law

TTTBE #20: Early Answer for Patrons, Post-ReasonCon Edition

It's "D."

OA62: The Supreme Court's Hall of Shame

In this episode, Andrew goes through five of the worst, most embarrassing cases in Supreme Court history.

First, though, the guys tackle a question from Scott, who's considering becoming a patron of the show (good!) but has some questions about a standard form indemnification clause in the Patreon agreement.

In the main segment, we look at the worst of the worst in Supreme Court history.  From the embarrassingly racist to the embarrassingly activist, come visit the Supreme Court's "Hall of Shame" with Andrew and Thomas.

After...

OA61: Flyin' the Friendly Skies & Newt Gingrich Still Has a Contract on America

In this episode of Opening Arguments, the guys look at both United Airlines and an obscure law from 1996 that could threaten the "administrative state" held in such disdain by our newest Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch.

First, of course, Andrew breaks down the legality of the recent decision by United Airlines to forcibly remove a passenger.  How badly is United going to get sued?  You know we deliver the goods.

Then, Andrew and Thomas discuss a little-known law passed in 1996 as part of the Republican Revolution ...

TTTBE #19: Early Answer for Patrons

 Judging by the answers submitted online, this was perhaps the most difficult TTTBE question yet.  Only one person got the answer right, and almost everyone guessed (incorrectly) answer "A" along with Thomas.

This question tested two propositions of civil procedure:  (1) that, in order to bring a state law claim in federal court ("diversity jurisdiction"), there must be complete diversity of all parties and no defendant can be from the same state as any plaintiff; and (2) for purposes of unincorporated associa...

OA60: Sex and Sexual Orientation

In this episode, we take a look at a landmark decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana.

First, though, we tackle a question from listener Justin Wilder who wants to know about serving a subpoena on Amazon for evidence in a civil case related to information that might be stored on your Echo.  We love that our listeners are becoming civil procedure geek...

OA59 Early for Patrons!

Is the Syria strike legal? The answer may surprise you, unless you already knew Andrew is a secret Trump supporter...

TTTBE #18: Andrew and Thomas are Both Jet-Lagged But We Still Do This For You Edition

This was a VERY difficult and controversial question involving the best reason to rule a draconian clothing law unconstitutional.  The answer is "D" (that the law lacks a rational connection to a legitimate government interest) although our patrons guessed all four answers in relatively equal proportions.

Thomas is now 10-for-18 (55.6%) and slightly despondent but still has high hopes of passing the bar.  He guessed "B" (that the law violated equal protection).

Thomas's answer wasn't a bad one per se; it's jus...

OA58: What Football Can Teach Us About Jury Nullification, Antitrust, and Donald Trump - Part 2

Today's episode is part two of a two-part series in which Thomas and Andrew walk through the short-lived history of the USFL, an alternative football league that ran into the bulldozer that is Donald J. Trump.  Along the way, we learn about jury nullification, antitrust law, and get some insight into Trump's legal strategies that just might have some relevance today....

First, though, "Breakin' Down the Law" defines "antitrust" in order to get you prepared to tackle the rest of our main story.  Afterwards, we answer a q...

OA57: What Football Can Teach Us About Jury Nullification, Antitrust, and Donald Trump - Part 1

Today's episode is part one of a two-part series in which Thomas and Andrew walk through the short-lived history of the USFL, an alternative football league that ran into the bulldozer that is Donald J. Trump.  Along the way, we learn about jury nullification, antitrust law, and get some insight into Trump's legal strategies that just might have some relevance today....

First, though, "Breakin' Down the Law" defines "jury nullification" in order to get you prepared to tackle our main story.  Afterwards, we answer a ques...

Law'd Awful Movies #5: Chicago Justice

For a change of pace, we checked out the first episode of a new (and terrible) TV show called "Chicago Justice," produced by an obviously-now-mailing-it-in Dick Wolf (of "Law & Order" fame).  We were joined by our good friend, Ris McCool.

Things we liked about the show:  the District Attorney is played by CARL WEATHERS!  This means Andrew and Ris got to wax nostalgic about Rocky IV, and Thomas got to keep making jokes about how Carl Weathers was... making a stew or something?  Also, several of the characters (both male...

OA56: Jury Secrecy and Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado

In today's episode, we look at a recent Supreme Court decision that could have wide-ranging effects on future trials.

