Opening Arguments

OA1140 - The Trump administration has openly defied a court order--and that’s only the third worst thing about today’s main story. Also: what exactly does it mean to “sign” something into law? What is actually in all of these articles of impeachment which Republicans keep filing against federal judges who have defied Trump? And is there a First Amendment right to communicate with monkeys? 50 USC Ch. 3: ALIEN ENEMIES Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua, March 15, 2025 (3:53 PM) Docket in J.G.G. v. Trump (filed 3/15/25) Articles of Impeachment filed against Judge James Boasberg by Rep. Brandon Gill (3/18/25) 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!

OA1139 and T3BE63 - Lydia's back this week to walk us through Trump's very fashy takeover of The Kennedy Center. She watched it unfold in real-time and while it is obviously disturbing, listening to some leaked audio from the first board meeting provides a lot of laughs. It's somehow real, folks. And we've got Professor Heather Varanini as always to walk us through the answer to T3BE62, and to set up the question for T3BE63! If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there! 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!

OA1138 - Is a federal judge really about to sign off on dismissing the federal corruption charges against New York City mayor Eric Adams even in the face of everything that we now know about the corrupt deal which led to DOJ’s request? Why did appointed attorney Paul Clement recommend dismissing the case with prejudice, and what might it mean for future prosecutions by Trump’s DOJ if Judge Ho agrees? Superstar NYC public defender Liz Skeen returns to go beyond the headlines with some local perspective on the current state of one of the most important federal criminal cases in our lifetimes.  Paul Clement’s brief in support of dismissing charges with prejudice Rinaldi v. United States | 434 U.S. 22 (1977)  Rule 48. Dismissal | Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure  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!

Brought to you by Trade Coffee! Get 40% off your first order with Trade at drinktrade.com/OA! OA1137 - The arrest and detention of U.S. lawful permanent resident Mahmoud Kahlil in direct retaliation for his Constitutionally-protected speech and association as a campus organizer at Columbia University is the single greatest violation of any one individual’s right committed by the second Trump administration to date. Matt explains how an obscure Cold War-era provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act is being used for in one of the only times in modern history to justify the Trump administration’s attempt to revoke Kahlil’s residency, and why this unprecedented assault on Khalil’s most basic civic and political  rights should concern us all. Finally, in today’s footnote: A January 6th defendant who has won so much that he is truly tired of winning. DHS Deputy Secretary Troy Edgar defends Mahmoud Khalil arrest : NPR (3/14/25) “The Allegation Here is Not That He Was Breaking the Law,” Matt Cameron DEP

Brought to you by Trade Coffee! Get 40% off your first order with Trade at drinktrade.com/OA! OA1136 and T3BE62- Matt swings by a Wednesday episode, and we welcome Dr. Jenessa Seymour as well! Jenessa is a disability voting access advocate and New York attorney, and she's here to break down the SAVE Act. What exactly is it supposed to be "saving" for voting rights, who is going to be most impacted by its provisions, and do we have any chance in stopping this thing? Professor Heather Varanini joins after, of course, to share the answer to T3BE61 and present the next question in the Bar Exam! If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate T3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there!  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 patr

Brought to you by Trade Coffee! Get 40% off your first order with Trade at drinktrade.com/OA! OA1135 - Even with everything that Trump has already done to raise consumer prices, contribute to mass unemployment and inflation,  and stress-test the market, many people still believe that Trump and MAGA conservatives are “better for the economy.” The Groundwork Collaborative is a nonprofit organization which helps to build the kind of messaging that we need to show a better way . Executive director Dr. Lindsay Owens joins to discuss–among many other things–what we talk about when we talk about “the economy,” the DOGE crisis, the true causes of inflation, and what the loss of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau means for us all. Groundwork Collaborative website U.S. and Plaintiff States v. RealPage, Inc. 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!

OA1134 - Mere hours after a literal pat on the back from Donald Trump on live TV, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a 5-4 decision against him in the emergency litigation over Trump’s unconstitutional efforts to eliminate foreign aid funding. How much of a win was this really, and why did Samuel Alito spend eight pages in dissent pretending to be “stunned” by the majority’s radical assertion that the federal government should pay out debts incurred by valid acts of Congress? We then turn to a less-noticed recent Supreme Court decision with concerning implications for the future of civil rights litigation before appreciating recent Congressional wins: blue city mayors schooling the House Oversight Committee without ever giving up even a  single point in six hours, and Senate Democrats taking a meaningful united stand for trans lives. U.S. Supreme Court’s order in Department of State et al v. AIDS Vaccine Coalition (3/5/25) Lackey v. Stinnie, Supreme Court #23-621 (2/25/2025)  Full v

OA1133 and T3BE61 - Lydia joins today to discuss Trump's 3/4/2025 address to Congress regarding his vision for the next 4 years. Leading up to the evening, there were reports that quite a few Democrats would opt to not attend. We highlight the different approaches folks in the party took to resist in the face of chaos and authoritarianism, and discuss what we might do if we were in that position. After that, Professor Heather Varanini comes in to share the answer to T3BE60 and present the next question in the Bar Exam! If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there!  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!

