OT2016 #16: "His Elegant Fountain Pen"

We took a week off, and now we're making it up to you with an episode chock full of Supreme Court goodness. We've got orders! Opinions! Dissents! Concurrences in denial! The question of whether or not Justice Breyer has become a death penalty abolitionist! With all of that, we tie up the last sitting and look forward to the next. There's a full argument calendar ahead, so we preview two cases that piqued our interests: Microsoft Corp. v. Baker (aka one of the "Scalia Three") and City of Los Angeles v. Mendez. Whether you're more interested in class action suits about X-Boxes or complicated cases arising from officer-involved shootings, it's going to be a week full of lofty rhetoric. We'll get you ready for it. 

If you want more First Mondays, become a monthly subscriber at patreon.com/firstmondays. For just $5/month, you get bonus episodes and access to the Amici Slack channel, where you can procrastinate with fellow Firsties. Feeling generous? Want a leg up on your coworkers or classmates? Donating $20/month gets you access to live streams of us recording the episodes that everyone else hears days later. 

OT2016 #15: "The Roller Derby Across the Street"

We’ve got a jam-packed episode to wrap up the Supreme Court’s February sitting. As we analyze Hernandez v. Mesa, it becomes clear that we have another #BadLawyerGate situation on our hands. Guess which justice (figuratively) rips up that attorney’s argument right before his very eyes— we have the audio for evidence.

We also respond to some criticism we got for our take on Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. Let the record show that we can dish it out, and we can take it.

Plus, hear the gem of a closing statement that won one lawyer our coveted Advocate of the Month Award, and stay tuned after the credits for the reason Dan skipped out on hosting last week. It has not one, but two jurisdictional hooks for discussion.

If you want more First Mondays, become a monthly subscriber at patreon.com/firstmondays. For just $5/month, you get bonus episodes and access to the Amici Slack channel, where you can procrastinate with fellow Firsties. Feeling generous? Want a leg up on your coworkers or classmates? Donating $20/month gets you access to live streams of us recording the episodes that everyone else hears days later. 

OT2016 #14: "Stone Cold, Lead Pipe Lock"

This week we try to get to the bottom of a death penalty issue, brought to light by a dissent to denial from Justice Sotomayor. (Two words: firing squad.) We also talk to immigration attorney Andrea Sáenz about the upcoming crimmigration case, Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, and Leah teaches us the key difference between an amicus brief and an animus brief (ba-dum-tsssss). And finally, hear Ian read a list of Supreme Court Justices who Judge Posner of the 7th Circuit does not deem "pretty good." (Hint: it's a long list.)

If you missed the first Amici bonus episode, you can still become a monthly subscriber to unlock it. You'll also be invited to join the special Slack channel for Firsties-- a chat room full of 90+ SCOTUS nerds talking law all day, every day.

But of course, if you like the show but can't swing a subscription, there are still plenty of ways to support us. Write us a review in iTunes, follow us on Twitter, and call the hotline!

Amici Teaser: #BadLawyerGate

Hear an excerpt of our interview with powerhouse Supreme Court advocate Lisa Blatt. She has argued in front of the Court 34 times and has only lost twice. After Dan and Ian started a Twitter fight about first-time Supreme Court advocates, we wanted to turn to an expert. If you want to hear the whole conversation, it's not too late to become a subscriber! Your monthly donations help us keep growing, improving, and doing more episodes with the experts you want to hear from. 

OT2016 #13: "Harriet Miers Bobblehead"

After a long break, the Supreme Court is back in session, and we resume our regularly scheduled programming. We analyze the March and April argument calendars (you'll never believe which case finally got scheduled), and we take a deep dive into this week's big case: Hernandez v. Mesa. Plus, we'll update you on our Patreon campaign, and answer an extremely important question that slid into our DMs.

If you like the show, there are lots of ways you can support us. Set up a monthly donation and receive access to great bonus episodes, like this week's exclusive interview with the Floyd Mayweather of Supreme Court advocacy, Lisa Blatt. And as always, subscribe, review, and send to your friends!

Good Behaviour #2: "Disheartening and Demoralizing"

In this second episode of the Good Behaviour miniseries, Dan and Ian continue to chronicle the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. What is it with Judge Gorsuch and his yearbooks? How much cash did he have on hand in 2006? And will he have more people show up to this confirmation hearing than his last?

This week also marks the launch of our Patreon campaign! We've been doing the show on our own dime, but there are mics to buy, a producer to pay, and better music to license. We want First Mondays to stay free for everyone, and it will. But become a monthly donor, and you'll unlock secret levels of Firstiehood like bonus episodes, live broadcasts, and a special chatroom. If you love the show, please consider supporting us.

And of course, we appreciate your other forms of support: subscribing, reviewing, tweeting at us, and sending episodes to your friends. We couldn't do it without you.

