Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

This week we continue with clips from the oral argument in the immunity case (Trump v. United States).  Most of this week’s clips come from attorney Dreeben (representing the Special Counsel, and therefore the people of the United States), and some of the Justices have at him, sometimes in way Professor Amar finds wrong-headed or worse.  Our own argument is brought to bear upon these controversies, and a consistent way of addressing these questions emerges.  Clarity on the argument emerges.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri. At issue was whether an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be significant.

Join us to hear Alison Somin break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications.

Featuring:
Mrs. Alison Somin, Legal Fellow, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation

Melissa, Leah, and Kate recap oral arguments in cases about unhoused people, immigration, and Starbucks unions. Then, it's our second annual listener mailbag episode! What's the best way to fight against usage of the Comstock Act? Should liberals be using law suits to troll conservatives? Why don't the Democrat-appointed justices speak out about their colleagues' poor behavior? You asked, we answered!

• Strict Scrutiny will be live at the Tribeca Film Festival on June 13th! Tickets are on sale now. Learn more and get tickets at tribecafilm.com/strict

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

OA1030: Trump Trial, Week 2, Part 2!

This episode centers around David Pecker's testimony and it's basically rock solid. Trump's attorneys are desperate, so Mr. Bove goes for the juggler! And then everyone has to explain it's actually "jugular" why in the world would you go for the "juggler?" Why would that be the idiom? In what world are jugglers like, crucial components of anything, at which you would want to go in order to really hurt someone or something? Maybe at circuses? They're arguably not even that important to circuses though, don't they just mess around in between way better acts to try to distract the audience a little?

I just want to assure people that Matt had nothing to do with these show notes. He hasn't had a stroke or anything, don't worry. It's just that I, Thomas, now answer to NO ONE when it comes to Opening Arguments because.... SURPRISE SHOW NOTES ANNOUNCEMENT Andrew is completely out of OA! The legal bull shit is over! More details inside!

If you would like to audition to read transcripts on the show in the future, go to https://openargs.com/audition and follow the directions there!

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

Get your tickets for Amicus Live in Washington DC here.

In this, the first part of a special series on Amicus and at Slate.com, we are lifting the lid on an old-timey sounding method of constitutional interpretation that has unleashed a revolution in our courts, and an assault on our rights. But originalism’s origins are much more recent than you suppose, and its effects much more widespread than the constitutional earthquakes of overturning settled precedent like Roe v Wade or supercharging gun rights as in Heller and Bruen. Originalism’s aftershocks are being felt throughout the courts, the law, politics and our lives, and we haven’t talked about it enough. On this week’s show, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern explore the history of originalism. They talk to Professor Jack Balkin about its religious valence, and Saul Cornell about originalism’s first major constitutional triumph in Heller. And they’ll tell you how originalism’s first big public outing fell flat, thanks in part to Senator Ted Kennedy’s ability to envision the future, as well as the past.

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

On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC. At issue was whether a transportation worker need not work in the transportation industry to be exempt from coverage under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.

Join us to hear Professor Samuel Estreicher break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications.

Featuring:
Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law and Director, Center for Labor, New York University School of Law

OA1029: Trump Trial, Week 2, Part 1!

Lordy, there are tapes! Our special coverage of People v. Trump continues, now with readings from Juilliard-trained, Tony-winning actors Thomas and Lydia Smith! (none of that is true except possibly our names.)

Donald Trump is now the first U.S. President ever to be held in contempt of court. Exactly how criminal is "criminal contempt" in New York, and what does this mean for the rest of the trial? Also, Matt takes us on a fascinating mini-dive on the National Enquirer. It has a very interesting history you might not be familiar with. Then start getting into the trial fireworks. Much more to come! Probably at least 3 parts.

1) People v. Trump Transcripts

2) Justice Merchan's contempt order

3) AMI non-prosecution agreement

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

On April 25, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. United States. The Court considered whether, and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

Please join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.

Featuring:
Mr. Steven Bradbury, Distinguished Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

The nine Justices heard arguments on ex-president Trump’s attempt to claim a sweeping immunity from criminal liability and prosecution.  We present clips from the argument and our commentary, including some historical analysis of claims that Benjamin Franklin spoke in favor of such a thing (spoiler:  NO), and many other claims which we had predicted in recent weeks.  There is clear acceptance of some of the arguments we have made by many of the Justices, but questions remain to be sure, and we begin to address them in this first part of a planned two-episode arc of clip and comment.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California. At issue was whether a building-permit exaction is exempt from the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine as applied in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, Oregon simply because it is authorized by legislation.

Join us to hear Nancie Marzulla and Jayson Parsons break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications.

Featuring:
Ms. Nancie Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law
Mr. Jayson Parsons, Associate, Rutan & Tucker LLP