law

OA44: All About Arbitration

In today's episode, we take a look at arbitration, an increasingly popular device being used to take disputes out of the courtroom.  What might arbitration mean for you?  Listen and find out!

We begin, however, with a question from patron Faye Reppas, who asks about HR 2802, the so-called "First Amendment Defense Act."

Next, in our main segment, we take a look at the implications of arbitration -- particularly in the employment context, where your employer may have in...

OA43: Explaining the 9th Circuit's Ruling on Trump's Muslim Ban

In today's episode, we take a look at the ongoing status of Executive Order 13769 (often referred to as the "Muslim Ban").  What exactly did the 9th Circuit decide, and how does it affect the status of efforts to restrict emigration going forward?

We begin, however, with a Breakin' Down the Law segment where we examine the so-called "Johnson Amendment."  What is it?  Would it be a bad thing if the Trump administration repeals it?  Does it really make a difference? &nbs...

TTTBE #10: Early Answer for Patrons

The answer to the question was (B) -- that character evidence may be offered when it is relevant to the material facts of the case.  Since character is at issue in this case, it can be proven by reputation, opinion or past acts evidence as per Rule 405(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Sadly, Thomas got this question incorrect, and is now 6-for-10 (60%).  As with last week, some of our lawyer listeners got this question wrong.

Answer (A) was the most common ...

Bonus Questions 2: Kellyanne Conway Edition

Brought to you by Audible! Go to http://www.audible.com/lawpod for a free 30 day trial!

So Kellyanne Conway recommended we all buy Ivanka Trump's clothing and this has everyone wondering if she has broken the law. Has she? Find out our resident expert's opinion! For our lovely patrons only!!

OA42: Denny Hastert and the Limits of Contract Law

In today's episode, we take a look at the law of contracts, and particularly in the context of the recent lawsuit involving former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert.

We begin, however, with a related question from patron Michael, who asks whether the Scientologists can really enforce that billion-year contract to join to Sea Org.  (This answer will not surprise you.)

That leads into our main segment, where we look at the strange and tragic lawsuit being brought against Hastert by a...

Super Secret Patron Q&A Thread

Okay, patrons, here's the deal:

We're going to have on a tax expert who has reviewed Presidential tax returns and he's going to tell us ALL about what we could learn (and what we can't learn) from Donald Trump's tax returns if they're ever made public -- say, during discovery in the CREW/emoluments clause lawsuit.

Here's where you come in.  This is the thread for topical questions to ask our expert.  So you can ask, "Could we learn X from Donald Trump's tax returns?"

This...

OA41: Betsy DeVos and School Vouchers

In today's episode, we examine one of the favorite policy recommendations of President Trump's Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos:  the school voucher.  What is it?  Is it constitutional?  Listen and find out!

We begin, however, with a Breakin' Down the Law segment where Andrew looks at a popular Twitter account's explanation of the odd fact that Donald Trump filed his re-election papers four years early.  Is there some nefarious purpose to him having done so, or is t...

TTTBE #9: Early Answer for Patrons

The answer to the question was (D) -- that the second cousin became the sole owner of the estate upon the death of the first cousin due to the right of survivorship.  This requires you to know the legal definition of a "joint tenancy," which is really, really tricky.

Sadly, Thomas got this question incorrect, and is now 6-for-9 (66.7%), breaking his five-question winning streak.  Noah didn't post his answer publicly.   Some of our lawyer listeners got this ...

OA40: Who is Neil Gorsuch, and How Scared Should You Be?

In today's episode, we take a look at President Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.  The main segment was recorded before the announcement and reflects our guess (correctly!) that he would be the nominee, so you'll hear some speculative language.

We begin, however, with a question from David Durman who wants to know if a citizen can bring a private civil suit against President Trump while he's in office.  The answer may surprise you!

During our main segment, we al...

Bonus Listener Questions!

We've got a couple awesome bonus questions for patrons only, brought to you by HelloFresh.com ! Make sure to try it and use the promo code "lawpod" and yes, always take cooking advice from our podcast!