Good Behaviour #1: "Grist of a Judge's Life"

We debut a brand new series, "Good Behaviour," to track the confirmation process of Judge Neil Gorsuch, who President Trump just nominated to fill Justice Scalia's vacant seat. For an insider's perspective, Dan and Ian talk to Jason Murray, who clerked for Judge Gorsuch prior to clerking for Justice Kagan. They also dissect some of Judge Gorsuch's opinions on the Tenth Circuit, answer a hotline question about his homeland, analyze linear representations of ideology, and reveal the surprising person Judge Gorsuch called first after he received the nomination.

If you have questions about Judge Gorsuch and the confirmation process, get in touch! We may feature your calls and tweets in future episodes of this series.

If you liked this week’s episode, send it your favorite Supreme Court reject. And as always, subscribe and review!

OT2016 #12: "That Makes No Sense"

This week, Dan and Ian have a conversation with Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for a little local newspaper called The New York Times. During argument recaps, you'll learn the circumstances under which you should rethink all the choices that led you to argue in front of the Supreme Court. Plus, Dan fills us in on a new grant, Ian reminisces about the last inauguration, Firsties call the hotline with great questions, and a surprise caller gives us a twist on the Questions Demented game. 

As a reminder, we're looking for sponsors to partner with. If you or your business think you’d like to advertise to our audience of appellate enthusiasts, get in touch!

If this episode did make sense to you, send it to someone you think should be on the SCOTUS nominee short list. And please subscribe and leave reviews-- it really helps the show.

OT2016 #11: "Close to Using a Swear"

Last week, the Supreme Court heard its first arguments of 2017, and Dan & Ian have the recaps. And as we gear up for arguments in crimmigration case Dimaya v. Lynch, First Mondays welcomes attorney Brian Goldman. It's the first time we've hosted a member of counsel in an active case, and we celebrate by foisting another round of the new QP game upon him. 

There comes a time in every young podcast’s life when it looks to smart and admirable sponsors to partner with. First Mondays is at that place, so if you or your business think you’d like to advertise to our audience of appellate enthusiasts, get in touch!

If you liked this week’s episode, send it to a law student or two and help them look smart in class. As always, please subscribe and leave us reviews in the iTunes store—it helps other people find the show!

OT2016 #10: "You Would Wear a Stroller"

The Supreme Court is (finally) back in session, and Dan and Ian are ready with previews of Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, and Nelson v. Colorado. They'll also talk to Gabe Roth of Fix the Court about Chief Justice Robert's recent controversial recusal.

Plus:
-Which US Representative should be forced to hang out with the shunning guy
-What outdated mode of gentlemen's dress is a step beneath morning dress
-How to explain complicated legal concepts to just about anybody

If you like this episode, send it to the smartest legal mind you know. They'll appreciate the compliment. Then, email/tweet/call in your own dumbed down QPs. And as always, subscribe!

101 First Street #2: "The Most Exciting Parts"

In this second episode in our 101 First Street series, we go inside oral arguments at the Supreme Court. Who talks first? How long until they get interrupted? After it's over, then what? Plus, you'll hear actual audio from the arguments in Maryland v. King, and we'll provide you with a lame joke to annoy your friends.

Let us know what questions you have about the Court for future editions of 101 First Street. In the mean time, subscribe! Follow us on Twitter! Like us on Facebook!

OT2016 #9: "What's Not on That February Calendar"

In this holiday bonus episode of First Mondays, we introduce our new producer, Melody Rowell. We also break down the Court's new grants, the release of the February calendar, and the supplemental briefing order in Jennings. (Listeners of the after-show will also enjoy further critique of Emily Bazelon's New York Times Magazine article on Justice Scalia and science.)

Enjoying First Mondays? Subscribe! Future bonus content may be posted only for subscribers. It's free, and we're available on both iTunes and Stitcher, in your podcast app of choice. (And don't worry: the second episode of 101 First Street is coming very soon.)

101 First Street #1: "Ser-shee-or-RARE-eye"

How does the Supreme Court actually work? How does the Court decide what cases to hear? How do you pronounce "certiorari?" What's the difference between a relist and a reschedule? Why are some briefs grey? In this inaugural episode of 101 First Street, the First Mondays crew answers all these questions—and more.

Enjoying the podcast? Subscribe! We're on iTunes and Stitcher, and you can even ask Alexa to play First Mondays for the whole family. And we always love to hear from Firsties, so get in touch with questions for future installments of 101 First Street!

OT2016 #8: "Don't Think It's Going To Be 9-0"

The Slants have released a new song, the Supreme Court has released opinions, and Justice Breyer has got an idea for an innovative gold heist. This week, we welcome back Danielle D'Onfro (of Washington University) to discuss the bankruptcy arguments in Jevic. But before we do, we break down the Court's opinions in Salman, RigsbySamsung, and Shaw, as well as Justice Breyer's dissent from the denial of certiorari in Sireci, a death penalty case from Florida. We also take a look at the arguments in Bethune-Hill and McCrory, the election-law cases, with a close study of just what makes Paul Clement such an effective advocate.

If you're enjoying First Mondays, don't forget to rate and subscribe on your podcast directory of choice! We're on iTunes, Stitcher, and even TuneIn—so you can, and should, command your Amazon Echo to play First Mondays any time. More information is available on the Subscribe page.

