Opening Arguments Podcast Por Opening Arguments Media LLC arte de portada

Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments

De: Opening Arguments Media LLC
Escúchala gratis

The podcast that breaks down the law about all the stories in the news that you care about. Ciencia Política Política y Gobierno
Episodios
  • Trump's DOJ Lets Ticketmaster off the Hook for No Reason

    Trump's DOJ Lets Ticketmaster off the Hook for No Reason
    Mar 13 2026

    OA1243 - The lawsuit that was supposed to break up Ticketmaster and Live Nation's obvious monopoly over live music throughout the U.S. has just ended in a settlement so surprising that even DOJ's lead counsel didn't know it was happening. Is this deal as bad as it looks? What does it mean for the future of live entertainment, and what will happen if the dozens of states which joined the feds in this case don't sign off on it?

    Also: An insurance company sues ChatGPT for telling someone to fire their lawyer, the first (known) instance of a DOJ lawyer writing a brief with AI, and Kristi Noem's Marvel-ous new job.

    Finally in today's footnote--did thousands of people really just bet on the death of Ayatollah Ali Khameni? We take a closer look at the legal basis for "prediction markets" like Kalshi and Polymarket.

    1. Statement of Objection to Ticketmaster Live Settlement, Matt Cameron (Nov. 30, 2011)(Matt's actual filing into the 2011 Ticketmaster litigation demanding a handle of Jack Daniel's and "a personalized letter drafted and personally signed by Ticketmaster CEO Nathan Hubbard which contains at least two (2) credibly apologetic statements, to be reviewed prior to delivery for quality of spelling, grammar, and penitence by an objective arbiter designated by the Court" for each class member)

    2. Complaint in United States et al. v. Live Nation (2024)

    3. Term Sheet for the Resolution of United States et al. v. Live Nation (2024)

    4. "Trump convenes 'Shield of Americas' summit with 12 Latin American leaders," The Guardian, (3/7/2026)

    5. Show cause order in Fivehouse v. US Department of Defense (2025)

    6. Complaint in Nippon Life Insurance Company of America v. OpenAI Foundation (2026)

    7. Complaint in Risch v. KalshiEX LLC (2026)

    Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
    Más Menos
    58 m
  • Kristi Noem's career has been put out of its misery

    Kristi Noem's career has been put out of its misery
    Mar 11 2026

    VR25 - This episode is dedicated to the memory of Cricket, the 14-month-old wirehaired pointer murdered in cold blood by Kristi Noem on an unknown date in a gravel pit in South Dakota.

    One week after Donald Trump took now-former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's job out to the gravel pit, Thomas, Lydia, and Matt get together for a post-mortem. After a brief amuse douche from Noem's (ahem) closest advisor, Matt plays the one excerpt from her 2024 campaign book "Not Going Back" which should have disqualified her from a Cabinet seat. (No, not that one! But we also revisit that story too and it's so much worse--and involves twice as many animals--than you may remember.) We then review some of the most notable lowlights of Noem's time as DHS Secretary, from completely failing to understand the ancient legal concept which allowed federal judges to release so many of the people she was illegally detaining without bond to her disturbing enthusiasm for calling US citizens concerned about killer ICE agents "domestic terrorists." Also: why exactly did Noem lose her job last week, and where did the $220 million of our money handed over to a shell company run by her former press secretary's husband go?

    Finally, we take a closer look at Trump's choice to replace Noem at DHS: an Oklahoma Senator with two first names and a temper even shorter than his MMA career.

