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.
Strict Scrutiny - Who Has Final Authority At The Border?
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
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Donald Trump and the Apex of MAGA Misogyny
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
Opening Arguments - OA860: Goodbye
Liz says goodbye.
Amarica's Constitution - The Amicus Brief – Part Two
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.
Strict Scrutiny - AITA? SCOTUS Edition
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
Opening Arguments - OA859: Looks Like We Won’t Have DeSantis To Kick Around Any More
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
Amarica's Constitution - Friends of the Court – The Brief
The “brothers-in-law” Vik and Akhil Amar have filed an amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson et al. The brief contains a dramatic historic episode that you almost certainly knew nothing about, and which is highly relevant - perhaps decisive - to the case. Prepare to be amazed by this story of the “First Insurrection,” which preceded and was distinguishable from the Civil War itself, and which makes clear the certain intent of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment - and the course the Supreme Court should take in this case. This, and the episodes to follow, may be the most important episodes we have offered in the more than three years of this podcast. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Greg Abbott and the Battle for the Texas Border
The immigration fight on the U.S. - Mexico border keeps getting uglier - not between the U.S. and its southern neighbor, Mexico, but between the federal government and a Texas administration apparently unconcerned by constitutional supremacy. Earlier this month, members of the Texas Military Forces took over a public park in Eagle Pass, TX at the behest of Gov. Greg Abbott. The park, on the banks of the Rio Grande, is near a frequently used border crossing. Last weekend, Texas forces blocked Federal Border Patrol agents from reaching a woman and two children who had drowned trying to cross the river into the United States.
The move by Abbott is certainly shocking, but it’s an example of ways the state is trying to intervene in federal police powers and responsibilities. In a series of increasingly urgent filings, the Justice Department is pleading with the Supreme Court to intervene to let Federal agents enforce Federal laws.
Rochelle Garza, president of the Texas Civil Rights Project, joins the show to discuss how the cruelty of Abbott’s approach is undermining Texas communities and creating a constitutional crisis that may originate in Texas, but will not remain there.
Dahlia is joined by SCOTUS-whispering wingman Mark Joseph Stern in today’s Slate Plus segment to discuss why the High Court’s response to Texas’ game of chicken with the Feds is so dangerously sluggish. Next, they explore the oral arguments in the big Chevron-overturning vehicle that is Loper Bright, a case that was supposed to be about fishermen but is actually about overturning tens of thousands of agency law decisions and grabbing power from the elected branches and handing it to the judiciary.
Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Opening Arguments - OA858: Trump Laywers Are Tryin’ It In All The Courts
Liz and Andrew dive deeply into Alina Habba and Michael Madaio's efforts to cross-examine E. Jean Carroll and her expert, Dr. Ashlee Humphreys. Plus much, much more!
Notes Ameriekalinje v. Sun P. P. Assn, 226 N.Y. 1 (1919) https://casetext.com/case/norske-ameriekalinje-v-sun-p-p-assn
Justice Manual 9-5.000 https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-5000-issues-related-trials-and-other-court-proceedings
-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