Opening Arguments

OA1199 - Voting rights expert Jenessa Seymour takes us through this week’s oral arguments in one of the most important cases before the Supreme Court this term: Louisiana v. Callais, which has the potential to end some of the most important protections in the Voting Rights Act and allow states to openly racially gerrymander their electoral districts. Also discussed: a related New York state case which may be affected by Callais, and a footnote on what one lying Chicago cop was willing to do to get out of dozens of traffic and speeding tickets--and how actual justice has finally caught up with him. Louisiana v. Callais Supreme Court docket Oral arguments in Louisiana v Callais(10/15/2025) 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (Sec 2 of the Voting Rights Act) Thornburg v Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) Rucho v. Common Cause 588 U.S. 684 (2019) Full text of NY’s John L. Lewis Voting Act Submit a comment on the Election Assistance Commission’s proposal to add a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal voting registr

It’s Vapid Response Wednesday, and Thomas, Lydia, and Matt are back to take apart more bad-faith nonsense from some of the worst people in public life. First up: The Atlantic's Caitlyn Flanagan on why it is totally fine that her good friend Bari Weiss is taking over one of the most prestigious news organizations in the United States after running a glorified blog which has been liberated from any reasonable idea of journalistic standards.  MAGA law professor Johnathan Turley then completely fails to explain why capital-A “Antifa”--a set of tactics and ideas which he has previously acknowledged in writing is not actually a “group” and should not be treated as one--is actually a group which should be treated as one. Finally, Newsweek-ruiner Josh Hammer makes his second appearance on Vapid Response Wednesday as he responds to some weird nonsense from Candace Owens. “Don’t Bet Against Bari Weiss,” Caitlin Flanagan, The Atlantic (10/7/25) “They Became Symbols for Gazan Starvation. But All 12 Suffer from Other

OA1198 - In this very special episode, Matt catches up with his Constitutional law professor for the first time in 23 years!  We follow up with our closer look at the science behind Brown v Board (OA1186) with University of Michigan Law professor Michelle Adams, who takes us through the fascinating and ultimately tragic story of how the promise of Brown ended twenty years later in the struggle to overcome de facto segregation in her hometown of Detroit. Professor Adams has literally written the book on this subject, and if you enjoyed this conversation be sure to pick up her recent masterwork The Containment: Detroit, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for Racial Justice in the North.  The Containment: Detroit, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for Racial Justice in the North, Prof. Michelle  Adams (2024) Michelle Adams | University of Michigan Law School Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974) “Mapping Inequality,” University of Richmond (interactive maps of redlining in major US cities) Check out

OA1197 - The National Guard is being federalized and sent into cities that the President doesn’t like against the explicit will of state governors and local populations. Matt covers as much as we know from the legal developments around this ongoing national emergency, and Jenessa shares some good news which is already coming out of NY’s recent recently-enhanced equal protection amendment. Finally, in today’s footnote: how do you ticket a car from a moving violation when no one is driving it? NOTE: since the time of this recording, a federal judge has found that the Trump administration’s stated reasons for deploying federal troops in Chicago are “simply unreliable” and blocked the deployment of the National Guard. More next week on this vital story. “Department of Defense Security For the Protection of Homeland Security Functions,” The White House (June 7, 2025)  Affidavit of Portland Police Bureau Assistant Chief of Operations Craig Dobson, filed 9/29/2025 Judge Immergut’s injunction in Trump v. Oregon

We welcome CNN anchor Jake Tapper to discuss his latest book Race Against Terror, a nonfiction legal thriller set in the long-ago world of 2011 in which the U.S. Department of Justice is dedicated to vigorously defending national security through strict adherence to due process and the rule of law. Also discussed: the current state of the media, why the world needed a book about Joe Biden’s mental decline which was released within days of Donald Trump being sworn in for his second term, and why Jake is no longer on speaking terms with the surviving members of Lynyrd Skynyrd. Check out Jake’s latest book Race Against Terror, out this week anywhere you buy or listen to books! You can watch this episode on YouTube, too! Race Against Terror: Chasing an Al Qaeda Killer at the Dawn of the Forever War, Jake Tapper (2025) Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, Jake Tapper (2025) Lynyrd Skynyrd’s Uncivil War, VH1 (2002)(hosted by Jake Tapper) Check out th

OA1196 - This week in our continuing Still Good Law series, Matt and Jenessa take on the 1963 Supreme Court case which is still believed to hold the record for angering the most Americans at the same time: 1963’s Engel v. Vitale. Find out why a decision which even the Warren Court’s conservative justices did not see as particularly controversial to keep New York school administrators from publicly making one 22-word statement to students every morning kicked off a firestorm which is still at the heart of the American culture wars. Engel v. Vitale , 370 U.S. 421 (1963) Engel v. Vitale (New York Supreme Court, 1960) Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) Massachusetts General Law - Part IV, Title I, Chapter 272, Section 36 (Blasphemy statute) GOD, CIVIC VIRTUE, AND THE AMERICAN WAY: RECONSTRUCTING ENGEL, Corinna Barrett Lain, Stanford Law Review (2015)

