professor of Law and Director of the Homeland and National Security Law Program at the Antonin Scalia Law School.
On January 18, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Lee v. Tam. Simon Tam of The Slants, an Asian American rock band, applied to register the band’s name with the U.S. Trademark Office, but the application was denied. The Office claimed that the name would likely be disparaging towards “persons of Asian descent,” citing the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act of 1946, which prohibits trademarks that “[consist] of or [comprise] immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” Tam appealed to a board within the Office but was again denied. On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a panel of judges determined that the Office officials were within their rights to refuse the application. The Federal Circuit then reviewed the case en banc and found that the Disparagement Clause violated the First Amendment and that the Office should not have refused the application. -- The question before the Supreme Court is whether the disparagement provision of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), which provides that no trademark shall be refused registration on account of its nature unless, inter alia, it “[c]onsists of . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute” is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. -- To discuss the case, we have Megan L. Brown, who is Partner at Wiley Rein LLP.
Today's episode is brought to you by Audible! Go to audible.com/lawpod for your free 30 day trial!!
In today's episode, we take a look at the law of contracts, and particularly in the context of the recent lawsuit involving former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert. We begin, however, with a related question from patron Michael, who asks whether the Scientologists can really enforce that billion-year contract to join to Sea Org. (This answer will not surprise you.) That leads into our main segment, where we look at the strange and tragic lawsuit being brought against Hastert by a victim of his past sexual assault. Hastert agreed to pay the victim $3.5 million for his silence, and then stopped paying after he came under federal investigation. Recently, Hastert counter-sued to recover the hush money previously paid, and we break down all the intricacies of contract law to try and figure out who's likely to get what. After our main segment, we tackle another listener question; this time, about whether employers can fire you for smoking marijuana in the privacy of your own home if you live in a state like Colorado that's legalized marijuana use. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #10 which is another very, very hard question. 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)! Show Notes & Links
This Chicago Tribune article sets forth the facts of the Hastert case.
On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court decided State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (State Farm) administered separate wind and flood damage policies in the Gulf Coast area at the time of Hurricane Katrina. In general, State Farm was responsible for paying wind damage from its own assets, while federal funds would pay for flood damage. The Rigsby sisters were State Farm claims adjusters who allegedly discovered in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that, with respect to properties covered under both wind and flood policies, State Farm was unlawfully classifying wind damage as flood damage in order to offload the cost of payment onto the federal government. Rigsby sued on behalf of the United States under the provisions of the federal False Claims Act (FCA), and continued to litigate the case after the United States declined to intervene. The district court focused discovery and trial on a single bellwether claim, and the jury found an FCA violation and awarded damages. -- Both sides appealed, with the Rigsbys (classified under the FCA as “relators”) seeking additional discovery to uncover and pursue other similar FCA violations by State Farm--and State Farm arguing, among other things, that the case should be dismissed because the Rigsbys’ counsel had violated the FCA’s seal requirement, by disclosing the existence of the FCA lawsuit to various news outlets. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit acknowledged the seal violation but concluded (as the district court had)--after applying a multi-factor test--that the breach did not warrant dismissal here. -- The question before the Supreme Court was what standard governs the decision whether to dismiss a relator's claim for violation of the False Claims Act's seal requirement, an issue on which the federal circuit courts of appeals have split three ways. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Fifth Circuit. In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court unanimously held that a seal violation does not mandate dismissal of a relator's complaint under the False Claims Act and that whether to dismiss is a matter left to the discretion of the district court. In this case, the Supreme Court added, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dismiss the relator’s complaint. -- To discuss the case, we have Lawrence Ebner, who is the Founder of Capital Appellate Advocacy.
