OA396: Happy Juneteenth from the Supreme Court!

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!


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

  1. Make sure you check out the Opening Arguments Amicus Brief if you haven’t yet.
  2. You can read the Court’s decisions in Bostock v. Clayton County, and Regents of the University of California v. Trump.
  3. 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.
  4. 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!

Download Link

OA151: Equal Access, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and HR 620

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!

Recent Appearances

None!  Have us on your show!

Show Notes & Links

  1. 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.
  2. We covered the first court decision enjoining Trump’s order on DACA in Episode 140.  You can read the second (New York) decision here.
  3. 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

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

Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com


Direct Download