Law'd Awful Movies #3: Runaway Jury

For the third installment of Law'd Awful Movies, we've returned to the king of terrible legal movies:  John Grisham.  Some people have tried to tell us that John Grisham has a law degree, or that he's really writing sophisticated multi-level satire about how the layman views the law, or... look, these people have clearly never seen Runaway Jury.

We would be remiss if we didn't mention that Runaway Jury (2003) features an amazing cast:  Grisham fave Gene Hackman...

OA39: Trump's Muslim Ban

Today's episode revisits a question we tackled way back in Episode #16, namely, whether President Trump has the authority to enact his Muslim Ban.

We begin with an examination of the recent CREW lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that President Trump has violated the Emoluments Clause.  Is that lawsuit likely to prevail?  What could it accomplish?  Listen and find out.

In the main segment, we consider not only the recent Trump Executive Order restricting the entry of a...

TTTBE #8: Early Answer for Patrons

The answer to the question was (A); that the landowner had a duty to warn.  Thomas got this correct, and is now 6-for-8 (75%) and on an amazing five-question winning streak.  Noah got this one wrong, and is also 6-for-8, dropping into a tie with Thomas for the lead.

This question was VERY tricky -- although not quite as tricky as next Friday's question.  Negliglence, as we have explained on the show on multiple occasions, requires that one violate a duty to othe...

OA38: FLSA and Exempt Employees, Part 2

Today's episode is part two of our two-part series on pending changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  As we've previously mentioned, in 2016, the Obama Department of Labor promulgated new rules requiring that employees who are "exempt" from the FLSA's overtime requirements must earn at least $47,476 per year.  A district court judge issued an injunction blocking those rules from going into effect; that decision is currently pending on expedited review before the 5t...

OA37: FLSA and Exempt Employees, Part 1

Today's episode is part one of a two-part series on pending changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  As we've previously mentioned, in 2016, the Obama Department of Labor promulgated new rules requiring that employees who are "exempt" from the FLSA's overtime requirements must earn at least $47,476 per year.  A district court judge issued an injunction blocking those rules from going into effect; that decision is currently pending on expedited review before the 5th Circuit Co...

TTTBE #7: Early Answer for Patrons

The answer to the question was (C).  Thomas is now 5-for-7 (71%) and has earned that "Gentleman's C-" on the bar exam.

This question tested Thomas's knowledge of the exceptions to the hearsay rule contained in Rule 801(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence concerning statements made by an opposing party in litigation.  Answer (C) was the best answer here -- because the painter works for the same c...

Patron Bonus!!! Originalism Deep Dive

Because Andrew is such an awesome guy, and so are our wonderful patrons!!

OA36: The Emoluments Clause (w/Seth Barrett Tillman) Part 2

Today's episode is part two of our two-part series on whether the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution applies to incoming President Donald Trump.

We begin, however, with a listener question from Erik Alsman who asks whether the Supreme Court has the power to declare an amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional.  Along the way we'll learn a little bit about the history of judicial review in the United States.

In our main segment, we conclude our interview with Lecturer Se...

OA35: The Emoluments Clause (w/Seth Barrett Tillman) Part 1

Today's episode is part one of a two-part series on whether the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution applies to incoming President Donald Trump.

We begin, however, by addressing another Trump-related question:  Does a recent report claiming that 50+ Trump electors are ineligible provide the relief of preventing Trump from assuming the Presidency?  We delve into the report and answer the question in a way that may surprise you.

Our main interview segment is with Lecturer Seth B...

TTTBE #6: Early Answer for Patrons

The answer to the question was (C).  Thomas is now 4-for-6 (67%) and is on an improbable winning streak.

This question tested whether you knew that a prenuptial agreement must be in writing to be enforceable.  Almost everyone who answered this question online did so correctly, so I guess this qualifies as an "easy" question.  I thought some of you might be distracted by (D), but as it turns out, it's irrelevant whether the husband "promised" to put the pre-nup in writing.  ...

OA34: The "Fallout" Over Copyright

Today's episode is a mini-masterclass on Copyright.  We begin by answering a question from listener Sue Barnum who asks if a simple list can be copyrighted.

