Today we're joined by the Legal Eagle himself, Devin Stone! Devin is suing the Trump administration, with the help of his lawyer Kel McClanahan. Devin and Kel break down for us what the lawsuit is about, and what they hope to accomplish.

Today's show could also be called "the worst good news possible" because, yes, the Supreme Court declined to completely gut Roe v. Wade (despite the fact that Roe is effectively dead in many ways), but this was not John Roberts turning into AOC. Find out why in Andrew's breakdown! Before that main story though, our first segment is about some reallllly bad news out of Florida. Remember when Florida voters came out overwhelmingly in supermajority numbers to restore voting rights to ex-felons? Yeah Republicans said "nah." We last covered this, when we thought the courts scored us a victory, in Episode 363. We also discuss the Supreme Court granting cert for some Mueller Report cases, which is NOT good news. Here are Andrew's links and references: Private Debt Collectors ad 40% to Total, Felons Can't Afford These Fines, Jones v. Governor of Florida, Previous OAs on June Medical: OA249 OA251 and OA251.5, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, OA309 Discusses Sheldon Whitehouse, Comprehensive Supreme Court Report by Sen Whitehouse and his amicus brief, Roberts Narrow Concurrence vs. stare decisis in Casey.

We've got a special treat for you fine folks today! This is the Law'd Awful Movies from last month where Thomas delivers his Amicus Brief in the Flynn case and Andrew and Morgan discuss the process of writing their brief! Heads up, this episode contains explicit language. Hope you enjoy!

Plus, Andrew breaks down (or has a breakdown over) the viral photo of a card that purportedly allows the holder to enter any business without wearing a mask. Is it real or... really stupid? Then we take a deep dive into DHS. v. Thuraissigiam, the asylum case recently decided by the Supreme Court.

