Opening Arguments

OA1251 - We begin with a rare Friday appearance from OA democracy correspondent Jenessa Seymour, who stops in to provide some unequivocal good news from this week’s elections.  Then: a temperature check on how mad should we be that the Supreme Court has cleared the way for Steve Bannon’s conviction to be reversed, an appropriately respectful review of former Attorney General Pam Bondi’s career, and a footnote involving an extremely litigious German tourist who made the most of his short time in New York City in the most American way possible.
Lawfare’s Contempt Tracker

Brief for the United States in U.S. v. Bannon (filed 2/6/2026)

Amicus brief in U.S. v. Bannon filed by state of Iowa (12/10/2025)

“Trump’s Justice Department Dropped 23,000 Criminal Investigations in Shift to Immigration,” ProPublica (3/31/2026)

Ethics complaint against former AG Pam Bondi filed by a coalition of progressive attorneys (June 5, 2025)

Manz v. Walmart Supercenter, (3rd Cir., 2/27/2026)

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!
To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

VR27 - This week on Vapid Response Wednesday we take a look at the liars, losers, frauds, and suckers angling for a federal bench who have worked up, developed,  and sold the “other side” of the Fourteenth Amendment’s simple guarantee of birthright citizenship, which failed so badly in front of the Supreme Court last week. What kinds of people are out there trying to say that “anyone born or naturalized in the United States” doesn’t mean exactly what it says? We review and discuss how a Fox News talkshow host, a deeply unserious law professor, and the lawyer most responsible for the events of January 6th, 2021 all did their part to radically reshape the US Constitution and who will benefit from it going forward.
Watch this episode on YouTube!
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Library of Congress (1868)

“The Birthright Con,” Jamelle Bouie, The New York Times (April 1, 2026) (recommended reading!)

“If SCOTUS upholds birthright citizenship it will be at its own peril,” Breccan Thies, The Federalist (April 1, 2026)

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

OA1250 - A fall out of bed during a vacation in Delaware turned into a Supreme Court case, decided this term, that could have big implications for states’ rights to limit tort suits… in federal court. Did Delaware take a good-faith precautionary measure to reduce frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits? Or did they put up an unfair barrier to plaintiffs who deserve restitution? Perhaps reasonable people can disagree on that. But in the rare circumstance you manage to bring that state tort case into a federal courtroom, SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that it’s clear Delaware’s rule is a step too far. (They can still do what they want in their own courts, but not here). How far-reaching will the consequences be? Legal reporting seems split!
Come for the (brief, not too gory) medical drama, stay for the review of the Erie Doctrine so you can pass your Federal Civil Procedure class. A nice chill case where the world isn’t burning down and the justices mostly act like normal respectful people.
Berk v. Choy, 607 U.S. ___ (2026)

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)

Rules Enabling Act of 1934: 28 U.S.C. § 2071-2077

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Robert Niles-Weed, A Sleeper Supreme Court Case Opens Door to More Frivolous Suits, Bloomberg Law, Mar. 3, 2026.

Ronald Mann, Justices Reject State Limits on Malpractice Actions for Cases in Federal Court, SCOTUSblog, Jan. 21, 2026.

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

... and they really never should have been laughed in to court in the first place.
OA1249 - Solicitor General D. John Sauer got plenty of laughs when he brought his best April Fool’s Day game to the Supreme Court this week, and we’re here to break down the  single stupidest case the federal government has ever presented. Matt brings the receipts to show just how badly the Trump administration’s arguments against the plain text of the Constitution and the binding precedent of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) went, and why he is willing to bet his house on the fact that even this SCOTUS will have no choice but to find that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” means exactly what it says that it means. 
“Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” The White House (1/20/2026)

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)[PDF]

Brief for the Petitioners in Trump v. Barbara

Brief for Respondents in Trump v. Barbara

Trump v. Barbara Supreme Court oral argument transcript (4/1/2026)

Amicus brief filed by Prof. Evan Bernick & Prof. Jed Shugerman

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

This LAM was so much fun I wanted to make sure everyone could hear it! Well, at least a good chunk of it anyway. If you'd like to hear the rest, head to patreon and hit that $2 level or above!
If you love the 90s, and peak Alec Baldwin, you will love this one. And Thomas did. As usual, Matt read the book. And Lydia can remember people's names. Everyone is bringing their best to this LAM!