Could Tylenol Sue Trump and RFK Jr. for Libel?
Opening Arguments
OA1193 - Could Tylenol sue RFK Jr. for libel? Does the pressure the FCC put on Disney/ABC to fire Jimmy Kimmel constitute a First Amendment violation? Is the Trump administration really going to charge rural hospitals $100,000 for the privilege of being able to hire foreign doctors? In today’s Rapid Response Friday we answer all of these recent patron questions and more, and Jenessa shares a personal footnote about her decision to voluntarily take the most specialized bar exam in the US legal system. gainst FCC chairman Brendan Carr , (Presidential Proclamation dated 9/20/2025) ...
info_outline
HBO released a new Adnan Syed doc episode and it is shockingly dishonest
Opening Arguments
We watched the newly-released final episode of HBO’s The Case Against Adnan Syed, and we have questions. Are the producers really trying to pin the murder of Hae Min Lee on a Black man with obvious mental health issues who was already cleared as a suspect--and did they really need to show the world a fully-nude photo of him to make that case? What is the story that they are trying to tell here, and just how far off is it from the truth? From the libelously deceptive cold open to the slyly deceptive summary of Syed’s post-Serial legal proceedings and beyond, Matt brings his...
info_outline
KATZ RULES EVERYTHING AROUND ME
Opening Arguments
OA1192 - This week in Still Good Law: Katz v. U.S., the 1967 Warren Court case which on its face decided that the Fourth Amendment may apply to a public phone booth. But that’s hardly all: the federal prosecution of nationally-famous bookie Charles Katz also completely changed the entire framework for how U.S. courts understand and interpret the law of searches and seizures and completely upended the concept of Fourth Amendment privacy as it had been understood up until that time. Matt provides the background on Katz and how this case made it to the Supreme Court, Jenessa considers the...
info_outline
The Kirkstag Fire
Opening Arguments
OA1191 - In today’s Rapid Response Friday, we examine some of the legal questions raised as the Trump administration throws as much political capital as possible behind the recent assassination of Turning Point USA leader Charlie Kirk and their implications for the future of the First Amendment rights they claim to revere Kirk for championing. Is there any legal basis for Trump to designate a “domestic terrorist group,” let alone one that even his FBI has previously admitted doesn’t exist? Matt looks back to the first Trump term to try to understand what is coming. We then examine how...
info_outline
Charlie Kirk sucked and we won't be pretending otherwise
Opening Arguments
VR 7 - Part 1 of 2. Vapid Response Wednesday has been blessed with a surplus of truly awful takes in the days following the murder of MAGA luminary Charlie Kirk. After a brief reminder of who this man actually was in his own words, we go on to see who has achieved honors in categories ranging from Worst Obituary to Most Pretentious Response and beyond. (Next up: more of the worst, but also some of the best responses to this moment.) You can also watch this episode on ! Part 2 is available exclusively on and ! Owen Anderson, The Blaze (9/14/25) The Editors, The Free Press (9/12/25) ...
info_outline
Miranda v. Arizona, and the Fascinating Science of False Confessions
Opening Arguments
OA1190 - “You have the right to remain silent.” Anyone who grew up on American crime dramas can recite the rest of these famous warnings from memory, but do you know the whole story of Miranda v. Arizona (1966)? In today’s entry in our “Still Good Law” series Matt and Jenessa voluntarily waive their rights, cautiously accept a cigarette and a Styrofoam cup of bad coffee from an alcoholic cop with a dark past, and spill everything they know about the most important criminal case in Supreme Court history. Matt provides the background on Ernesto Miranda’s literal life (and death) of...
info_outline
It’s Still the Shadow Docket, Despite Kavanaugh’s Pathetic Rebrand Attempt
Opening Arguments
OA1189 - The Supreme Court’s next term may not start until October, but their infamous shadow--sorry, “interim”--docket is in rare form as they issue snap decisions on everything from exactly where one 14-year-old boy can pee to just how openly racist ICE gets to be. Matt and Jenessa review which major precedents the conservative majority is ignoring to enable Trump’s worst policies this week before getting on to some Epstein-related legal updates and a radical new development from the Board of Immigration Appeals with massive implications for Trump’s mass deportation plans. ...
info_outline
LAM1009: My Cousin Vinny
Opening Arguments
Just because everything else is terrible out there right now, we treated ourselves to our second consecutive Law’d Awesome Movie. By popular patron demand: it’s My Cousin Vinny! We had a great time talking about this one. Actual New York Italian-American Jenessa Seymour joins to provide dead-ass balls accurate cultural context for one of the greatest Brooklyn couples ever put to film, and Matt shares his perspective as both an actual practicing courtroom lawyer and a guy who is weirdly obsessed with end credits songs that tell you about the movie you just watched. Thanks again to...
info_outline
Do You Swear You're Not A Subversive Person?
Opening Arguments
Continuing their "Good Law" series, Matt and Jenessa talk about Baggett v. Bullitt. This case held that "a State cannot require an employee to take an unduly vague oath containing a promise of future conduct at the risk of prosecution for perjury or loss of employment, particularly where the exercise of First Amendment freedoms may thereby be deterred." Jenessa gives a fascinating science breakdown on cognitive dissonance and what the effect of these vague oaths actually is. It's counter-intuitive and very interesting!
info_outline
BREAKING: Federal Courts Correctly Notice Color of Sky, Pope’s Religious Affiliation
Opening Arguments
For this week’s Rapid Response Friday we take up three major judicial rulings pushing back against executive overreach on three completely different topics: removals under the Alien Enemies Act, the use of the National Guard to conduct domestic law enforcement, and the imposition of tariffs as an executive action under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Also: it turns out a DC grand jury really can't indict a ham sandwich, and why Brazil is so much better at prosecuting insurrectionists than the US is. (9/2/25) (9/2/25) (8/29/25)
info_outlineOA1193 - Could Tylenol sue RFK Jr. for libel? Does the pressure the FCC put on Disney/ABC to fire Jimmy Kimmel constitute a First Amendment violation? Is the Trump administration really going to charge rural hospitals $100,000 for the privilege of being able to hire foreign doctors? In today’s Rapid Response Friday we answer all of these recent patron questions and more, and Jenessa shares a personal footnote about her decision to voluntarily take the most specialized bar exam in the US legal system.
-
The Campaign for Accountability’s bar complaint against FCC chairman Brendan Carr
-
Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, (Presidential Proclamation dated 9/20/2025)