Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

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!

After grappling with listener feedback ranging from the acoustic to the typographical, we catch up on last month's decisions in Great Lakes v. Raiders Retreat Realty (admiralty) and McElrath v. Georgia (double jeopardy). We then turn to last week's decisions about public officials on social media, Lindke v. Freed and O'Connor-Ratliff v. Garnier, and then finally to the statutory interpretation decision in Pulsifer v. United States. It's a lot of cases in just over an hour!

The Supreme Court will hear arguments this week on two First Amendment cases that ask whether the REAL victims of government coercion today are… conservatives with fringe views! Leah, Melissa, and Kate preview those cases, along with the mifepristone case the Court will hear next week. Plus, they do a deep dive on how SCOTUS uses the shadow docket to clear the way for executions.

• Strict Scrutiny is headed back to DC for another live show! Presale starts 3/18 @ 12pm ET with the code SCRUTINY. Head to crooked.com/events for more info! --> Washington DC Tickets
• Here's the full episode in which we called pretty much the entire outcome of the Title X family planning program case in the Fifth Circuit
• ICYMI, Melissa's book with Andrew Weissmann, The Trump Indictments: The Historic Charging Documents with Commentary, hit #1 on the New York Times' Bestseller List! If you haven't gotten your own copy, code STRICT10 will get you 10% off at Bookshop.org

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

Episode 1015 Part 2 of Azul's story

Folks... I implore you. I beg of you, please listen to this one all the way through. Azul tells us the rest of her story, and talks about where she is now, and it is one of if not the most inspiring, heartwarming things I have ever had the privilege of publishing. Seriously. And please share it. Another massive thanks to Azul, and to Matt, who we are so incredibly lucky to have on the show.

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

While all eyes and brains are on what SCOTUS thinks about making Trump emperor-king, a lesser known case will be heard Monday that could have a huge impact on how social media can (or cannot) keep election workers safe this year. Murthy v. Missouri arrives at the high court as the result a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, along with a group of social media users—including some doctors and right-wing commentators—who argued that officials in the Biden administration censored their online speech about COVID-19, the 2020 election, among other issues The plaintiffs don’t claim that the administration directly silenced their speech. Instead, they argue that, by working with social media companies to limit the spread of misinformation, the government unlawfully chilled the free expression of their ideas.

Gowri Ramachandran serves as deputy director in the Brennan Center’s Democracy program.The amicus brief filed by her team from the Brennan Center in Murthy draws the Justices attention to another aspect of election disinformation . Ramachandran explains to host Dahlia Lithwick that combating election disinformation has always been important, but it is especially critical now, as  election workers struggle to keep on top of voting issues.

Later in the show for Slate plus subscribers, Mark Joseph Stern joins to talk about  the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals taking a swing at teens’ access to contraception, and a new effort to combat the scourge of judge-shopping. 

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

Emergency Bonus Pod! - Fani Willis and the Odor of Mendacity   Judge MacAfee has issued a ruling on the Fani Willis disqualification motion. Get the OA breakdown with a full analysis and plenty of opinion and context.   If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!