Opening Arguments Podcast
LightNews LightNews
banner
openargs.bsky.social
Opening Arguments Podcast
@openargs.bsky.social
5K followers 720 following 440 posts
Explaining law in the news to non-lawyers every Mon/Fri and responding to the right's worst legal takes on video every Weds. Join the community at patreon.com/law!
Posts Replies Media Videos
openargs.bsky.social
Law'd Awful Movies is back in classic form! Coming soon: is the USA network's loose serialization of a 30-year-old John Grisham legal thriller the densest adaptation in Hollywood history? Thomas, Lydia, and Matt make the case
October 16, 2025 at 2:14 PM
openargs.bsky.social
Law'd Awful Movies is back in classic form! Coming soon: is the USA network's loose serialization of a 30-year-old John Gresham legal thriller the densest adaptation in Hollywood history? Thomas, Lydia, and Matt make the case
October 16, 2025 at 5:37 AM
openargs.bsky.social
Listen to Opening Arguments, the legal podcast that doesn't need 36 minutes to tell you that "killing Venezuelans in boats" is extremely fucking illegal
"The US Keeps Killing Venezuelans on Boats. Is That Legal?" asks NYT's The Daily
September 25, 2025 at 12:01 PM
openargs.bsky.social
Coming soon to OA:

THE CASE AGAINST "THE CASE AGAINST ADNAN SYED"

are the "Serial" liars behind this HBO series really so desperate that they are trying to pin the murder of Hae Min Lee on a Black man who was already cleared as a suspect? Did this show get *anything* about this case right?
September 23, 2025 at 3:33 PM
openargs.bsky.social
🙃
September 18, 2025 at 9:42 PM
openargs.bsky.social
Some title proposals for this week's multi-part episode on the most corrupt thing DOJ has ever done in public in the style of Robert Maxwell's Daily Mail:

MAXWELL'S SILVER YAMMER

ALL'S WELL THAT MAXWELL

MS. MAXWELL BEGS YOUR PARDON

A PROFFER TRUMP CAN'T REFUSE

INSANE IN THE GHISLAINE
August 26, 2025 at 2:29 AM
openargs.bsky.social
Tragedy strikes again in this week's #T3BE (quote skeet to play) and I don't know about you, but I'm not buying this "boating accident" story. Anthony definitely did it.
Question 78 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam is as follows: Elsa was a single woman with a life insurance policy that pays her designated beneficiary $74,000 upon her death. She tragically died in a boating accident. Her ex-boyfriend, Anthony, was a resident of Arkansas and named as beneficiary. But her mother Mary, a resident of California, also filed a claim for the life insurance proceeds. The insurance company, a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in California, filed an interpleader action in federal court to protect itself from potentially inconsistent and multiple claims. May the insurance company bring the interpleader action in federal court? A. No, because there is no federal court where the insurance company will be able to establish personal jurisdiction over both claimants. B. No, because the insurance company is not diverse from one of the claimants. C. No, because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 and there is no diversity between the insurance company and one of the claimants. D. Yes, because the amount in controversy is $500 or more, and both claimants are diverse from one another.
July 25, 2025 at 2:54 AM
openargs.bsky.social
We interrupt our regular coverage of The Horrors with a #T3BE (quote skeet to play) question about The Hypothetical Horrors. I wonder if the person who came up with this debacle is a Phantom fan. Episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...
This one's a behemoth (I had to type out the alt text manually). The text of T3BE Question 77 is as follows: Winnie was on her way to meet her husband, Herb, for lunch at the restaurant adjacent to the bookstore where he worked. Winnie had just entered the building, which was owned and operated by the bookstore, when she heard the sound of breaking glass and screams. A big chandelier that was hanging in the restaurant fell into the waiting area. Winnie saw several injured people in the waiting area, including her husband who was lying in the wreckage of the chandelier. When she saw her husband, Winnie fainted and hit her foot on an umbrella stand, breaking the bones in her foot. The chandelier fell because the fastener that the bookstore used to secure it to the ceiling was loose. If Winnie sues the bookstore for her injury, is she likely to prevail? The answer choices, included by popular demand are as follows: A. Yes, because her husband was one of the people she saw lying in the wreckage. B. Yes, because the bookstore used the fastener for the chandelier. C. No, because she was not personally in the zone of danger of physical injury D. No, because she did not actually see the chandelier collapse onto the diners.
July 17, 2025 at 11:40 PM
openargs.bsky.social
#T3BE (quote skeet to play) is back in business with your weekly shot to be admitted to the Bluesky Bar, have at it! Episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...
Question 76 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam: A driver and a passenger were involved in a car accident. Shortly thereafter, the passenger wrote a summary of the events surrounding the accident in a journal entry. At trial three years later, the passenger is on the stand and unable to accurately recall the details of the accident, even after reviewing his written summary about the accident from his journal. Assuming a proper foundation is laid, may the summary of the accident be read into evidence?
July 10, 2025 at 9:38 PM
openargs.bsky.social
Olivia's contribution to this list is "Emil A. Bove The Law" and this picture of him as a Death Eater. JK Rowling is dead to us but the cloak and the Dark Mark just capture his vibe so well. Also noseless Trump. Step back from the SCOTUS news with some fun: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/n...
A picture of top DOJ enforcer Emil Bove's face edited into the black cloak of a Death Eater from Harry Potter with the Dark Mark, a black tattoo skull with a snake, visible on his forearm. In the background is the audience of his Senate confirmation hearing for a judgeship on the Third Circuit Appeals Court. The text next to his head reads "emil bove: i am not anyone's henchman" and then "also emil bove:" to emphasize that he is, in fact, a henchman for Trump the way Death Eaters are henchmen for Voldemort. There is also text from a 2018 email complaint about him reading "He's always looking for leverage and power" and "Everything he does seems to be vindictive". With the same background of the confirmation hearing, this side of the collage includes text of DOJ whistleblower Erez Reuveni's letter reading "Bove stated that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts "fuck you" and ignore any such court order" and Trump with Voldemort's snake nose touching Bove's Dark Mark with his wand.
June 27, 2025 at 7:07 PM
openargs.bsky.social
Alternate titles for this week's Rapid Response Friday:

