Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments Media LLC

Opening Arguments is a law show that helps you make sense of the news! Comedian Thomas Smith brings on legal analysts to help you understand not only current events, but also deeper legal concepts and areas! The typical schedule will be M-W-F with Monday being a deep-dive, Wednesday being Thomas Takes the Bar Exam and patron shoutouts, and Friday being a rapid response to legal issues in the news!

  1. 1天前

    Thomas and Lydia Take the Marriage Exam

    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)

    1 小时 23 分钟
  2. 5天前

    When You Oppose War, But Not Religiously

    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!

    1 小时 7 分钟
  3. 4月17日

    Trump Puts the “Pervert” in Perversion of Justice

    OA1253 - It’s spring cleaning time in this week’s news, in which we answer patron questions on everything from DOJ lying to a federal judge about ICE’s policy on arresting immigrants in courthouses to DOJ lying about violating court orders. Also: the Trump administration’s unbelievable gift to some of the worst of the worst J6rs, the D.C. Circuit’s inexplicable termination of Judge Boasberg’s contempt proceedings against the administration for violating his orders, and a major ruling in one of the most important deportation cases in US history. We chase these shots of 200-proof reality out with a chaser: Did the 5th Circuit really just legalize bathtub gin?  Find out in today’s boozy footnote! “DOJ admits ICE courthouse arrests relied on erroneous information,”  Sergio Martinez-Beltran (NPR, 3/26/2026) Email in which ICE revised its policy to exclude arrests at immigration court, filed March 24, 2026 in the Southern District of New York Appeals court again blocks Boasberg contempt probe into Alien Enemies Act deportations (Politico, 4/14/2026) On Petition for Writ of Mandamus, In Re: Trump et al, D.C. Cir (April 14, 2026) Unopposed Motion to Vacate Convictions and To Remand For Dismissal With Prejudice filed April 14, 2026  Order in National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service, et al. filed April 11, 2026 in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Fifth Circuit Strikes Down Federal Law Banning Home Alcohol Distilleries (Reason, 4/11/2026) Decision in McNutt et al. v. United State Department of Justice, Alcohol and Tobacco Trade and Tax Bureau filed April 11, 2026 in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

    48 分钟
4.3
共 5 分
3,563 个评分

关于

Opening Arguments is a law show that helps you make sense of the news! Comedian Thomas Smith brings on legal analysts to help you understand not only current events, but also deeper legal concepts and areas! The typical schedule will be M-W-F with Monday being a deep-dive, Wednesday being Thomas Takes the Bar Exam and patron shoutouts, and Friday being a rapid response to legal issues in the news!

你可能还喜欢