OA1195 - How much of the federal government has actually shut down, and why? We explore the truth behind the spin, and Matt breaks the exclusive story of how at least one part of the executive branch appears to be illegally operating at full capacity. We then then connect some of the most fast-moving stories of the past few weeks to bring out the terrifying relationship between the obvious legal issues around the Trump administration’s threats to invade Venezuela, underreported executive actions on “Antifa” and “domestic terrorism” and their broad potential consequences, and the Trump’s recent threat to use US cities as “training grounds” for US troops. Then: good news! Jenessa shares a win on voting rights out of Pennsylvania, and Matt celebrates a resounding victory for the free speech rights of non-citizen students like Rumeysa Ozturk and Mahmoud Khalil from a Reagan-appointed federal judge. Finally, today’s footnote confirms that the Wu Tang Clan is as a matter of law indeed nothing to fuck with. “Steph

OA1194 - NY defense attorney Liz Skeen joins to talk about the evolution (or devolution?) or our Miranda rights in the past several decades. How does an actual criminal defense attorney who deals with these issues every day think about them?

OA1193 - Could Tylenol sue RFK Jr. for libel? Does the pressure the FCC put on Disney/ABC to fire Jimmy Kimmel constitute a First Amendment violation? Is the Trump administration really going to charge rural hospitals $100,000 for the privilege of being able to hire foreign doctors? In today’s Rapid Response Friday we answer all of these recent patron questions and more, and Jenessa shares a personal footnote about her decision to voluntarily take the most specialized bar exam in the US legal system. The Campaign for Accountability’s bar complaint against FCC chairman Brendan Carr  Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, (Presidential Proclamation dated 9/20/2025) US Patent and Trademark Office bar registration page  

We watched the newly-released final episode of HBO’s The Case Against Adnan Syed, and we have questions.  Are the producers really trying to pin the murder of Hae Min Lee on a Black man with obvious mental health issues who was already cleared as a suspect--and did they really need to show the world a fully-nude photo of him to make that case? What is the story that they are trying to tell here, and just how far off is it from the truth? From the libelously deceptive cold open to the slyly deceptive summary of Syed’s post-Serial legal proceedings and beyond, Matt brings his post-conviction expertise to make the case against The Case Against Adnan Syed. FOOTNOTES SIO354: “Serial's Adnan Syed Conviction Reinstated--What Happened? (w/Matt Cameron) (4/4/2023) OA1067: “Adnan Syed Remains a Convicted Murderer” (9/9/2024) State’s Attorney Ivan Bates’s memorandum in support of his Motion to Withdraw the previously-filed Motion to Vacate Judgment 85-page Court of Appeals decision in Lee v. State reinstating Ad

OA1192 - This week in Still Good Law: Katz v. U.S., the 1967 Warren Court case which on its face decided that the Fourth Amendment may apply to a public phone booth. But that’s hardly all: the federal prosecution of nationally-famous bookie Charles Katz also completely changed the entire framework for how U.S. courts understand and interpret the law of searches and seizures and completely upended the concept of Fourth Amendment privacy as it had been understood up until that time. Matt provides the background on Katz and how this case made it to the Supreme Court, Jenessa considers the mental health benefits of being left alone by the government, and we talk through how important this vital holding might still be at a time when we have all given up so many of our privacy rights just by living in 2025. Katz v. U.S. (1967) Goldman v.US (1942) Silverman v. US (1967) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

OA1191 - In today’s Rapid Response Friday, we examine some of the legal questions raised as the Trump administration throws as much political capital as possible behind the recent assassination of Turning Point USA leader Charlie Kirk and their implications for the future of the First Amendment rights they claim to revere Kirk for championing. Is there any legal basis for Trump to designate a “domestic terrorist group,” let alone one that even his FBI has previously admitted doesn’t exist? Matt looks back to the first Trump term to try to understand what is coming. We then examine how the states are getting around the FDA’s limitations on the COVID-19 vaccine and the latest in Trump’s litigious war on the media before closing things out with a fun footnote on the only other time in US history that a US President has sued someone for libel. Independent media matters more than ever now that mainstream media is compromised beyond any ability to report the truth about this administration. Support the show, join t

VR 7 - Part 1 of 2. Vapid Response Wednesday has been blessed with a surplus of truly awful takes in the days following the murder of MAGA luminary Charlie Kirk. After a brief reminder of who this man actually was in his own words, we go on to see who has achieved honors in categories ranging from Worst Obituary to Most Pretentious Response and beyond. (Next up: more of the worst, but also some of the best responses to this moment.) You can also watch this episode on YouTube! “Charlie Kirk: The American Socrates,” Owen Anderson, The Blaze (9/14/25) “Je Suis Charlie Kirk,” The Editors, The Free Press (9/12/25) “Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Should Herald the End of the American Left,” John Daniel Davidson, The Federalist (9/12/25) “He May Have Pulled the Trigger But Charlie Kirk’s Suspected Killer Didn’t ‘Act Alone’,” M.D. Kittle, The Federalist (9/12/25) “We must not posthumously sanitize Charlie Kirk’s hateful life," Erin Reed, The Advocate (9/11/25) “Charlie Kirk’s Legacy Deserves No Mourning,” E

