Tag: free speech

Posted on

OA262: Is Gideon v. Wainwright in Trouble??

Today’s episode is inspired by the 56th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright, one of the most famous and celebrated landmark Supreme Court cases that guarantees indigent defendants the right to a court-appointed lawyer.  Is it under attack from our right-wing Supreme Court?  (You bet it is.)

We begin with a quick update on the recent district court opinion in California v. Ross and what that means for the 2020 Census.

Then, it’s time for an Andrew Was Right segment a update on the New York appellate court’s ruling in the Summer Zervos lawsuit.  As it turns out, Donald Trump does have to respond to Summer Zervos’s lawsuit — just like Bill Clinton had to respond to Paula Jones’s.

Then it’s time for a terrifying deep dive into Clarence Thomas’s dissent in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Garza v. Idaho.  What’s the case about, and why is Thomas using it as a vehicle to try and overturn one of the most basic and fundamental rights criminal defendants enjoy today?  Listen and (sadly) find out.

After all that, it’s time for a fun listener question about footballer Wayne Rooney and public obscenity laws.

Then, it’s time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #118.  Did Thomas get a dreaded real property question correct??  Listen and find out!  And, as always, 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. Click here to read the recent district court opinion in California v. Ross.
  2. Check out the New York appellate court’s ruling in the Summer Zervos lawsuit.
  3. If you have the stomach for it, read Clarence Thomas’s dissent in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Garza v. Idaho.
  4. In the question-and-answer section, we discussed this statute, Rooney’s arrest record, and Cohen v. California.

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, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com


Download Link

Posted on

OA243: Build That Wall!!

Today’s episode tackles the mechanics of the shutdown and whether (and how) Donald Trump can build that wall despite widespread opposition.

We begin with an Andrew Was Wrong about the identity of Corey Robin and the incorporation doctrine.  Enjoy a fun segue to Gitlow v. New York and why you should never repeat the trope that free speech doesn’t include the right to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.

After that, it’s a deep dive into… what exactly is a “government shutdown,” anyway?  What laws govern this? Why do some federal employees have to keep showing up?  Isn’t that “involuntary servitude?” And can Trump declare a state of emergency or use “military eminent domain” to just build the wall anyway?

Then, it’s time for our weekly trip back to Yodel Mountain.  In Rod We Trust… so why is he stepping down? And what’s the deal with that secret foreign-owned corporation that shut down an entire floor right before the holidays?  Listen and find out!

Finally, it’s time for Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #109, another dreaded real property question! As always, 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. Serious Inquiries Only Episode 175
  2. Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
  3. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)
  4. Anti-Deficiency Act 31 U.S.C. § 1341 et seq.
  5. Federal courts notice
  6. Futurama “pain monster” clip
  7. Military eminent domain:  10 U.S.C. § 2663
  8. 1973 report on delegated powers
  9. National Emergencies Act: 50 U.S.C. § 1621
  10. Search the federal register for “National Emergency”
  11. 10 U.S.C. § 2808
  12. 33 U.S.C. § 2293
  13. Ackerman op-ed
  14. -DC Circuit Court opinion in mystery foreign corporation case
  15. Manafort sentencing memo

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

Posted on

OA234: Civil Forfeiture, Berkeley & More!

Today’s deep-dive Tuesday tackles a viral oral argument before the Supreme Court in Timbs v. Indiana regarding civil forfeiture — and a delightful question (that inspired the graphic for the show notes) about whether the state can seize your Bugatti for speeding.  Oh, and we check back in on the Ann Coulter v. Berkeley lawsuit that was recently settled.  What happened?  Listen and find out!

We begin with the Berkeley settlement, and break down exactly what the University did (and didn’t) promise to do going forward.  Is this a “big win” for the right wing?  (Hint: no.)

Then, it’s time to delve deeply into Timbs v. Indiana and discuss the law of civil asset forfeiture, the doctrine of proportionality, and even the concept of incorporation.  Yes, it’s a crazy Civ Pro kinda day.. you won’t want to miss it!

Then, it’s time for a BRAND NEW SEGMENT — “Yodel Mountain Remembers!”  We think you’re gonna love it!

Oh, and we also tackle a terrific listener question about the “apology doctrine” and the nation that made apologies famous — Canada (of course).

After all that, it’s time for the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #104 regarding government action and the warrant requirement of the Fifth Amendment.  As always, 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. Click here to read the Berkeley settlement.
  2. This is a link to the oral argument in Timbs v. Indiana.
  3. Finally, you can check out Maryland’s “apology law,” Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 10-920(b), by clicking here.
  4. This is the delightfully demented Corsi lawsuit against Mueller,

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

Posted on

OA184: Families at the Border

Today’s Rapid Response Friday helps separate fact from fiction when it comes to the heartwrenching issue of families being separated at the border.  Is the Trump administration to blame?  Did the recent Executive Order fix the problem?  Listen and find out.

First, though, we bring back (almost) everyone’s favorite segment:  Andrew Was Wrong!  Specifically, Andrew was wrong when he predicted back in Episode 83 that Maajid Nawaz didn’t have much of a defamation case against the Southern Poverty Law center, and in Episode 84 that he didn’t have much leverage, either.  Well, both of those predictions looked foolish now that the SPLC has agreed to pay Nawaz $3,375,000 and issue an unconditional apology.

In the main segment, we break down Trump’s EO regarding separating families at the border and requesting a modification to the Flores v. Reno settlement.  It’s bad.  And if it weren’t bad enough, we also discuss the administration’s change in asylum policy.

After that, we discuss the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Pereira v. Sessions.  Surely that can’t be bad news, too?  (Don’t call us Shirley.)

Finally, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #81 involving the constitutionality of a state legislature retaliating against two professors for pushing campus speech codes.  Have we piqued your interest yet?  Listen and find out!  And if you’d like to play along , just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

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.

Show Notes & Links

  1. We first discussed Maajid Nawaz’s legal threats in Episode 83 and Episode 84.  You can read the final Settlement Agreement for yourself as well as check out the SPLC’s apology to Nawaz.
  2. Click here to read the Snopes article conclusively debunking the political claim that this policy was put into place “by Democrats.”
  3. You can read Trump’s recent Executive Order and also check out the original 1997 Flores v. Reno settlement.
  4. The operative laws discussed during the main segment were:  8 U.S.C. § 1158 (asylum); 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (“improper entry by alien”); and, of course, 18 U.S.C. § 46 (“transportation of water hyacinths”).  You can also read the Attorney General’s Interim Decision #3929 on refugees for yourself.
  5. As promised, this is the full list of Class B federal misdemeanors.
  6. We also discussed this Washington Post article on refugees being turned away at the border.
  7. This is the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Pereira v. Sessions.
  8. Finally, a secret Yodel for you folks who read the show notes:  here’s the link to the news that Michael Cohen’s fired his old lawyers (McDermott, Will & Emery) and hired a new one (Guy Petrillo).  What does this mean?  Only time will tell.

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