Opening Arguments

Hoo boy what a bizarre experience! Listen as Matt tries to convince us a really bad movie is good just because it deals with immigration law!   If you'd like to hear the rest, go to Patreon.com/law and pledge at $2+!

OA1269 - It’s official: Donald Trump has nominated Acting Attorney General “Two Taint” Todd Blanche to run the Department of Justice for real. We review Blanche’s three-year career as Trump’s personal defense attorney before considering the questions the Senate Judiciary Committee should be asking to determine just who Blanche has been really working for in his time at DOJ so far. Then: the U.S. is hosting the world’s biggest international sports event at a time when our immigration system has never been less hospitable, and even before the first World Cup kickoff Trump’s CBP has been giving red cards to players, coaches, support staff, and fans who had  already been cleared by the refs at U.S. consulates abroad. Matt explains the immigration law logistics of international tournaments, and how this administration’s harsh immigration policies are actively working against the system’s efforts to make things easier for World Cup visitors. Finally, in this week’s listener-requested footnote: why an outdoor sports

OA1268 - Patents, trademarks, and copyrights, ach mein! How did the Fender Stratocaster, a guitar that has been in continuous manufacture since 1954, Suddenly become the subject of an intellectual property dispute? Well, maybe this didn’t exactly come from Out of the Woods. Fender has had 5 utility patents, 1 design patent, and 3 trademarks relevant to the Stratocaster Through the Years. But the one thing that’s been Slipping Through Their Fingers all this time was protection for that iconic (or is it?) body shape. After their design patent expired, their trademark application was Denied, and US copyright was definitionally Forbidden, anyone could see that Nothing Really Matters to the US Patent and Trademark Office, and Fender was left Walking in the Snow. Very similar (some might say identical) body shapes entered the market. It’s Late, but perhaps not too late. Fender sailed the Seven Seas to another country with different copyright laws. But with only a German court order in hand, will Fender be able to m

OA1267 - Is Trump’s 1.8 billion dollar “anti-weaponization” fund really done, or is there something else going on here? Also can a few dozen federal judges really reopen any given civil suit with one magic filing? We take a closer look before going behind the recent commutation of former Mesa County (CO) elections clerk Tina Peters’ sentence by Colorado governor Jared Polis to the actual legal basis behind her successful appeal of her sentence to the Colorado Appeals Court. Finally in today’s footnote: an NPR host’s lawsuit claiming that Google stole his voice.  People v. Peters, Colorado Appeals Court #2026COA24 (4/2/2026) “MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR AS AMICI CURIAE BY THIRTY-FIVE FORMER FEDERAL JUDGES,” Trump v. IRS, filed 5/27/2026  Initial complaint in Green v Google et al (filed 1/23/2026) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

VR34 - This week in Vapid Response: Vanilla Ice provides the platonic ideal of an amuse douche before we order up an excerpt of the worshipful new Alito biography by the editor-in-chief of The Federalist. We then take a closer look at MAGA’s desperate attacks on Trump accuser E. Jean Carroll as expressed in a recent piece in the Examiner. OA Book Club is coming for all patrons! Sign up now for ad-free listening at patreon.com/law, and start reading our first selection ahead of our first live Zoom meetup later this month. “Alito Is The Most 'Courageous' Justice You've Never Read About,” Mollie Hemingway, The Federalist (April 21, 2026) Carroll couldn't remember the year. But she remembered to lie,” Joe Concha, The Examiner (May 30, 2026) Watch us on YouTube! Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

OA1266 - Can wearing a corset be considered a “public” use of the product? What makes someone (or some thing) an inventor? What is it exactly that makes the Super Soaker so rad? Get the answers to these questions and more from… patent law? Jenessa walks us through some of her favorite wacky cases (that also teach us core patent law concepts). Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333 (1881) Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (2022) Larami Corp. v. Amron, 27 U.S.P.Q.2d 1280 (E.D. Pa. 1993) Larami Corp. v. Amron, 91 F.3d 166 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

OA1265 - THIS IS SUCH A GOOD NEWS SHOW. Seriously. It was so good that Matt invented a new form of entertainment that you need to hear about. We've got Markwayne saying possibly THE dumbest thing a cabinet member has ever said. We've got a judge absolutely schooling Trump's corrupt DOJ and dismissing the bogus Kilmar Abrego Garcia indictment, AND we've got some interesting emolument talk. Can Florida just give Trump land?