BOVE ALL DAY
NO WAY BOVE
PRAY THE BOVE AWAY
BOVE COMPUTER
AS BOVE, SO BELOW
DO CRIMES, BE BOVE
TAKING THE EASY BOVE OUT
BOH-VEYYYYY BOH-VEY BOH-VEY
Photo of Principal Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove
June 27, 2025 at 5:53 AM
openargs.bsky.social
Good news: #T3BE (quote skeet to play) is up and full of lettuce jokes. Bad news: It's a real property question. Try your hand at Stardew Valley law. Episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...
Question 75 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam is as follows: Joe was a farmer who grew lettuce on his farm. He conveyed 50 acres of his property "To my sister, her heirs, and assigns, so long as the premises are used for agricultural purposes." What is Joe's interest in the 50 acres as a result of the conveyance?
June 26, 2025 at 6:08 PM
openargs.bsky.social
I'm so glad this #T3BE (quote skeet to play) inspired me to look up "bee heists". May have to put this up for footnote consideration. Happy Juneteenth folks.
This week's Thomas Takes The Bar Exam question is as follows: A group of people that hijacked a truck full of bees was arrested and indicted by a grand jury. During the grand jury's investigation, the district attorney's office subpoenaed the truck driver, Tom, as a witness. He was relieved that he was not asked questions about a series of thefts of shipments of bee boxes that he was involved in, but he worries the subject might be brought up at trial by the defense attorneys. Tom is afraid that he will be fired from his job if he invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination on the witness stand, so he wants to avoid testifying at all at the trial, even if he is subpoenaed by the defense. As Tom's lawyer, what advice would you give him about complying with a subpoena?
June 20, 2025 at 1:45 AM
openargs.bsky.social
It's time for another practice bar exam question! Listen in to get the answer to last week's (how did you do?), and to hear the answer options for this one!
This week's #T3BE 73:
June 12, 2025 at 8:30 AM
openargs.bsky.social
Fake hint for #T3BE (quote skeet to play), the key word here is "beautiful" because you have no claim over the land if your flower garden sucks. Episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a...
Question 72 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam is as follows: Lily owned a large piece of land next to her neighbor, Nancy. There was never a clearly marked boundary line between the two properties. Thirty years ago, Lily decided to plant a beautiful flower garden on part of the land she believed belonged to her. In actuality, the land belonged to Nancy. Since the time Lily initially planted the garden, she continued to take care of it by tending to the garden on a weekly basis. Five years ago, Nancy was convicted and imprisoned for insider trading. She recently died and her executor filed suit to eject Lily and quiet title. The statute of limitations for adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 21 years. Which of the following is the best answer regarding Lily’s claim to the land where she planted her flower garden? Listen for the answer choices in the episode!
June 5, 2025 at 4:31 PM
openargs.bsky.social
Big thanks to badass activist @micahh.bsky.social for joining us on Tuesday's OA to talk about what we can learn from the Stop Cop City movement and why he's taking his talent to the law. Nothing we love to see more than young people doing the damn thing. Episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...
Organizer and law student Micah Herskind holding his book "No Cop City, No Cop World" with police, Georgia AG Chris Carr, and someone holding a sign saying "Defend The Forest" and a smoke flare in the background. The whole scene is set in the Welaunee Forest. This side of the collage includes protest signs. They read "Stop Cop City", "Drop Bogus RICO Charges", "Protect Youth Not Guns", "City of Atlanta, How Many More? Tortuguita Vive, Black + Indigenous Lives Matter" which were all raised as a part of Micah's movement, Stop Cop City.
May 29, 2025 at 4:12 PM
openargs.bsky.social
I couldn't tell you why Question 71 of #T3BE (quote skeet to play) is formatted like a ghost story, but I kind of love it. Episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/y...
Question 71 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam is as follows: On a dark and stormy night, a tanker sailing on the Ohio River ran into a large underwater pipe. The pipe burst and sent millions of gallons of toxic chemicals into the water. Louisville sued the ship in federal court, claiming severe damage to its historic riverfront. Does the federal court have jurisdiction over the matter?
May 29, 2025 at 4:05 PM
openargs.bsky.social
Sheryl is one of the best guests we have ever had on and we loved talking to her, but anyone who knows us knows that “former host” was the most necessary followup post in the history of Bluesky

