Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

With Liz sidelined, Andrew welcomes back friend of the show Seth Barrett Tillman for an in-depth discussion of Anderson v. Griswold, a Colorado state court opinion that found by clear and convincing evidence that Donald Trump incited an insurrection on January 6, 2021.

What implications does that have? Listen and find out!

This episode was released early for our Patrons and is a paid post on Patreon.

Notes Anderson v. Griswoldhttps://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf

-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

Andrew and Liz tackle three updates: Elon Musk's "thermonuclear" lawsuit against Media Matters; Harrison Floyd's bond revocation hearing; and a truly terrible decision out of the 8th Circuit.

Notes NAACP v. Sandershttps://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Opinion.pdf

-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

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in US v. Rahimi, a significant gun case, and we get to work.  We have pulled clips from the argument so you can hear the justices and advocates in their own words, and Akhil comments after each clip.  The case is important in itself, with wide implications regarding permissible gun regulation, and it also touches on a number of key methodological points that teach about originalism - properly done, and perhaps at times, improperly done.  CLE credit is available after listening by visiting podcast.njsba.com

After months of public pressure, the Supreme Court has released its newly adopted code of ethics. But it leaves a lot to be desired! Melissa, Kate, and Leah analyze the code and find all the possible loopholes. We also talk to Molly Duane, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers in the Zurawski case out of Texas, where women suffered serious health and emotional consequences after being denied abortions. And then we welcome Ashley Coffield, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Tennessee and North Mississippi, to update us on reproductive justice in the region after abortion bans and an extremist attack on one of their clinics.

• Listen to our episode from August, "The Dobbs Decision Hasn't Aged Well"
• Listen to our episode from the day Dobbs came out: “Roe is dead. Now what?"

 

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

Andrew and an ailing Liz break down Elon Musk's latest threat to try and sue a media outlet critical of Twitter into silence - this time, Media Matters for America - through the lens of his last lawsuit, against the tiny charity the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which produced an investigative report showing that Twitter profits from weaponized antisemitism and white supremacy.   Oh, and the duo begin with a Life Comes At You Fast, where Justice Arthur Engoron has already denied the Trump motion for a new trial discussed just last episode!   Notes CCDH, Toxic Twitter https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Toxic-Twitter_FINAL.pdf   Engoron order denying motion for new trial https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=e7egXMrk5KE0sOyTUjgixg==&system=prod   CCDH Motion to Dismiss https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.416212/gov.uscourts.cand.416212.47.0_1.pdf   NY Judicial Ethics Opinion 98-19 https://nycourts.gov/legacyhtm/ip/judicialethics/opinions/98-19.htm   OA 795 https://openargs.com/oa795-the-x-filings-elon-musks-plan-to-leave-no-lawyer-behind/   Media Matters post 11/16 https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musk-endorses-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory-x-has-been-placing-ads-apple-bravo-ibm-oracle   Initial letters from Musk https://counterhate.com/blog/letters-from-the-lawyers-musk-threatens-ccdh-with-brazen-attempt-to-silence-honest-criticism/   Amended Complaint, X v. CCDH https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.416212/gov.uscourts.cand.416212.10.0.pdf

-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

Donald J Trump is signaling a split with the conservative legal movement’s kingmakers, The Federalist Society. Instead, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee is planning a radical (and radically lawless) remaking of American government in his image.  On this week’s show, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Amanda Hollis Brusky, professor of politics at Pomona College and author of  Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society & the Conservative Counterrevolution, and coauthor of Separate But Faithful: The Christian Right’s Radical Struggle to Transform Law and Legal Culture. Together, they explore what the split between the right’s legal project of 40 years and the man who hopes to be the next Republican President means for the law, the rule of law, and the U.S. Supreme Court. 

In this week’s Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Jay Willis of Balls and Strikes to discuss the Supreme Court’s new ethics code. Spoiler: It’s not really new. As Jay says, think of it more like frat house rules published for the benefit of naive parents. 

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. https://books.supportingcast.fm/lady-justice

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

Liz and Andrew break down the very real question of free speech versus a fair trial when viewed through the lens of (1) Donald Trump's motion for a mistrial in New York and (2) Trump's argument against the gag order to the DC Circuit. Come for the 1966 history, stay for hearing how Trump is going to lose!

Oh, and our Liz Dye might have played a role in the whole mistrial thing....

Notes Trump NY motion mistrial

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=N0PX1FMtdplL/b5Oq9DwXg==

Trump DC Cir Brief

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232.1208569217.0_1.pdf

Trump gag order DC

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.105.0_2.pdf

DOJ DC Cir Brief

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232.1208570955.0_4.pdf

DC Local Rules

https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/local_rules/Local%20Rules%20April_2023%282%29.pdf

Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991)

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12991687764638238096

FRCP 26

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26

NYS Crim Pro 280.10

https://ypdcrime.com/cpl/article280.php

Wheatley School alumni memo

http://www.wheatleyalumni.org/BlogPost/Blogpost-20220911-78.html

-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

We discuss the Court's new Code of Conduct, catch up on shadow docket happenings, and debate what historians can teach originalists. We then recap the argument United States v. Rahimi, (the Term's big Second Amendment case). Finally, we stay on brand by circling back to Pulsifer v. United States from the October sitting, where the Justices puzzled over deep questions about  statutory interpretation. 

Liz and Andrew welcome back Mitchell Epner to explain exactly what happened with the Sam Bankman-Fried trial.

Notes SBF Superseding indictment https://www.justice.gov/media/1311286/dl?inline=

-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

The Amars’ amicus brief in Moore vs. United States is the talk of the legal ecosphere.  Akhil’s co-author, Professor Vik Amar, joins us for analysis of the precedents that followed Hylton - faithful and otherwise.  This tour de force of legal analysis is perfectly suited for your CLE credit.  We also look at recent comments from the Supreme Court on Moore’s issues, and survey the reactions to the brief’s release.  Various arguments that purport to address some of the brief’s claims have emerged:  in support, in conflict, and complementary; we analyze and respond to them.