 Today's bonus episode takes a deep dive into the lawsuit brought by the Trump Administration to try and block the publication of John Bolton's tell-all book. We break down the legal arguments and tell you whether you can look forward to getting that copy you ordered or not. (And seriously, you shouldn't give money to John Bolton. He's still a scumbag.) We begin, however, with a quick Andrew Was Right! in that PG&E pleaded guilty to 84 counts of manslaughter; we told you PG&E was likely criminally liable way back in Episode 241! Then, it's time to break down the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 which just passed the House Judiciary Committee and is an unambiguously good bill. Listen and find out why! After that, it's time to dig in to both the Complaint and the motion for TRO filed by the United States on behalf of Donald Trump because John Bolton's book made Trump feel bad. Do we really live in a society in which that happened? Yes. Do we live in one in which the court will grant injunctive relief? No. Listen and find out why. No #T3BE in this bonus episode but there's lots and lots of great content! Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Although the plea agreement isn't available, this Ars Technica article is a good timeline of PG&E's criminal activities; we told you PG&E was likely criminally liable way back in Episode 241! Click here to read the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 which just passed the House Judiciary Committee. You can read the Supreme Court's decision in Snepp v. U.S. 444 U.S. 507 (1980), the decision in the Pentagon Papers case, and also read the Complaint and the motion for TRO filed by the U.S. against Bolton. Injunctive relief is governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Finally, check out the NSA's pre-publication procedures. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com! 

Opening Arguments

OA396.5 BONUS Episode: Will You Be Able To Read John Bolton's Book?

 Today's episode might have been titled "Andrew Was Really, Really Wrong," as we break down this rather surprising week in the Supreme Court, including the Title VII cases, the Court's refusal to grant cert on any gun case, and the DACA decision. We begin with a quick Happy Juneteenth! From there, we tackle the ways in which Andrew Was Wrong, starting with the Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the consolidated case in which the Court has now held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects sexual orientation and gender identity. We promise you it isn't a poison pill; it's an unambiguously good decision. After that, it's time to talk about another thing Andrew was wrong about that's kind of flown under the radar -- the fact that the Supreme Court denied certiorari in all 10 of the pending gun cases, allowing some good rulings to stand and forestalling some bad new law on the Second Amendment. Then, it's time to break down the Court's ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Trump, the case involving whether the Trump administration can unilaterally end DACA. The Court ruled they can't -- but this decision has a number of red flags in it that we discuss on the show. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE about constitutional law and whether a religious university can fire a professor for what she writes in an op-ed? Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Make sure you check out the Opening Arguments Amicus Brief if you haven’t yet. You can read the Court's decisions in Bostock v. Clayton County, and Regents of the University of California v. Trump. We discussed the importance of the Kolbe v. Hogan way back in Episode 47, and the Trump administration's approach to DACA in Episode 102. Finally, check out the Trump administration's scorecard (6-79!) in administrative actions. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com! 

OA396: Happy Juneteenth from the Supreme Court!

 Today's show takes a deep dive into the Supreme Court, with the theme of "Shame Justice Roberts," and we recorded this... just before Justice Roberts (and, surprisingly, Neil Gorsuch) voted to affirm in the Zarda cases, recognizing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's prohibition "on the basis of sex" includes sexual orientation. Andrew was (happily) wrong indeed. We begin, however, with a discussion of the latest madness coming out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and how Andrew would fight it. Then, it's time for our Supreme Court roundup, which featured not only Zarda, but a look at the pending gun cases (all of which were denied) and an analysis of the South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom decision permitting California to establish medical restrictions on churches and other places of public accommodation. After all that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE involving real property! Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Make sure you check out the Opening Arguments Amicus Brief if you haven't yet. We last discussed the McGahn case in Episode 366. Click here to read the South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom decision. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com! 

OA395: The Andrew Was Already Wrong Show!

 Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the concept of an amicus brief, explaining why we filed one in the Flynn case, what it means, and what's next for the guy who sold out his country... and his partner. We begin with a brief update on the Flynn trial (in the District Court for the District of Columbia) and the mandamus action pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Then, it's time to talk about all the various amicus briefs that were filed, with special attention to a pro-Flynn brief filed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Why does this liberal group want Judge Sullivan to grant the government's motion? Listen and find out! After a breakdown of all the amicus, we talk about the case in which Lt. Gen. Flynn was supposed to be the star witness for the government -- the case against Flynn's partner, Bijan Rafiekian. Find out what's up next for Kian, and how this all involves friend of the show G. ZACHARY TERWILLIGER! After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE, this one involving... real property. Can Thomas manage to figure out the relationship between a buyer, a mortgagor, a developer, and an unsigned deed? Listen and find out, and play along if you want on social media! Patreon Bonuses We posted six separate updates to the amicus brief in progress, and there's more where that came from! Appearances Andrew was just on the latest episode of the Daily Beans Podcast. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Make sure you check out the Opening Arguments Amicus Brief! You can also click here for the reply brief just filed by G. Zachary Terwilliger in the Bijan Kian case. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com! 

OA394: The Amicus Show!

 Today we're joined by Gabe Roth, executive director of https://fixthecourt.com/. Fix the Court is a national, nonpartisan organization that advocates for non-ideological “fixes” that would make the federal courts, and primarily the U.S. Supreme Court, more open and more accountable to the American people. In his work, Gabe has been tracking some curious financial dealings of "friend" of the show Justin Walker. We discuss that, and other ethics questions and reforms related to the court system. 

OA393: Gabe Roth of Fix the Court

 Today's extra-long show -- two hours if you're a patron! -- tackles all the issues surrounding the state of our Union in the aftermath of the George Floyd murder, including questions about which charges should be filed against Derek Chauvin, whether Trump can invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807, and much, much more! Oh, and as a bonus, we also have a "lightning round" Yodel Mountain segment (with deep dives for patrons). We begin with an in-depth discussion of an argument made by arguably the country's greatest legal mind, Laurence Tribe, that the murder-3 charge against George Floyd was sure to be dismissed. Find out why Andrew thinks Tribe is wrong, even in light of the Minnesota DA's decision to add a murder-2 charge to Chauvin's charges. After that, Andrew will explain one thing he was wrong about... due to a "quirk" in Minnesota's laws regarding felony murder and the merger doctrine. Then, we discuss Trump's invocation of the Insurrection Act of 1807 to justify potentially sending armed forces into American cities. You'll learn exactly how not justified this is... and whether it matters. After that, it's time to (briefly!) check in with Black Lives Matter and evaluate their lawsuit against Eric Garcetti for an injunction to block the Los Angeles curfew. Will it succeed? (No.) We're not remotely done, though! After all that, it's time to head on up for a lightning round atop Yodel Mountain., were we check in on (1) Rod Rosenstein's Senate testimony, (2) Judge Sullivan's DC Circuit brief in the Flynn case, and (3) a weird story making the rounds regarding a 2016 lawsuit filed (and dropped) against Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. After all that, it’s time for an all-new #T3BE involving character testimony. It's a tough question; can Thomas get it right? Listen and find out! And remember -- if you're a patron, you get a ton of bonus content in this episode, including deep dives on each and every one of these stories! Patreon Bonuses There's a new Patreon amicus thread in addition to all the other patreon goodies. Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links COVID-19 is still a crisis. On Floyd: (a) you can click here to read the revised Chauvin charging document; (b) this is the here's the Laurence Tribe article; and (c) here's the Greg Egan law review article. We also discuss a number of cases including State v. Wahlberg, 296 N.W. 2d 408 (Minn. 1980), State v. Loebach, 310 N.W. 2d 58 (Minn. 1981), and State v. Barnes, 713 N.W.2d 325 (Minn. 2006). On the Insurrection Act of 1807, 10 U.S.C. §§ 251-255, we cited two specific provisions: § 252 and § 253. And we discussed Greg Gianforte back in Episode 72. During the bonus, we also discussed two executive orders from the George H. W. Bush presidency: EO 12690 and EO 12804, and two corresponding Proclamations: 6023 and 6427. During the bonus, we also break down how Vol. I of the Mueller Report contradicts Rosenstein's testimony. Finally, check out Sullivan's D.C. Circuit brief. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com! 

