This week’s “breaking news” episode covers three of the biggest stories trending at the moment: the Utah nurse who was arrested for standing up for her patient’s rights; Trump’s repeal of DACA; and churches suing for relief funds.
We begin with the story behind the arrest of Alex Wubbels, the Utah nurse who refused to take and turn over her patient’s blood to the police.
In the main segment, Andrew walks us through President Trump’s directive to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Does Andrew actually agree with a legal opinion authored by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III?? Listen and find out!
Next, Breakin’ Down the Law continues with everything you wanted to know about churches suing for funds allocated to disaster relief and recovery. Is the Friendly Atheist right when he says such a case is legally distinct from the precedent set by Trinity Lutheran v. Comer?
Finally, we end with a fiendishly difficult and all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #40 about jury instructions regarding the presumption of intent. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess. We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!
None. Have us on your show!
Show Notes & Links
- This is a link to the Red Cross‘s page for donations for hurricane relief; and here is a link to Habitat for Humanity‘s hurricane relief efforts.
- Here is where you can find the recently-created Opening Arguments Facebook Community, which you should definitely join!
- You can read the relevant Supreme Court opinion, Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S.Ct. 2160 (2016), that Nurse Wubbels relied upon in refusing to take and turn over blood to the police.
- The guys first discussed illegal immigration on Episode 52 and then again in Episode 67.
- This is the original June 15, 2012 Napolitano DHS memo that became DACA.
- This the text of the recent memorandum by Attorney General Sessions rescinding DACA.
- The DAPA case relied upon by Sessions is Texas v. US, 86 F.Supp.3d 591 (S.D. Tex. 2015), aff’d, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015).
- We first analyzed the Trinity Lutheran v. Comer decision (along with Andrew Seidel) in Episode 82.
- Previously, we discussed Trinity Lutheran while the case was still pending during our three-part “You Be The Supreme Court” series: Part 1 (Episode 14) is available here, Part 2 is available here, and Part 3 is available here.
- This is the Friendly Atheist article discussed during the “C” segment attempting to distinguish Trinity Lutheran v. Comer.
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
And email us at firstname.lastname@example.org