OA1132 - We resume our regularly scheduled rapid response to law in the news, starting with some good news (really) from the Supreme Court! Then: some-not-so-good news from the Supreme Court on the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the US Agency for International Development. Why did a federal judge need to issue an order confirming that he really meant it when he told the new administration to resume paying out the funds that Congress intended, and why does John Roberts seem to be taking this nonsense seriously? Matt then provides some context for a recent announcement regarding the Trump administration’s intention to require all undocumented people to register with DHS before dropping a footnote with recent developments in the unbelievable story of the most (allegedly) felonious Supreme Court litigator in modern US history.  Glossip v. Oklahoma (Feb. 25, 2025) Complete docket for Global Health Council v. Trump  Letter to the editor of the New York Times from NY Congressional representative E

That's right, we interrupt your regularly scheduled rapid response Friday (sorry...) to give you the first episode in the new Gavel Gavel series!!! And, Gavel Gavel is now PUBLIC! The legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni might feel like just "celebrity gossip," but there is so much here. It has fiercly divided the internet, with one group certain that Justin Baldoni is a sexual harsser, and the other group certain that Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds are devious plotters who lied about an innocent man in order to take over a movie. How are we to know the truth? Well, fortunately there are going on thousands of pages of legal documents to comb through. The answers are there, for the few among us that are willing to actually read them. This series will do just that. 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!

OA 1130 and T3BE60 - We're so excited to kick off this episode with an interview with Amanda Litman, the co-founder and President of an amazing organization called Run for Something. We discuss who they are and how they support folks in state and local races in all 50 states, answer questions for those who may be listening and considering throwing their hat in the ring to run for political office, and get energized from Amanda's contagious hope for what can very much come in 2026 and 2028 if we put in the work now. After our chat with Amanda, Thomas meets up with Professor Heather Varanini to reveal the answer to T3BE59, and tackle the next question! Be sure to stick around for our T3BE winners and patron shoutouts! If you're feeling inspired and hopeful after today's show, consider making a donation to Run for Something to help elevate progressive leaders in state and local elections across the country! And if you're thinking you might Run for Something, check out their resources to help you along every step

OA1129 - From the Department of Justice to DOGE to elected officials around the US, attorneys who swore to uphold and defend the law are working overtime on the bureaucratic front lines of Donald Trump’s campaign to actively degrade and destroy it. But what if those lawyers knew that there could be real consequences for their ability to practice law in the future for illegal, bad faith, and/or unethical conduct? That question is at the heart of the 65 Project, a non-profit organized to introduce real consequences to the kind of lawyering which is greasing the skids in our long slide into authoritarianism. Managing Director Michael Teter joins to explain how the Project came together, how they decide whether misconduct merits a bar complaint, and how their mission has changed since the 2024 election. Donation page for the 65 Project Ethics complaints filed by the 65 Project 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 patre

Brought to you by Trade Coffee! Get up to 3 bags free with any new Trade subscription at drinktrade.com/OA OA 1128 - First: an urgent question from a patron on Trump’s latest executive power grab. Matt explains the history of the “unitary executive theory” and the Federalist Society-backed movement to give the President more power than an actual king.  Then: Rutgers Law professor Katie Eyer studies, teaches, and litigates the law of anti-discrimination with a specialty in LGBTQ rights. She joins to discuss the current state of the law in the shadow of the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti and the wake of Donald Trump’s recent anti-trans executive orders. Which, if any, of these orders should we actually be concerned about? What does it mean that the fight for trans lives is now becoming a federal issue?  Can Trump really just instruct the federal government to ignore the Supreme Court’s extension of employment protections to LGBTQ employees in Bostock v. Clayton County? Professor Eyer t

Brought to you by Trade Coffee! Get up to 3 bags free with any new Trade subscription at drinktrade.com/OA OA1127 + T3BE59! Our breakdown of the Thursday Night Massacre continues, with Liz Skeen. Then, it's T3BE time! If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there! 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!

