Opening Arguments – Details, episodes & analysis

Brought to you by Trade Coffee! Get up to 3 bags free with any new Trade subscription at drinktrade.com/OA

OA1117 - As Donald Trump’s executive branch nominees continue to work their way through the confirmation process, we welcome Stanford Law professor Anne Joseph O’Connell to learn more about one of the most important legal protections we have against a fully imperial presidency. Professor O’Connell is one of the leading academic experts on the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, the legislation which Trump may or may not have intentionally circumvented in his last term to install acting heads of departments which would otherwise require Senate confirmation, and provides some essential background and context for what we might expect in his second term as his appointments continue to work their way through the confirmation process. Also covered: getting fired by Trump, defending pandas in court, Aileen Cannon and Clarence Thomas’s fringe theory about the unconstitutionality of special counsels, and what Professor O’Connell learned from her time clerking for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

• “Actings,” Anne Joseph O’Connell, Columbia Law Review (2020)

• Prof. O’Connell’s Stanford Law bio page

• Bluesky post with Prof. O’Connell’s notice of termination from the Trump administration

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1116 - We take stock a few days into the second Trump administration to consider the current state of ICE enforcement, Trump’s blatantly unlawful overrule of the recent Supreme Court decision forcing the divestiture of TikTok, and the President’s new venture in cryptocurrency. Finally, today’s footnote honors the efforts of one person who is doing her part to write history as it happens.

• Judge John Coughenour’s injunction against Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship (1/23/25)

• SCOTUS decision in TikTok v. Garland (1/17/2025)

• “Application of Protecting America from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications to TikTok,” (1/20/2025) 

• $TRUMP coin price tracker

• “Enforcement Actions At Or Focused on Sensitive Locations” (original ICE “sensitive locations” memo)(10/24/2011)

• Final text of the Laken Riley Act (sent to the President 1/24/25)

• Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s order on DOJ’s motion to dismiss in U.S. v. Gregory Mijares (1/23/25)

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1107 - Chief Justice John Roberts has used his annual end-of-the-year report to remind us that federal judges should not accept luxury vacations from billionaires, fly insurrectionist flags on any of their properties, or ever be criticized for any reason. Or, you know--at least one of those things. We also answer a patron question about what happens if Republicans can't get their House in order by the time that electoral votes are supposed to be certified on January 6th before getting to today's main story: the very real possibility that TikTok may not live to see the first day of the second Trump administration if the Supreme Court allows current law barring it from doing business in the US to take effect on January 19th. How could the US government shutting down one of our nation's favorite new ways to communicate not constitute a massive First Amendment problem? Why did a majority of Congressional Democrats, the Biden administration and pre-election Donald Trump all agree that TikTok is a threat to national security? And when is Matt going to finally release his signature TikTok dance video? We answer two of these questions before dropping a quick footnote to look back on a stupid Congressperson's idea of a smart person's legal argument in support of overturning a democratic election.

• DC Circuit decision in Tiktok v. Garland (12/6/24)

• “What If Free Speech Means Banning TikTok?,” Alan Rozhenstein, The Atlantic (12/13/24)

• Redacted transcript of U.S. intelligence briefing to House Energy and Commerce Committee on March 7, 2024 filed with DC Circuit

• ACLU amicus brief in Tiktok v. Garland (12/27/24)

• Donald Trump’s amicus brief in Tiktok v. Garland  (12/30/24)

• Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (signed into law 4/24/24)

• “2024 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary,” John Roberts (12/30/24)

 

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1040

We begin in Florida with yet more of Judge Aileen Cannon's efforts to delay Donald Trump's federal case, including a demand for Jack Smith to be nicer to Trump's lawyers and her decision to allow non-parties to join the fun and make arguments in an upcoming hearing about whether Smith was properly appointed to prosecute Trump at all.

Hunter Biden's federal trial began this week in Delaware on charges relating to his purchase and possession of a gun which he owned for 11 days in 2018. Matt breaks down the history of this investigation, the charges, and how this case ended up going to trial before a quick time jump in which we return to review what we know one week into these proceedings. How does this trial compare to the one which concluded a week earlier with the conviction of a former President Donald Trump--and would these charges ever have been brought against someone whose last name wasn’t Biden? 

