Opening Arguments

A recent jury finding that social platforms can be treated as defective products sparks a legal deep dive into addictive design, algorithms, and autoplay. The show contrasts product-liability theories with Section 230 defenses and explores fraud and youth-targeting claims. It also examines ICE’s airport deployments, 287(g) reimbursements that deputize local cops, and a judge’s exhaustive review of a romantasy plagiarism dispute.

The hosts read and roast two of Pete Hegseth's books, highlighting xenophobic and crusade-themed rhetoric. They trace links between his tattoos, symbolism, and white supremacist imagery. The conversation pivots to hawkish media narratives and past foreign policy failures. Tension builds around calls for unchecked violence and Christian framing of geopolitics.

OA1246 - Part 1: “The AI was nicer about it” and other reasons I ignored my lawyer: the Subnautica 2 story ChatGPT cannot warp space-time to make you un-sign that contract. Unfortunately for video game publisher “Krafton”, the world’s-best-cheerleader will instead gently tell you that your intention to break an air-tight contract without illegally breaching it will be difficult, and then give you a plan to try anyway. Team of lawyers screaming “please god stop” be damned. The plan worked great, right up until it hit a judge. Developer “Unknown Worlds”, creator of the hit game “Subnautica” just won a substantial victory for breach of contract against Krafton, securing the reinstatement of their own CEO, and probably a massive bonus in the process. In part 1, Jenessa walks us through the story of how Unknown Worlds was formed, why they sold to Krafton, the terms of the contract, how the relationship went south, and why “Subnautica 2” got delayed. Tune in to part 2 to hear how the lawsuit was decided. Fortis v Krafton, C.A. No. 2025-0805-LWW (Del. Ch. 2026). Fortis Advisors Weisdorfer, E. (2024). Transformative play: The legalities of modding in the video game industry. Cybaris, 16, 79-115. Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!  

OA1245 - Federal prosecutors have just secured the first convictions in US history in which the Department of Justice has brought charges relating to associations with “Antifa,” an organization which demonstrably does not exist. We take a closer look at the plight of the eight defendants convicted on charges relating to a noise protest outside of an ICE detention center in Prarieland, Texas to break down the unusual legal basis for this case, understand how protesters were cast as terrorists, and what this all means for the future of American dissent. Then in better news, we take a closer look at the recent bar complaint against one of Trump’s favorite lawyers (and our favorite MAGA characters) and AG Pam Bondi’s efforts to claim that the feds can hold up similar investigations brought by state regulators. Matt explains why this proposed rule is not only obviously illegal but doomed to fail before providing some news you can use in today’s footnote: the official OA guide on how to get away with a $100 million jewelry heist. Superseding Indictment #1 in United States v. Arnold (2025) Jury verdict in in United States v. Arnold (2025) “Meet the Defendants,” DFW Defense Committee website “Specification of Charges in the matter of Edward R. Martin Jr.” District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility (3/6/2026) “Review of State Bar Complaints and Allegations Against Department of Justice Attorneys,” Federal Register (3/5/2026) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!  

Hey folks, no video this week so instead I wanted to give you another episode of our new trial over on Gavel Gavel, US v. Dunn! This is episode 2 (we have released 4 on the Gavel Gavel feed, check it out!) Matt takes us through the pretrial motions. It's an interesting episode even as a standalone law breakdown, so check it out!

OA1244 - More election news updates. What the heck happened in Dallas? How is hunting for fraud in Georgia still a thing? Why is the DOJ trying to get non-public voter data from the states? There’s smoke. There’s fire. But it might not be coming from the places everyone is looking. Jenessa helps us focus our concerns in the right direction, and maybe calms our nerves just a bit. Georgia court documents Affidavit: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.355087/gov.uscourts.gand.355087.22.2_3.pdf Search warrant: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.355087/gov.uscourts.gand.355087.1.5_1.pdf Order to unseal documents: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.355087/gov.uscourts.gand.355087.9.0.pdf Cline, S., Swenson, A., & Riccardi, N. (Mar. 3, 2026). Change in primary voting rules leads to confusion in 2 Texas counties as voters are turned away. ABC 13. Democracy Docket (Mar. 3, 2026). Texas Dallas County polling hours extension request. Rose, S. (Feb. 3, 2026). Thousands of ballots seized in GA. Here’s how it will affect voter info, how you can protect yours. Ledger-Enquirer. Fowler. S. (Feb. 11, 2026). The FBI seizure of Georgia 2020 election ballots relies on debunked claims. NPR. Duster, C. (Oct. 5, 2024). Can someone find out who you voted for? No. Here is what you should know. NPR. Sherman, A. (Feb. 1, 2022). A claim about serial numbers on ballots is misguided. Politifact. Dawsey, J., Volz, D., & Gurman, S. (Jan. 29, 2026). Spy chief Tulsi Gabbard is hunting for 2020 election fraud. Wall Street Journal. Kaplan. A. (Jan. 16, 2026). LindellTV host Emerald Robinson claims Patrick Byrne “got called in to the white house”. Media Matters for America. Clark. D.B. (Feb. 9, 2026). The conservative researcher being linked to the FBI’s seizure of election records in Georgia. ProPublica. ACLU New Jersey (Mar. 4, 2026). Civil rights groups, New Jersey voters file motion to protect voters’ privacy. Biryukov, N. (Feb. 27, 2026). Trump administration sues New Jersey for voters’ private information. New Jersey Monitor. Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!  

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. 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) Complaint in United States et al. v. Live Nation (2024) Term Sheet for the Resolution of United States et al. v. Live Nation (2024) “Trump convenes ‘Shield of Americas’ summit with 12 Latin American leaders,”  The Guardian, (3/7/2026) Show cause order in Fivehouse v. US Department of Defense (2025) Complaint in Nippon Life Insurance Company of America v. OpenAI Foundation (2026) Complaint in Risch v. KalshiEX LLC (2026) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

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.  Watch this episode on YouTube! “NO GOING BACK: The Truth On What’s Wrong With Politics and How to Move America Forward,” Kristi Noem (2024) DHS ad filmed at Mount Rushmore featuring Kristi Noem on horseback “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) “Markwayne Mullin is for Trump--and Indian Country,” Graham Lee Brewer, High Country News (Dec. 9, 2019) “ICE Barbie Replacement Mark Mullin Makes a Killing From Trump’s Wars,” Harry Thompson & Tom Latchem, March 9, 2026 “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!

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!

Matt Cameron, an immigration attorney and legal analyst, breaks down complex Supreme Court arguments. He walks through why recent U.S. strikes may violate war powers and how AUMFs shaped presidential action. Then he analyzes the challenge to the federal gun statute tied to Hunter Biden’s conviction and why justices worried about marijuana and vagueness.