Opening Arguments

OA1039 Trump’s prosecution for election interference in Georgia was just stayed by the Court of Appeals, leaving no chance that this trial will proceed before November. What happened, and how unexpected was this delay? We investigate. We then turn to our main story: Biden administration’s executive actions to “shut down the border” and close the door to asylum for many people who would otherwise be eligible. Matt explains what’s actually going on here and how much of it was already in place before we consider the practical and political consequences of Joe Biden effectively carrying out the border bill which Trump bullied Republicans not to pass.  We end by spending a few minutes discussing a recent opinion from Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, who has very strong--and extremely appropriate--opinions about fonts. Georgia appeals court order staying Trump’s criminal trial “A Proclamation on Securing the Border” (June 4, 2024) Interim Final Rule (“Securing the Border”)(June 4

OA's Official Bar Tutor returns! We've got the answer to Question 26, but with Heather's signature style where we're going to learn a whole lot along the way. Then, in Question 27, we've got some Constitutional Law! Be sure to play along by submitting your answer! Use #T3BE, or play on reddit.com/r/openargs!

OA1038 Today we're joined by Vox Senior Correspondent, Ian Millhiser! In his reporting, Ian focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. Ian gives us an excellent and comprehensive breakdown of Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case that could be decided any day now. As usual with this Court, the question is: How scared should we be? Check out Ian's excellent article and other reporting here. If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1037 THE JURY IS IN! Opening Arguments is coming at you LIVE AND UNEDITED today as we react in realtime to the announcement of the verdict in People v. Trump--conveniently timed for exactly the time that we had already planned to record this week! We also take a look at the lengthy closing arguments from both sides and Matt answers patron questions about some of New York’s more unusual trial practices before getting into what we can expect next. We finish out the fun with Thomas’s dramatic reading of Samuel Alito’s indignant, mendacious, and entirely unsolicited response to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s demands to speak with the Supreme Court’s manager and take a moment to appreciate his full-throated defense of a woman’s absolute right to choose (flags).  Jury instructions in People v. Trump People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585 (1987)(providing jury with written excerpt of jury instructions was reversible error) Alito’s letter to Senators Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse dated May 29, 2024

Heather is back for another bar question! Yay! Except... it's real property... NOOOOO We only do the question on this one, since we did both the Q and A last time. So, this is just a short little uncharged episode to get us back on track. It also allows me to catch up on Patron thanks! Note: two new Gavel Gavels are out, with more coming very, very soon! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1036 Two great stories for you today - following OA1034 on how much Alito sucks, the Law Dork himself, Chris Geidner, is on to discuss the flag habits of Samuel Alito, as well as the exclusive story he broke regarding Alito’s stock activity immediately after Libs of TikTok called for a boycott against Bud Light because…transphobia. After we vent about Alito for a bit, Chris walks us through what an Alabama judge threatened to do to a group of LGBTQ+ lawyers and it’s even worse than you could imagine. Be sure to follow Chris (@chrisgeidner/@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) and subscribe to his Substack to support independent legal journalism! Law Dork's coverage of Judge Liles Burke's orders out of the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

T3BE 25 I am pleased to introduce you all to Heather Varanini! In her role as Director of Academic Achievement, Heather spends her days helping students succeed in law school and prepare for the Bar. She's onboard to serve as the Official Opening Arguments Bar Tutor and teach us a lot along the way! In this episode we'll hear more about her journey and the values that she brings to her work; for this week, we do a full Bar Question and Answer to give a sense of what we're in for with her! The traditional staggered Q&A will commence next time! 

OA1035 A second Alito flag has hit the news, we have election results out of Fulton County, and the jury is nearly out in Donald Trump’s New York criminal trial. Matt also answers patron questions about how things could go wrong with the jury between now and the verdict, as well as why juries everywhere are so rarely sequestered anymore. After a brief detour past a very important class-action suit against Hershey’s for the insufficient jauntiness of its Halloween candy, we turn to our main story: International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan’s application for arrest warrants to be issued against leaders of both Hamas and Israel. How does The Hague have jurisdiction to prosecute the prime minister of a country which has flatly refused to recognize its authority--or, for that matter, Palestinians  who carried out the attacks of October 7, 2023 in the territory of that same country? Matt explains the background and recent history of humanity’s first standing international criminal tribunal as we consider wh

