Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

On January 9, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, CA. The Court considered 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

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


Featuring:
David Lanferman, Partner, Rutan & Tucker LLP
Nancie Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law

E. Jean Carroll and attorney Robbie Kaplan join us to share the process and aftermath of Carroll's defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump-- in which a jury just awarded her $83.3 million. What was Trump's vibe in the courtroom? Will he actually pay up? And what does E. Jean plan to do with all that money? Melissa, Kate, and Leah get all these answers and more.

• Read the NYT's piece on Robbie Kaplan: "In Trump’s Bitter, Yearslong Brawl With Roberta Kaplan, He Keeps Losing"
• Read E. Jean Carroll's 2019 book in which she tells her story: What Do We Need Men For?: A Modest Proposal

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 January 17, 2024 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. The Court considered whether it should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.

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


Featuring:
John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

Oral arguments are approaching in the Trump v. Anderson case, and the nation is talking about little else.  At the Harvard Law School, Professor Amar is invited to debate a former US Attorney General and Federal Judge, Michael Mukasey, who also submitted an amicus brief in the case together with Bill Barr and Ed Meese, among others.  We analyze the debate - and the brief.  And in that brief, Akhil identifies what he considers to be an egregious error, which is telling not only in its fatal weakening of the particular argument, but in the way it calls into question the entirety of their brief, and how it points the way to needed reforms in the legal ecosystem as a whole.  This is an indispensable episode.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

Kate, Melissa, and Leah break down the legal fight in Texas at the U.S.-Mexico border, and the Supreme Court's take on it all. Plus, Melissa and Kate do a deep dive on another outlandish era in the Supreme Court's history with Cliff Sloan, author of The Court At War: FDR, His Justices, & The World They Made.

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

Despite Donald Trump’s efforts, there will be a significant cost for his continued defamation of E. Jean Carroll (And it’s $83.3 million!!). For much of the proceedings he sat behind Carroll muttering under his breath and posting three-dozen times on Truth Social in one night about the unfairness of the judge and the court. But zoom out, and Trump’s actions at the trial and toward women generally have far bigger implications than the size of the check he’ll have to write. This week, Vanity Fair’s Molly Jong-Fast joins Dahlia Lithwick to explain how Trump has fanned the flames of GOP misogyny playing out in every aspect of our politics, from the GOP primary to the leadership in the House of Representatives to women who have been raped in states with no access to abortion. And she asks what it ultimately says about our justice system that 80-year-old E. Jean Carroll is the one prepared to take the stand against the man who assaulted her.

In this week’s Amicus Plus segment, Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern discusses the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision that kinda sorta resolved the battle between federal immigration authorities and Texas Governor Greg Abbott, and the horrifying turn the conservative turn has taken on capital punishment this week.

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

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

Liz says goodbye.

The legal world is abuzz with the impending oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson in a couple of weeks.  In the forefront are the powerful arguments and compelling history that are introduced in the amicus brief from the Professors Amar.  We continue to delve into the principal lines of reasoning in the brief, and how they take the starch out for some of the tropes that were found in the media.  When you take the history one step at a time it is hard to escape the obvious parallels with the actions and inactions of ex-President Trump, and how they precisely align with the concerns the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had that prompted them to advocate for and ultimately author, pass, and successfully ratify Section Three.  Will the Court see it this way?  Time will tell, but follow the discussion as we take you through it.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a pair of cases that threaten to topple four decades of precedent about federal agencies' authority to interpret statutes. Leah, Melissa, and Kate recap the arguments and outline the Koch-funded basis for the Supreme Court's latest power grab.

• Read the NYT's reporting on the funding behind the conservative quest to overrule Chevron

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 the day that Ron DeSantis dropped out of the Republican presidential primary and endorsed his personal bully, Donald Trump, Liz and Andrew cover two stories that could impact the 2024 presidential election. First, we tackle the centrist group "No Labels" request that the Civil Rights Division of the Department begin a criminal RICO investigation into... people who don't like the centrist group "No Labels." Neat!

Then, we break down all of the pending actual law stuff going on in Trump's civil defamation suit in New York -- since precious little of that is going on in the courtroom itself. What's the rule of completeness? When are defenses waived? Who has a duty to mitigate? And so much more!

Notes Habba Letter Brief re: Mitigation https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.272.0.pdf

No Labels https://www.nolabels.org/documents/59546/DOJ%20letter%201.11.24.pdf

Co-founder of No Labels resigns https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-labels-may-re-elect-donald-trump-third-party-independent-galston-rematch-f2e7697d

Semafor article on No Labels https://www.semafor.com/article/12/19/2023/the-plot-against-no-labels

-Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com