OA392: In the Aftermath of George Floyd

 Today's episode takes a deep dive into H.R. 965, which (quite sensibly) permits proxy voting in the House of Representatives in light of the COVID-19 crisis, and the lawsuit filed by various Republican lawmakers to try and stop it. Good news! The lawsuit has no chance of success thanks to... litigation prompted by Donald Trump. We begin, however, with an update on the DOJ probe into insider trading allegations against four Senators that allegedly -- either on their own behalf or via another party -- sold off stock prior to the public pronouncements about COVID-19 that tanked the stock market. Who got off? Who's left under the microscope? Is there anything nefarious here? We break it all down for you! After that it's time to delve into the recent legislation and accompanying (nonsense) lawsuit by Republicans challenging the House's simple resolution, H.R. 965 (and the implementing legislation, H.R. 967). Find out how the whole thing is going to be precluded thanks to the D.C. Circuit's recent ruling in Blumenthal v. Trump, which was of course hailed as a victory for the President at the time. Then, it's time to check back in with #T3BE involving potential negligence for a factory that failed to install sprinklers. Can Thomas pull this one out? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses If you missed our Live Q&A #32, the audio is now up for all Patrons! Also remember that Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links DOJ probe links: (a) here's the NPR link to the story; and (b) here's the GovTrack link to the fact that Marco Rubio still doesn't do his damn job. On remote voting, check out (a) H.R. 965 (and the implementing legislation, H.R. 967; (b) the D.C. Circuit's recent ruling in Blumenthal v. Trump; (c) our discussion of that case in Episode 361; (d) the Congressional Research Service article we discussed; and (e) United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892). -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com! 

OA391: Republicans Are Still Trying To Break the Government, Part Eleven Billion

 Today's emergency episode breaks down everything you need to know about the death of George Floyd and the charges filed against Officer Derek Chauvin in Minnesota. Patreon Bonuses We’ve got an all-new Live Q&A scheduled for Sunday, May 31 at 7 pm Eastern / 4 pm Pacific, and Patrons can click here to suggest questions and vote on the ones they want answered. Also remember that Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the latest episode of The Daily Beans. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Please do check out how to partner with Black Lives Matter. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com! 

Bonus: George Floyd and Policing the Police

 Today's episode breaks down the latest temper tantrum and accompanying executive order by our game show host president attacking social media platforms for having the temerity to engage in fact-checking. You're going to be hearing a lot about "Section 230" -- so we're here to tell you exactly what that means, what Trump is trying to do, and why it matters. We begin, however, with a pretty straightforward Andrew Was Right now that Tulsi Gabbard has voluntarily dismissed her defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton that we covered back in Episode 354 ("A Russian Asset Sues What?"). Then it's time for our deep dive into CompuServe, Prodigy, section 230 of the Telecommunications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230 -- which ended internet porn forever -- and what all of that has to do with Trump's latest tantrum over being fact-checked on Twitter. You won't want to miss it! After that, it's time for an update on the amicus brief we're filing in the Flynn case. We tell you what Flynn's best case is, and walk through how it does and does not inform Judge Sullivan's discretion under Rule 48(a). And then, of course, we end with an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam involving a fire at one warehouse spreading to another. If you want to play along, just share out this episode on social media using the hashtag #T3BE and we might pick you as next week's winner! Patreon Bonuses We've got an all-new Live Q&A scheduled for Sunday, May 31 at 7 pm Eastern / 4 pm Pacific, and Patrons can click here to suggest questions and vote on the ones they want answered. Also remember that Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the latest episode of The Daily Beans. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Tulsi links: (a) click here for the news that Tulsi Gabbard has voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit; (b) here to read the original defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton; (c) the 