This episode breaks down exactly what happened in the Supreme Court's surprising 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County holding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity is discrimination "because of sex" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's a great decision, we tell you why, and we give you some additional insights about Neil Gorsuch. We begin by diving into the case! We tell you exactly what it does (and doesn't) mean, figure out why this case took so long to get to a decision, and how it's exactly the ruling we thought might have been possible ever since the 7th Circuit's en banc decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech that we discussed way back in Episode 60. In figuring that out, we discuss the narrow differences between "texualism" and "originalism," even though this show tends to lump them together. As part of the analysis, we take a look into Neil Gorsuch's voting patterns to see if he's a secret liberal. Hint: he isn't. After all that, it's time for the #T3BE answer on Constitutional law. Can the university fire a professor for her political views? Listen and find out! Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Go ahead and read the Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County for yourself if you haven't yet. We discussed the 7th Circuit's en banc decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech back in Episode 60, with specific emphasis on the Flaum & Ripple concurrence. We also discussed R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes in Episode 167. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Today's bonus episode takes a deep dive into the lawsuit brought by the Trump Administration to try and block the publication of John Bolton's tell-all book. We break down the legal arguments and tell you whether you can look forward to getting that copy you ordered or not. (And seriously, you shouldn't give money to John Bolton. He's still a scumbag.) We begin, however, with a quick Andrew Was Right! in that PG&E pleaded guilty to 84 counts of manslaughter; we told you PG&E was likely criminally liable way back in Episode 241! Then, it's time to break down the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 which just passed the House Judiciary Committee and is an unambiguously good bill. Listen and find out why! After that, it's time to dig in to both the Complaint and the motion for TRO filed by the United States on behalf of Donald Trump because John Bolton's book made Trump feel bad. Do we really live in a society in which that happened? Yes. Do we live in one in which the court will grant injunctive relief? No. Listen and find out why. No #T3BE in this bonus episode but there's lots and lots of great content! Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Although the plea agreement isn't available, this Ars Technica article is a good timeline of PG&E's criminal activities; we told you PG&E was likely criminally liable way back in Episode 241! Click here to read the Justice in Policing Act of 2020 which just passed the House Judiciary Committee. You can read the Supreme Court's decision in Snepp v. U.S. 444 U.S. 507 (1980), the decision in the Pentagon Papers case, and also read the Complaint and the motion for TRO filed by the U.S. against Bolton. Injunctive relief is governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Finally, check out the NSA's pre-publication procedures. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Today's episode might have been titled "Andrew Was Really, Really Wrong," as we break down this rather surprising week in the Supreme Court, including the Title VII cases, the Court's refusal to grant cert on any gun case, and the DACA decision. We begin with a quick Happy Juneteenth! From there, we tackle the ways in which Andrew Was Wrong, starting with the Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the consolidated case in which the Court has now held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects sexual orientation and gender identity. We promise you it isn't a poison pill; it's an unambiguously good decision. After that, it's time to talk about another thing Andrew was wrong about that's kind of flown under the radar -- the fact that the Supreme Court denied certiorari in all 10 of the pending gun cases, allowing some good rulings to stand and forestalling some bad new law on the Second Amendment. Then, it's time to break down the Court's ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Trump, the case involving whether the Trump administration can unilaterally end DACA. The Court ruled they can't -- but this decision has a number of red flags in it that we discuss on the show. After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE about constitutional law and whether a religious university can fire a professor for what she writes in an op-ed? Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Make sure you check out the Opening Arguments Amicus Brief if you haven’t yet. You can read the Court's decisions in Bostock v. Clayton County, and Regents of the University of California v. Trump. We discussed the importance of the Kolbe v. Hogan way back in Episode 47, and the Trump administration's approach to DACA in Episode 102. Finally, check out the Trump administration's scorecard (6-79!) in administrative actions. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Today's show takes a deep dive into the Supreme Court, with the theme of "Shame Justice Roberts," and we recorded this... just before Justice Roberts (and, surprisingly, Neil Gorsuch) voted to affirm in the Zarda cases, recognizing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's prohibition "on the basis of sex" includes sexual orientation. Andrew was (happily) wrong indeed. We begin, however, with a discussion of the latest madness coming out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and how Andrew would fight it. Then, it's time for our Supreme Court roundup, which featured not only Zarda, but a look at the pending gun cases (all of which were denied) and an analysis of the South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom decision permitting California to establish medical restrictions on churches and other places of public accommodation. After all that, it's time for the answer to #T3BE involving real property! Patreon Bonuses All patrons get a special behind-the-scenes deep dive into our amicus brief! Appearances None! But if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Make sure you check out the Opening Arguments Amicus Brief if you haven't yet. We last discussed the McGahn case in Episode 366. Click here to read the South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom decision. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Today's episode takes an in-depth look at the concept of an amicus brief, explaining why we filed one in the Flynn case, what it means, and what's next for the guy who sold out his country... and his partner. We begin with a brief update on the Flynn trial (in the District Court for the District of Columbia) and the mandamus action pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Then, it's time to talk about all the various amicus briefs that were filed, with special attention to a pro-Flynn brief filed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Why does this liberal group want Judge Sullivan to grant the government's motion? Listen and find out! After a breakdown of all the amicus, we talk about the case in which Lt. Gen. Flynn was supposed to be the star witness for the government -- the case against Flynn's partner, Bijan Rafiekian. Find out what's up next for Kian, and how this all involves friend of the show G. ZACHARY TERWILLIGER! After all that, it's time for a brand-new #T3BE, this one involving... real property. Can Thomas manage to figure out the relationship between a buyer, a mortgagor, a developer, and an unsigned deed? Listen and find out, and play along if you want on social media! Patreon Bonuses We posted six separate updates to the amicus brief in progress, and there's more where that came from! Appearances Andrew was just on the latest episode of the Daily Beans Podcast. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group (virtually!), please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links Make sure you check out the Opening Arguments Amicus Brief! You can also click here for the reply brief just filed by G. Zachary Terwilliger in the Bijan Kian case. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Today we're joined by Gabe Roth, executive director of https://fixthecourt.com/. Fix the Court is a national, nonpartisan organization that advocates for non-ideological “fixes” that would make the federal courts, and primarily the U.S. Supreme Court, more open and more accountable to the American people. In his work, Gabe has been tracking some curious financial dealings of "friend" of the show Justin Walker. We discuss that, and other ethics questions and reforms related to the court system.