Opening Arguments

OA1243 - The lawsuit that was supposed to break up Ticketmaster and Live Nation’s obvious monopoly over live music throughout the U.S. has just ended in a settlement so surprising that even DOJ’s lead counsel didn’t know it was happening. Is this deal as bad as it looks?  What does it mean for the future of live entertainment, and what will happen if the dozens of states which joined the feds in this case don’t sign off on it? Also: An insurance company sues ChatGPT for telling someone to fire their lawyer, the first (known) instance of a DOJ lawyer writing a brief with AI, and Kristi Noem’s Marvel-ous new job. Finally in today’s footnote--did thousands of people really just bet on the death of Ayatollah Ali Khameni? We take a closer look at the legal basis for “prediction markets” like Kalshi and Polymarket. Statement of Objection to Ticketmaster Live Settlement, Matt Cameron (Nov. 30, 2011)(Matt’s actual filing into the 2011 Ticketmaster litigation demanding a handle of Jack Daniel’s and “a personalized l

VR25 - This episode is dedicated to the memory of Cricket, the 14-month-old wirehaired pointer murdered in cold blood by Kristi Noem on an unknown date in a gravel pit in South Dakota. One week after Donald Trump took now-former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s job out to the gravel pit, Thomas, Lydia, and Matt get together for a post-mortem. After a brief amuse douche from Noem’s (ahem) closest advisor, Matt plays the one excerpt from her 2024 campaign book “Not Going Back” which should have disqualified her from a Cabinet seat. (No, not that one! But we also revisit that story too and it’s so much worse--and involves twice as many animals--than you may  remember.) We then review some of the most notable lowlights of Noem’s time as DHS Secretary, from completely failing to understand the ancient  legal concept which allowed federal judges to release so many of the people she was illegally detaining without bond to her disturbing enthusiasm for calling US citizens concerned about killer ICE agents “domestic terror

OA1242 - Ever heard of the “major questions doctrine”? Most lawyers sure hadn’t until a few years ago. So how did it get that important-sounding name? Where did it come from? What even is it? How can we call something a “doctrine” or a rule if we don’t have a clear rule statement to cite to? (Hint: You can’t). If you’ve been feeling like maybe this is all made up and the points don’t matter, you can get your vindication here as we trace back the history of this ever-changing heavily-politicized increasingly-disputed amorphous blob. Jenessa read way too many cases and law review articles to tolerate this nonsense today. Timeline, each citing the one below it: 1. “Major questions doctrine” first appearance in any court case: West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. 697 (2022) 2. “Major question doctrine” [not plural] in an EPA statement on deregulations: Repeal of the Clean Power Plan, 84 Fed. Reg. 32520, 32529 (proposed Jul. 8, 2019) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 60). 3. “Major rules doctr

OA1241 - This Rapid Response Friday:* everything you need to know to explain to anyone who will listen exactly why what the US is doing in Iran is illegal. We also review oral arguments in an unusual case involving the federal statute under which Hunter Biden was  recently convicted which has brought weed, guns, and Amy Coney Barrett’s illegal Ambien habit (?) before the Supreme Court at the same time. Finally, in today’s footnote: A man who drinks unpasteurized milk, swims in sewage, and once left a dead bear in Central Park has some opinions about what we should be putting in our coffee--and Matt might agree with him? Can RFK Jr really stop America from running on Dunkin? --- *N.B.: this episode was recorded before the news of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s forced departure, but we’ll have plenty more to say about her and replacement nominee Markwayne Mullin next week! “Top Experts’ Backgrounder: Military Action Against Iran and US Domestic Law,” Brian Egan and Tess Bridgeman, Just Security (2/28/2026) “AU