 

OT2016 #7: "Do We Even Really Know the Name?"

The holiday season is in full swing—with the first opinion announcement of the year. This week on First Mondays, we recap the Court's decision in Bravo-Fernandez and the slew of new grants out of the most recent conference. We also have Danielle D'Onfro, Lecturer in Law at Washington University, to discuss Jevic, a major bankruptcy case that the Court will hear this week. But before we do, we've got a special dispatch from the Beckles oral argument from Professor Leah Litman, some very special fan mail from the Court-appointed amicus in Beckles, and a look at ways the Court might get to five in Jennings, about the indefinite detention of immigrants. We also preview the arguments this week in the Court's Virginia and North Carolina election cases, argued by former General Counsel of the Hillary for America team, Marc Elias.

And don't forget! First Mondays is hiring a producer, and we'll begin interviewing applicants very soon. If you're interested in the Supreme Court and are interested in getting in on the ground floor of a burgeoning media empire, get in touch with us by Twitter (@FirstMondaysFM) or by email: isamuel@law.harvard.edu and epps@wustl.edu

OT2016 #6: "Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword"

It's a jam-packed holiday episode of First Mondays! In this episode, we begin with thoughts on the election and—even more consequentially—the Court's DIG in Visa v. Osborn. We also recap the last of the November cases, and use our juridical clairvoyance to predict the November assignments. Joining us to preview the December calendar is Professor Leah Litman, who discusses Beckles v. United States, and we also discuss Jennings v. Rodriguez, about when you can detain people without bond who might be in the United States lawfully (the government's surprising answer: more often than you'd think).

First Mondays is also hiring! We're looking for someone (probably a smart law student, but not necessarily) to work with us a couple of hours a week, as a podcast editor and producer, as the First Mondays media empire grows. If you enjoy the work of the Supreme Court, think it would be fun to work with Dan and Ian, and have some basic familiarity with audio editing software, drop us an email (isamuel@law.harvard.edu and epps@wustl.edu) or get in touch via Twitter (@FirstMondaysFM).

Correction: This episode suggested that the Hogan Lovells team of attorneys that worked on Visa v. Osborn and Dietz v. Bouldin were identical. While there was substantial overlap between the two teams, Leila Mongan and Daniel J.T. Schuker worked on Dietz but not Visa, and Benjamin Fleming and Eugene Sokoloff worked on Visa but not Dietz.

OT2016 #5: "Why Do We Wear Robes?"

Justice Breyer's got theories about fashion, and the First Mondays team is on it. This week, we begin with the special meeting of the Supreme Court's bar to honor Justice Scalia, and the Chief Justice's courtesy vote to stay an execution. We also discuss last week's arguments on the False Claims Act, cheerleading uniforms, and laches, and look ahead to this week, when the Court will hear arguments in major cases concerning children born abroad to citizen parents and the scope of the President's ability to temporarily fill vacancies in the government.

OT2016 #4: "Federal Circuit, Never Change"

The November sitting has begun! This week, we begin with Judge Posner's low opinion of the Supreme Court, and the new grants concerning gender identity, free speech for sex offenders, and the consequences of California's statutory-rape law for immigrants who are convicted of violating it. We also look ahead to next week's False Claims Act argument in Rigsby, the copyrightability of cheerleading uniforms in Star Athletica, and a case about laches and patents, SCA Hygiene Products—which seems oddly familiar, in more ways than one.

OT2016 #3: "Dumb and Disrespectful"

Justice Ginsburg has got views on Colin Kaepernick—or does she? We discuss Justice Ginsburg's engagement with the media, and then talk about the new grants, Hernandez and Turkmen, along with the Court's first official opinion of OT 2016, Bosse. We also bring down the curtain on the October sitting: who had the best oral argument of the week? Who will win in Pena-Rodriguez and Samsung v. Apple? Who's going to write these opinions once they're out? And where, exactly, is the December calendar?

Links for this episode:

OT2016 #2: "The Worst Part About Being a Supreme Court Justice"

This week on First Mondays, Ian and Dan dive right into Justice Breyer's exotic theories about Kim Kardashian. We also review the music of The Slants, who will be featured in the upcoming Lee v. Tam (4:00), and discuss the potential for Missouri to switch sides in the major Establishment Clause case, Trinity Lutheran (6:30).

We then recap the oral arguments in the insider-trading case Salman v. United States (13:20), the bank-fraud case Shaw v. United States (23:00), and the Double Jeopardy brain-teaser Bravo-Fernandez (36:00). We then look ahead to this week's Sixth Amendment case involving allegations of racial bias by a juror, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (41:00), and the design-patent showdown in Samsung v. Apple (56:00). Finally, we discuss the Term's first after-lunch argument, Manrique v. United States (1:08:00) and—more importantly—our views on the Supreme Court's cafeteria.

Enjoying the show? Don't forget to rate us on iTunes and subscribe!

Links: