Tag: transgender

Posted on

OA374: The Light at the End of the Tunnel

Today’s episode covers a number of stories that might be bad news for now, but each one, we think there’s a reason to be optimistic beneath the surface. We also make sure we’re holding Idaho’s feet to the fire for the anti-trans bills that state tried to sneak past the radar this week, and we tell you the fate of states that have tried to restrict access to abortion using COVID-19 as pretext.

We begin with a survey of the landscape including the states that haven’t issued stay-at-home orders. There’s an interesting commonality among these states’ governors; can you figure it out??

Then, it’s time for our main segment which is a deep dive into Idaho HB 509 that attempts to prevent trans people from changing their gender on their birth certificate. The bill is horrible, bigoted, and mean… and yet why are we optimistic? You’ll have to listen and find out!

After all that, it’s time to take a look at the six states that have attempted to restrict access to abortion services during COVID-19 and examine the latest rulings by the Fifth Circuit. Why isn’t it as bad as you’ve heard? We tell you exactly why.

We conclude, as always, with a brand-new #T3BE featuring a civ pro question that involves res judicata — a concept so convoluted, courts often screw it up. Will Thomas get it right? Listen and find out!

Patreon Bonuses

There’s still so much right now! If you’re a Patron, you can submit proposed new intro quotes for the show, and you can also listen to the audio from March’s LIVE Q&A! Oh, and if you missed it, you can also enjoy Andrew’s Lecture, “We’re All Gonna Die!” and the accompanying slides!

Appearances

Andrew was just a guest on the Daily Beans Podcast, talking megapastors flaunting the law. If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. You should read F.V. v. Barron, the Idaho case we discussed at length, as well as the current Idaho rules regarding birth certificate changes. You can also check out the WPATH Standards of Care document.
  2. This is the 5th Circuit’s order on abortion.

-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
Posted on

Transcript of Opening Arguments Episode 312 – Gerrymandering in North Carolina

Listen to the episode and read the show notes

Topics of Discussion:

[Show Introduction]

Thomas:         Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments!  This is episode 312, I’m Thomas Smith, that over there is Andrew Torrez.  How ya doin’ Andrew?

Andrew:         I am doing fantastic.  We just finished up our OA Fantasy Football draft, I figured I’d mention that now so that we would lose several thousand listeners who are like “I don’t want to hear about your fantasy football team” But-

Thomas:         Well the other ones are just sad that they couldn’t get in.

Andrew:         That’s right. [Laughs]

Continue reading “Transcript of Opening Arguments Episode 312 – Gerrymandering in North Carolina”
Posted on

OA312: Gerrymandering in North Carolina

This week’s episode breaks down the 357-page state court gerrymandering decision in North Carolina striking down that state’s legislative districts. We explain in depth exactly what happened — and exactly why cases like there are the future for political gerrymandering claims in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause.

We begin, however, with a couple of Andrew Was Wrong segments, including a sad update on Gavin Grimm as well as feedback from the entire state of Idaho!

Then, it’s time for a deep dive into the recent ruling in North Carolina, which includes an analysis of both the facts — featuring “Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” Dr. Evil stand-in Thomas Hofeller — and the law. If political gerrymandering is now perfectly okay by the U.S. Supreme Court, what can we do? Listen and find out!

After that, it’s time for a brief Yodel Mountain update regarding Don McGahn, as well as a Jeffrey Epstein update.

And then it’s time for #T3BE on the formation of contract: when, exactly, does a contract to buy a truck get made? You won’t want to miss this one.

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. We last discussed Gavin Grimm’s case in Episode 306.
  2. Click here to check out the populations of the various states, including Idaho.
  3. This is the North Carolina gerrymandering opinion.

-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

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!




Download Link
Posted on

OA306: From Gavin Grimm to Jeffrey Epstein

Today’s episode combines some very, very good news regarding young trans advocate Gavin Grimm… to some rather less good news regarding a proposed rule at the Department of Labor… to some truly bizarre news and a plea for sanity given the ever-changing circumstances surrounding Jeffrey Epstein.