E24 - Today on Vapid Response Wednesday: the story of a wealthy family that lost everything and the one son who had no choice but to try to defend his sister after she was convicted of abusing and trafficking minors with (and for) Jeffrey Epstein. For this special episode we read through Ian Maxwell’s entire body of published work for The Spectator and unseriously consider some of the many questions the tabloid heir raises about the arrest and conviction of his sister Ghislaine, the evils of the First Amendment, and of course a lengthy digression about some people named Todd.  Watch this episode on YouTube! Nobody's Girl, Virginia Roberts Giuffre (2025) Virginia Giuffre’s full 2019 interview on 60 Minutes Australia Ian Maxwell’s video interview with The Telegraph, Feb. 20, 2026 Ian Maxwell’s author page at The Spectator “The truth about my sister, Ghislaine Maxwell,” Ian Maxwell, The Spectator, 12/16/2021 “My sister Ghislaine was denied justice,” Ian Maxwell, The Spectator (UK edition), 7/1/2022

OA1240 - Shaina Aber, Executive Director with Acacia Center for Justice, joins today to discuss immigration nonprofit work during Trump 2.0. Find all of the tools and programs we talked about at their website, Acacia Center for Justice.  

OA1239 - Did the Supreme Court just hand Donald Trump the biggest L in US presidential history? We go beyond the headlines to break down the first decision on the merits of any of the second Trump term’s policies. What is the deal with the “major questions doctrine” and why can’t the conservative justices agree about what it is and how to use it? Why did Neil Gorsuch choose this case to drop a lengthy diss track with bars about every one of his colleagues? And is there anything Clarence Thomas wouldn’t let a Republican president do? We then review a lesser-noticed SCOTUS decision from this week on whether you can sue USPS for intentionally stealing your mail for openly racist reasons (the answer may surprise you!).  Finally, in today’s footnote: Thomas Takes the ICE Exam! Learning Resources, Inc. et al. v. Trump (2/20/2026) United States Postal Service v. Konan  (2/24/2026) “The Postmaster,” William Shawn, The New Yorker (11/14/1970)(letter addressed to William Faulkner from Post Office Inspector Mark W

OA1238 - Dive in to an “old” case from the 90’s that secured a critical right for people with disabilities: The right to be free from unnecessary institutionalization. Learn about some of the more obscure portions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the different ways we can define discrimination, and what happens when a majority of  judges just cannot agree to sign on to an entire opinion. Olmstead v. L.C. 527 U.S. 581 (1999) Americans with Disabilities Act - Findings and Purpose; 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2, 3, & 5) Americans with Disabilities Act - Discrimination; 42 U.S.C. § 12132 28 CFR § 35.130(d) Jesse Jackson (July 18, 1989). Statement before the Committee on Education and Labor Subcommittee on Select Education (regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act). Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!  

OA1237 - The U.S. Department of Justice is not sending their best these days. From the problematic indictments of journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort for their coverage of the protest of a church in Minnesota whose pastor runs the local ICE field office to the unexpected dismissal of Mohsen Mohdawi’s deportation proceedings to a bizarre argument (and more good news) in Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s custody proceedings, we are continuing to see what happens when authoritarian lawyering meets actual federal judges applying actual federal law to the facts and parties before them.  Finally, in today’s footnote: can you sue your ex for telling millions of people about your enormous penis? We debate whether a former football player’s claims are giving BDE or legal shrinkage. Federal indictment of Nakima Levy Armstrong, Don Lemon, Georgia Fort, et al in connection with January 18, 2026 protest at Cities Church DOJ Office of Civil Rights memo re: FACE Act charging policy (Jan 24, 2025) The Freedom of Access to

E23 - For today's amuse douche: a savory sample of our favorite Harvard Law professor’s extremely normal 2015 explanation of his appearances in Jeffrey Epstein’s flight logs. We then take on an almost painfully normal 1997 Dersh LA Times oped in which the lawyer who would go on to secure one of the best plea deals a pedophile has ever received complains about all of those pesky age of consent laws. Finally: some of the worst reactions from men exposed in the Epstein files.  You can also watch this episode on YouTube! “Gelernter tells dean he stands by praising student's looks to Epstein,” Yale News, Feb 5, 2026 “Statutory Rape is an Outdated Concept, Alan Dershowitz, LA Times (1997)(retrieved from Newspapers.com.)  Steven Pinker's linguistic analysis for Epstein's defense team, eventually resulting in Epstein's "sweetheart deal" (attachment in linked email, June 28, 2007). Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