OA390: Trump's War on Twitter (A Deep Dive on Section 230)

 Today's episode brings back AG of the Mueller She Wrote and Daily Beans podcasts to help delve in to all the craziness that is #Obamagate. And, as a bonus, we also discuss the five Inspectors General fired by Trump and what they were investigating. You won't want to miss this special episode! As it turns out, #Obamagate is nonsense. Who knew? After the hour-long interview, it's time to revisit #T3BE, in which Thomas decided the issue was hearsay, not spousal privilege. Did he get the answer correct? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! Appearances Andrew was just a guest host on Episode 123 of the Skepticrat, discussing some of these same issues. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Check out this story on Steve Linick, the AG investigating Mike Pompeo. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com! 

OA389: #Obamagate (w/guest AG!)

 Today's episode checks in on all the latest goings-on in the Trump administration that probably don't violate the law but do undermine the norms of 200+ years of government, from firing Inspectors General that are potentially interested in government accountability to the DOJ's refusal to turn over the unredacted Mueller Report to the House Judiciary Committee to the collusion between Bob Barr and Michael Flynn. You won't want to miss it. We begin with some pre-show news about Cory Wilson, the latest completely insane, hyper-partisan (and 49-year-old) Trump nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals. From there, we take a deep dive into the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5a U.S.C. § 3, and the legal protections for IGs (or lack thereof). After that, it's time to check in on the latest order by the Supreme Court staying the production of the unredacted Mueller Report to the House Judiciary Committee. We explain exactly what that means and when, if ever, you should start panicking. Then, it's time for an update on the Flynn case where we're filing The Opening Arguments Amicus Brief! Also, we check in on a truly terrible Sidney Powell filing seeking mandamus from the D.C. Circuit. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE about a man, his yacht, and insurance fraud -- in which Thomas tries to figure out if the issue is privilege, hearsay, or something else entirely. Patreon Bonuses Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! And if you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on the latest episode of the Daily Beans podcast! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Cory Wilson was rated a tepid "Qualified" by the ABA his first-go-round; that got upgraded to "mostly Well-Qualified" when he was renominated. Check out the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5a U.S.C. § 3. This is the Supreme Court order staying the production of the unredacted Mueller Report. Here's the petition for mandamus, and the opposition by the House of Representatives. We last covered the Flynn case in Episode 386. Click here to read the 4th Circuit's mandamus opinion in In re Flynn. And click here to check out the late-breaking order from the 4th Circuit requiring additional briefing from Judge Sullivan. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com! 

OA388: Reinstating the Rule of Law

 Today's episode features an interview with one of our favorite recurring guests, Andrew Seidel, who returns to warn us of new regulations pursuant to the CARES Act that are permitting churches to take PPP money. Yes, that means your tax dollars are literally paying the salaries of ministers, priests, imams, and the like. We also discuss what just happened in Wisconsin, where the Supreme Court invalidated Gov. Evers's stay-at-home order. Is it bad? Listen and find out! (Yes.) After that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE about when & where double jeopardy attaches. Patreon Bonuses Patrons can give their input on the OA Amicus Brief! And if you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links If you missed Andrew Seidel's last appearance in Episode 376, go check it out! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com! 