We begin with what looks like the close of a saga that began more than five years ago, when a Virginia public school board — at the instigation of bigots in the larger community — forced Gavin Grimm into “separate but hardly equal” accomodations in his high school. Today, at least, it looks like Grimm has finally won, as we break down a truly monumental decision from the Eastern District of Columbia.

Then, it’s time to look at proposed rulemaking from the Department of Labor that would modify one of the most important Executive Orders of all time: EO 11246, in which Lyndon Johnson required government contractors not to discriminate in their hiring practices. What does Trump propose to do to this EO? Listen and find out… and maybe someday you’ll worship at the Church of Chick-Fil-A. (Seriously!)

After that, it’s time to check in with the conspiracy theories that abound in the world of Jeffrey Epstein. Is there really a sinister motive to think that someone had Epstein killed? Will documents continue to come out that will shed light on what really happened? (Yes.)

We end, as always, with a brand new #T3BE… and yes, it’s another dreaded real property question. If you sell property you don’t own, and later come to own it, have you merely foolishly squandered your tomato juice? Listen and find out!

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 Gavin Grimm opinion, and here to read Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681.
  2. YOU SHOULD READ THE PROPOSED DOL RULE AND COMMENT HERE.
  3. You can also read the latest Washington Post story suggesting that Epstein’s suicide may have not been.
  4. We’ve uploaded ALL the Epstein docs! You can check out the legal documents: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, and Part 13.
  5. Wait, where are Parts 4 and 9? Oh, they’re over here!

-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

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!




Download Link
Posted on

OA282: OREO (& The Real HUD Scandal)

Lost in the (justifiable) concern over Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson’s apparent lack of understanding of REOs, OREO, and just about anything pertinent to his job is a recently-proposed HUD rule that would deliberately reverse an Obama-era regulation requiring nondiscrimination in the provision of services to the homeless based on gender identity. Is it as bad as you think? (Yes.)

First, however, we begin with an Andrew Was Wrong and a bit more discussion on abortion, including the difference between Plan B and the oral abortifacient RU-486, and the difference between a zygote and a blastocyst.

After that, it’s time for our deep dive into Secretary Carson’s laughable testimony… and the real issue hiding beneath the surface, which involves crafting a religious exception to the Equality Rule of 2016.

Then, it’s time to debut Optimist Prime(TM) vs. Negatron(TM) on impeachment. Find out why Andrew thinks the tide is turning and Thomas… doesn’t. Where do you wind up? Listen and find out!

Then, it’s time for the answer to an all-new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam #127 — a dreaded real property question about a man who tries to convey his property to an overseas nephew before dying.  Can Thomas get it right??  Listen and find out!

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. We first discussed the rise of state-level constitutional protections to the right to choose back in Episode 276. and analyzed Georgia HB 481 and Alabama HB 314 in Episode 280.
  2. You can read HUD proposed rule FR-6152 (currently RIN 2506-AC53) for yourself.




Download Link
Posted on

OA263: Nielsen v. Preap and Due Process Due Aliens

Today’s breaking news episode contains your guide to the hotly-debated Supreme Court decision in Nielsen v. Preap, regarding how and whether aliens can be detained without due process.  What does it all mean?  Listen and find out!

We begin, however, with a brief update on the Congressional Investigations we discussed in Episode 259 with the news that Hope Hicks will cooperate.  Listen to our past episode if you don’t realize how huge this is.

Then, we move on to some news regarding a recent order handed down by Judge Kollar-Kotelly in the District Court for the District of Columbia with respect to the trans ban.  We dive into the unique procedural issues giving rise to this order and tamp down on your enthusiasm that this may put the trans ban in jeopardy.

Then, it’s time for our main segment breaking down Nielsen v. Preap. We tell you exactly what this decision means along with the reasons why the Court reached the result it did.

But that’s not all!  After that, we have our weekly trip to Yodel Mountain with two items:  (1) an Andrew Was Right about the source of the National Enquirer‘s acquisition of compromising material about Jeff Bezos; and (2) a follow-up on the New York indictment of Paul Manafort.