We begin, however, by "Breakin' Down the Law" regarding House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes.  Did he just violate the law Republicans kept trying to insist applied to Hillary Clinton's emails?  (Yes.)

In our main segment, we delve into a recent Supreme Court decision, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, in which the Court held that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial means that...

OA55: More on Gorsuch - Was He Just Unanimously Reversed By the Supreme Court?

Today's episode continues our look at appellate jurisprudence, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, and the philosophy of originalism that Andrew continues to insist is so extreme ast o be disqualifying.

First, our much-beloved segment "Are You A Cop?" returns in triumphant fashion with an examination of a claim being raised by many Trump supporters; namely, that the 9th Circuit is "the most reversed appellate court in the country" with a "90% reversal rate."  Is this claim true?  (No.)

In the main segment, we take a look at th...

OA54: Gerrymandering

In today's episode, we look at the history and potential future of gerrymandered congressional districts.

We begin, however, with a listener question that's come to us from multiple sources, including Patrons Greg Boettcher and Adrian Borschow, who want to know if there's any difference between a "jail" and a "prison."  We deliver the goods!

In our main segment, we delve into three recent cases regarding the time-honored practice of gerrymandering a state into congressional districts so as to maximize the number of safe seats for a...

OA53: Did Jeff Sessions Perjure Himself & Other Trump-Related Stories

In today's episode, we take a look at a recent claim being made by Sen. Al Franken and others that Attorney General Jeff Sessions perjured himself during his confirmation hearings.

First, we begin with an examination of some legal issues in the news related to the Trump administration.  What does it mean that the ABA rated Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch "well qualified," and does that mean Andrew is rethinking his opinions to the contrary in Episod...

TTTBE #15: Andrew is Sick Edition

Sorry for the abbreviated post, but my excuse is right up there in the title.  The answer is "A," which Thomas almost got right before talking himself out of it.

OA52: Thomas Knows Words! Thomas Has The Best Words!

In today's episode, we look at some legal terms that our patrons asked us to define.  In a twist, however, the guys switch chairs and Andrew asks the questions while Thomas tries to offer legal definitions.  How did that work out?   Listen and find out!

We begin, however, with a listener question from Rachel Doty, who -- in keeping with this episode's theme -- asks us to define "Alford plea."

Then, based on a suggestion from pat...

OA51: The Grimm Reality About Transgender Bathrooms

In today's episode, we take a look at the recent Supreme Court decision to rescind its grant of certiorari in the 4th Circuit opinion of Grimm v. Gloucester County School District.  What happened, and what does this mean for transgender rights?

First, we begin with an examination of the Trump administration's revised Executive Order (sometimes called the "Muslim Ban") restricting entry from now six Muslim-majority nations. As you may recall, we first addressed this issue back in Op...

TTTBE #14: Daylight Savings Time-inspired Super Super Early Answer for Patrons

This was a question involving the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).  In the hypothetical, a psychopath tortures the plaintiff's father outside of the plaintiff's presence, which is obviously distressing, and the plaintiff suffers (as you might imagine) extreme distress that requires medical treatment.  Can the plaintiff successfully sue for IIED?

The answer to the question was (A) -- that likely, no, the plaintiff will not be able to sue for IIED because he was not present when the torture took pl...

OA50: Obama's Fiduciary Rule (With Guest Ben Offit)

In today's episode, we take a look at a rule first proposed by President Obama's Department of Labor in 2016 that would require financial advisers to abide by a "fiduciary" duty with their clients.  What does that mean?  Listen and find out!

We begin with a relevant note about the status of the rule, which is due to be implemented in 60 days.

Next, in our main segment, we take a look at the implications of the Fiduciary Rule by consulting an expert; in this case, certified financial planner Ben Offit, who has a somewhat n...

Secret Thread That Thomas Isn't Allowed to Read

Hi patrons!

One of the ideas we had for an upcoming episode was to define common legal terms that you see everywhere but maybe aren't entirely sure what they mean.  (I loved the question I got about the difference, if any, between a lawyer and an attorney.)

One of the difficult things about actually being a lawyer is that I've forgotten which of our crazy specialized words are incomprehensible to the average person.  So here's where you come in:  fill up this thread with questions about what certain legal terms mean, and ...

