Tag Archives: Travel ban

OA187: Lowering the Lukumi Bar?

Today’s Bonus Episode asks if there’s a way to make sense of the Supreme Court’s Lukumi jurisprudence in light of this week’s rulings in Trump v. Hawaii (the Travel Ban), Masterpiece Cakeshop, and the somewhat surprising decision to remand the Arlene’s Flowers case back to the state of Washington.

We begin, however, by checking in with the Southern District of New York’s Order approving the Taint Team’s review of documents seized from Michael Cohen’s offices by the Department of Justice.  How many documents did the Team recommend the Court withhold as privileged?  The answer may surprise you!

After that, we revisit the thesis advanced by Andrew Seidel in Episode 180 that the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop might result in a more vigorous application of its 1993 decision in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993).

Next, we break down the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in NIFLA v. Becerra, in which the Court struck down a California law regulating so-called “crisis pregnancy centers.”

After all that, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #82 involving the legality of a search for heroin.  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

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. Check out the Southern District of New York’s Order regarding Cohen’s meager haul of privileged documents.
  2. Andrew Seidel set forth his “Lukumi bar” thesis in Episode 180; you can read Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) for yourself and then compare it with both Trump v. Hawaii and Masterpiece Cakeshop.
  3. We discussed Planned Parenthood v. Casey at length in a two-part series:  Episode 27 and Episode 28; you might want to compare the statute approved in that case with the one struck down by the Court in NIFLA v. Becerra.

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

OA169: Wells Fargo Goes To Jail?

Today’s episode discusses the recent fines levied against Wells Fargo in connection with two specific acts of egregious fraud against consumers.  Is it enough?  Is it proof that Trump (and Mick Mulvaney) intend rigorous defense of consumers at the CFPB?  Listen and find out!

First, we delve into a grab bag of items, beginning with a heartfelt apology and Andrew Was Wrong regarding trans language.  Next, we deal with a couple of wacky legal cases, before settling in on a bevy of new gun control laws passed in Maryland.  Phew!

Then, we move into a discussion of Trump v. Hawaii, which was argued before the Supreme Court last week.  What’s the latest on the Travel Ban?

After that, our “C” segment breaks down everything Wells Fargo.

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #73 about lessees, assignees, and joint and several liability.  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

As this show comes out, Andrew was the guest masochist on Episode 141 of God Awful Movies; check it out!

And 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. From our grab bag:  here is a link to the Kobach memo that’s PROBABLY NOT WORTH ARGUING; this is the New York Post report on the hilarious Make America Great Again bar lawsuit; and this is the link to all the gun control bills passed in Maryland.
  2. We first discussed outgoing Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen’s cease-and-desist order against Wells Fargo back in Episode 146.  The current enforcement action by the OCC can be read here.
  3. We first discussed Trump’s (then only proposed) Muslim ban way back in Episode #16, when the conventional wisdom was that it was so unthinkably awful it might lead the Republican Party to replace him at the top of the ticket.  Ah, good times.
  4. Since then, we’ve discussed the legality of the ban again (in Episode 39), the 9th Circuit’s ruling on EO-1 (in Episode 43), and, most recently, the status of OA-2 in Episode 114.  In this episode, we cite to the Government’s reply brief before the Supreme Court.

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