Opening Arguments

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!

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!

OA1254 - An underreported on case called Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment could be a much bigger deal than it seems. Record labels say Cox let repeat infringers run wild on its network and a jury hit them with a massive verdict. Cox says it’s not the internet police and shouldn’t be on the hook for what users do. So how far does that responsibility go? When does “you could have stopped this” turn into legal liability? We break down the DMCA’s “repeat infringer” rules and why this case isn’t just about piracy. The real question is whether companies can be forced to cut people off or redesign their services to prevent misuse and where that logic stops. If failing to stop wrongdoing makes you liable here, what does that mean for platforms, payment processors, or even industries like gun sales where the argument is also “you should have done more”? Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

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!

VR28 - On this week’s Vapid Response, we survey the fallout from California Congressman Eric Swalwell’s recent exposure as a longtime sexual predator and ensuing swift exit from both the California governor’s race and Congress itself. What does Swalwell’s fall say about how our country’s two political parties handle these kinds of allegations in 2026--and can we once again count on The Federalist to deliver the stupidest possible take on the situation? We then briefly revisit the single worst take on the allegations raised against Brett Kavanaugh during his 2018 confirmation process before paying tribute to the women who organized to bring Swalwell’s many abuses of his power and privilege to light.

OA1252 - Just one month ago, nine people were convicted in a Texas federal court for their participation in a protest outside the Prairieland ICE facility in a first-ever prosecution in which the Department of Justice claimed that support for so-called “Antifa” constituted “material support for terrorism.” What can we learn from the plight of the Prairieland defendants about how the Trump administration is punishing dissent, and where do things go from here? We are joined by Ron, a community member who attended the trial, and Prairieland defense attorney Xavier de Janon of the People’s Law Collective and National Lawyers Guild for their unique perspectives on this important case.  “Support the Prairieland Defendants” (DFW Support Committee website) Superseding indictment with material support for terrorism charges (filed 12/10/2025) ‘“Exclusive: FBI Files Counter Government’s Argument in Texas “Antifa” Trial,” Adam Federman, In These Times (3/26/2026) “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence (NPSM-7)”, The White House, September 25, 2025 Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!