OA1236 - Elections grab bag! Election news has been accumulating, so Jenessa helps us get caught up on what’s going on. Who’s winning elections? What’s going on with redistricting? Heard something confusing about the mail? Trump back on his bullshit again? Good news, mixed news, debunking alleged bad news, bad news with plans for how to turn things around; we’ve got it all. Updates since we recorded: The SAVE America Act passed the House. Also the affidavit for the warrant in Georgia was unsealed. We’ll talk about it soon, but the short version is these people really still believe in election conspiracy theories. It’s gross. We’ll survive. John Hanna & Julie Carr Smyth (Feb. 1, 2026). Texas stunner: Democrat Taylor Rehmet flips Republican state Senate district Trump won by 17 points, Associated Press. Amy Howe (Feb. 4, 2026). Supreme Court allows California to use congressional map benefitting Democrats, SCOTUSBlog. Tangipa v. Newsom (docket and SCOTUSBlog coverage), SCOTUSBlog. Abbott v. League o

OA1235 - Today on Rapid Response Friday: Matt’s still on island time, so it’s a good-news-only kind of day as we review (1) the historic termination of deportation proceedings against Tufts grad student Rumeysa Ozturk, (2) new judicial restraints on ICE, (3) a DC federal judge’s outstanding rebuke to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s attempt to deport 350,000 Haitians, and (4) a Republican revolt on Trump’s emergency tariffs. (Also: just how stupid is the super-secret memo which ICE has apparently been using to justify breaking into some immigrants’ homes without a judicial warrant?) Finally in today’s footnote: Matt shares how his attempt to mail some pants from the U.S. Virgin Islands revealed a weird loophole in Trump’s emergency tariff orders which is now forcing some U.S. citizens to pay international duties on domestic shipments. In re: Ruiz-Massieu, Int. Dec. #3400, Board of Immigration Appeals (June 11, 1999) Whistleblower Aid letter detailing secret ICE memo allowing arrests without warrants (memo atta

VR22 - Matt reports in just a few miles from--and this is true--Epstein Island to provide a recap of his recent visit to Minnesota days after Alex Pretti’s murder for the first major gathering of state legislators joining forces to stop federal overreach since 1814. How are the people of Minneapolis and their elected leaders holding up on the front lines of the Department of Homeland Security’s war on America, and what can we learn from their example?  Finally, in today’s Vapid Response: professional centrist (and amateur constitutional scholar) Lionel Shriver explains how nearly three hours of research has convinced her that sanctuary jurisdictions, the people of Minneapolis, and Antonin Scalia have gotten it all wrong. State Futures website Video of the Minnesota Senate Rules and Administration Select Subcommittee on Federal Impacts to Minnesotans and Economic Stability hearing held Jan. 29, 2026 “There Should Be No Sanctuary From ICE,” Lionel Shriver, The Spectator (Jan 2025) Check out the OA Linkt

Take a break from the downfall of democracy and instead get outraged at the deep injustice of a year-long feud over a bronze medal in women’s gymnastics. This story’s got everything: bravery, racism, the best and the worst of sportsmanship, bad blood that’s been brewing since the Cold War, and, somehow, the Swiss Federal Court. Come for the weird gymnastics scoring rules, stay for the legal analysis of international arbitration rules. Rory Carroll (August 5, 2024). Gymnastics - Biles bows to Andrade in floor final at Paris games. Reuters. International Gymnastics Federation, Code of Points 2022-2024: https://www.gymnastics.sport/publicdir/rules/files/en_2022-2024%20WAG%20COP.pdf 2025-2028: https://www.gymnastics.sport/publicdir/rules/files/en_1.1%20-%20WAG%20COP%202025-2028.pdf International Gymnastics Federation, Technical Regulations 2024: https://www.gymnastics.sport/publicdir/rules/files/en_1.1%20-%20Technical%20Regulations%202024.pdf 2025: https://www.gymnastics.sport/publicdir/rules/file