After that, we move to the main discussion over the Copyright Act and the "fair use" defense, using as an illustration the recent story where CNN appropriated the graphic from the hit videogame Fallout 4 to illustrate a story about Russian hacking.  Did this violate copyright law?  Or was CNN's activity "fair use" of the gam...

OA33: Interview With The Slants

Today's episode begins with Breakin' Down the Law in which we discuss the recently-enacted "Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act," and whether the Act constitutes a significant legal protection for atheists.

During our main segment, we are excited to have on Simon Tam, founder of the band "The Slants," for an extended interview that follows up on our discussion of Lee v. Tam from Episode 30.  Simon tells us about the history of the band, answers some tough legal...

TTTBE #5: Early Answer for Patrons

The answer to the question was (D).  Thomas is now 3-for-5 (60%) and has never enjoyed this segment more. 

This question tested whether you knew that the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of procedural due process protected you from having the state freeze your wages without the opportunity for notice and a hearing.  The answer is yes, extending back at least as far as Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View, 395 US 337 (1969).  Thomas correctly chose (D), operating on the i...

OA32: Phil Ivey's Gambling Winnings (with guest Chris Kristofco)

Today's episode begins with a question from Adrien Thuren about the minimum wage.  How come restaurants can seemingly pay wait staff less than minimum wage?  And if that's legal, why don't other industries don't start paying their employees less than minimum wage too?  Andrew tells us why or why not.

For our main segment, we bring back guest Chris Kristofco from OA6.  In addition to being an ex-lawyer and current-day blogger about the Green Bay Packers, Chris is also a casi...

OA31: More on the McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Lawsuit

Welcome to the first Opening Arguments of 2017, and the first episode on our new two-episode-per-week schedule.  Just a reminder:  we will be releasing these episodes on Tuesdays and Fridays every week.  More on scheduling below.

Today's episode begins with a far-fetched (but interesting!) hypothetical about what would happen if Donald Trump refused to take the Presidential Oath of Office.  We dig into the Constitution, the 20th A...

TTTBE #4: Early Answer for Patrons

The answer to the question was (B).  Thomas is now 2-for-4 (50%) and is feeling cautiously optimistic about the next question.

This question was asking a basic principle of law:  does the tort of trespass require the plaintiff to prove a specific intent to injure on the part of the defendant or not?  Thomas chose (B), the correct answer, which is that the tort only requires that the plaintiff prove that the defendant did the act that caused the trespass deliberately.

(C) w...

OA30: Little Baby Jesus in a Manger

[podcast src="https://html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/4946189/height/90/width/450/theme/custom/autonext/no/thumbnail/yes/autoplay/no/preload/no/no_addthis/no/direction/forward/render-playlist/no/custom-color/88AA3C/" height="90" width="450"...

TTTBE Question #3: Early Answer for Patrons

The answer to the question was (C).  Thomas is now 1-for-3 (33%) and is nervously wondering whether law school was the right move or not.

Thomas chose (D), which earns him no points for predicting the correct result -- that the appellate court is not likely to reverse the trial court's decision -- because he picked the incorrect reason for doing so.  That answer suggested that the trial court had "absolute discretion" to decide whether an expert is competent, which is simply...

Law'd Awful Movies #2: Miracle on 34th Street! (1947 Version)

We are terrible, horrible people.  We have taken a beloved holiday classic -- in fact, Andrew's sister's favorite holiday movie -- and done awful, terrible things to it.  And most of that isn't about how badly this movie mangles the law.

Make no mistake:  this movie is indeed Law'd Awful.  From the moment where the district attorney rests his case after two questions, to the free-for-all cross-examinations, to the dramatic conclusion we all know and love ...

OA29: Cognitive Dissonance

It's a two-episode week!  In this week's Wednesday episode, we are joined by Tom & Cecil of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast for a discussion about freedom of speech and whether online platforms such as Facebook and Twitter ought to be considered "public spaces."

We begin with some announcements about the schedule, including Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, which will remain a weekly feature once we move to our twice-per...