Opening Arguments

OA1054

As the Democratic Party comes together around presumptive nominee Kamala Harris after Joe Biden's surprise exit, we take another look at the Vice President”s career and political record. Is she any more of a “cop” than any other career prosecutor? How will history remember this VP? What might we expect from a President Harris that we wouldn't from a second Biden term? And why did Matt just get kicked out of a library in Rhode Island? We take on all of these questions and many more in this rapid response episode, with much more to come as this unprecedented race continues to develop.

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The answer for T3BE32 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! 

Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs!

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1053

We had a different episode ready, but this development warranted an emergency episode. Matt answers many of the most pressing questions about what happens next. Can Harris get on the ballot? Does she get access to the funds Biden had? What happens with Biden's delegates? And is it illegal to drop out of a presidential race... for some reason... as many Republicans are saying?

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1052

CAAAANNNONNNNNBALLLLLL! Judge Aileen Cannon has just made a major splash in the Trump trials by dismissing the entire federal classified documents case based on her findings that special prosecutor Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed.  We try our best to pretend that this 93-page decision is a regular order released by a normal judge, at least for a few minutes, before moving on to ask: Should we have seen this coming? Does this explain Clarence Thomas’s weirdly unprompted thoughts on the same subject in the Trump immunity case earlier this month? What happens next, and is there any chance it could happen without Fort Pierce, Florida’s best, worst, and only federal judge? 

BONUS PATRON CONTENT: Patrons will also hear us listen to the New York Times rub its collective chin as its The Daily podcast considers Aileen Cannon’s mysterious ways and unknowable motives.

•  Aileen Cannon's 93-page order granting Trump ‘s motion to dismiss 

• 28 U.S. Code § 533  (Investigative and other officials; appointment)

• United States v. Nixon :: 418 U.S. 683 (1974)

•  What We Can Learn from American History's First Special Prosecutor, TIME (1/5/19)

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The answer for T3BE31 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! 

Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs!

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1051

In the wake of... one of the many moral panics likely started by Chris Rufo, many "Don't Say Gay" laws were passed. I don't know about you, but I had just figured these had to be unconstitutional. After all, we have freedom of speech, right? There's an Amendment about that, right? Well.......

Returning to the show to take us through this is the best namer of law review articles, Caroline Mala Corbin. Caroline is a law professor at the University of Miami, focusing on the First Amendment's speech and religion clauses, reproductive justice, and the principle of equality that should run through it all. Check out her paper "The Government Speech Doctrine Ate My Class" here!

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1050

Legal podcaster Charles Star (ALAB, Mic Dicta) joins to share his administrative law expertise as we consider the end of the Chevron doctrine and what comes next. Why is everyone so worked up about the overturning of a ruling reached by a conservative SCOTUS at the behest of Ronald Reagan, Neil Gorsuch's mom, and one of the worst polluters in world history? Why are immigration lawyers (including Matt) quietly celebrating the end of deference to administrative agencies? And how might a lesser-noticed decision from the last day of the Supreme Court’s term fuel a new era of challenges to administrative regulations?

• Chevron v  Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)

• Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (6/28/24)

• Corner Post v. Board of Governors (7/1/24)

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The answer for T3BE30 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! 

Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs!

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1049

Qualified Immunity is insane. It's one of several ways that police evade accountability for truly monstrous acts. As unpleasant as that is, we're fortunate to have an amazing guest to take us through the history of it, as well as a new case that may be cause for optimism!

From her UCLA Law bio: Joanna Schwartz is Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law and the Faculty Director of the David J. Epstein Program in Public Interest Law and Policy. She teaches Civil Procedure and a variety of courses on police accountability and public interest lawyering. She received UCLA's Distinguished Teaching Award in 2015, and served as Vice Dean for Faculty Development from 2017-2019.

Professor Schwartz is one of the country's leading experts on police misconduct litigation and the author of Shielded: How the Police Became Untouchable (2023).

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1048

This decision is absolutely outrageous. It is in the hall of fame of worst Supreme Court Decisions in our nation's history. It's that bad. As such, we recorded a ton, there is yelling involved. And cursing. And we even did an extra length patron episode to answer some of your questions. Neil Gorsuch recently promised that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity would be one “for the ages,” and Chief Justice John Roberts has certainly delivered here. In this special episode recorded on the 248th anniversary of history’s most famous rejection of monarchical tyranny, we review the historical context and (alleged) legal foundations of Trump v. U.S. (July 1, 2024). How much power has the Supreme Court just given future presidents? Are the unusually stark warnings of the authoritarian consequences of this decision from the liberal dissenters as “disproportionate” as Roberts claims, or are they exactly proportionate to the broad protections against investigation and prosecution which it seems to provide?

Matt shares his perspective from nearly two decades of working with people seeking asylum from failed (and failing) democracies, and we close with our hopes for a better American future.

• U.S. v. Trump (July 1, 2024)

• U.S. v. Nixon (July 27, 1974) 

• Trump’s motion to dismiss DC federal charges on the basis of presidential immunity

• Judge Chutkan’s decision denying Trump’s motion to dismiss

• DC Circuit’s unanimous decision affirming denial of Trump’s motion to dismiss

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!