Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

The 2024 election is already underway, with some states already sending out ballots for mail-in voting. But as democrats are basking in the waning glow of their brat summer, the republican party spent the summer on a “protect the vote” tour, spearheaded by RNC co-chair and DJT daughter-in-law Lara Trump. It’s a pretty clever step — from “Stop the Steal” to “Protect the Vote” — and it’s just one of the lessons the MAGA party learned from the failed attempt to overturn the 2020 election. This week on Amicus: what’s changed in election law since 2020, and what it means for the vote in 2024. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Ari Berman, Mother Jones' national voting rights correspondent and author of Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People―and the Fight to Resist It. 

Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.

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

OA1066

Privyet, fellow citizens! We begin with a quick look at recent events following  Jack Smith’s new superseding indictment in Trump’s January 6th case in DC. Why are Trump’s lawyers saying that Clarence Thomas “directed” them to file a motion to dismiss? And does DC federal judge Tanya Chutkan even care that this defendant who happens to be charged with four counts of trying to overturn an election is running for President at all? 

Then in our main story: In an indictment filed this week, the Department of Justice has charged two Russian state media operatives with funding an officially unnamed production company which is allegedly (but also definitely) Tenet Media, the home of mediocre anti-woke crusaders like Dave Rubin, Tim Pool, and Lauren Southern (among others). Thomas takes us through some of the most entertaining facts alleged in the indictment, including an extremely real investor who is definitely in Paris and not Moscow, the Tucker Carlson Russian propaganda video which was a little too much even for Tenet’s producers, and why anyone (including Tim Pool) could have ever believed that Tim Pool could have possibly been worth $100,000 an episode. Matt then breaks down some of the history of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and how this indictment sets a new standard for its enforcement in the 21st century--and what (and who) might be next.

• DOJ indictment of Kostiantyn Kalashnikov and Elena Afanasyeva (9/4/24)

• FARA on Facebook, Joshua Fattel, NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy (2019)

 

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 6-3 opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy. The Court held that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.
Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.

Featuring:
Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

It’s time for your questions, and having a great audience means there are so many fascinating directions to go.  A Canadian listener tells of how a non-originalist purpose-oriented approach to constitutional law works for them - why not in the US?  We go in a different direction when we consider the wisdom of increasing the size of the House of Representatives.  Still another asks about whether the presidential immunity decision has undermined some fundamental aspects of criminal law, not to mention one of the Court’s greatest moments - the Nixon tapes case.  Keep those questions coming!  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

The answer for T3BE37 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! 

Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs!

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court issued their opinion in Murthy v. Missouri. Originally filed as Missouri v. Biden, this case concerns whether federal government officials violated five individuals’ freedom of speech by “coercing” or “significantly encouraging” social media companies to remove or demote particular content from their platforms.
Experts discuss and react to this 6-3 ruling.

Featuring:
Moderator: Brent Skorup, Legal Fellow, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Insitute
Speakers:
Corbin K. Barthold, Internet Policy Counsel and Director of Appellate Litigation
Josh Divine, Solicitor General, Missouri Attorney General's Office
Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

In this week’s three-part episode, we take a look at state supreme courts and why this year’s elections are so important. First, Kate and Emily Passini of the ACLU walk us through some of the most crucial races. Then, Kate and Leah speak with state supreme court candidates Professor Kimberly Thomas of Michigan and Justice Allison Riggs of North Carolina. Finally, we have a conversation with Professor Miriam Seifter and Justice Anita Earls of the North Carolina Supreme Court about the weaponization of judicial disciplinary proceedings. 

Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 

• 6/12 – NYC
• 10/4 – Chicago

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

OA1065

(This episode first appeared on Gavel Gavel Aug. 18th)

Three years ago, cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was fatally shot on the set of Alec Baldwin's film, Rust. Alec Baldwin (in addition to armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed) was subsequently criminally charged with involuntary manslaughter. Recently, Baldwin's counsel brought a motion for dismissal and sanctions, and after a shocking day in court, Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer dismissed the case with prejudice. Matt and Thomas walk through the events of that hearing and try to figure out what in the world the prosecutors were thinking.

• State of New Mexico v. Alexander Rae Baldwin III (Alec Baldwin)

• Defendant's Motion for Dismissal and Sanctions Under Brady, Giglio, and Rule 5-501 (pdf)

• Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Dismissal and Sanctions Under Brady, Giglio, and Rule 5-501 NMRA (pdf)

In the last episode of our series The Law According to Trump, we try to figure out what it all means. In the months since SCOTUS gave Trump even more immunity than he asked for, the people prosecuting the former president are finding themselves in uncharted waters. How are they doing? 

Slate’s Jurisprudence editor Jeremy Stahl talks with host Andrea Bernstein about how Jack Smith has tweaked the election interference cases, as well as how Trump’s legal approach has changed since the Supreme Court ruled for him in Trump v. U.S..

Listen to Andrea Bernstein on We Don’t Talk About Leonard, Trump Inc., and Will Be Wild. Andrea is also the author of American Oligarchs: The Kushners, the Trumps, and the Marriage of Money and Power. 

This episode is member-exclusive. Listen to it now by subscribing to Slate Plus. By joining, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes of Amicus—you’ll also 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

OA1064

One angry Matt brings us two stories from this week’s news:

After taking some time to think about the Supreme Court’s decision that former US presidents can’t be prosecuted for anything involving--or in any way touching on--”official acts,” special counsel Jack Smith has returned to a grand jury to obtain a superseding indictment in his DC prosecution of Donald Trump. How has he retooled the charges relating to the January 6th conspiracy? How much weaker will this case be without the many federal government witnesses who would otherwise have been called, and what happens next?

Here’s something everyone should know: AGs in 16 red states are now taking a bold and principled stand against--and this is 100% true--traditional marriage. In a suit filed in a Texas federal court last week, these staunch defenders of our most cherished family values argued that there are at least 550,000 US citizens who should be exiled from not only from their states but from the United States for ten years because they married the wrong person--and that the very existence of these families is causing their states “irreparable harm.” Matt controls his unbounded rage just enough to break down one of the weakest and most inhumane challenges to immigration policy in modern history before calling out 16 people who should never hold public office anywhere again.

• Superseding indictment in U.S. v. Trump (filed 8/27/24)

• Implementation of Keeping Families Together (Federal Register, 8/23/24)

• Complaint brought by 16 Republican AGs to stop the Biden administration’s “Keeping Families Together” program (8/23/24)

• Donation page for Elad Gross, the only candidate in the MIssouri AG’s race who has not argued to a federal court in Texas that 9,000 of his own voters should be exiled from the United States for 10 years

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!