OA 1034 With the recent news that a sitting Supreme Court justice was publicly displaying support for Trump’s attempted coup in the days between January 6, 2021 and Joe Biden’s inauguration, it’s time to ask: Is Samuel Alito actually worse than our very low opinion of him? Also who could have possibly known that a hard-right Reagan/Buckley conservative who has been publicly advocating for ending abortion rights since 1985 would turn out to be the ultra-right Trump/Scalia conservative who ended abortion rights in 2022? We take these questions on after a quick look at the latest low point in Rudy Guiliani’s long, steep, and often hilarious fall from grace. (N.B.: there’s so much more to talk about here than we could possibly fit into an hour, we didn’t even get to his awful decisions on the death penalty, among many other things.) Finally, we learn the answer to last week’s T3BE question and consider the multifarious liabilities of stocking a private lake full of piranhas. Alito’s 1985 memo with strategies fo

OA1033 We begin with a quick check-in on Trump’s trial in New York, from the recent appellate ruling on his gag order Todd Blanche's bizarrely personal  start to his cross-examination of the most important witness in one of the most important criminal trials in US history. Matt then explains why it might be a felony to run for governor in Washington State if your name is Bob Ferguson.  Then: Clarence Thomas just rejected an originalist 5th Circuit ruling to save the Consumer Protection Finance Bureau on behalf of a 7-2 court--with Alito dissenting for totally different originalist reasons. What is going here? We then stop in for a quick layover with the current state of the Boeing non-prosecution agreement before Thomas takes on a bar question about some extremely unpleasant fish. Unanimous order from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York upholding Trump NY gag order (5/14/24) RCW 29A.84.320 (WA criminal statute addressing “Duplicate, nonexistent, and untrue names”) SCOTUS ruling in Co

OA1032 We're very pleased to welcome Steve Vladeck on the show to talk about what's going on with the Supreme Court these days, and how shadowy their docket has been recently. We then dig into (and debate a touch) a recent piece he wrote regarding a different way to conceptualize about court reform, and what he personally sees as viable and appropriate among the various proposals for change. Be sure to read The Shadow Docket, which will be released on paperback soon, and subscribe to One First to get more of Steve's great coverage! Then we reveal the answer to last episode's T3BE; did Thomas successfully determine the fate of Rebecca the violinist? And who from the audience will be the lucky winner?! Remember to head over to www.patreon.com/gavelpod to follow our Trump Trial coverage ahead of the public release of the show! If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

OA1031 First up, BIG ANNOUNCEMENTS!!! The Trump Trial Transcript readings will now only be available on patreon.com/gavelpod! Details inside. Then: the Biden administration is moving forward with rescheduling marijuana to a lower federal classification--and Matt is not happy about it? Find out why this long-overdue acknowledgment of the over-criminalization of cannabis may not only be too little too late, but actually the wrong direction for criminal and social justice. And speaking of justice gone wrong: Aileen Cannon. Fort Pierce, Florida’s best (and only) federal trial judge has once again put off Trump’s classified documents case, this time with no end in sight. We take a closer look at what she is actually doing here before checking in on Trump’s latest success in delaying his RICO trial for election interference in Georgia. We finish up with Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, in which Thomas  find out how he did in the strange case of the arsonist who doesn't understand how fire works before wagering his eterna

OA1030: Trump Trial, Week 2, Part 2! This episode centers around David Pecker's testimony and it's basically rock solid. Trump's attorneys are desperate, so Mr. Bove goes for the juggler! And then everyone has to explain it's actually "jugular" why in the world would you go for the "juggler?" Why would that be the idiom? In what world are jugglers like, crucial components of anything, at which you would want to go in order to really hurt someone or something? Maybe at circuses? They're arguably not even that important to circuses though, don't they just mess around in between way better acts to try to distract the audience a little? I just want to assure people that Matt had nothing to do with these show notes. He hasn't had a stroke or anything, don't worry. It's just that I, Thomas, now answer to NO ONE when it comes to Opening Arguments because.... SURPRISE SHOW NOTES ANNOUNCEMENT Andrew is completely out of OA! The legal bull shit is over! More details inside! If you would like to audition to read transcr

