Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Leah, Melissa, and Kate give a quick take on the bottom line from the oral arguments in the medication abortion case that is currently unraveling in the Supreme Court.

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

On March 15, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Pulsifer v. United States. The Supreme Court considered an Eighth Circuit case that raised the question: "Must a defendant show he does not meet any of the criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) to qualify for a sentence lower than the statutory minimum?" At issue was the meaning of the word "and" in the statute, and whether text and context required "and" in this case be read as "and" to mean "or".

Join us to hear Vikrant Reddy break down the decision and offer his criticism of the Court's reasoning and ruling.


Featuring:
Mr. Vikrant Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together Trust

Episode 1017

He had a plea agreement with the government which he thought would get him 8-14 months. He ended up with 5 years. What happened? Also, was this Democrats' version of January 6th Casey joins this week to help to answer an OA patron's question about the plea agreement reached in the prosecution of former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn for leaking records of Donald Trump, Rick Scott, Elon Musk, and a tragically high number of other innocent and blameless billionaires who are simply far too important to have to pay their taxes.

We then review the unique role of plea bargaining in U.S. law and exactly how these agreements are reached and play out in court. Did you know that approximately 98% of all federal criminal charges are resolved in a way which is portrayed in approximately 0% of law-related movies and TV show? 

1. "The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax," Propublica (6/8/2021)

2. "How These Ultrawealthy Politicians Avoided Paying Taxes,"  Propublica (11/4/2021)

3. "Trump’s Taxes Show Chronic Losses and Years of Income Tax Avoidance," NYT (9/27/2020)

4. "Most criminal cases end in plea bargains, new study finds," NPR (2/22/2023)

5. Boykin v. Alabama :: 395 U.S. 238 (1969)

6. Padilla v. Kentucky :: 559 U.S. 356 (2010)

 

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

Steve Vladeck joins Kate and Leah for the play-by-play of what happened with SB4, Texas's restrictive and extreme anti-immigration law that wound up on the U.S. Supreme Court's shadow docket. Kate and Leah also recap the oral arguments in cases about the First Amendment and social media, the NRA, and the types of evidence allowed in trials.

• Get your tickets to Strict Scrutiny Live HERE, or head to crooked.com/events for more info.

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

Well, it happened again. The hIgHeSt CoUrT will hear arguments Tuesday in a case based on made up facts! This time it’s mifepristone, the abortion drug at the center of Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v FDA. 

The claim was that the FDA approval process (three decades ago), for mifepristone, one of two medication abortion drugs, was haphazard and slapdash.. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine also argued that the FDA’s 2021 decision to allow telemedicine abortion and mailing of abortion pills violates a 19th-century anti-vice law called the Comstock Act.

This week on the show Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Carrie N. Baker, Smith College professor and author of the forthcoming book Abortion Pills: US History and Politics. Baker says taking away the rights to access abortion pills in the mail could have catastrophic consequences for pregnant people, drug development, and privacy for all Americans.

In this week’s subscribers-only segment, Slate’s Trump Law correspondent Jeremy Stahl gives us the updates on some of the cases against the former president - including the “a lot ton” of money he owes in New York, like starting on Monday. 

Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.

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

Who is Aileen Cannon? Why is Aileen Cannon? We answer these important questions and many more in this brief review of the incomprehensible jurisprudence of the best federal judge in Fort Pierce, Florida.

1. Aileen Cannon's Senate Judiciary Committee nomination questionnaire

2. Map of federal Southern District of Florida 

3. Democratic questioning at Aileen Cannon's group confirmation hearing

4. Judge Cannon's Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief (9/5/22)

5. 11th Circuit's reversal of Cannon's 9/5/22 order re: 100 classified documents (9/21/22)

6. 11th Circuit's reversal of Cannon's equitable jurisdiction ruling (12/1/22)

7. Jack Smith's Motion for Reconsideration & Stay (2/8/24)

8. Government's Opposition to Motion for Additional Time to File Certain Motions (2/8/24)

9. Judge Cannon's order denying Trump's motion to dismiss on vagueness grounds (without prejudice)(3/14/24)

10. Relevant portion of the Espionage Act

11. Judge Cannon's weird order demanding that the parties engage in a fantasy thought experiment about law that doesn't exist (3/18/24)

On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Garland v. Cargill. The Court considered whether bump stocks are considered "machineguns" as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code.

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

Featuring:
Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute
(Moderator) Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School

On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Trump v. Anderson. At issue was whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Donald Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot; the Court held that Colorado did err in excluding Trump from the ballot.

Join us to hear Professor Muller break down the decision and offer his criticism of the Court's reasoning and ruling.


Featuring:
Prof. Derek Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School

The Trump v. Anderson lead balloon continues to smolder.  This episode looks at the areas wherein the concurring Justices took issue with the per curiam, and they are many.  Indeed, the three Justices who concurred only in the judgment disagree with the scope of the per curiam as well as its particulars, and their concurrence reads more like a dissent.  Can we find areas of agreement with ourselves and the concurrences?  What can we learn from all this?  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

 

Massive controversy shakes T3BE to its core. Thomas and Matt respond to the international outcry and media firestorm generated by allegations that T3BE is using repeat questions.

After that, we get two TOTALLY DEFINITELY NEW practice bar exam questions. Topics are appealing to SCOTUS re State constution vs. US constitution, and also the gender wage gap when it comes to bank robbery.

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