• 11th Circuit order instructing the clerk's office to stop taking complaints about Judge Cannon

• Mar-A-Lago search warrant

• Jack Smith's Motion for Modification of Conditions of Release

• Quick Facts on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) Firearms Offenses (US Sentencing Commission)

• Delaware indictment of Robert Hunter Biden (gun charges)

• “How to Think About the Hunter Biden “Laptop,” Marcy Wheeler (6/6/2024)

If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Today's episode revisits a question we tackled way back in Episode #16, namely, whether President Trump has the authority to enact his Muslim Ban. We begin with an examination of the recent CREW lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that President Trump has violated the Emoluments Clause.  Is that lawsuit likely to prevail?  What could it accomplish?  Listen and find out. In the main segment, we consider not only the recent Trump Executive Order restricting the entry of aliens from seven majority-Muslim nations (the "Muslim Ban").  We address questions of legality and constitutionality, as well as break down the recent injunction handed down by the Southern District of New York in response to the ACLU's lawsuit. After our main segment, we turn to a question from a conservative listener about abortion and whether Roe v. Wade was an "activist" decision. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #8 about a landowner's duties regarding trespassers who accidentally fall into the landowner's murder lake.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links

1. The CREW lawsuit is here.
2. We reference two decisions on the "political question" doctrine:  Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) and Nixon v. U.S., 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
3. We initially discussed the Muslim Ban way back in OA Episode #16, which is worth another listen!
4. The authorizing statute (the "1952 Law") is 8 USC §1182(f).
5. The "1965  Law" is 8 USC §1152(a).
6. In light of those two provisions, we think you can spot the errors in David Bier's op-ed in the New York Times.
7. I wrote a lot on Facebook about the ACLU lawsuit and the injunction handed down by the court on Saturday, so you can check that out if you want the relevant documents.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Today's episode is part two of our two-part series on pending changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  As we've previously mentioned, in 2016, the Obama Department of Labor promulgated new rules requiring that employees who are "exempt" from the FLSA's overtime requirements must earn at least $47,476 per year.  A district court judge issued an injunction blocking those rules from going into effect; that decision is currently pending on expedited review before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.  In this episode, Andrew continues his explanation as to why he thinks those rules are going to eventually go into effect and what that means for employers and employees. We begin, however, with a thoughtful question from friend of the show Noah Lugeons regarding how the FLSA's tipping rules interact with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Is it illegal for employers to rely on tips knowing how inequally tips are handed out to men and minorities?  Listen and find out! After our main segment on the FLSA, we answer a delightfully mad question from Robert Rautio regarding the supposed "right to travel" in the Constitution.  Answering this doozy takes us back into the weird and wonderful world of "sovereign citizens" -- you won't want to miss it! Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #8 about whether a company dumping toxic waste has a duty to warn trespassers.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links

1. The relevant provisions of the FLSA for this episode are 29 USC § 207 (maximum hours) and 29 USC § 213 (exempt employees).
2. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 begins at 42 USC § 2000e and can be found here.
3. This is the original rule promulgated by Obama's Department of Labor.
4. Here is the judicial injunction blocking the implementation of the rule.
5. And here is the judge's decision not to overturn his own injunction after a motion for reconsideration.
6. Please laugh at -- but DO NOT FILE! -- this suggested "brief" by the weirdos at The Lawful Path who think you can get out of a traffic ticket by filing this nonsense.  (You can't.)
7. And here's another absolutely bonkers list of random string-cites that purports to show that you have an absolute right to travel guaranteed by the Constitution.  (You don't.)

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

Today's episode is part one of a two-part series on pending changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  As we've previously mentioned, in 2016, the Obama Department of Labor promulgated new rules requiring that employees who are "exempt" from the FLSA's overtime requirements must earn at least $47,476 per year.  A district court judge issued an injunction blocking those rules from going into effect; that decision is currently pending on expedited review before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.  In this episode, Andrew explains why he thinks those rules are going to eventually go into effect and what that means for employers and employees. We begin, however, with a listener correction regarding the FLSA and tipped employees.  As it turns out, Andrew mis-spoke on a prior episode and employers must ensure that an employee's total compensation (including tips) meets the federal minimum wage. After our main segment on the FLSA, the much-beloved "Are You A Cop?" segment returns with a myth about President Trump revoking the commutation of Chelsea Manning's prison sentence. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #7 about hearsay.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links

1. The relevant provisions of the FLSA for this episode are 29 USC § 207 (maximum hours) and 29 USC § 213 (exempt employees).
2. The DOL Fact Sheet #15 referred to listener Victoria McNair is here.
3. This is the original rule promulgated by Obama's Department of Labor.
4. Here is the judicial injunction blocking the implementation of the rule.
5. And here is the judge's decision not to overturn his own injunction after a motion for reconsideration.
6. Finally, here's the New York Times story about President Obama commuting Chelsea Manning's sentence.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