    1. Watch this episode on YouTube!

    2. "NO GOING BACK: The Truth On What's Wrong With Politics and How to Move America Forward," Kristi Noem (2024)

    3. DHS ad filmed at Mount Rushmore featuring Kristi Noem on horseback

    4. "Firm Tied to Kristi Noem Secretly Got Money From $220 Million DHS Ad Contracts," Justin Elliott, Joshua Kaplan and Alex Mierjeski, ProPublica (Nov. 14, 2025)

    5. "Markwayne Mullin is for Trump--and Indian Country," Graham Lee Brewer, High Country News (Dec. 9, 2019)

    6. "ICE Barbie Replacement Mark Mullin Makes a Killing From Trump's Wars," Harry Thompson & Tom Latchem, March 9, 2026

    7. "Mullin' It Over" column archives on Markwayne Mullin's Senate website

    Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
    Más Menos
    1 h y 25 m
  • The Sketchy and Incredibly Recent Origins of the Major Questions Doctrine

    The Sketchy and Incredibly Recent Origins of the Major Questions Doctrine
    Mar 9 2026
    OA1242 - Ever heard of the "major questions doctrine"? Most lawyers sure hadn't until a few years ago. So how did it get that important-sounding name? Where did it come from? What even is it? How can we call something a "doctrine" or a rule if we don't have a clear rule statement to cite to? (Hint: You can't). If you've been feeling like maybe this is all made up and the points don't matter, you can get your vindication here as we trace back the history of this ever-changing heavily-politicized increasingly-disputed amorphous blob. Jenessa read way too many cases and law review articles to tolerate this nonsense today. Timeline, each citing the one below it: 1. "Major questions doctrine" first appearance in any court case: West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. 697 (2022) 2. "Major question doctrine" [not plural] in an EPA statement on deregulations: Repeal of the Clean Power Plan, 84 Fed. Reg. 32520, 32529 (proposed Jul. 8, 2019) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 60). 3. "Major rules doctrine": U.S. Telecom Association v. F.C.C., 855 F.3d 381, 422-423 (D.C. Cir 2017), Kavanaugh dissent. (Note: There are many decisions by this name, including one from the D.C. Circuit in 2016, all of which are more prevalent online. Only this exact citation, minus the "422-23" pincite, will get you to the right case. Unfortunately I cannot find it outside the paywall to provide a link). 4. "Economic and political significance" allegedly the first unnamed use of the concept: F.D.A. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co. 529 U.S. 120 (2000) 5. "Major questions" first appears in any legal scholarship… well those words appear in that order, at least: Stephen Breyer, Judicial Review of Questions of Law and Policy, 38 Admin. L. Rev. 363 (1986). Meanwhile, in another timeline: Cass R. Sunstein, There are two "Major Questions" Doctrines, 73 Admin. L. Rev. 475, (2021). First ever use of "major questions rule/exception" in a positive light in legal scholarship. Would become more mainstream around 2013-2016: Abigail Moncrieff, Reincarnating the "Major Questions" Exception to Chevron Deference as a Doctrine of Non-Interference as a Doctrine of Non-Interference (Or Why Massachusetts v. EPA Got It Wrong), 60 Admin L. Rev. 593 (2008). Moncrieff, above, cites this as the original coining of "major questions", not Breyer's 1986 paper: Cass R. Sunstein, Chevron Step Zero, 92 VA. L. Rev. 187 (2006). Other definitions from legal scholarship: Allison Orr Larsen, Becoming a Doctrine, 76 Fla. L. Rev. 1 (2024). Austin Piatt & Damonta D. Morgan, The Three Major Questions Doctrines, Forward Wis. L. Rev. 19 (2024). Thomas B. Griffith & Haley N. Proctor, Deference, Delegation, and Divination: Justice Breyer and the Future of the Major Questions Doctrine, 132 Yale L.J. F. 693 (2022). Chad Squitieri, Who Determines Majorness?, 44 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 463 (2021). Kevin O. Leske, Major Questions about the "Major Questions" Doctrine, 5 Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law 479 (2016). Jonas J. Monast, Major Questions About the Major Questions Doctrine, 68 Admin. L. Rev. 445 (2016). Other relevant cases: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S --- (2026) Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477 (2023) King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015) Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
    Más Menos
    1 h y 12 m
Todas las estrellas
Más relevante
I ANAL but I’m interested in the deliberations, however I’m lost much of the time.

They do a great job getting across what is happening in court.

Great help in understanding

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.