On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple. In April 2011, Apple sued Samsung Electronics, alleging that Samsung’s smartphones infringed on Apple’s trade dress as well as various design patents for the iPhone. A jury awarded Apple nearly $1 billion in damages under Section 289 of the Patent Act, and the trial court upheld most of the award against Samsung’s post-trial challenges. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected Samsung’s argument that the district court erred by allowing the jury to award damages based on Samsung’s profits off of its phones in their entirety, rather than just the portion of profits attributable to the smartphone components covered under the design patents. -- The question before the Supreme Court was whether, where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, an award of infringer’s profits should be limited to those profits attributable to the component. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Federal Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, the Court unanimously held that in the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant article of manufacture for arriving at a damages award under Section 289 need not be the end product sold to the consumer but may be only a component of that product. Whether the relevant article of manufacture in this particular case should be the entire smartphone or merely a component thereof is an issue the Court left open for resolution on remand. -- To discuss the case, we have Trevor Copeland, a Shareholder at Brinks Gilson & Lione, and Art Gollwitzer, a Partner at Michael Best & Friedrich LLP.
In today's episode, we examine one of the favorite policy recommendations of President Trump's Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos: the school voucher. What is it? Is it constitutional? Listen and find out! We begin, however, with a Breakin' Down the Law segment where Andrew looks at a popular Twitter account's explanation of the odd fact that Donald Trump filed his re-election papers four years early. Is there some nefarious purpose to him having done so, or is this innocuous? We break down the law so you'll be armed with the information you need to navigate these kinds of claims. In the main segment, Andrew walks us through Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), the most recent Supreme Court case to consider school vouchers, with a focus on whether providing federal tax dollars to private religious institutions violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. After our main segment, we turn to a question from ex-Mormon about the infamous "Mormon Extermination Order," an executive order (No. 44) signed by Missouri Gov. Lilburn Boggs in 1838. This dovetails with a two-hour discussion of the Order between Andrew and host Bryce Blankenagel during episode 47 of the "Naked Mormonism" podcast, which you should definitely check out by clicking here. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #9 about joint tenancy. 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)! Show Notes & Links
In an elaborately choreographed prime-time ceremony this week, President Trump tapped Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court seat that has been vacant for almost a year. We sit down with the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Elizabeth Wydra to examine Judge Gorsuch’s judicial record, whether he really is “Scalia 2.0,” and the difficult choices confronting Senate Democrats in the wake of this nomination.
We also consider the ramifications of reports that some U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents are defying federal court orders around Trump’s new travel restrictions. Slate staffers Mark Joseph Stern and Leon Neyfakh tell us what they learned from constitutional law scholars about the possibility of a standoff between two branches of the federal government. (Read our Slate piece on the subject here.)
Finally, we zero in on one of the many lawsuits filed this week against Trump’s executive order. Aziz v. Trump centers on a pair of young men who were en route to join their father in Michigan when the order was issued, and wound up being deported to Ethiopia upon their arrival at Dulles International Airport. We’re joined by the Legal Aid Justice Center’s Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the case.
Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here.
Amicus is brought to you by Casper, an online retailer of premium mattresses. Get $50 toward any mattress purchase by going to Casper.com/amicusand using the promo code amicus.
And by The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service that offers lectures on all kinds of topics. Get the first full month FREE when you sign up by going to TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here.
In an elaborately choreographed prime-time ceremony this week, President Trump tapped Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court seat that has been vacant for almost a year. We sit down with the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Elizabeth Wydra to examine Judge Gorsuch’s judicial record, whether he really is “Scalia 2.0,” and the difficult choices confronting Senate Democrats in the wake of this nomination.
We also consider the ramifications of reports that some U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents are defying federal court orders around Trump’s new travel restrictions. Slate staffers Mark Joseph Stern and Leon Neyfakh tell us what they learned from constitutional law scholars about the possibility of a standoff between two branches of the federal government. (Read our Slate piece on the subject here.)
Finally, we zero in on one of the many lawsuits filed this week against Trump’s executive order. Aziz v. Trump centers on a pair of young men who were en route to join their father in Michigan when the order was issued, and wound up being deported to Ethiopia upon their arrival at Dulles International Airport. We’re joined by the Legal Aid Justice Center’s Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the case.
Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here.
Amicus is brought to you by Casper, an online retailer of premium mattresses. Get $50 toward any mattress purchase by going to Casper.com/amicusand using the promo code amicus.
And by The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service that offers lectures on all kinds of topics. Get the first full month FREE when you sign up by going to TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus.
Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here.