OA1233 - We are not conspiracy theorist type people. But... yeah man I don't know. But also, so much more in these files to talk about. If you know anything about the federal government’s 2007 plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein you know that it was bad. But newly-released documents from the Epstein files show that it was actually much worse than that! Thanks to a newly-released legal memo, a draft indictment, and internal emails between prosecutors we now have a much better understanding of the disagreements within US Attorney for the District of Southern Florida Alex Acosta’s office as they finalized the terms of a much-too-friendly agreement between the US government and a billionaire pedophile which a federal appeals court would later call “a national disgrace.” Matt has the receipts for this special emergency episode. You can also watch this episode on YouTube! Steve Bannon’s Interview with Jeffrey Epstein (directly downloaded from the DOJ) Investigation into the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern Di

E21 - CONTENT WARNING / TRIGGER WARNING: references to child sex abuse, child  sex abuse  materials, survivor accounts Watch this episode on YouTube! The Epstein Files have been released--or have they? Days after the Department of Justice’s delayed and poorly-redacted release of millions of new documents connected with the world’s most infamous sex trafficker, we sit down for a first look at what is (and isn’t) in here. We begin with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s attempt to fight for the right to party with Jeffrey Epstein before evaluating the DOJ’s efforts to comply with its Congressional mandate to release the files more than a month after they were supposed to. We also look at a heartbreaking journal from an anonymous survivor to  try to understand before Matt pulls out some selections from keyword searches which implicate Elon Musk, mega-financier Leon Black, magician David Copperfield,  sitting Secretary of the Treasury Howard Lutnick, former Obama administration lawyer Kathy Ruemmler, and many

OA1232 - Hey OA-ers, this episode was a Gavel Gavel bonus, but we wanted to be sure everyone was updated on what's going on with the Luigi Mangione trials. New York public defender Liz Skeen is here to break it all down! And since the judge made some rulings on 1/30, I've got an update for ya! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

OA1231 - The DHS funding battle is important, but really can't accomplish what you might hope it can. When it comes to the Fed, ALL OF A SUDDEN the court cares about the real world effects of their decisions. And a figure skating related footnote!  

Part 2 of 2. OA 1230 - Seeing all the obstacles to holding government officials accountable, Congress created Section 1983, allowing citizens to sue for money damages for violations of their civil rights. We cover how that works, the one weird trick it uses to get around state sovereign immunity, and how that accidentally created the infamous qualified immunity doctrine that has made police seemingly unaccountable. We also discuss proposed reforms that might fix issues of qualified and sovereign immunity. 42 U.S.C § 1983 Pierson v Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) Graham v Conner, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) Pearson v Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) Kisela v Hughes, 584 U.S. 100 (2018) Barnes v Felix, 605 U.S. 73 (2025) Barnes v Felix, 138 Harvard L. Rev. 291 (2025). Julia Yoo, The Problem with Policing in the United States, ADVOCATE (Feb. 2021). David J. Ignall, Making Sense of Qualified Immunity: Summary Judgment and Issues for the Trier of Fact, 30 Cal. W. L. Rev. 201 (1994). (NOTE: Good review for basics,

Part 1 of 2. OA 1229 - What happens when a government worker does you wrong? How is it different to prosecute and sue them? When does qualified immunity come in to play? We discuss the steps involved in prosecuting and suing someone for a simple battery, and how that differs for a regular person versus a state actor. We cover how and when defenses can be raised, federal and state sovereign immunity, suing in official versus personal capacity, the difference between absolute and qualified immunities, and the ways this will apply differently to criminal prosecution versus civil litigation. Siegell v Herricks Union Free School District, 7 AD3d 607 [2d Dept 2004] (Elements of civil battery in NY) N.Y. Penal Law § 120 (NY criminal “battery”) Fla. Stat. § 776.032 (Florida self-defense as an affirmative defense and immunity) Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.05 (Ohio self-defense as a standard defense) N.Y. Penal Law § 35 (NY justification defenses) Roger Fairfax, The Grand Jury’s Role in the Prosecution of Unjustif