**Today’s episode is brought to you by Framebridge! To custom frame your favorite things, go to framebridge.com promo code: OA**
Today’s episode takes a deep dive into two recent 8-1 decisions by the Supreme Court: Collins v. Virginia and Sveen v. Melin. What makes a decision nearly unanimous, and what causes that lone Justice to dissent? Listen and find out!
Our first 8-1 case involves two unique aspects of the 4th Amendment: the “curtilage” exception and the “automobile” exception. Which one takes precedence, why, and which Supreme Court justice vehemently disagreed? Find out if you agree with Thomas — and whether the law is “a ass.” (Seriously!)
Our second 8-1 case is Sveen v. Melin, which involves whether the state of Missouri can legislate certain presumptions regarding “governing instruments.” It’s the Contracts Clause! Seem arcane? It won’t after you listen to our breakdown!
After that, we answer a fun listener question about how a law firm makes someone a partner in light of our assessment of the Eagan Avenatti law firm in Episode 181.
Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #80 regarding negligence per se and an impromptu ice rink. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
Andrew was recently a guest on the David Pakman Show, with a two-part appearance discussing whether President Trump can be indicted and if so, whether he can pardon himself. You can watch the video on YouTube.
And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at email@example.com.
Show Notes & Links
- Click here to read the Supreme Court’s opinion in Collins v. Virginia, and here to check out Sveen v. Melin.
- The other decision Andrew referred to was the landmark case of Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!
And email us at firstname.lastname@example.org