OA1190 - “You have the right to remain silent.” Anyone who grew up on American crime dramas can recite the rest of these famous warnings from memory, but do you know the whole story of Miranda v. Arizona (1966)? In today’s entry in our “Still Good Law” series Matt and Jenessa voluntarily waive their rights, cautiously accept a cigarette and a Styrofoam cup of bad coffee from an alcoholic cop with a dark past, and spill everything they know about the most important criminal case in Supreme Court history. Matt provides the background on Ernesto Miranda’s literal life (and death) of crime and the circumstances of his arrest, interrogation, and appeal to the Warren Court while Jenessa breaks down the science of false confessions and why not just having but knowing our Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights is so important for all of us. Oral arguments and decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Miranda: The Story of America’s Right to Remain Silent, Gary Stuart (2008) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to

OA1189 - The Supreme Court’s next term may not start until October, but their infamous shadow--sorry, “interim”--docket is in rare form as they issue snap decisions on everything from exactly where one 14-year-old boy can pee to just how openly racist ICE gets to be. Matt and Jenessa review which major precedents the conservative majority is ignoring to enable Trump’s worst policies this week before getting on to some Epstein-related legal updates and a radical new development from the Board of Immigration Appeals with massive implications for Trump’s mass deportation plans.  Finally, Matt drops a footnote to address one of our nation’s least pressing legal questions: is it really true that a wedding in Kentucky can be legally officiated by a dead bear once described as “filled to the brim with cocaine”? SCOTUS order in Trump v. Slaughter  (9/8/2025)  SCOTUS order (with Kavanaugh concurrence and Sotomayor dissent) in Noem v. Vasquez-Perdomo (9/8/25) Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 21 I&N 216 (BIA 2025)

Just because everything else is terrible out there right now, we treated ourselves to our second consecutive Law’d Awesome Movie. By popular patron demand: it’s My Cousin Vinny! We had a great time talking about this one. Actual New York Italian-American Jenessa Seymour joins to provide dead-ass balls accurate cultural context for one of the greatest Brooklyn couples ever put to film, and Matt shares his perspective as both an actual practicing courtroom lawyer and a guy who is weirdly obsessed with end credits songs that tell you about the movie you just watched.  Thanks again to patrons for this one! My Cousin Vinny, Dale Launer (1992)(full script)(PDF) “‘What is a Yute?’ An Oral History of ‘My Cousin Vinny,’” Andy Greene, Rolling Stone (3/7/22)

Continuing their "Good Law" series, Matt and Jenessa talk about Baggett v. Bullitt. This case held that "a State cannot require an employee to take an unduly vague oath containing a promise of future conduct at the risk of prosecution for perjury or loss of employment, particularly where the exercise of First Amendment freedoms may thereby be deterred." Jenessa gives a fascinating science breakdown on cognitive dissonance and what the effect of these vague oaths actually is. It's counter-intuitive and very interesting!

For this week’s Rapid Response Friday we take up three major judicial rulings pushing back against executive overreach on three completely different topics: removals under the Alien Enemies Act, the use of the National Guard to conduct domestic law enforcement, and the  imposition of tariffs as an executive action under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Also: it turns out a DC grand jury really can't indict a ham sandwich, and why Brazil is so much better at prosecuting insurrectionists than the US is. Fifth Circuit's decision in W.M.M. et al (9/2/25) Judge Charles Breyer’s decision in Newson v. Trump (9/2/25) Federal Circuit’s decision in V.O.S. Selections v. Trump (8/29/25)

VR6 - For today’s Vapid Response Wednesday, Thomas, Lydia, and Matt review two examples from a newly-popular genre of lazy right wing op-eds: insecure white guys complaining about Supreme Court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. What is with these losers who are so obsessed with trying to prove that one of the most qualified nominees to the high court in our lifetimes isn’t fit for the job? We take dark-money sugar baby Josh Hammer up on the joke to compare his life achievements to someone who began her SCOTUS career with four times as much courtroom experience as John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas, and Amy Coney Barrett combined--before moving on to trying to even understand what Federalist weirdo Shawn Fleetwood thinks he is saying. “Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is an Insult to the Supreme Court,” Josh Hammer, Newsweek (7/1/2025) “KBJ Could Learn a Few Lessons in ‘Professionalism’ From Justice Barrett,” Shawn Fleetwood, The Federalist (8/20/2025) Ketanji Brown Jackson’s career timeline from the S

OA1186 - We continue our series on some of our favorite Warren-era Supreme Court decisions with the one Warren-era decision--and very likely the only Supreme Court decision that is still good law--that most people can name from memory. The desegregation of American schools in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) stands today as one of the greatest moments of  justice in American legal history, but did you know that it was also an equally important moment for social science? Matt tees up the legal and historical context and Dr. Jenessa Seymour, Esq. brings her unique background as both a lawyer and a PhD in neuroscience to provide a singular perspective on the science behind Brown and what it has meant for both law and science in the 71 years since then. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled Legacy (Pivotal Moments in American History), James T. Patterson (2001)