OA49: Why Originalists Don't Belong on the Supreme Court

In today's episode, we take a long look at the judicial philosophy of "originalism" made popular by former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and advocated by his would-be replacement.

First, we begin with a question from Jodi, who asks Andrew for his opinion of LegalZoom and other law-in-a-box services.  Andrew gets a little emotional in his response....

Next, we break down originalism as a form of jurisprudence and examine why it is (1) internally incoherent and contradictory; (2) dangerous and unconstrained; and (3) contr...

TTTBE #13: Early Answer for Patrons

This was a question regarding the "excited utterance" exception to the hearsay rule where a man observing an accident shouted out "Holy crap! That guy was going a hundred miles an hour" just after an accident and a woman, not looking at the scene, heard the man's excited utterance.

The answer to the question was (A) -- that the trial court will likely allow both the woman and the man to testify.   The man can testify because he's a witness testifying as to what he observed.

For the woman to testify about what the man saw is, o...

LAM 4: Changing Lanes

Special thanks to Charone Frankel for picking like the best possible movie. What do you get when you mix Ben Affleck, Sam Jackson, and absolutely no grasp of how the law works? You get this movie, that's what. Listen as Andrew, Thomas, and guest Sam from the podcast Comedy Shoeshine, break down the movie!

OA48: Three Cases You Care About - Planned Parenthood, Gay Florists, and Litigious Quacks

Today's episode is a little bit different than our usual format; today, we take a look at three cases that our listeners have asked about on Twitter and Facebook.

First up is an order entered by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas enjoining the state of Texas (and nitwit Attorney General Ken Paxton) from disqualifying Planned Parenthood as an authorized Medicaid service provider on the basis of fake videos.

Next, we tackle a recent ruling by the Washington Supreme Court applying that state's anti-discriminatio...

OA47: Is This The Gun Control Case That Could Overrule DC v. Heller?

In today's episode, we take a look at the just-decided case of Kolbe v. Hogan out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  Is this case as big a deal as people are saying it is?

We begin, however, with a preliminary question from patron Alice Ashton, who asks about the controversial flavor-of-the-week, recently deplatformed Milo Yiannopolous.  Does knowing about a crime and not reporting it make you an accessory after the fact?  Find out!

Next, we break down Kolbe v. Hogan...

TTTBE #12: Early Answer for Patrons

The answer to the question was (A) -- that the trial court will likely not allow defense counsel to question the witness about her prior citations for pigeon-feeding.

This is another Rule 403 question; the rule states that:  "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence."

Here, one could constru...

OA46: What Could Donald Trump's Tax Returns Tell Us? (With Guest Tony Di Fatta) - Part 2

Today's episode concludes our two-part look at one of your most requested questions:  what might be in Donald Trump's taxes!

We begin, however, with a listener criticism from Peter Crinklaw, who thinks Andrew gave short shrift to the policy argument for educational vouchers.

Next, we conclude our two-part interview Tony Di Fatta, a practicing CPA, to take a deep-dive into all the things we might -- and might not -- find in the event that Donald Trump's taxes are ever disclosed.  All of this is meant...

#ReVote2017 is Hot Garbage

Lots of people have been asking about #ReVote 2017 (or #ReVote2016, or whatever they're calling it).   Here's a summary of my 16-minute rant:

It is a scam.

The lawsuit is hot garbage.

The Supreme Court has expedited the path to deny the writ.  

Anybody telling you anything else is either lying or ignorant or both.

OA45: What Could Donald Trump's Tax Returns Tell Us? (With Guest Tony Di Fatta) - Part 1

In today's episode, we take a look at one of your most requested questions:  what might be in Donald Trump's taxes!

We begin, however, with a preliminary question from Jim Sabatowski, who asks us what's the big deal with Trump's tax returns, anyway?  Is there a good reason to think we can get information that's necessary to evaluate a candidate?

Next, we give you part one of our two-part interview Tony Di Fatta, a practicing CPA, to take a deep-dive into all the things we might -- and might not -- f...

TTTBE #11: Early Answer for Patrons

The answer to the question was (D) -- that the plaintiff was required to introduce the MRI report under the "best evidence" rule.  Sadly, Thomas got this question incorrect, and is now 6-for-11 (54.5%) and in danger of failing the bar exam.

Rule 1002 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that "An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise."

Thus, the default rule is that if an original document is available, you...