Opening Arguments

Matt Cameron, an immigration attorney and legal analyst, joins to discuss Minnesota's groundbreaking lawsuit against ICE, challenging the enforcement surge in Minneapolis. They delve into ICE's targeting methods and allegations of racially biased tactics, exploring the impact on local communities. The conversation shifts to recent impeachment articles against key officials, unpacking their implications. Finally, they pay tribute to civil rights pioneer Claudette Colvin, reflecting on her significant contributions to the fight against segregation.

The hosts tackle the murky aftermath of Renee Nicole Good's tragic murder, dissecting the bad takes surrounding it. They scrutinize J.D. Vance's controversial comments and explore the troubling portrayal of ICE in recent articles. Amidst discussions on the agency's culture and problematic recruitment tactics, they argue the merits of abolishing versus reforming ICE. With a focus on accountability, they emphasize the need for prosecution alongside calls for abolition. The conversation is lively, insightful, and packed with critical viewpoints on immigration issues.

Janessa (Dr. Janessa Seymour), a skilled legal analyst specializing in criminal and tech law, joins to dissect the implications of Van Buren v. United States. They explore the nuanced debate on 'exceeds authorized access' under the CFAA. The conversation highlights the role of statutory language, especially the conjunction 'so,' and its impact on legal interpretations. Janessa shares real-world examples of insider misuse, while examining the tension between legislative intent and practicality in prosecutions. They're left pondering the ambiguities and future implications of tech-related legal interpretations.

Hosts dive into the shocking details of a Minneapolis ICE killing, contrasting community reactions and patterns of violence by ICE officers. They discuss the complexities of federal immunity, exploring legal options for state prosecution. The conversation shifts to the anniversary of January 6th, critiquing attempts to rewrite its history, and the implications of recent pardons for those involved. They end by addressing an ethical controversy surrounding a lawyer's claims of being a U.S. Attorney, highlighting the weaknesses and potential reforms in the justice system.

OA1222 and OA1223 - Actual sane coverage of Trump's kidnapping of a foreign leader OA NYC correspondent Liz Skeen joins Thomas and Matt for this emergency episode recorded the day after the US bombed Caracas in a truly unprecedented military operation to kidnap Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and his wife and transport them to Brooklyn to stand trial on federal narco-terrorism charges. We field dozens of patron questions as we try to understand how any of this could possibly be legal. How does this situation compare to the charges against former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez, and how is Trump’s record on narcotrafficking these days anyway? What is in this indictment, and what kinds of defenses might Maduro have? Is the federal government going to let this defendant pay his lawyer? Should a federal court be able to consider that this defendant was illegally abducted from his country by the US military while acting as the head of state of a sovereign nation?  What kinds of consequences could there be for Venezuelans in the U.S.?  And what can we--and the world--do to stop Trump from doing anything like this again?  2020 SDNY indictment of Nicolas Maduro et al 2026 superseding indictment  United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992) “Authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation To Override International Law In Extraterritorial Law Enforcement Activities,” Assistant Attorney General William P. Barr, Office of Legal Counsel (June 21, 1989) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Legal expert Liz Skeen joins the hosts to dissect the staggering U.S. military operation to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. She offers insight into international law, discussing the legal implications of such actions and comparing them to past U.S. interventions like Noriega's. The team delves into the nuances of extradition, sovereign immunity, and the murky legal justifications presented by the government. Plus, they examine the historical context of U.S. involvement in Latin America and the potential consequences for Venezuelans in the U.S.

Matt Cameron, a legal analyst and 'sandwich' trial commentator, dives into the absurd world of the U.S. v. Sean Dunn, famously dubbed the “Sandwich Guy.” They explore Dunn's underreported motive behind hurling a fully-loaded Subway sandwich at a CBP officer in DC. Matt dissects the legal framework surrounding the case and provides insights into the sensationalized arrest video. The pair also break down the viral footage, debating whether it was the sandwich or just the wrapper that struck the officer, all wrapped in witty legal analysis.

Here's a preview of Law'd Awful Movies!!! If you'd like the full thing, become a $2+ patron at patreon.com/law! LAM 1010 - After taking a break with a couple of things we actually enjoyed (Juror #2 and My Cousin Vinny), Law’d Awful Movies returns to form with the first two episodes of USA’s uniquely terrible adaptation of John Grisham’s classic 1995 legal thriller The Rainmaker. Thomas, Lydia, and Matt review the show’s bizarre and often cowardly divergences from the source material, its AI-level of understanding of how humans operate in the world and talk to one another--and, of course, the many ways that The Rainmaker gets the most basic elements of law (and lawyering) wrong. 

OA1220 - What’s an FBI agent to do when a notorious low life reports a local cop is asking for a bribe? Turn him into a confidential information of course, and see how far you can get that dirty cop to go. A tale of two assholes, steadily making each others’ lives worse and worse, while one is wearing a wire. Now, why does the Supreme Court care about any of this? Half the conviction hinges on whether this cop “exceeded authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and no one can agree what that means… including your cohosts. Hear Thomas try to figure out why Amy Coney Barrett is so obsessed with the definition of the word “so”, and Jenessa… defend Clarence Thomas?! This case is a hot mess, but the good news is everyone sucks here and no one wins. The relevant language: “The Act subjects to criminal liability anyone who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access,” and thereby obtains computer information. 18 U. S. C. §1030(a)(2). It defines the term “exceeds authorized access” to mean “to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter.” §1030(e)(6).” Barrett’s ruling: “In sum, an individual “exceeds authorized access” when he accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of the computer—such as files, folders, or databases—that are off limits to him.” Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021) United States v. Van Buren, 940 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2019) Full text of the CFAA: 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Matt Cameron, a skilled immigration attorney and legal analyst, joins to discuss recent developments in U.S. cannabis policy. They dive into Trump’s recent proposal to reclassify marijuana, reflecting on Biden's earlier attempts. Matt explains the complexities of cannabis rescheduling and its potential legal implications, including tax and immigration issues. The conversation also explores the history of cannabis scheduling and even touches on the fascinating story of Boston's early 'War on Christmas' in 1659, adding an unexpected twist to the festive theme.