Opening Arguments

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 dedicated core of lefty capital-P Progressive devotees of Woodrow Wilson he is telling them to fear? Also, perhaps less importantly--where, exactly, is “Skanksville”?
“Remarks on the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence,” Clarence Thomas (full text of address given April 20, 2026)(full video here)

The Enigma of Clarence Thomas, Corey Robin (2019)

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 social media platforms have knowingly baked into the design of their platforms begin? Is “social media addiction” a demonstrable mental health issue or just a way to pathologize a bad habit? And could these well-meaning suits pose any threats to our privacy and civil liberties in the name of protecting children? We take on these and many more of the questions raised by some of the most fascinating and controversial civil litigation of the 21st century so far.
Attorney Matthew Bergman’s bio from Lewis & Clark Law’s website

Social Media Victims Law Center website

Addiction By Design, Natasha Dow Shull, Princeton University Press (2014)

Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., 995 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2021)

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!