VR33 - Did Trump’s DHS really just “end greencards” for people living in the US? Is everyone here on a visa going to have to return to their home countries--potentially with legal bars to returning of ten years or more--to process their cases? Who is the USCIS policy memo on “adjustment of status” to permanent residency which has caused massive amounts of fear and uncertainty in immigrant communities around the country this past weekend actually targeting, and who might still be able to get through? As always, the answers to these questions are much more nuanced than a 30-second viral video could ever convey and there is real reason to hope beyond the headlines.  Matt has written some of the most thorough analysis yet published since the memo’s release and he is here to tell us that it is many ways both much better and in others much worse than reported. We take a closer look at what the media coverage of this story has gotten wrong (and what it has missed) while going deep on the alleged legal justifications

OA1264 - Sherise Doyley was in the early stages of labor, in a hospital bed, preparing to deliver her baby, when nurses wheeled in a computer. On the screen was a judge, notifying her of an emergency order by the State of Florida to attempt to force her to undergo a C-section, instead of first attempting vaginal delivery. For 3 hours she advocated for herself, without an attorney, barely covered in a hospital gown. How was any of this legal? What is happening? Jenessa breaks down the history of our rights to make our own medical decisions and how that is legally modified in pregnancy, Lydia shares her own birth experience and how these situations could be handled with actual compassion, and Thomas holds very still in hopes our eyes are based on movement (just kidding, Thomas is very supportive and also outraged). Come rage against the machine with us and hopefully breathe life into a revived pro-choice movement, before it’s too late. Amy Yurkanin (Mar. 14, 2026), They Didn’t Want to Have C-Sections. A Judge

OA1263 - Two of the most egregiously impeachable things ever to happen in the United States have just occurred on the same day this week:  The so-called “settlement” between Donald Trump and his own IRS which guarantees his immunity from consequences for any financial  a slush fund for his friends and family and  A Texas federal judge forcing a Rhode Island hospital to turn over records for trans kids while also attempting to specifically limit where this order can be challenged--and making absurd threats to anyone who even thinks about talking about challenging it We take a closer look at the alleged legal basis for both actions and how the Trump “settlement” compares to the previous record-holder for Presidential financial corruption set 123 years ago before getting on to much better news in today’s footnote: an underdog Boston lawyer who has taken to the mic to call out some much bigger law dogs. “Settlement” Agreement, President Donald Trump et al. v. Internal Revenue Service et al. (5/18/2026)

VR32 - As the economic effects of Trump’s war of choice in the Middle East begin to hit home, his party is playing the one card it has going into the midterms: the promise of fully restoring open white supremacy to the US immigration system. We begin with a sampler platter of amuse douche from a recent episode of Tim Pool’s podcast–mercifully free of Tim Pool–to get a sense of how the MAGA right is talking about immigration reform these days. Matt then gives a brief history lesson about the openly racist origins of the Immigration Act of 1924 and the Cold War origins of the 1965 Hart-Celler bill which Republicans are now trying to repeal before we dive into the main course: a recent piece in The Federalist written in support of Rep. Andy Ogle’s Assimilation Act. Why do these people hate families so much? Can Congress really end birthright citizenship? And can you really build an entire thinkpiece entirely out of red flags? Join us this week on Vapid Response Wednesday to find out. The National Visa Bulletin

  OA1262 - How are a car accident in California, a tax fraud case in Nevada, and two bus accidents in New York and Pennsylvania all connected to the Dobbs abortion case? Find out on this week’s accidental too-deep dive into state sovereignty. Jenessa read a bunch of extra cases just to be thorough, and accidentally uncovered Kavanaugh planting the seeds that would grow into the “egregiously wrong” “rule” for ignoring stare decisis. But also mostly we’ll talk about the weird world of state sovereignty, Clarence Thomas being obnoxious and ahistorical while accusing everyone else of being ahistorical, and Sotomayor getting some peace for a change to write a pleasant little 9-0 decision about some non-partisan procedural legal nerdery that benefits injured plaintiffs. Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979) Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 587 U.S. 230 (2019) Listen to oral arguments on Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1299; Timestamp for Kavanaugh dropping the “egregiously wrong” bomb: 50:47

OA1261 - Today on Rapid Response Friday: a new fight for reproductive rights reaches SCOTUS, (some) justice on ICE, and two very different kinds of dicks get their day in court. (N.B.: Shortly after this recording, the Supreme Court entered a full stay in the mifepristone case pending disposition of a certiorari petition 7-2 (Thomas & Alito dissenting).) Louisiana v. FDA et al, filed Oct 6, 2025 SCOTUS stay order in Danco Laboratories v. Louisiana et al(5/14/26) Full bodycam footage of the arrest of Jeana Renea Gamble, Fox10 (11/21/2025) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

