The way you know the Supreme Court is ruining the law in this country is if their lips are moving. Well, this time they've decided that a 10 year old precedent is already too old for them, and that if you were given a terrible lawyer by the state, you should have thought of that before you decided to be poor. Shinn v. Ramirez Also, check out Thomas's new podcast Dear Old Dads, with Eli Bosnick and Tom Curry!

In the wake of the pathetic police response to the Uvalde shooting, you have likely come across posts and memes talking about how police don't actually have any obligation to protect you or really do anything. Is this true or is it overblown internet leftist hyperbole? Well, it's true, and it's infuriating. Andrew breaks down the case in question. THEN! A special episode 600 celebration!!! We asked our patrons what terms/phrases/references/inside jokes they wanted us to explain, and we've got a fun list of 20! It's a fun stroll down memory lane as we talk the oranges of motions in lemonade, clownhorning, Konrad Michaels, and more! Links: Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

Another horrific mass shooting has us all asking WTF can we actually do about this? There is plenty of reason for pessimism, but Opening Arguments is here to break down what might realistically be done. This is part 1, focusing on why gun companies are immune from civil actions and what we should do about that. Part 2 will be about the police response. In the first segment, we give an update on Elon Musk. There was a filing that went virtually unnoticed but sheds more light on the Twitter situation. Links: Musk SEC filing, letter to himself, 15 US Code § 7902, Definition: qualified civil liability action from 15 USC § 7903, Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of US Mass Shootings

Some folks on the internet have been trying to "one weird trick" our way to saving Roe by claiming that tribal sovereignty could help ensure abortion access. Well, not only is this wrong, it's offensively wrong. OA brings you the deep-dive on Indian Law (yes, that's what it's called...) with a refresher on McGirt v. Oklahoma, and why none of that equals an instant abortion rights fix. After that, a wildcard question – now that Roe is being overturned, does that mean justices committed perjury in their confirmation hearings? Links: McGirt v. Oklahoma, 18 US Code § 1153 - Offenses committed within Indian country, The Hyde Amendment, Indigenous Women's Reproductive Rights: The Indian Health Service and Its Inconsistent Application of the Hyde Amendment

The 5th Circuit has never been in the top 10 circuits in terms of not being insane, but now it has gone even more off the rails. Andrew takes us through the deep dive on a terrible decision that will decimate the SEC's ability to do anything, and why the logic will be applied elsewhere. Before that, a quick update on how much Elon Musk sucks and has completely blown it with the Twitter deal. And a quick word on primaries. Links: Twitter says it will 'enforce' Elon Musk's $44 billion acquisition deal, 28Patriot” v. SEC, 15 US Code § 78u–2 - Civil remedies in administrative proceedings, Jellum & Tincher, “The Shadow of Free Enterprise”, Are the SEC's Administrative Law Judges Biased? An Empirical Investigation, Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 138 S.Ct. 1365 (2018), Summary of Administrative Law Judge Responsibilities

By popular demand, we old out of touch guys have invited Ace Associate and Poplaw Expert Morgan Stringer on to explain to us just what in the h is happening in the Depp v. Heard lawsuit. Who is suing whom and for what? Can we take what we're seeing on TikTok at face value? Also who is Amber Heard? All these answers and more(gan)!

According to a lawsuit filed by some shareholders, Twitter may have failed to disclose important information about the Musk deal, and it might be Musk's doing! Get the full breakdown on this very interesting lawsuit that isn't getting much coverage elsewhere! Also, a Connecticut Bill paves the way for how other states might fight against abortion restrictions. Something to fight for in your state! Also, why Andrew is definitely right about Clarence Thomas. Links: Code of Conduct for US Judges, 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, WHPA fails, CT bill, Orlando Police Pension Fund v Twitter, 8 Del. Code § 203, disclosure in merger agreement

It's a breakdown I've been begging Andrew to do for months and it's finally here! The case for why the House should start impeachment proceedings for Clarence Thomas. Links: Ginni's texts, Trump v. Thompson, Ginni apologized to clerks, Justice Samuel Chase - Impeachment, How Ginni Thomas jockeyed for influence in Trump's orbit

It is absurd to say "point to where in the Constitution it says you have a right to an abortion." Legally speaking, there's something a lot deeper and more basic going on. As we all already know, this leaked decision makes a mockery of the law. Andrew has some further deep-diving for us on how the court, a mere 20 years ago, ruled in the opposite direction on similar legal questions. Many of the same Justices were a part of that ruling. Listen and learn! Links: Court press release, Draft Dobbs opinion, Abortion Policy in the Absence of Roe | Guttmacher Institute, Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, 87(R) SB 8, Arkansas SB 149 (2019), Lawrence v. Texas, Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U. S. 678 (1977)

Just stunning. Despite OA warning you about this for years, it still is, and should be, utterly shocking to see in print. Andrew has somehow already read the opinion and has a preliminary breakdown. This is an emergency, unfiltered, unedited, uncensored episode.