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!

OA1047

We continue our coverage of the contempt hearing against Young Thug attorney Brian Steel with a very special guest! Attorney Ashleigh Merchant is not only the president of the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, but most recently known for her work in seeking to recuse Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis from the Trump RICO case. Attorney Merchant provides her impressions of the YSL RICO trial and why  GACDL’s has to have a special “strike force” to defend attorneys in contempt matters before giving us the play-by-play on her cameo appearance in the dramatic conclusion to the hearing which we covered in Part I yesterday. 

• YSL Trial Day 88, Fox 5 Atlanta (full video)

• Full 56-page transcript of ex parte hearing with Judge Glanville, Fulton County DAs, and witness Kenneth Copeland held June 10, 2024

• Ashleigh Merchant’s bio page from the Merchant Law Firm website

OA1046

Bit of a special schedule this week, for reasons that I over-explain in the first 5 minutes of this episode. But it's good reasons! Hope you enjoy.

This is a part 1 of an extremely good Gavel Gavel episode. If you are a Gavel Gavel patron, you can listen to the full version in that feed now! Otherwise, stay tuned for part 2 tomorrow, with special guest Ashleigh Merchant!

OA1045

As the Supreme Court gives itself an extension on its homework, we review two of its most recent completed assignments: 

• Department of State v. Munoz (6/21/2024) What rights do US citizens have to object to the arbitrary denial of a spouse’s immigrant visa? Matt explains the arbitrary perils of the consular visa processing system and Amy Coney Barrett’s dangerously misguided search for deeply rooted history and tradition in an immigration system deeply rooted in white supremacy. We also discuss Justice Sotomayor’s warning in dissent about 

• Snyder v. U.S. (6/26/24): In fantastic news for anyone looking to give or receive a bribe, a 6-3 conservative majority has effectively read any penalties for paying a public official off after they have given you what you wanted out of federal law. Brett Kavanaugh reminds us what he was put there for by mischaracterizing the facts, finding entirely new meanings for the word “rewarded,” and worrying way too much about soccer moms inducing violations of 18 USC 666 with gift cards and edible arrangements.

   

We close out with a quick review of Steve Bannon’s desperate attempts to stay out of prison, and the concerning commitments House Republicans have recently made to stand behind his argument that the entire January 6th committee was invalid.

Finally for PATRONS ONLY: we read and discuss the best bits of Justice Jackson's very good Snyder dissent!

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