OA1029: Trump Trial, Week 2, Part 1! Lordy, there are tapes! Our special coverage of People v. Trump continues, now with readings from Juilliard-trained, Tony-winning actors Thomas and Lydia Smith! (none of that is true except possibly our names.) Donald Trump is now the first U.S. President ever to be held in contempt of court. Exactly how criminal is "criminal contempt" in New York, and what does this mean for the rest of the trial? Also, Matt takes us on a fascinating mini-dive on the National Enquirer. It has a very interesting history you might not be familiar with. Then start getting into the trial fireworks. Much more to come! Probably at least 3 parts. 1) People v. Trump Transcripts 2) Justice Merchan's contempt order 3) AMI non-prosecution agreement If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

Episode 1028 Can a former President of the United States be prosecuted for trying to overturn a democratic election? The Supreme Court just spent two hours and forty minutes (!) hearing a case in which they were supposed to be reviewing this simple question and Donald Trump’s claims of total immunity. We review the last oral argument of this term and try to cut through the bad faith, irrelevance, and misdirection to understand what is actually happening here and where it all might be going. DC Trump indictment (8/1/23) Government’s brief in Trump v. U.S Trump’s brief in Trump v. U.S. CSPAN’S complete bookmarked SCOTUS oral arguments in Trump v. U.S. (4/25/24) If you’d like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

As the first week of the first criminal trial of a former President in U.S. history wraps up, we prepare for our special coverage of People v. Trump by stepping back to remember how we got here. Why is Donald Trump being prosecuted for paying off Stormy Daniels, anyway? Who are all of these people? How good is the prosecution’s case, really? And what can we expect from the defense?  We also answer a few patron questions about the trial, after which subscribers will enjoy a dramatic rendition of the best bit of this week’s gag order violation hearing: Trump attorney Todd Blanche’s struggle to convince the court that his client’s retweets are not, as a matter of law, endorsements.  PATRON EXTRA! Beginning now, Patreon subscribers will enjoy longer episodes with special bonus content as part of our special coverage of People v. Trump: Thomas and Matt’s readings from our  favorite parts of the daily trial transcripts. Subscribe at www.patreon.law/law for the good stuff! Indictment and Statement of Facts, People

Episode 1026 The transcript is in! The first official written record from the first trial of a former President in U.S. history was just released hours before recording, and we dig in for a first look from the first full day of proceedings (Monday April 23rd) to find out which of the 45th president's many misdeeds the court ruled that prosecutors will be allowed to bring up during cross-examination. We also indulge in some dramatic readings of each party's opening statements, and discuss what we can learn from them about the Manhattan DA's case and Trump's defense to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Much more to come! We then check back on last week's round of Thomas Takes the Bar Exam to see how Thomas did on questions about a thieving magician and a lying philanthropist before turning to this week's challenge: an arsonist who doesn't understand how fire works. 1. People's Sandoval Notice filed 4/17/24 2. Transcript of proceedings in People v. Trump on 4/23/24 If you’d like to support the sho

Episode 1025 Today we take on two law stories the media have been getting wrong recently. 1) Did the Supreme Court just "end the right to protest in three states"? We go beyond the headlines to better understand Justice Sonia Sotomayor's denial of certiorari in a negligence suit brought against Black Lives Matter organizer Deray McKesson by a police officer injured during a BLM protest in Baton Rouge. 2) Biden's border. The impeachment of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas ended last week in the Senate before it ever began, but the lies, misinformation, and terrible reporting which fueled it are only getting worse. Matt breaks down what people who complain about Joe Biden's "open-border policies" are actually saying before getting into the facts. How do Trump's enforcement metrics compare to Biden's? How has a commitment to actually abiding by basic due process and our international and domestic obligations to people seeking protection for persecution been spun into "lawlessness at the border"? And what even ar

Episode 1024 We have a jury! The preliminaries are nearly complete in the first criminal trial of a former president in US history, and we take this opportunity to review what we know so far about the Manhattan DA's prosecution of Donald Trump for funneling hush money to Stormy Daniels three weeks before the 2016 election. How did they pick a jury so quickly? What is DA Alvin Bragg's theory of the case? Could "retweets are not endorsements" actually be a loophole to a gag order? The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday from one of the 350 January 6th rioters charged under a 2002 statute passed by Congress in the wake of the many crimes of Enron. How did Congress's attempt to close a loophole which made it legal for some corporate criminals to destroy evidence so long as they did it by themselves open the door to the prosecution of violent insurrectionists? Is there a new, secret meaning to the word "otherwise" that only lawyers know?  Is the Supreme Court really about to agree with the defendant that the word

Last week's answers, this week's questions! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!