Opening Arguments

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.

A deep dive into Ian Maxwell’s public defenses of his sister and the odd, recurring themes in his writing. They play and react to his TV clips and Spectator pieces. The hosts mock his focus on timelines, conspiracies, and a bizarre obsession with people named Todd. The episode contrasts media outrage claims with the documented court record.

Shaina Aber, founder and executive director of a national nonprofit coordinating legal services for immigrants. She talks about building a large legal network, rapid response alliances for mass enforcement, court observation programs to preserve public access, trauma-informed practice for practitioners, and practical hubs of tools and templates for lawyers.

OA1239 - Did the Supreme Court just hand Donald Trump the biggest L in US presidential history? We go beyond the headlines to break down the first decision on the merits of any of the second Trump term’s policies. What is the deal with the “major questions doctrine” and why can’t the conservative justices agree about what it is and how to use it? Why did Neil Gorsuch choose this case to drop a lengthy diss track with bars about every one of his colleagues? And is there anything Clarence Thomas wouldn’t let a Republican president do? We then review a lesser-noticed SCOTUS decision from this week on whether you can sue USPS for intentionally stealing your mail for openly racist reasons (the answer may surprise you!).  Finally, in today’s footnote: Thomas Takes the ICE Exam! Learning Resources, Inc. et al. v. Trump (2/20/2026) United States Postal Service v. Konan  (2/24/2026) “The Postmaster,” William Shawn, The New Yorker (11/14/1970)(letter addressed to William Faulkner from Post Office Inspector Mark Webster) Memorandum Summary of Documents Newly Received from DHS Whistleblowers, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (2/23/2026)(with leaked ICE training documents attached) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Janessa Seymour, legal analyst who breaks down landmark disability law, gives a concise legal tour. She explains Olmstead v. L.C., the ADA's role, and how unnecessary institutionalization came to be seen as discriminatory. Short takes cover statutory interpretation, fractured Supreme Court opinions, and lasting effects on community-based services.

A wild roundup of DOJ missteps, from controversial indictments tied to a Minnesota church protest to litigation over grand jury access. They unpack the FACE Act’s force requirement and why video evidence may not meet felony standards. Immigration court wins and ICE blunders get close scrutiny. Finally, a bizarre privacy lawsuit asks whether intimate disclosures can be monetized.

A clip-driven dive into troubling reactions from men tied to Jeffrey Epstein. Short reads and audio highlight a prominent lawyer defending low age-of-consent laws and other academics offering excuses. Linguistic strategies used in Epstein's defense and institutional responses get called out. The conversation tracks patterns that normalized predatory behavior.

OA1236 - Elections grab bag! Election news has been accumulating, so Jenessa helps us get caught up on what’s going on. Who’s winning elections? What’s going on with redistricting? Heard something confusing about the mail? Trump back on his bullshit again? Good news, mixed news, debunking alleged bad news, bad news with plans for how to turn things around; we’ve got it all. Updates since we recorded: The SAVE America Act passed the House. Also the affidavit for the warrant in Georgia was unsealed. We’ll talk about it soon, but the short version is these people really still believe in election conspiracy theories. It’s gross. We’ll survive. John Hanna & Julie Carr Smyth (Feb. 1, 2026). Texas stunner: Democrat Taylor Rehmet flips Republican state Senate district Trump won by 17 points, Associated Press. Amy Howe (Feb. 4, 2026). Supreme Court allows California to use congressional map benefitting Democrats, SCOTUSBlog. Tangipa v. Newsom (docket and SCOTUSBlog coverage), SCOTUSBlog. Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens (docket and SCOTUSBlog coverage), SCOTUSBlog. H.R.7296 - SAVE America Act, Congress.gov. H.R.7300 - Make Elections Great Again Act. Congress.gov. Domestic Mail Manual 608.11 Domestic Mail Manual amendment explanation (Nov. 24, 2025). Postmarks and Postal Possession, Federal Register. 39 CFR Part 111 Dan Mooney, What Is RTO? Why Do We Have It?, National Association of Postal Supervisors (Aug. 19, 2025)  Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO) initiative. (Feb. 2, 2025). Service Standards for Market-Dominant Mail Products, Federal Register. 39 CFR Part 121 Track Your Ballot or Ballot Application, Vote.org. 2 U.S.C. § 7 - Time of election (Dec. 24, 2025). Table 11: Receipt and Postmark Deadlines for Absentee/Mail Ballots, National Conference of State Legislatures. Evan Lee (Jan. 15, 2026) Court holds that all candidates can challenge rules governing vote counting in elections, SCOTUSBlog. Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 607 U.S. __ (2026). Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections (docket and SCOTUSBlog coverage), SCOTUSBlog. Amy Howe (Nov. 10, 2025). Justices agree to decide major election law case, SCOTUSBlog. Watson v. Republican National Committee (Election Law) (docket and SCOTUSBlog coverage), SCOTUSBlog. Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!