OA387: You Pay the Priest (w/Andrew Seidel)

 Today's episode marks a milestone for the show: we're going to file an amicus curiae brief in the Michael Flynn case. Find out exactly how & why we're doing this! We begin, however, with a brief update in the various emoluments cases, including an update on the two orders released this morning by the 4th Circuit en banc. After that it's time to dig into all the developments in the Flynn litigation that will lead to the filing of Opening Arguments' first amicus brief! Then, it's time for #T3BE, featuring next week's guest, Andrew Seidel! Patreon Bonuses If you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here! Appearances None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links The last time we broke down the emoluments clause cases was in Episode 361. You can check out the two orders released this morning by the 4th Circuit en banc (the first one is the lengthy discussion). Flynn docs: the DOJ's Motion to Dismiss; the Notice of Intent to file amicus by the Watergate Prosecutors, as well as the 9th Circuit's Opinion in U.S. v. Hector. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com! 

OA386: The Opening Arguments Amicus Brief!

 Today's episode features an in-depth interview with Allison Gill of American Atheists regarding the just-released survey Reality Check, which interviews more than 34,000 nonreligious individuals, gathering data as a precursor to support specific arguments with lawmakers in terms of lobbying for recognizing atheist constituents. You won't want to miss it! We begin, however, with a bit more in-depth analysis about the nonjusticiability doctrine and how it might affect the Supreme Court's decision in the Mazars and Deutsche Bank subpoena cases -- which are being heard today by the Supreme Court! Then, it's time for our in-depth interview with Allison where we talk about discrimination against atheists, including a deep dive into the actual research that shows how atheists are treated in society -- even among educated peers. After all that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE 177 involving a noxious factory next to a residence and mini-golf. Can Thomas keep up his winning streak? There's only one way to find out! 

OA385: Reality Check! (w/Allison Gill)

 Today's episode updates you on all the recent goings-on at the Supreme Court, including the advent of new, social-distancing-approved oral arguments, the Court's calendar, and today's 9-0 reversal in Kelly v. U.S., the Bridgegate case. Oh, and while we're at it, we also take on two lengthy Andrew Was (Sort of) Wrong segments! Phew! We begin with a discussion of the new procedures for SCOTUS oral arguments, and give an apology to Clarence Thomas, who's now engaged and asking questions after decades of silence on the bench. After that, it's time to take a look at the SCOTUS calendar where we check out some suspicious timing regarding the non-release of the Title VII cases as well as 10 pending gun control cert petitions. Then, it's time for a deep dive into Kelly v. U.S., which we last covered in Episode 232. Andrew thought the 3rd Circuit's analysis of "property" was plausible in that episode... and just got reversed 9-0 by a unanimous Supreme Court. Whoops! As long as Andrew Was Wrong, how about we check back in on Andrew Yang's lawsuit against the DNC, in which Yang (despite "not having a great case," according to Andrew in Episode 382) nevertheless managed to secure an injunction from the Southern District of New York. Find out where this case is headed, what's next, and why Andrew is STILL right, sort of.... Finally, Andrew Was... not wrong, exactly, but Flabbergasted that the American Bar Association reversed itself, finding Justin Walker "Well Qualified" for serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Andrew, on the other hand, continues to rate Walker "Not Qualified," as per Episode 289. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE involving a nuisance plant next to a mini-golf park. Will Thomas's winning streak continue? Patreon Bonuses If you missed our live Q&A, you can check out the audio here! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 204 of The Daily Beans, talking justiciability. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Click here to read the Supreme Court's opinion in Kelly v. U.S., and here to listen to our coverage of the Third Circuit's opinion in Episode 232. Check out the district court's injunction in favor of Andrew Yang reinstating the New York Democratic primary. You can check out the ABA's "Not Qualified" ranking of Walker in 2019 and match it against their new "Well Qualified" letter here. For more on why you should #OpposeJustinWalker, check out Episode 289. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com! 

OA384: Bridgegate Apparently Was Fine

Every episode, legal expert Andrew and comic relief Thomas will tackle a popular legal topic and give you all the tools you need to understand the issue and win every argument you have on Facebook, with your Uncle Frank, or wherever someone is wrong on the Internet. It's law. It's politics. It's fun. We don't tell you what to think, we just set up the Opening Arguments.

hubhopper

Opening Arguments

hubhopper