And if all that isn’t enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #119 involving long-term contracts for the sale of wheat.  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. First discussed trans ban back in Episode OA: 247
2. We were assisted by Alice Ashton – trans Arabic linguist who contributed to the Advocate article located here and by Deirdre Anne Hendrick.
3. Here is a link to Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 19-004.
4. Pre Show: Hicks to cooperate. This is HUGE!
5. 1/4 – DC Cir. Reversed and vacated the injunction.
6. 1/22 – Supreme Court lifted the stays in two of those cases. We covered it the next day on Episode OA: 247.
7. Next day, on 3/8, the government filed a notice and this is the Plaintiffs’ response.
8. Here is the link DC Circuit’s Opinions issued 3/8
9. Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s 3/19 Order
10. 3/20 Gov’ts Motion to Clarify
11. Nielsen v. Preap is linked Here
12. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) vs. (c) – 1952
13. Demore v. Kim, 538 US 510 – Supreme Court 2003
14. Wall Street Journal article on Becker/Bezos
15. CHN article on the problems with New York’s double jeopardy.

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

OA261: Sentencing Paul Manafort

Today’s extra-long episode contains your guide to all of the developments involving Paul Manafort over the past week.  What does it all mean and what can we expect next?  Listen and find out!

We begin, however, with a brief update on Episode 247 now that the Department of Defense has issued a Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM 19-004) implementing the ban on transgender service in the military.  With the help of some friends of the show, we break down the most pressing issues on the near horizon.

Then, it’s time for All Things Manafort (TM), which sneakily includes a deep dive into exactly how the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines came into effect, when they were mandatory, how they became advisory, and what the hell happened in the Eastern District of Virginia.

But that’s not all!  After that, we have a discussion on when sentences should run consecutively versus concurrently, and how that interacts with Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s sentencing decision in Manafort’s DC case.

AND we also have breaking news regarding new state charges brought against Manafort as soon as both federal sentences were handed down.

And if that’s not enough for you, well, we end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #118 that’s a 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. First discussed trans ban back in Episode OA: 247
  2. We were assisted by Alice Ashton – trans Arabic linguist who contributed to the Advocate article located here and by Deirdre Anne Hendrick.
  3. Here is a link to Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 19-004.
  4. This is the Feb. 22, 2018 Mattis directive.
  5. Here are the DSM-5 guidelines on gender dysphoria
  6. We first discussed the Sentencing Guidelines in Episode OA: 162.
  7. The accompanying statute is 18 U.S.C. §3553.
  8. For a primer on “variances” versus downward departures, check out the Sentencing Commission guidelines.
  9. Judge Ellis transcript can be found here.
  10. Concurrent/consecutive is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3554.
  11. Manafort’s NY State indictment involves Residential Mortgage Fraud 1st degree (4 counts) under Penal Law § 187.25 and Falsifying Business Records 1st Degree (8 counts) under §175.10.
  12. We discussed Gamble v. U.S. in Episode Episode OA: 215.

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

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

Posted on

OA167: Neil Gorsuch, Secret Liberal?

Today’s episode tackles the recent (and shocking) Supreme Court decision in which Neil Gorsuch voted with the Court’s liberal justices to produce a very unusual 5-4 alignment.  Is this a sign that Gorsuch isn’t the right-wing hack we all thought he was?  Listen and find out!  (Hint:  No.)

After that, we break down the 6th Circuit’s recent opinion in EEOC v. R.G & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., the first decision of its kind recognizing that discrimination on the basis of an individual who is transgender or transitioning violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

After that, we answer a listener question about selecting a contingent fee attorney and discuss some of the actual pitfalls as well as misconceptions about those lawyers who take “no money down!”

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #72 about real property and the transfer of a deed.  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!  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. We first warned you about Neil Gorusch way back in Episode 40, and we’re definitely not backing down now.  If you want to check out his concurrence, you can click here to read the Supreme Court’s decision in Sessions v. Dimaya.  And, as we discussed on the show, the should-have-been-straightforward holding of this case stems directly from the Court’s prior opinion in Johnson v. United States.
  2. You can read the 6th Circuit’s recent opinion in EEOC v. R.G & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., and for more coverage of Title VII, check out our discussion of Hively v. Ivy Tech from Episode 60, as well as our most recent update in Episode 152.

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