Tag Archives: First Amendment

OA228: Jim Acosta, Sovereign Immunity & More!

Today’s Deep Dive Tuesday tackles the motion for preliminary injunction and underlying lawsuit brought by CNN and Jim Acosta against the Trump White House for revoking his press credentials.  You’ll get to hear about how Andrew Was Right… last Thursday (!)  As a bonus, you’ll get a listener question that segues into a mini-deep-dive on the “sovereign immunity” doctrine!

We begin, however, with some initial information about the still-sketchy situation surrounding Michael Avenatti and his arrest for domestic violence.

After that, it’s time to traipse through the CNN/Acosta lawsuit, which is still relevant today (even though the PI was, as Andrew predicted, granted).

Then, it’s time to answer a really interesting listener question about Oklahoma’s new anti-vax governor that winds up with a discussion of the sovereign immunity doctrine.  It’s a rabbit trail you’ll want to go down!

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #101 on SPACE LAW.  Find out Lando’s (and Thomas’s!) fate! Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Appearances

None!  If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. On Avenatti, you can see the “SurefireIntel” tweet here.
  2. You can read the Acosta/CNN underlying complaint, the accompanying memorandum of law supporting the Acosta TRO motion, and the Trump response.

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!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Download Link

OA214: Free Speech, NAFTA & Trump’s Trans Ban

Today’s Kavanaugh-free episode is a classic, three-story, Deep Dive Tuesday into (1) a recent free speech case involving protesters at a Trump rally; (2) the status of Trump’s efforts to ban trans service personnel from the military; and (3) whether Trump can unilaterally abrogate NAFTA.  Strap in — it’s going to be a long ride!

We begin with an examination of Nwanguma v. Trump at both the district court level and the recent decision from the 6th Circuit.  Should protesters be allowed to sue Trump and his campaign staff for incitement to riot?  Listen and find out!

After that, we examine the status of Trump’s latest (Mar. 23, 2018) order on trans personnel in the military.  Is there… good news out of the Ninth Circuit??!?

Then, we check out the history of presidential withdrawals from treaty obligations, a case involving a former Presidential candidate (Barry Goldwater) versus a sitting President (Jimmy Carter), and Donald Trump’s constant claims that he can abrogate the North American Free Trade Agreement.  Is any of this true?  The answer almost certainly will surprise you!

Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #95 regarding the Congressional delegation of rule-making authority to the Forest Service.   Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Recent Appearances

Thomas will be at QED in Manchester, UK on Oct. 13 and 14.

Show Notes & Links

  1. If you want to check out our Kavanaugh patron-only special, sign up here and then click here for the bonus download!
  2. You can read the Nwanguma v Trump district court decision as well as the decision by the 6th Circuit.
  3. Click here to read Trump’s latest (Mar. 23, 2018) order on trans personnel in the military, and here is you want to check out the Ninth Circuit’s stay order.
  4. On NAFTA:  you can read the NAFTA treaty itself (including Art. 2205), the NAFTA Implementation Act, and you’ll definitely enjoy perusing Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979).

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!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com


Download Link

OA 176: It’s Summer (Zervos) Time!

It’s time for another Rapid Response Friday, which means we get to break down whether Donald Trump has to respond to the Summer Zervos defamation lawsuit.  (Hint:  yes)

We begin, however,  with a potential Stormy Setback.  What’s the deal with press reports of a $10 million judgment entered against Stormy Daniels’ attorney, Michael Avenatti?  Could it jeopardize the pending litigation?  Listen and find out!

After that, we break down the recent federal district court opinion in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, which we covered when the case was first filed way back in Episode 77.  Are Donald Trump’s Tweets really a “protected forum” to which the First Amendment applies?  Listen and find out!

Then, we break down exactly how duplicitious Donald Trump’s personal lawyer has been regarding the Summer Zervos lawsuit.  It’s exactly as much as you’d expect!

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #77 regarding the constitutional requirement to a trial by jury.  If you’d like to play along with our new Patreon perk, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was just a guest on the Dumb All Over Podcast, episode 70.  Go check it out!

Show Notes & Links

  1. We discussed Michael Avenatti’s pro hac vice motion in Episode 174; you can also read the LA Times article about the bankruptcy judgment, as well as check out both the Avenatti involuntary bankruptcy petition and the Avenatti creditors list.
  2. We analyzed several cases, the most hilarious of which is Kohlmayer v. AMTRAK, 124 F.Supp.2d 877 (D.N.J. 2000).
  3. Trump’s Tweets were first discussed in Episode 77, along with the Davison v. Loudon County decision.
  4. You should read the Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump decision.
  5. This is the Supreme Court’s decision in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), and if you want to read Marc Kasowitz’s deliberately misleading statements yourself, you can do so here.

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