The military capture of the Venezuelan leader, Maduro, is an event with giant international strategic, moral, economic, political, and other considerations. It also raises fascinating constitutional questions, and Professor Amar is ready to discuss some matters that probably did not come to your mind right away. Much of this stems from the fact that Maduro will be tried in a U.S. civilian, not a military court, so constitutional protections are implicated. Whatever your thoughts about the policy matters, it behooves you to join us in this exploration of how this escapade reveals a strain in constitutional doctrine that remains unresolved. Meanwhile, you will learn of cases with names like “Frisbie,” hence our title. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges at podcast.njsba.com.
Opening Arguments - The Dumbroe Doctrine, Part 2
OA1222 and OA1223 - Actual sane coverage of Trump's kidnapping of a foreign leader
OA NYC correspondent Liz Skeen joins Thomas and Matt for this emergency episode recorded the day after the US bombed Caracas in a truly unprecedented military operation to kidnap Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and his wife and transport them to Brooklyn to stand trial on federal narco-terrorism charges. We field dozens of patron questions as we try to understand how any of this could possibly be legal. How does this situation compare to the charges against former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez, and how is Trump’s record on narcotrafficking these days anyway? What is in this indictment, and what kinds of defenses might Maduro have? Is the federal government going to let this defendant pay his lawyer? Should a federal court be able to consider that this defendant was illegally abducted from his country by the US military while acting as the head of state of a sovereign nation? What kinds of consequences could there be for Venezuelans in the U.S.? And what can we--and the world--do to stop Trump from doing anything like this again?
-
“Authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation To Override International Law In Extraterritorial Law Enforcement Activities,” Assistant Attorney General William P. Barr, Office of Legal Counsel (June 21, 1989)
Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
Opening Arguments - The Dumbroe Doctrine
OA1222 - Actual sane coverage of Trump's kidnapping of a foreign leader PART 1
OA NYC correspondent Liz Skeen joins Thomas and Matt for this emergency episode recorded the day after the US bombed Caracas in a truly unprecedented military operation to kidnap Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and his wife and transport them to Brooklyn to stand trial on federal narco-terrorism charges. We field dozens of patron questions as we try to understand how any of this could possibly be legal. How does this situation compare to the charges against former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez, and how is Trump’s record on narcotrafficking these days anyway? What is in this indictment, and what kinds of defenses might Maduro have? Is the federal government going to let this defendant pay his lawyer? Should a federal court be able to consider that this defendant was illegally abducted from his country by the US military while acting as the head of state of a sovereign nation? What kinds of consequences could there be for Venezuelans in the U.S.? And what can we--and the world--do to stop Trump from doing anything like this again?
-
“Authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation To Override International Law In Extraterritorial Law Enforcement Activities,” Assistant Attorney General William P. Barr, Office of Legal Counsel (June 21, 1989)
Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
Strict Scrutiny - Can America Pull Back From the Brink of Autocracy?
Leah kicks off the episode with repeat guest Rebecca Ingber of Cardozo Law to discuss the wild illegality–both domestic and international–of Trump’s regime change operation in Venezuela. Then, Kate, Melissa, and Leah welcome Princeton professor and expert on the rise of modern autocracies, Kim Lane Scheppele to break down how Trump is consolidating power over the executive branch and the courts. Leah next catches up with president and CEO of Democracy Forward Skye Perryman on some of the legal developments over the holidays, including challenges to Department of Education funding cuts, the freezing of childcare payments to Minnesota, and a near-total abortion ban for veterans. Finally, the hosts speak with Demand Justice's Josh Orton about the worrying trends his organization is seeing among Trump 2.0’s judicial nominees.
Kim’s favorite things: An “Almost Sacred Responsibility”: The Rule of Law in Times of Peril, Gerald J. Postema (Judicature); Judge Harvey Wilkinson’s opinion in Abrego Garcia v. Noem; Judge William G. Young’s opinion in AAUP vs. Rubio; Sara L. Ellis’s opinion in Chicago Headline Club v. Noem; The Dual State, Ernst Fraenkel; The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2026!
- 3/6/26 – San Francisco
- 3/7/26 – Los Angeles
Learn more: http://crooked.com/events
Buy Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes
Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
- 3/6/26 – San Francisco
- 3/7/26 – Los Angeles
Learn more: http://crooked.com/events
Order your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes
Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - The Fast Track To Autocracy
In a special new year retrospective, Amicus host Dahlia Lithwick revisits an important episode from early 2025. Back at the beginning of February, Kim Lane Scheppele, the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International affairs at Princeton University, pointed to the speed and viciousness of the very opening legal gambits in Trump 2.0 as evidence that America had already switched over to the fast track for autocracy on January 20th, 2025. An expert in the law of autocracy, Scheppele has seen firsthand what happened to constitutional courts, the media, the academy and the democratic norms that protected them in Russia and Hungary. In this interview, Scheppelle explains how Trump’s executive orders on everything from government funding to transgender people in the military reveal a familiar global playbook that has chillingly familiar endpoints.
Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Opening Arguments - A New Gavel Gavel Trial! U.S. v. Dunn – Assault with a Deli Weapon
Since it's been a while since we last did a GG crossover, I wanted to share the new trial we are doing over there!
It's a new Gavel Gavel trial! We are excited to announce that we will be producing a totally new full trial re-enactment working from our EXCLUSIVE access to the transcript of the federal prosecution of Sean Dunn, better known to the world as the “Sandwich Guy” after being federally charged for assaulting a CBP officer with a fully-loaded 12-inch Subway sandwich on the streets of DC. But before we get to the meat of 2025’s Trial of the Century, legal sandwich artist Matt Cameron is here to slice up everything you need to know. From Dunn’s notably underreported motive to the significance of the date and location of the alleged assault to a shot-by-shot analysis of the only known video of the incident, we’ve got this one wrapped.
-
Video of Sean Dunn throwing a Subway sandwich at a uniformed CBP agent near 14th and U in Washington DC on August 10, 2025
-
U.S. v. Dunn complaint (filed 8/13/25)
-
Sensationalized video of Dunn’s arrest in his house by a swarm of federal agents posted on the official White House X account (8/14/25)
Opening Arguments - LAM1010: The Rainmaker
Here's a preview of Law'd Awful Movies!!! If you'd like the full thing, become a $2+ patron at patreon.com/law!
LAM 1010 - After taking a break with a couple of things we actually enjoyed (Juror #2 and My Cousin Vinny), Law’d Awful Movies returns to form with the first two episodes of USA’s uniquely terrible adaptation of John Grisham’s classic 1995 legal thriller The Rainmaker. Thomas, Lydia, and Matt review the show’s bizarre and often cowardly divergences from the source material, its AI-level of understanding of how humans operate in the world and talk to one another--and, of course, the many ways that The Rainmaker gets the most basic elements of law (and lawyering) wrong.
Amarica's Constitution - Your Questions, Easy and Hard
Our listeners have a talent for inquiry; they follow Professor Amar’s arguments every week, and come up with their own. This week, we end the year by fielding a wide range of questions, including some related to presidential oath-taking; juries, asked by a Judge; pardons and their abuse; and many related topics. Akhil invokes Angela Bassett and Tina Turner, as we answer the questions first softly, and then not so softly. And we end the year with fond wishes sincerely offered. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.
Strict Scrutiny - Introducing Runaway Country: Justice Has Left the Building
Alex digs into the destruction of due process and rule of law under the Trump administration. First, she hears from Judge Anam Petit, a recently fired immigration judge who explains how the legal system is being quietly dismantled to prioritize deportations. Then, Alex speaks to Andrew Weissmann, former lead prosecutor in Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office, about whether our system is forever changed, and what it’s like to be in President Trump’s crosshairs.
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
- 3/6/26 – San Francisco
- 3/7/26 – Los Angeles
Learn more: http://crooked.com/events
Order your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes
Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Opening Arguments - Van Buren v. US and Amy Coney Barrett’s So-So Textualism
OA1220 - What’s an FBI agent to do when a notorious low life reports a local cop is asking for a bribe? Turn him into a confidential information of course, and see how far you can get that dirty cop to go. A tale of two assholes, steadily making each others’ lives worse and worse, while one is wearing a wire.
Now, why does the Supreme Court care about any of this? Half the conviction hinges on whether this cop “exceeded authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and no one can agree what that means… including your cohosts. Hear Thomas try to figure out why Amy Coney Barrett is so obsessed with the definition of the word “so”, and Jenessa… defend Clarence Thomas?! This case is a hot mess, but the good news is everyone sucks here and no one wins.
The relevant language: “The Act subjects to criminal liability anyone who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access,” and thereby obtains computer information. 18 U. S. C. §1030(a)(2). It defines the term “exceeds authorized access” to mean “to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter.” §1030(e)(6).”
Barrett’s ruling: “In sum, an individual “exceeds authorized access” when he accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of the computer—such as files, folders, or databases—that are off limits to him.”
-
Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021)
-
United States v. Van Buren, 940 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2019)
-
Full text of the CFAA: 18 U.S.C. § 1030
Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!