OA91: More Sex (& Also Asset Forfeiture)

For today’s show, we revisit the topic first discussed in Opening Arguments Episode #60, namely, whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of “sex” implicitly extends to prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation” as well.

First, however, fan favorite “Breakin’ Down the Law” returns with an explanation of civil and criminal asset forfeiture and a new policy announced by Attorney General (for now) Jeff Sessions.

In the main segment, we contrast the amicus brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in Zarda v. Altitude Express with the 7th Circuit’s opinion in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana.  Find out why your government just submitted a brief arguing that employers have the right to hang a sign that says “no homosexuals need apply.”

After that, Patron Jordan Keith explains a bit more about the TOR browser as a follow-up to Opening Arguments Episode #88‘s discussion of U.S. v. Matish.

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #34 regarding the rape shield law, FRE 412.  Listen and find out if Thomas makes it back to .500!   And don’t forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)!

Recent Appearances:

Andrew was just a guest on Episode 15 of Molly Unmormon’s “Doubting Dogma” podcast — give it a listen!

Show Notes & Links

  1. The relevant statutes for asset forfeiture are 18 U.S.C. § 983 and 21 U.S.C. § 853, and you can also read the 2015 Holder memorandum prohibiting “adoptive forfeitures” by clicking here.
  2. We first discussed Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana in Episode #60.
  3. And here is the link to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
  4. Here is a link to the U.S.’s amicus curiae brief in Zarda v. Altitude Express.
  5. This is the text of the opinion in U.S. v. Matishwhich we first discussed in Episode #88.
  6. And finally, you can read Rule 412 of the Federal Rules of Evidence by clicking here.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com


Direct Download