VR31 - Is Justice Clarence Thomas the single most interesting person in American public life right now? Matt is here to argue that case upon the dismal milestone of Thomas officially becoming the second longest-serving justice in US Supreme Court history.  After a brief homage to Anita Hill’s tenacity at Thomas’s 1991 Senate confirmation hearing, we try to better understand the mind of this unusual man who has done uniquely massive amounts of damage to our legal system and our rights through a review of a speech he recently delivered at the University of Texas at Austin’s Civitas Institute. Why did a former supporter of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers get fully behind the Reagan agenda, and why does he now believe that there is nothing wrong with Black Americans that harsher policing, the end of affirmative action, and lowering taxes on billionaires can’t fix? Does he know that the intended audience of libertarian conservative Black nationalists he is trying to speak to is approximately the same size as the

OA1260 - The Supreme Court lectures us on the right way to combat racism, which is to close our eyes and pretend it’s not happening. In Louisiana v. Callais… the court guts the Voting Rights Act, weaponizes the 14th Amendment against prevention of racial discrimination in the name of preventing racial discrimination, and opens the door to banning basically all government or government-sponsored practices designed to combat racism. Or national origin discrimination. And probably gender discrimination. However bad you’ve heard this is, it’s worse. Listen to Jenessa and Thomas slowly lose their minds as they game out the myriad implications of this nonsense. Previous episode on this topic: 1199 “They’re Going to End the Voting Rights Act. But at Least We Got to Hear KBJ Murder a Guy in Court” If Matt has a footnote fetish(tm), I guess Jenessa has a shownote fetish because she has so many that I need to put it in a google doc.

OA1259 - This week in Rapid Response Friday: who is the government protecting but not binding these days--and who are they binding but not protecting? We consider DOJ’s newest low in the absurd indictment of former FBI director James Comey for two counts of aggravated beach photography before moving on to a roundup of the federal government’s latest openly corrupt settlements with MAGA friends and supporters. Finally in today’s footnote: are Massachusetts police okay?  Indictment in U.S. v. James Brian Comey, Jr.(4/26/26) Docket in Flynn v. U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin’s letter to Acting AG Todd Blanche re: Flynn settlement (4/6/26) Complaint in Ashli Babbit wrongful death suit (filed 1/5/2024) Complaint in Sullivan v. U.S. (J6 suit) Complaint in Trump v. IRS Disciplinary summary from Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (“POST”) Commission Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Hey folks! Instead of VR this week we're putting out an episode-length preview of the latest Law'd Awful Movies! It's the TV show Bull. It sucks. And it's supposed to be about Dr. Phil? This thing is weird.

OA1258 - The Social Media Victims Law Center just made history in a Los Angeles courtroom by holding Meta and Google accountable for mental health harms which they successfully argued to a jury knowingly caused harm to children. In a novel legal theory, these plaintiffs argued that they were harmed not through a lack of content moderation or other editorial choices which might otherwise be protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, but by the fundamental design of platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Youtube. SMVLC founder Matthew Bergman joins to share how his decades of litigating on behalf of people harmed by asbestos brought him to this groundbreaking lawsuit and what it might mean for the thousands of other actions the SMVLC has brought around the US, as well as the upcoming claims which will be litigated by state AGs later this year. Where do the immunities guaranteed by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act end and the harmful and potentially addicting features which

In this very special episode, Thomas and Lydia Smith celebrate their 11th wedding anniversary in the most normal and romantic way possible: subjecting themselves to an extended interrogation about their marriage by a federal agent. After setting the scene in a (very slightly) parallel universe in which Thomas was born in Canada and committed a series of Nickelback-related misdemeanors before overstaying his student visa, Matt draws from his twenty years of experience in sitting through hundreds of immigration interviews to play out an unscripted simulation of what his clients and their U.S. citizen spouses go through when they are applying for residency through marriage. We then reconvene to review how the Smiths did, and Matt takes us through some of the legal issues raised in this interview as well as some of the more interesting aspects of the residency process generally.  Finally, we discuss some of the weirder aspects of the law surrounding immigration through marriage beyond the facts of this interview,

The United States Department of Justice  has reached a humiliating but undeniably hilarious new low in its defense of Donald Trump's illegal efforts to create a massive new building on the White House grounds without approval from his Congressional landlords.. Are the president's balls really a matter of national security? Did three of the most important people in DOJ really just put their names on a filing which reads more like a Trutth Social post than a serious motion in a serious case? We waltz in for a closer look. Judge Leon’s order staying ballroom construction (3/31/2026) Defendant’s Rule 62.1 Motion For An Indicative Ruling Staying the Court’s Injunction (4/27/2026)