Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

In the days leading up to Election Day, conservative legal scholar Orin Kerr explained why he would be crossing the aisle to vote for a Democrat. On this episode, he tells us why the prospect of a President Trump frightened him so much, and what we can expect in the way of checks and balances on executive power for the next four years.

We also speak with Garrett Epps, who wrote in The Atlantic this week that Trump is “a figure out of authoritarian politics, not the American tradition.” Epps observes that Trump has expressed contempt for nearly every article in the Bill of Rights, and deserves to be taken at his word.

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 The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service with a large library of lectures all taught by award-winning professors. Get a free month of unlimited access when you sign up at TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. And by First Republic Bank. At First Republic, they take the time to know your business and customize solutions to help you reach your goals. Visit FirstRepublic.com today to hear what their clients say about them.

Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here. Podcast production by Tony Field.

---

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

PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!! https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs In this week’s episode, we tackle the legal and philosophical issues underlying libertarianism.  We take on such issues as :  what is “property,” why is it a right, and is it cognizable as a side-constraint against government action?   At the end of the day, … Continue reading OA22: Libertarianism is Bad and You Should Feel Bad →

The post OA22: Libertarianism is Bad and You Should Feel Bad appeared first on Opening Arguments.

On November 1, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in 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 after applying a multi-factor test that the breach did not warrant dismissal here. -- The question now before the Supreme Court is 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. -- To discuss the case, we have Cory Andrews, who is senior litigation counsel at the Washington Legal Foundation.

On October 11, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct and harassment in state trial court. Two jurors later informed Pena-Rodriguez’s counsel that another juror made racially-biased statements about Pena-Rodriguez and an alibi witness during jury deliberations. The trial court authorized counsel to contact the two jurors for their affidavits detailing what the allegedly biased juror had said. Pena-Rodriguez moved for a new trial after learning from the affidavits that the juror had suggested Pena-Rodriguez was guilty because he was Hispanic (and this juror considered Hispanic males to be sexually aggressive toward females). According to the affidavits, the juror also deemed the alibi witness not credible because, among other things, that witness was “an illegal.” The trial court denied the motion and a divided Supreme Court of Colorado ultimately affirmed, applying Colorado Rule of Evidence 606(b)--which prohibits juror testimony on any matter occurring during the jury deliberations--and finding that none of the exceptions to the rule applied. In the dissenters’ view, however, Rule 606(b) should have yielded to “the defendant’s constitutional right to an impartial jury.” -- The question now before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether a no-impeachment rule constitutionally may bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. -- To discuss the case, we have John C. Richter, who is Partner at King & Spalding.

On October 5, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in 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, 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 now before the Supreme Court is 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. -- To discuss the case, we have Mark D. Janis, the Robert A. Lucas Chair of Law and Director of the Center for Intellectual Property Research, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University.

On October 5, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Salman v. United States. Bassam Yacoub Salman was convicted in a jury trial of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, as well as several counts of actual securities fraud. The government’s theory was that Salman, whose brother-in-law Mounir Kara (along with Mounir’s older brother Maher Kara) worked for Citigroup, had coordinated with Mounir in an insider trading scheme that, over the course of just a few years, grew a $396,000 brokerage account controlled by Salman into one worth more than $2 million. -- Salman moved for a new trial, arguing that there was no evidence he knew that the tipper had disclosed confidential information in exchange for a personal benefit. The district court denied the motion. Salman made a similar argument to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on appeal, urging the Court to adopt the then-recently established standard set out by the Second Circuit in United States v. Newman. Under Newman, the government must present sufficient evidence that the accused knew the “inside” information he received had been disclosed in breach of a fiduciary duty. Invoking its precedent in Dirks v. SEC, the Ninth Circuit rejected Salman’s challenge, holding that the close familial relationship between Salman and the Karas was sufficient to sustain Salman’s convictions. -- The question now before the Supreme Court is whether the personal benefit to the insider that is necessary to establish insider trading under Dirks requires proof of “an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature,” as the Second Circuit held in Newman, or whether it is enough that the insider and the tippee shared a close familial relationship, as the Ninth Circuit held here. -- To discuss the case, we have Thaya Brook Knight, who is associate director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute.

PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!! https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs By listener request, we are bringing you this special “deep dive” episode into the history and jurisprudence underlying the Second Amendment.  This episode was originally broadcast on Atheistically Speaking earlier in 2016. Just in time for the election, we tackle a thorny political issue: … Continue reading OA21: Second Amendment Masterclass, Part 1 →

The post OA21: Second Amendment Masterclass, Part 1 appeared first on Opening Arguments.

PLEASE PLEASE fill out a very brief survey for us!!! https://survey.libsyn.com/openargs In this special episode, we look at breaking news:  the jury verdict in United States v. Ammon Bundy et al., a federal case brought in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon as a result of the armed takeover of the Malheur National … Continue reading OA20: What Happened With Ammon Bundy? SPECIAL EDITION →

The post OA20: What Happened With Ammon Bundy? SPECIAL EDITION appeared first on Opening Arguments.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v Holder, many states made changes to their voting laws that may disproportionately harm minorities. This week, lawyers in Ohio filed an emergency motion with the Supreme Court requesting a suspension of voting restrictions in their state. One of those lawyers, Subodh Chandra, joins us to explain why.

We also speak with Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, about the potential impact of Donald Trump’s recent warnings about vote-rigging. She explains why long-term neglect of our voting infrastructure is a much bigger threat than either vote tampering or self-styled poll watchers.

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 The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service with a large library of lectures all taught by award-winning professors. Get a free month of unlimited access when you sign up at TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus.

And by Blue Apron. For less than $10 per meal, Blue Apron delivers meal kits right to your door to make cooking at home easy. Get your first THREE meals FREE by going to BlueApron.com/amicus.

Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here. 

Podcast production by Tony Field.

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

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v Holder, many states made changes to their voting laws that may disproportionately harm minorities. This week, lawyers in Ohio filed an emergency motion with the Supreme Court requesting a suspension of voting restrictions in their state. One of those lawyers, Subodh Chandra, joins us to explain why.

We also speak with Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, about the potential impact of Donald Trump’s recent warnings about vote-rigging. She explains why long-term neglect of our voting infrastructure is a much bigger threat than either vote tampering or self-styled poll watchers.

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 The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service with a large library of lectures all taught by award-winning professors. Get a free month of unlimited access when you sign up at TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus.

And by Blue Apron. For less than $10 per meal, Blue Apron delivers meal kits right to your door to make cooking at home easy. Get your first THREE meals FREE by going to BlueApron.com/amicus.

Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here. 

Podcast production by Tony Field.

---

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