Opening Arguments

OA1056 As the Trump campaign celebrates the “demise” of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, we check in on reports of its death to see just how exaggerated they might be. Does it even matter that the ultra-conservative push to remake the personnel and policies of the federal government run by people who talk like Bond villains is (allegedly) no longer in the policy game? And how did things get to the point that these people were too extreme for Stephen Miller? We then discuss the Supreme Court’s recent decision to dismiss Moyle v US without a decision on the merits of Idaho's attempts to criminalize nearly all abortions. Why did the conservative justices rush to jump into this case only to find that they never should have done that? What can we learn from this week's unprecedented inside leaks about how this decision? Finally, a quick check on the state of Donald Trump's gag order and Nikki Haley's weird attempt to get her name out of her treacherous former SuperPAC's collective mouth. 42 USC 1395dd (re

The answer for T3BE33 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather!  Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1055 Charis Kubrin is a professor of criminology at University of California Irvine whose extensive analysis of rap lyrics has provided the basis for her expert testimony in cases around the U.S. in which an artist’s work has been used against them as criminal evidence. Professor Kubrin joins us to explain what brought her to this subject, the history of “rap on trial,” and her ongoing work with the defense bar to push back against this problematic and almost inevitably racist practice. Charis E. Kubrin’s faculty bio at the UCI School of Social Ecology Rap on Trial Legal Guide (2nd Edition), Jack Lerner & Charis Kubrin the Rap on Trial website If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1054 As the Democratic Party comes together around presumptive nominee Kamala Harris after Joe Biden's surprise exit, we take another look at the Vice President”s career and political record. Is she any more of a “cop” than any other career prosecutor? How will history remember this VP? What might we expect from a President Harris that we wouldn't from a second Biden term? And why did Matt just get kicked out of a library in Rhode Island? We take on all of these questions and many more in this rapid response episode, with much more to come as this unprecedented race continues to develop. If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The answer for T3BE32 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather!  Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1053 We had a different episode ready, but this development warranted an emergency episode. Matt answers many of the most pressing questions about what happens next. Can Harris get on the ballot? Does she get access to the funds Biden had? What happens with Biden's delegates? And is it illegal to drop out of a presidential race... for some reason... as many Republicans are saying? If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1052 CAAAANNNONNNNNBALLLLLL! Judge Aileen Cannon has just made a major splash in the Trump trials by dismissing the entire federal classified documents case based on her findings that special prosecutor Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed.  We try our best to pretend that this 93-page decision is a regular order released by a normal judge, at least for a few minutes, before moving on to ask: Should we have seen this coming? Does this explain Clarence Thomas’s weirdly unprompted thoughts on the same subject in the Trump immunity case earlier this month? What happens next, and is there any chance it could happen without Fort Pierce, Florida’s best, worst, and only federal judge?  BONUS PATRON CONTENT: Patrons will also hear us listen to the New York Times rub its collective chin as its The Daily podcast considers Aileen Cannon’s mysterious ways and unknowable motives.  Aileen Cannon's 93-page order granting Trump ‘s motion to dismiss  28 U.S. Code § 533  (Investigative and other officials; appointment)

The answer for T3BE31 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather!  Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1051 In the wake of... one of the many moral panics likely started by Chris Rufo, many "Don't Say Gay" laws were passed. I don't know about you, but I had just figured these had to be unconstitutional. After all, we have freedom of speech, right? There's an Amendment about that, right? Well....... Returning to the show to take us through this is the best namer of law review articles, Caroline Mala Corbin. Caroline is a law professor at the University of Miami, focusing on the First Amendment's speech and religion clauses, reproductive justice, and the principle of equality that should run through it all. Check out her paper "The Government Speech Doctrine Ate My Class" here! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1050 Legal podcaster Charles Star (ALAB, Mic Dicta) joins to share his administrative law expertise as we consider the end of the Chevron doctrine and what comes next. Why is everyone so worked up about the overturning of a ruling reached by a conservative SCOTUS at the behest of Ronald Reagan, Neil Gorsuch's mom, and one of the worst polluters in world history? Why are immigration lawyers (including Matt) quietly celebrating the end of deference to administrative agencies? And how might a lesser-noticed decision from the last day of the Supreme Court’s term fuel a new era of challenges to administrative regulations? Chevron v  Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (6/28/24) Corner Post v. Board of Governors (7/1/24) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