Brought to you by Trade Coffee! Get up to 3 bags free with any new Trade subscription at drinktrade.com/OA! OA1126 - Law'd Awful Boves We interrupt your regularly-scheduled LAM for readings and commentary on the documents at the heart of what has quickly become one of the most shocking events in the 155-year history of the U.S. Department of Justice: the openly corrupt dismissal of all charges against New York City mayor Eric Adams in exchange for his cooperation with Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown. Gavel Gavel contributor Liz Skeen joins to share her perspective as both a New York City lawyer and resident as we work through the dueling letters which have been publicly released so far from former US Attorney for SDNY Danielle Sassoon, Acting Deputy AG Emil Bove, and former Assistant US Attorney Hagan Scotten together with DOJ’s motion to dismiss. Former U.S. Attorney for SDNY Danielle Sassoon’s letter offering her resignation if DOJ continues to move forward with filing a motion to dismiss the federal

OA1125 - (NOTE: Acting US Attorney for SDNY Danielle Sassoon’s resignation letter and DOJ acting deputy Emil Bove’s acceptance of that letter were published while we were recording this episode, and hours before the Trump administration was enjoined by a DC federal judge from suspending international aid. The news hose never stops!) For this Rapid Response Friday, we do our best to answer some of your questions about waves hands in the general direction of DC.  Why is the media reporting the illegal attempts to fire (among others) the head of the Office of Special Counsel and 17 investigators general like a normal federal HR issue? Did FEMA really just straight-up steal $80 million from New York City’s bank account? Is it now legal to bribe foreign companies abroad and act as an unregistered foreign agent at home? Why are we sending Venezuelan asylum seekers with no criminal records or gang affiliations to Guantanamo Bay just weeks after DHS Secretary Kristi Noem promised that it would only be housing the “wo

OA1124 and T3BE58 - Emil Bove drafted an insanely stupid and corrupt memo ordering SDNY to stop prosecuting the case against the insanely stupid and corrupt (and guilty) Mayor Eric Adams. This is absolutely a scandal and we have lost the ability to properly articulate how much of a scandal this is in light of all the other nonstop scandals. But, unlike mainstream media, AT LEAST WE'RE TRYING. We've brought in the big guns - Liz Skeen (and Matt joining on a Wednesday!) Then, it's the usual Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, with Heather Varanini! Question 58. If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there! 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!

OA1123 - Insurrection enthusiast Donald Trump sure seems to be looking for an excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 in a little-noticed section of one of his flurry of Inauguration Day executive orders. We review the history of how the Constitution and subsequent acts of Congress were written specifically to keep the President from deploying troops on US soil without a very good reason, and how and why the Act has been invoked 30 times in US history. When does civil disorder become an “insurrection” and when, if ever, can the President send in troops that a state hasn’t requested? And why is Trump so determined to declare an insurrection on the border? 10 USC 251-255 (colloquially known as “The Insurrection Act”) “The President’s Authority to Commit Troops Domestically Under the Insurrection Act,” Harold Hongju Koh & Michael Loughlin, American Constitution Society (September 2020)  “Policy Brief: The U.S. Military May Be Used to Secure the Border,” Ken Cuccinelli & Adam Turner (3/24/24)

OA1122 - We’re not even three weeks into the second Trump administration and already well into our first Constitutional crisis. How was the world’s richest man given access to the nation’s checkbook and the total authority to shut down a $40 billion federal agency with 10,000 employees--and can he be stopped?  After a quick review of some recent good news, we try to understand how Donald Trump and Elon Musk are illegally reshaping the federal government before closing out the news sandwich with a big L for the Proud Boys. D.C. District Court judge Royce Lambert’s order in Doe v. McHenry protecting trans prisoners (2/4/25) Trump’s executive order establishing the Department of Governmental Efficiency (1/20/25) “The Trump-Musk power grab has happened before--in Hungary,” Zach Beauchamp Vox (2/5/25) “U.S. Agency for International Development: An Overview,” Congressional Research Service (1/6/25) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!)

OA1121 and T3BE57 - Senator Bill Cassidy is one of the few remaining Republicans in national politics that resembles a normal human being. He is a doctor, and is very pro-vaccine. And he had a critical hand in RFK Jr.'s confirmation process. There seemed to be a decent chance he might not vote for the brain worms that run RFK Jr.'s flesh suit, but in the end, he did. How did he get there? How did he justify it? It's an interesting story and it says a lot about where we are right now. If you'd like to play along with T3BE, here's what to do: hop on Bluesky, follow Openargs, find the post that has this episode, and quote it with your answer! Or, go to our Subreddit and look for the appropriate t3BE posting. Or best of all, become a patron at patreon.com/law and play there! 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!