Opening Arguments

OA1061 This week Matt shares a mostly under-the-radar story which has completely changed his understanding of the events of September 11, 2001.  As the 23rd anniversary of the attacks approaches, a mountain of information emerging from lawsuits filed by 9/11 families has revealed far more extensive ties between both al-Qaeda and at least two of the hijackers to the Saudi government than were ever previously known. Why has justice taken so long? How does the law even allow this suit to proceed, and why did Congress have to override Barack Obama’s veto to allow it to move forward? Why has some of the best journalism about this lawsuit been from Golf Digest? And has the time come for a second 9/11 commission to re-evaluate everything we thought we knew about the day that changed everything? Complaint in Ashton v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (filed March 20, 2017) Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (filed 5/10/24) Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed 5/7/24)

OA1060 This week Matt breaks down four very different legal actions:  1. Donald Trump is suing the United States--yes, the same United States that he is running to be the President of--for $100 million based on the FBI’s alleged violation of the Florida common law tort of “intrusion upon seclusion” in executing a valid search warrant on Mar-A-Lago two years ago. Is Trump just spiking the legal football after his big win in front of federal judge Aileen Cannon in Jack Smith’s documents case, or is there actually something worth talking about here? 2. Is the Walt Disney Corporation actually arguing that signing up for a 30-day trial of its Disney+ streaming service protects them from the tragically fatal consequences of negligence at a restaurant in its Disney Springs shopping center? Could that really be a thing that licensed attorneys wrote down, printed, reviewed, signed, and filed with a court? We consider what might be one of the most bizarrely evil defenses ever raised in a wrongful death suit. 3. Soul si

The answer for T3BE35 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!

OA1059 This week we welcome Rhode Island state senator Meghan Kallman for a conversation about the power of state lawmaking and ordinary people in elected office. Meghan is a professor of sociology at UMass Boston whose work in both the theory and practice of how people organize led her to a parallel career in politics. As the Democratic Presidential ticket coalesces around a woman and (for the first time since 1980!) a non-lawyer, we discuss the unique challenges which women still face in US politics at every level as well as what it is like for someone with no legal training or no political experience to run for and hold elected office.  Also: How can state and local governments make progressive change even when the federal government can't or won't act? What is it like for someone with no legal training to write laws? And why is Rhode Island the last state in the Union to take an entire day off to celebrate the US victory over Japan?  Meghan Kallman’s campaign website The Conceivable Future, Meghan Kal

OA1058 We begin with Neil Gorsuch’s recent appearance on Fox News. How normal is it for a sitting Supreme Court justice to go on Fox News, and did Gorsuch really just threaten the Biden administration over its relatively minor court reform proposals?  In our main story, we break down two major antitrust suits from the past week: Elon Musk’s ridiculous claim that corporations which refuse to advertise on a social media platform which has failed to regulate neo-Nazi and animal abuse content are violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and District Court judge Ahmet Mehta’s extremely reasonable findings that Google’s anticompetitive practices are in violation of Section 2. Also, Matt has some nice things to say about Richard Nixon. White House announcement on Biden court reform proposals (7/29/24) About GARM (WFANet.org) "GARM's Harm" report from the House Judiciary Committee (7/10/2024) Complaint in X v. GARM et al (8/6/2024) “Is Google Getting Worse? A Longitudinal Investigation of S

The answer for T3BE34 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!

OA1057 We’re giving ourselves a break this week from Trump, the Supreme Court, and all things 2024 to indulge in one of Matt’s all-time favorite subjects: CIA mind control experiments! In this extra-carefully-researched episode, Matt breaks down the history of the federal government’s MKULTRA  program to fund research in brainwashing, mind control, and LSD on unsuspecting U.S. and (for some reason) Canadian citizens, as well as the inherent legal issues in trying to sue the CIA for something you can’t remember and for which most evidence has been destroyed. Why was the CIA funding a sadistic mad scientist in Montreal, and is there any hope of justice for the families of his victims today?  BOOKS Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control , Stephen Kinzer (2019) The Search for the Manchurian Candidate: the CIA and Mind Control, John Marks (1979)(link goes to full text on CIA website) The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government:

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