Opening Arguments

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, including (among many others):
--Do you really have to prove to the satisfaction of an immigration officer that your marriage includes sex?
--Why might the US government refuse to recognize a prior divorce from your home country? 
--Will federal immigration authorities really recognize a Zoom wedding conducted from completely different continents?
--Can you bring multiple partners if you are coming from a country where polygamy is legal?
“Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (1/20/2025 edition)

“Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity,” Congressional Research Service (5/28/21)

Matter of Peterson, 12 I&N Dec. 663 (BIA 1968)

“Kicking the INA Out of Bed: Abolishing the Consummation Requirement for Proxy Marriages,” 22 Hastings J. Gender & L. 55 (2011)

“Second Wives Club: Mapping the Impact of Polygamy in U.S. Immigration Law,” Claire A. Smearman, Berkeley Journal of Immigration Law (Dec. 2009)

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)

OA1256 - Will there ever be a draft again? Who knows. But if there is, what does one have to do to claim "conscientious objector” status? During the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court grappled with how to apply that explicitly religious statutory exemption to people whose modern beliefs don’t seem to fit the religious mold that Congress defined in the 40s. Jenessa walks us through the court’s mental gymnastics to avoid ever admitting that anyone could be an atheist, and the concurrence that calls it out.
Note: The analysis of the Free Exercise Clause in this episode is specific to the time period of these cases. It got more complicated in the 90s (see sources below).
United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965).

Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970).

Military Selective Service Act 50 U.S.C.App. § 456(j)

Roger M. Sanborn, The Anti-War Movement and the Seeger Decision, 6 Santa Clara Lawyer 230 (1965).

Kali Martin, (October 16, 2020), Alternative Service: Conscientious Objectors and Civilian Public Service in World War II, The National WWII Museum.

Albert Q. Maisel, (May 6, 1946), Bedlam: Most US Mental Hospitals are a Shame and a Disgrace, Life Magazine at 102-118.
Reproduction (without the old-timey ads or graphic photos)

Original LIFE publication (CW: Graphic photos of abuse of patients in mental health hospitals)


Quaker FAQ. Friends United Meeting.

Karlo Broussard, What is a ‘Just War’?, Catholic Answers.

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

1963: Even facially-neutral generally-applicable laws have to pass strict scrutiny if they burden the free exercise of religion
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)


1990: Never mind it’s rational basis
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)


1993: Just kidding it’s strict scrutiny again
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb


1997: Just kidding that only applies to the federal government
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)


2000: Nope it’s strict scrutiny for state and local government again (well… if it relates to land use or prisons)
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc


For a summary: Cassandra M. Vogel, An Unveiling: Exploring the Constitutionality of a Ban on Face Coverings in Public Schools, 78 Brook L. Rev. (2013).

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

OA1255 - Has the Southern Poverty Law Center really just been indicted for helping to provide information to the FBI? Did the Trump administration really just tell a federal judge that building a White House ballroom was a matter of “national security”? Did the 5th Circuit really just require Texas to display the 10 Commandments in every public school classroom? We take on these questions and many more before getting to our footnote: Did a Rolls-Royce hating bear really just commit insurance fraud in California?
Indictment in U.S. v. Southern Poverty Law Center (filed April 21, 2026)

Trump Administration Finally Discloses White House Ballroom Funding Contract in Response to Public Citizen’s FOIA Lawsuit, Public Citizen (April 22, 2026)

“The Reckoning of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center,” Bob Moser, The New Yorker, (March 21, 2019)

Memorandum opinion in National Trust For Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service et al, DC Dist. Ct. (Leon, J., 3/31/26)

Nathan et al v. Alamo Independent School District, No. 25-56095 (5th Cir. April 21, 2026)

“Operation Bear Claw,” California Department of Insurance

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

VR29 - Thomas, Lydia, and Matt go deep on the “Shadow Papers,” the 2016 shadow docket memos recently leaked to The New York Times which reveal the truth about the deliberations preceding the first time of many times to come that the Supreme Court stopped the government from enforcing something before any court had a chance to rule on it. Can anyone still possibly believe that John Roberts is only there to call “balls and strikes” after seeing how enthusiastically he is pitching for the energy lobby in these documents? Why are these glorified work emails so important, and what can we learn about the current state of SCOTUS from them?
Watch the episode on YouTube!
Chief Justice John Roberts’s confirmation hearing (Sep. 12, 2005)

“Read the Supreme Court’s Shadow Papers,” The New York Times (April 18, 2026)

West Virginia v. EPA, 597 US ___ (2022)

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