The answer for T3BE30 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather!  Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1049 Qualified Immunity is insane. It's one of several ways that police evade accountability for truly monstrous acts. As unpleasant as that is, we're fortunate to have an amazing guest to take us through the history of it, as well as a new case that may be cause for optimism! From her UCLA Law bio: Joanna Schwartz is Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law and the Faculty Director of the David J. Epstein Program in Public Interest Law and Policy. She teaches Civil Procedure and a variety of courses on police accountability and public interest lawyering. She received UCLA's Distinguished Teaching Award in 2015, and served as Vice Dean for Faculty Development from 2017-2019. Professor Schwartz is one of the country's leading experts on police misconduct litigation and the author of Shielded: How the Police Became Untouchable (2023). If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1048 This decision is absolutely outrageous. It is in the hall of fame of worst Supreme Court Decisions in our nation's history. It's that bad. As such, we recorded a ton, there is yelling involved. And cursing. And we even did an extra length patron episode to answer some of your questions. Neil Gorsuch recently promised that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity would be one “for the ages,” and Chief Justice John Roberts has certainly delivered here. In this special episode recorded on the 248th anniversary of history’s most famous rejection of monarchical tyranny, we review the historical context and (alleged) legal foundations of Trump v. U.S. (July 1, 2024). How much power has the Supreme Court just given future presidents? Are the unusually stark warnings of the authoritarian consequences of this decision from the liberal dissenters as “disproportionate” as Roberts claims, or are they exactly proportionate to the broad protections against investigation and prosecution which it se

OA1047 We continue our coverage of the contempt hearing against Young Thug attorney Brian Steel with a very special guest! Attorney Ashleigh Merchant is not only the president of the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, but most recently known for her work in seeking to recuse Fulton County prosecutor Fani Willis from the Trump RICO case. Attorney Merchant provides her impressions of the YSL RICO trial and why  GACDL’s has to have a special “strike force” to defend attorneys in contempt matters before giving us the play-by-play on her cameo appearance in the dramatic conclusion to the hearing which we covered in Part I yesterday.  YSL Trial Day 88, Fox 5 Atlanta (full video) Full 56-page transcript of ex parte hearing with Judge Glanville, Fulton County DAs, and witness Kenneth Copeland held June 10, 2024 Ashleigh Merchant’s bio page from the Merchant Law Firm website

OA1046 Bit of a special schedule this week, for reasons that I over-explain in the first 5 minutes of this episode. But it's good reasons! Hope you enjoy. This is a part 1 of an extremely good Gavel Gavel episode. If you are a Gavel Gavel patron, you can listen to the full version in that feed now! Otherwise, stay tuned for part 2 tomorrow, with special guest Ashleigh Merchant!

OA1045 As the Supreme Court gives itself an extension on its homework, we review two of its most recent completed assignments:  Department of State v. Munoz (6/21/2024) What rights do US citizens have to object to the arbitrary denial of a spouse’s immigrant visa? Matt explains the arbitrary perils of the consular visa processing system and Amy Coney Barrett’s dangerously misguided search for deeply rooted history and tradition in an immigration system deeply rooted in white supremacy. We also discuss Justice Sotomayor’s warning in dissent about  Snyder v. U.S. (6/26/24): In fantastic news for anyone looking to give or receive a bribe, a 6-3 conservative majority has effectively read any penalties for paying a public official off after they have given you what you wanted out of federal law. Brett Kavanaugh reminds us what he was put there for by mischaracterizing the facts, finding entirely new meanings for the word “rewarded,” and worrying way too much about soccer moms inducing violations of 18 USC 666

The answer for T3BE29 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1044 Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has used Georgia’s RICO statute against everyone from public school teachers to environmental protesters to a former President of the United States. This week we examine Willis's massive 88-page RICO indictment of rapper Young Thug and 27 other associates of YSL, the Atlanta record label which her office alleges is also operating as a violent street gang. Matt shakes his geriatric millennial first at the scourge of mumble rap before breaking down what has already become the longest criminal trial in Georgia history and the injustice of prosecutors using an artist’s lyrics against them in court. Finally, we break down this month’s most listener-requested story: judge Ural Glanville’s inexplicable decision not only to secretly meet with a prosecutor and one of the state’s most important witnesses without defense counsel present, but to sentence Young Thug’s attorney to 20 days in jail simply for noticing that he wasn’t supposed to. What is going on here, and co

OA1043 This week: good immigration news! The Biden administration announced on June 17th that it will be moving forward with a plan to offer a pathway to citizenship for immigrants married to U.S. citizens who have been in the country for more than 10 years through a special “parole-in-place” program. Why does current U.S. immigration law make it so difficult--and sometimes impossible--for so many people who are  in loving long-term relationships with U.S. citizens to “do it the right way?” Matt breaks down the legal and historical context of the most important executive action on immigration policy since Barack Obama created the DACA program in 2012. We then speak with Emily, a U.S. citizen whose husband stands to directly benefit from this policy, for a firsthand account of the realities of living in immigration limbo. Official White House announcement of the new parole-in-place program (June 17, 2024) Extreme Hardship Considerations and Factors (USCIS Field Manual) If you’d like to support the show (

The answer for T3BE28 is coming your way, and we launch our next Bar Prep question with Heather! Right now, the best place to play (if you aren't a patron...) is at reddit.com/r/openargs! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!