THE JURY IS IN! Opening Arguments is coming at you LIVE AND UNEDITED today as we react in realtime to the announcement of the verdict in People v. Trump--conveniently timed for exactly the time that we had already planned to record this week! We also take a look at the lengthy closing arguments from both sides and Matt answers patron questions about some of New York’s more unusual trial practices before getting into what we can expect next.
We finish out the fun with Thomas’s dramatic reading of Samuel Alito’s indignant, mendacious, and entirely unsolicited response to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s demands to speak with the Supreme Court’s manager and take a moment to appreciate his full-throated defense of a woman’s absolute right to choose (flags).
On May 23, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski. At issue was whether a court or an arbitrator must decide which contract governs where parties have agreed to two contracts — one sending arbitrability disputes to arbitration, and the other either explicitly or implicitly sending arbitrability disputes to the courts.
Join us to hear Professor Tamar Meshel break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications
Featuring: Prof. Tamar Meshel, Associate Professor, University of Alberta Faculty of Law
Heather is back for another bar question! Yay! Except... it's real property... NOOOOO We only do the question on this one, since we did both the Q and A last time. So, this is just a short little uncharged episode to get us back on track. It also allows me to catch up on Patron thanks!
Note: two new Gavel Gavels are out, with more coming very, very soon!
If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
The nation has been riled by campus unrest surrounding events in the Middle East. Terms like “freedom of speech,” “academic freedom,” “right to protest,” “conduct vs. speech,” and issues of hate speech, offensive speech, safety, and more have arisen. We start our look at this situation where we always begin: with the Constitution. This episode aims to lay out the history, background, constitutional provisions, interpretations, cases, and overall approach to these matters, so we can then look at what is actually happening and be in a position to offer opinions and possible prescriptions. CLE credit is available after listening by visiting podcast.njsba.com.
Two great stories for you today - following OA1034 on how much Alito sucks, the Law Dork himself, Chris Geidner, is on to discuss the flag habits of Samuel Alito, as well as the exclusive story he broke regarding Alito’s stock activity immediately after Libs of TikTok called for a boycott against Bud Light because…transphobia. After we vent about Alito for a bit, Chris walks us through what an Alabama judge threatened to do to a group of LGBTQ+ lawyers and it’s even worse than you could imagine. Be sure to follow Chris (@chrisgeidner/@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) and subscribe to his Substack to support independent legal journalism!
Law Dork's coverage of Judge Liles Burke's orders out of the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
There are more red flags flying from House Alito! Plus, that same guy authored an opinion in a major voting discrimination case, and somehow it's worse than expected. Plus, Melissa and Kate talk with Shefali Luthra about her important new book, Undue Burden: Life and Death Decisions in Post-Roe America.
New merch alert!! Our new t-shirts and mugs are just thing for the hellscape to come in the final weeks of the SCOTUS term.
Order Undue Burden at Bookshop.org and get 10% off
Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025!
I am pleased to introduce you all to Heather Varanini! In her role as Director of Academic Achievement, Heather spends her days helping students succeed in law school and prepare for the Bar. She's onboard to serve as the Official Opening Arguments Bar Tutor and teach us a lot along the way! In this episode we'll hear more about her journey and the values that she brings to her work; for this week, we do a full Bar Question and Answer to give a sense of what we're in for with her! The traditional staggered Q&A will commence next time!
As we stand poised at the threshold of June, we brace ourselves for the fire hose of opinions headed our way in the next four or so weeks.
But why? Why –even as the Court is taking on fewer cases – is there an absolute dogpile of decisions, with no map for what will come down or when, beyond a SCOTUS-adjacent cottage industry in soothsaying and advance-panic and guessing? Dahlia Lithwick takes us through a whirlwind of Supreme Court decisions and controversies, expertly assisted by Professor Steve Vladeck (whose New York Times bestseller The Shadow Docketcame out in paperback this week) and Mark Joseph Stern in untangling the complex web of legal, political, and personal dramas enveloping the nation's highest court. From Justice Alito's flag-flying fiasco, to the forces shaping the court’s docket, to its divisive rulings, this episode could well be titled “Why Are They Like This?” As the court's term hurtles towards its frenetic close, Dahlia and her guests dissect the legal and ethical ramifications of the justices' actions, both on and off the bench. Tune in to this must-listen episode of Amicus for an eye-opening exploration of the Supreme Court's turbulent session, the ideological battles at play, and what it all could mean for the fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law. Whether you're a legal aficionado or simply concerned about the direction of the country, this episode is the end-of-term preview you really need to understand what the heck is happening over the next few weeks.
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.
Continuing our pattern of staying a week behind the Court's latest output, we discuss last week's opinions: CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association (the Appropriations Clause), Harrow v. Department of Defense (jurisdiction and equitable tolling); and Smith v. Spizzirri (arbitration), while also covering the shadow docket order in a Louisiana redistricting case. Before those, we touch on a bunch of topics including Justice Alito's flag display and the degree of existential risk posed by artificial intelligence.
A second Alito flag has hit the news, we have election results out of Fulton County, and the jury is nearly out in Donald Trump’s New York criminal trial. Matt also answers patron questions about how things could go wrong with the jury between now and the verdict, as well as why juries everywhere are so rarely sequestered anymore.
After a brief detour past a very important class-action suit against Hershey’s for the insufficient jauntiness of its Halloween candy, we turn to our main story: International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan’s application for arrest warrants to be issued against leaders of both Hamas and Israel. How does The Hague have jurisdiction to prosecute the prime minister of a country which has flatly refused to recognize its authority--or, for that matter, Palestinians who carried out the attacks of October 7, 2023 in the territory of that same country? Matt explains the background and recent history of humanity’s first standing international criminal tribunal as we consider what this moment means for Israel, Palestine, and the world.