Today's episode is part two of our two-part series on whether the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution applies to incoming President Donald Trump. We begin, however, with a listener question from Erik Alsman who asks whether the Supreme Court has the power to declare an amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional.  Along the way we'll learn a little bit about the history of judicial review in the United States. In our main segment, we conclude our interview with Lecturer Seth Barrett Tillman of the Maynooth University Department of Law, exploring Tillman's thesis that the Emoluments Clause does not apply to President Trump because the Presidency is not an "office... under the United States" for purposes of Constitutional analysis.  Afterwards, Thomas and Andrew break down the argument and offer their views on the issue. Next, we air some listener comments and questions regarding the difference between a "barrister" and a "solicitor" in UK law. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #7 about the admissibility of a hearsay statement during a civil trial.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links

1. This is the text of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), in which the Supreme Court articulated -- some say, invented! -- the doctrine of judicial review.
2. Prof. Tillman can be found on Twitter at @SethBTillman, and here is his professional page.
3. In November of 2016, Prof. Tillman wrote a brief piece for the New York Times summarizing his thesis about the Emoluments Clause.
4. This 2009 Memorandum from the President's Office of Legal Counsel assumes -- without argument or citation -- that the Emoluments Clause applies to the President.
5. In December of 2016, Norm Eisen, Richard Painter, and Laurence Tribe wrote a paper for the Brookings Institution arguing that the Emoluments Clause does apply to the President.
6. Zephyr Teachout's law review article, The Anti-Corruption Principle sets forth her argument that the Constitution, including the Emoluments Clause, enshrines a fundamental principle to protect against corruption of our highest offices, including the Presidency.
7. Tillman's Opening Statement, Citizens United and the Scope of Professor Teachout’s Anti-Corruption Principle is here.
8. Teachout's specific response to Tillman on the Emoluments Clause is here.
9. Tillman's reply to Teachout can be found here.
10. Teachout's final reply to Tillman can be found here.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Today's episode is part one of a two-part series on whether the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution applies to incoming President Donald Trump. We begin, however, by addressing another Trump-related question:  Does a recent report claiming that 50+ Trump electors are ineligible provide the relief of preventing Trump from assuming the Presidency?  We delve into the report and answer the question in a way that may surprise you. Our main interview segment is with Lecturer Seth Barrett Tillman of the Maynooth University Department of Law.  Tillman's thesis is that the Emoluments Clause does not apply to President Trump because the Presidency is not an "office... under the United States" for purposes of Constitutional analysis. Next, we answer a listener question from William Stemmler about officeholders in the line of Presidential Succession who are themselves ineligible to become President.  Could Donald Trump nominate George W. Bush to be Secretary of State?  Find out! Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #6 about pre-nuptial agreements.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links

1. Here's the Raw Story report on disqualified Trump electors, and the full text of the report can be downloaded from Alternet.
2. Prof. Tillman can be found on Twitter at @SethBTillman, and here is his professional page.
3. In November of 2016, Prof. Tillman wrote a brief piece for the New York Times summarizing his thesis about the Emoluments Clause.
4. This 2009 Memorandum from the President's Office of Legal Counsel assumes -- without argument or citation -- that the Emoluments Clause applies to the President.
5. In December of 2016, Norm Eisen, Richard Painter, and Laurence Tribe wrote a paper for the Brookings Institution arguing that the Emoluments Clause does apply to the President.
6. Zephyr Teachout's law review article, The Anti-Corruption Principle sets forth her argument that the Constitution, including the Emoluments Clause, enshrines a fundamental principle to protect against corruption of our highest offices, including the Presidency.
7. Tillman's Opening Statement, Citizens United and the Scope of Professor Teachout’s Anti-Corruption Principle is here.
8. Teachout's specific response to Tillman on the Emoluments Clause is here.
9. Tillman's reply to Teachout can be found here.
10. Teachout's final reply to Tillman can be found here.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

Today's episode is a mini-masterclass on Copyright.  We begin by answering a question from listener Sue Barnum who asks if a simple list can be copyrighted. After that, we move to the main discussion over the Copyright Act and the "fair use" defense, using as an illustration the recent story where CNN appropriated the graphic from the hit videogame Fallout 4 to illustrate a story about Russian hacking.  Did this violate copyright law?  Or was CNN's activity "fair use" of the game screen? Next, we answer a fun listener question from Damian Kumor about the portrayal of law in media.  What's Andrew's favorite obscure legal TV show?  Listen and find out! Finally, we end with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #6 about prenuptial agreements.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and quoting the tweet that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Show Notes & Links

1. Here's the text of Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
2. This article from cnet explained CNN's use of the Fallout 4 graphic.
3. The Copyright Act of 1976 is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
4. Learn about the incredibly low-rated cancelled TV show "Justice" at its IMDB page.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com