The question of Donald Trump's disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is before the courts. Last week the Colorado Supreme Court heard appeals of the District Court rulings. As they consider their decision, we have the privilege of hearing from the nation's two leading experts on the subject, the author of The Sweep and Force of Section Three - the universally acknowledged definitive article. (Note: this episode is uploaded a day early because of the timing of the case.) They respond to the arguments made in court, as well as those that have been put forth in media and elsewhere - and we also consider the two other cases, in Michigan and Minnesota. The previous appearance by Profs. Baude and Paulsen were the highest rated episodes in Amarica's Constitution's 3 years, and this may be even more important for clerks, judges, and citizens to hear and consider.
Strict Scrutiny - Fake Cases, Fake Facts, Real Implications
Melissa, Kate, and Leah recap arguments in a big tax case, Moore v. United States, and a bankruptcy case involving Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family. Plus, we have a breaking (and heart-breaking) update on an abortion-related case out of Texas.
- Read Hawaii Supreme Court Justice Todd Eddin's stunning concurrence excoriating originalism
- Listen to our recent episode on another abortion-related case out of Texas
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 - OA843: OA Field Trip! (Plus: Hunter Biden’s Taxes) feat. Kel McClanahan
Liz and Andrew welcome back friend of the show Kel McClanahan to tell us about an oral argument at the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit that you can and should attend in an effort to get the Senate Intelligence Committee’s full report on torture during the Bush administration released to the public!
Then, Liz and Andrew break down what’s really going on with the Hunter Biden tax indictment.
Notes Hunter Biden tax indictment https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.907805/gov.uscourts.cacd.907805.1.0_1.pdf
IRS Criminal Tax Handbook https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/tax_crimes_handbook.pdf
USSC on tax fraud https://www.ussc.gov/research/quick-facts/tax-fraud
Sentencing Guidelines https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2023/GLMFull.pdf
Musgrave v. Warner (DC Cir.) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66696476/shawn-musgrave-v-mark-warner/
-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
Divided Argument - Muppetproof
We discuss the passing of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, then turn to two interesting opinions on the shadow docket (in Griffin v. HM Florida and DuPont v. Abbott), and finally break down the Court's first merits opinion of the term in Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, at the intersection of standing and mootness. Will also expresses skepticism about Dan's latest AI habit.
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - Billionaires Had a Bad Week at the Supreme Court
When Moore v United States landed on the Supreme Court docket, it threatened to take a big swing at any future wealth tax and maybe cut the legs out from under the government’s ability to collect a lot of other tax. But as arguments unfolded Tuesday at One, First Street, it became clear that some of the Justices had studied up on the tax code and were cooling on blowing a big hole in it.
To understand why Moore made it all the way up to SCOTUS in the first place, and why the facts don’t match claims from the plaintiffs, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by law professor and author of Big Dirty Money, Professor Jennifer Taub. Together they talk about the billions behind the case, the tax law, and the arguments inside the chamber.
Next, Dahlia is joined by Slate’s Mark Stern, who covered Moore for the magazine, to discuss Justice Alito's non-recusal from the case, his BFF David Rivkin Jr., and why the plaintiffs Mr and Mrs Moore bear a striking resemblance to some other, recent, fabled SCOTUS plaintiffs.
In this week’s Amicus Plus segment, Mark Stern hangs on to talk about the Title VII case this week that didn’t go *that badly*, and why that’s still not good, and to explain why Justice Elena Kagan has had it up to here with false first principles.
Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show.
Dahlia’s book Lady Justice: Women, the Law and the Battle to Save America, is also available as an audiobook, and Amicus listeners can get a 25 percent discount by entering the code “AMICUS” at checkout.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Opening Arguments - OA842: Does John Eastman WANT To Be Disbarred? (Maybe.)
Liz and Andrew tackle John Eastman's brief in his disbarment hearing arguing that the 2020 Presidential election was in fact stolen. It was not.
In the A story, Andrew and Liz walk through Trump's latest efforts to invade the secrecy of confidential documents in the Southern District of Florida.
Notes Moore v. Harperhttps://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3002636935552946163
PA SOS final report on 2020 election https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/BEST/Pages/BEST-Election-Stats.aspx
CA State Bar disbar Eastman brief https://discipline.calbar.ca.gov/portal/DocumentViewer/Index/VBqEKKzWq7BHFLcNbcYFBPwEVGppqKqRVh1jPShvzLRW-TqEo4kMqYD8POcD6IXmvjC-TMQt9Ct_mI544fmjiNq7TQItUIXPLobITmdyBQk1?caseNum=SBC-23-O-30029&docType=Pleading&docName=STATE%20BAR%20S%20CLOSING%20BRIEF&docTypeId=269&isVersionId=False&p=0
-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
SCOTUScast - Moore v. United States – Post-Argument SCOTUScast
On December 5, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Moore v. United States. The Court considered whether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states.
Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.
Featuring:
Professor David Schizer, Dean Emeritus and Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law and Economics, Columbia University Law School
Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.
Featuring:
Professor David Schizer, Dean Emeritus and Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law and Economics, Columbia University Law School
Opening Arguments - OA841: Sometimes When The President Does It, It IS Illegal!
Liz and Andrew unpack the two recent decisions on Presidential immunity. What does it mean for the civil and criminal cases against Donald Trump? But first, the duo unpack a recent Rule 404 filing by Special Counsel Jack Smith that reveals some (more) disturbing details of how Trump planned to hijack the 2020 Presidential election. In the LONG Patreon bonus, Andrew and Liz parse through some seemingly-minor findings and show how they're part of the bad faith effort by Judge Aileen Cannon, FSW, to delay Trump's criminal trial for stealing national security documents. it's a jam-packed episode you won't want to miss! Notes Trump - Chutkan ruling on immunity https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.171.0.pdf Trump DC Cir ruling on immunity https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.38510/gov.uscourts.cadc.38510.1208575879.0_1.pdf Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 475 U.S. 731 (1982) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2587191009008442950
-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 - Sandra the First
There is no shortage of tributes to the just passed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and rightly so, and this first female Justice richly deserves praise and memory. We aim to offer a tribute by taking her seriously as a Justice of ideas as well as the frequently mentioned deeply human remarkable woman she was. Fortunately, Akhil’s career has been intertwined with Justice O’Connor’s in a remarkable back-and-forth of ideas, cases, refinement, and legal innovation, so our perspective is a deeply informative one. Among other things, we look at the 10 most significant areas of jurisprudential impact in this remarkable but somehow underestimated to the end titan. CLE credit available after listening from podcast.njsba.com.
SCOTUScast - Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. – Post-Argument SCOTUScast
On December 4, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. The Court considered whether as part of a plan of reorganization under a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, if the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants’ consent.
Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.
Featuring:
Professor Anthony Casey, Donald M. Ephraim Professor of Law and Economics and Faculty Director at The Center on Law and Finance, University of Chicago Law School
Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.
Featuring:
Professor Anthony Casey, Donald M. Ephraim Professor of Law and Economics and Faculty Director at The Center on Law and Finance, University of Chicago Law School