Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Since it's been a while since we last did a GG crossover, I wanted to share the new trial we are doing over there!

It's a new Gavel Gavel trial! We are excited to announce that we will be producing a totally new full trial re-enactment working from our EXCLUSIVE access to the transcript of the federal prosecution of Sean Dunn, better known to the world as the “Sandwich Guy” after being federally charged for assaulting a CBP officer with a fully-loaded 12-inch Subway sandwich on the streets of DC. But before we get to the meat of 2025’s Trial of the Century, legal sandwich artist Matt Cameron is here to slice up everything you need to know. From Dunn’s notably underreported motive to the significance of the date and location of the alleged assault to a shot-by-shot analysis of the only known video of the incident, we’ve got this one wrapped.

1. U.S. v. Dunn docket

2. Sean Dunn’s GoFundMe

3. Video of Sean Dunn throwing a Subway sandwich at a uniformed CBP agent near 14th and U in Washington DC on August 10, 2025

4. U.S. v. Dunn complaint (filed 8/13/25)

5. Sensationalized video of Dunn’s arrest in his house by a swarm of federal agents posted on the official White House X account (8/14/25)

Here's a preview of Law'd Awful Movies!!! If you'd like the full thing, become a $2+ patron at patreon.com/law!

LAM 1010 - After taking a break with a couple of things we actually enjoyed (Juror #2 and My Cousin Vinny), Law’d Awful Movies returns to form with the first two episodes of USA’s uniquely terrible adaptation of John Grisham’s classic 1995 legal thriller The Rainmaker. Thomas, Lydia, and Matt review the show’s bizarre and often cowardly divergences from the source material, its AI-level of understanding of how humans operate in the world and talk to one another--and, of course, the many ways that The Rainmaker gets the most basic elements of law (and lawyering) wrong. 

Our listeners have a talent for inquiry; they follow Professor Amar’s arguments every week, and come up with their own.  This week, we end the year by fielding a wide range of questions, including some related to presidential oath-taking; juries, asked by a Judge; pardons and their abuse; and many related topics.  Akhil invokes Angela Bassett and Tina Turner, as we answer the questions first softly, and then not so softly.  And we end the year with fond wishes sincerely offered.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

Alex digs into the destruction of due process and rule of law under the Trump administration. First, she hears from Judge Anam Petit, a recently fired immigration judge who explains how the legal system is being quietly dismantled to prioritize deportations. Then, Alex speaks to Andrew Weissmann, former lead prosecutor in Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office, about whether our system is forever changed, and what it’s like to be in President Trump’s crosshairs.

Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 

• 3/6/26 – San Francisco
• 3/7/26 – Los Angeles

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

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

OA1220 - What’s an FBI agent to do when a notorious low life reports a local cop is asking for a bribe? Turn him into a confidential information of course, and see how far you can get that dirty cop to go. A tale of two assholes, steadily making each others’ lives worse and worse, while one is wearing a wire.

Now, why does the Supreme Court care about any of this? Half the conviction hinges on whether this cop “exceeded authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and no one can agree what that means… including your cohosts. Hear Thomas try to figure out why Amy Coney Barrett is so obsessed with the definition of the word “so”, and Jenessa… defend Clarence Thomas?! This case is a hot mess, but the good news is everyone sucks here and no one wins.

The relevant language: “The Act subjects to criminal liability anyone who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access,” and thereby obtains computer information. 18 U. S. C. §1030(a)(2). It defines the term “exceeds authorized access” to mean “to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter.” §1030(e)(6).”

Barrett’s ruling: “In sum, an individual “exceeds authorized access” when he accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of the computer—such as files, folders, or databases—that are off limits to him.”

• Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021)

• United States v. Van Buren, 940 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2019)

• Full text of the CFAA: 18 U.S.C. § 1030

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Over the past calendar year, the Supreme Court’s center has shifted to the right and then more to the right, and the justices’ decisions have time and again facilitated Trump’s agenda. But the Roberts majority is not simply focused on what the current president wants; it has its sights set on a larger project: voting. Suppressing and constraining and problematizing the core function of democratic rule. In this episode, Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern reflect on the significant developments at  the Supreme Court over the past year with an eye toward the implications of the court's decisions on democracy, voting rights, and the erosion of checks and balances. Looking back at the past year at One First Street, Dahlia and Mark trace the cases that reveal the court’s long game, with elections coming quickly, and discuss the forces for and against democracy being exerted within and without the high court. Then, they turn to the urgent matter of what you and I can do about it.

If you want to access that special 50% discount for Slate Plus membership, go to slate.com/amicusplus and enter promo code AMICUS 50.  This offer expires on Dec 31st 2025.

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

OA1219 - This year we are celebrating Boxing Day by not doing whatever people are supposed to do on Boxing Day and talking about weed instead. Did Donald Trump really just finish out 2025 by doing something good for US drug policy? We hotbox some Time Machine to revisit Matt’s analysis from last May of Joe “Grandaddy Purple” Biden’s announcement that he was initiating the long process to have the federal government to reclassify OG Kush from its current legal status as Green Crack down to the same category as metabolic steroids. We then return to the present to check in on the weirdly unreported story on how Biden’s efforts went from Blue Dream to Trainwreck in the year after his big announcement before evaluating Trump’s chances of turning cannabis policy Panama Red. 

Finally, in a seasonal footnote Matt shares the story of how the city of Boston fired the first shots on the War on Christmas… in 1659.

1. Biden DOJ's analysis of legal questions around plans to redesignate cannabis to Schedule III

2. “Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research,” The White House (12/18/25)

3. “The Penalty For Keeping Christmas,” Archive.org (Boston, 1659)

Presidential power is abridged, for a change, by the Supreme Court in its shadow docket ruling in Trump v. Illinois.  Rather than ruling in silence, however, this time the Court gives us 25 pages and 4 opinions to chew on.  We examine the history behind issues of deployment of the Army as well as the Guard/Militia on domestic soil, which leads us to discussions of Militia Acts, the Military Amendments, and basic constitutional principles.  Professor Amar discusses the implications for the coming big rulings on tariffs and birthright citizenship he sees in the alignment the Court assumes in this ruling. Just as this is not the Court’s last word in this case, we will have more to say in subsequent episodes, but this discussion will leave you armed, if you will, with the tools to see the issues clearly.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.

E18 - Congress required the Department of Justice to release (nearly) everything it had from the investigations into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell by December 19th, so of course they pretended to do that on time on Friday afternoon and then waited until everyone was just about to start heading home for the holidays before actually dumping 30,000 pages of anything resembling actual substance into the record on Tuesday morning. We review and discuss new revelations on how much more time Trump spent on Epstein’s plane than we ever knew, the 30-year-old FBI report that could have changed everything, the astonishing correspondence between the prosecution and the Epstein defense team throughout his 2008 plea negotiations, and so much more.

You can also watch this episode on YouTube!

1. The Epstein Files Transparency Act 

2. Epstein Files database (Camaron Stephenson)

3. DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility report on Epstein plea negotiations (NOV. 2020)

4. Maria Farmer's 1996 report to the FBI

5. Opinion and Order from Judge Kenneth Marra in Jane Doe cases summarizing DOJ’s failure to advise Epstein survivors of the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement and plea

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

OA1218 - What happens to your first amendment rights when you work for the government? Do you give it all up when you walk in the door? How do we balance the individual right of the worker to speak, against the government’s need to have a functioning work place? Pickering v Board of Education (1968) sets us up to understand how this all works… and why a teacher criticizing Charlie Kirk on their personal Facebook page probably isn’t a fireable offense.

Patrons got exclusive content at the end of this one, only available at patreon.com/law! Can you apply these principles to eight cases that followed Pickering? Quiz yourself alongside Thomas!

• Pickering v Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968)

• A summary of the history of criminal defamation law, Robinson, E.P. (2024, July 5). Criminal libel. Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University.

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!