Opening Arguments

Here's a preview of Law'd Awful Movies!!! If you'd like the full thing, become a $2+ patron at patreon.com/law! LAM 1010 - After taking a break with a couple of things we actually enjoyed (Juror #2 and My Cousin Vinny), Law’d Awful Movies returns to form with the first two episodes of USA’s uniquely terrible adaptation of John Grisham’s classic 1995 legal thriller The Rainmaker. Thomas, Lydia, and Matt review the show’s bizarre and often cowardly divergences from the source material, its AI-level of understanding of how humans operate in the world and talk to one another--and, of course, the many ways that The Rainmaker gets the most basic elements of law (and lawyering) wrong. 

OA1220 - What’s an FBI agent to do when a notorious low life reports a local cop is asking for a bribe? Turn him into a confidential information of course, and see how far you can get that dirty cop to go. A tale of two assholes, steadily making each others’ lives worse and worse, while one is wearing a wire. Now, why does the Supreme Court care about any of this? Half the conviction hinges on whether this cop “exceeded authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and no one can agree what that means… including your cohosts. Hear Thomas try to figure out why Amy Coney Barrett is so obsessed with the definition of the word “so”, and Jenessa… defend Clarence Thomas?! This case is a hot mess, but the good news is everyone sucks here and no one wins. The relevant language: “The Act subjects to criminal liability anyone who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access,” and thereby obtains computer information. 18 U. S. C. §1030(a)(2). It defines the term “exceeds authorized access” to mean “to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter.” §1030(e)(6).” Barrett’s ruling: “In sum, an individual “exceeds authorized access” when he accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of the computer—such as files, folders, or databases—that are off limits to him.” Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021) United States v. Van Buren, 940 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2019) Full text of the CFAA: 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

OA1219 - This year we are celebrating Boxing Day by not doing whatever people are supposed to do on Boxing Day and talking about weed instead. Did Donald Trump really just finish out 2025 by doing something good for US drug policy? We hotbox some Time Machine to revisit Matt’s analysis from last May of Joe “Grandaddy Purple” Biden’s announcement that he was initiating the long process to have the federal government to reclassify OG Kush from its current legal status as Green Crack down to the same category as metabolic steroids. We then return to the present to check in on the weirdly unreported story on how Biden’s efforts went from Blue Dream to Trainwreck in the year after his big announcement before evaluating Trump’s chances of turning cannabis policy Panama Red.  Finally, in a seasonal footnote Matt shares the story of how the city of Boston fired the first shots on the War on Christmas… in 1659. Biden DOJ's analysis of legal questions around plans to redesignate cannabis to Schedule III “Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research,” The White House (12/18/25) “The Penalty For Keeping Christmas,” Archive.org (Boston, 1659)

E18 - Congress required the Department of Justice to release (nearly) everything it had from the investigations into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell by December 19th, so of course they pretended to do that on time on Friday afternoon and then waited until everyone was just about to start heading home for the holidays before actually dumping 30,000 pages of anything resembling actual substance into the record on Tuesday morning. We review and discuss new revelations on how much more time Trump spent on Epstein’s plane than we ever knew, the 30-year-old FBI report that could have changed everything, the astonishing correspondence between the prosecution and the Epstein defense team throughout his 2008 plea negotiations, and so much more. You can also watch this episode on YouTube! The Epstein Files Transparency Act  Epstein Files database (Camaron Stephenson) DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility report on Epstein plea negotiations (NOV. 2020) Maria Farmer's 1996 report to the FBI Opinion and Order from Judge Kenneth Marra in Jane Doe cases summarizing DOJ’s failure to advise Epstein survivors of the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement and plea Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

OA1218 - What happens to your first amendment rights when you work for the government? Do you give it all up when you walk in the door? How do we balance the individual right of the worker to speak, against the government’s need to have a functioning work place? Pickering v Board of Education (1968) sets us up to understand how this all works… and why a teacher criticizing Charlie Kirk on their personal Facebook page probably isn’t a fireable offense. Patrons got exclusive content at the end of this one, only available at patreon.com/law! Can you apply these principles to eight cases that followed Pickering? Quiz yourself alongside Thomas! Pickering v Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) A summary of the history of criminal defamation law, Robinson, E.P. (2024, July 5). Criminal libel. Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University. 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!