Listen to the episode and read the show notes
Topics of Discussion:
and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 327, I’m Thomas Smith, that
over there is P. Andrew Taurus. I didn’t
even say that right. Torah? Torass?
P. Andrew Torrez, esquire. Moo! How are you doing?
to you too, Thomas! [Laughs]
Continue reading “Transcript of OA327: Pizza, Beer, and Guns!”
Today’s episode takes a look at HR 620. What does it mean, and why does Congress want to make changes to one of the most successful, bipartisan, and beloved pieces of legislation in the past 30 years?
First, though, the guys update break down a recent decision from the Eastern District of New York also enjoining Trump’s rescission of DACA. Why did a second court block Trump’s order? Listen and find out!
During the main segment, Andrew walks us through the history of the Americans with Disabilities Act and what restrictions HR 620 would impose on would-be plaintiffs. Is it as bad as people are saying? (Hint: yes.)
After that, we answer a somewhat off-the-wall question from listener Mark Lunn that’s a follow-up to Episode 147 with Lucien Greaves.
Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #64 about dog law, accidental trespass, and… well, you’ll just have to listen. Don’t forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
None! Have us on your show!
Show Notes & Links
- Don’t forget to show up for the monthly Q&A this Wednesday, February 28th, at 8:30 pm Eastern / 5:30 pm Pacific. You can submit your questions here.
- We covered the first court decision enjoining Trump’s order on DACA in Episode 140. You can read the second (New York) decision here.
- The relevant provision of the ADA modified by HR 620 is 42 U.S.C. § 12188.
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!
And email us at email@example.com