Please don't do us like this Sheryl 💔
May 25, 2025 at 4:37 AM
openargs.bsky.social
Here's Question 70 of #T3BE (quote skeet to play). Father Alberto sounds like a petty little diva who loves to stir the pot and I'm here for it. Hear the answer choices in the episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/c...
Question 70 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam is as follows: A seller of office chairs, Martha Sits, sued the manufacturer of the chairs, Comfort 4 U, for breach of contract, alleging that the chairs failed to conform to contract specifications. Not long before trial began, Martha suffered a serious head injury that left her unable to move or communicate. A guardian was properly substituted as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. At trial after the presentation of Martha’s case, Comfort 4 U calls as a witness Alberto, who is a priest, to question him about a conversation he had with Martha at a church fundraiser. In this conversation, Martha told Alberto in confidence that the chairs she received were fully functional but that she learned one of Comfort 4 U’s competitors offered a lower price and wanted to get out of her contract with the company. Martha’s attorney immediately objects on the basis of clergy-penitent privilege. How should the court rule on the objection?
May 22, 2025 at 5:22 PM
openargs.bsky.social
#T3BE players, Question 69 (haha) is live! Quote skeet to play even if this is your first time seeing the word "dram shop" because the law is weird and it's fun to learn about it. Answer choices are in the episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/g...
Question 69 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam, answer choices are at the link in the skeet. The question text is as follows: Patti was walking in a crosswalk near her home when she was hit and seriously injured by a truck driven by drunk driver, Dylan. He had just left his local bar, Thomas’ Tavern, after being served many drinks by the bartender, Billy. Patti sued Billy in a jurisdiction that does not have a dram shop act. Is Billy vicariously liable for Patti’s injuries?
May 15, 2025 at 2:44 PM
openargs.bsky.social
Today’s RRF is live. Doom-wise, OA 1156 is at 75% goofy government gaffes 25% YIKES. Join us for some fun in the midst of The Horrors: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a...
Every episode of OA has a collage of jumbled faces together that represent what the show covers. This week we have tourists with audio tour headphones on walking around the cell blocks of Alcatraz. This side of the collage has the bad guys. Tom Homan is pointing saying "revenue from tourism, no thanks. this should be a prison, heart emoji", Rep. Bryan Steil is saying "i feel like this is fine". Ed Martin is saying "i can explain....". The other side of the collage has the responses to these questions from the good guys. Responding to Tom Homan, an Alcatraz park ranger says "sir, alcatraz is a national park. what the actual fuck are you talking about". Rep. Maxine Waters says to Rep. Steil "you are not serious people" holding a mock Venmo of $2 billion from the UAE to Trump for the $1USD crypto. Thom Tillis says to Ed Martin "nah you're cooked my boy" holding photos of Martin making appearances on Russian state media and carrying a "Do your Job! #StopTheSteal" sign, showing his suport for J6ers.
May 9, 2025 at 7:20 PM
openargs.bsky.social
The 5/1 #T3BE (quote skeet to play) is proof that the Bar Exam Cinematic Universe exists. Question 68: The Motorcycle Strikes Back. Answer choices/episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/o...
This is the text of Question 68 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam, out every Thursday. Click the episode link in the skeet to play along! The question is as follows: Wendy and Hubert bought a beautiful piece of land nestled among the hills with a lovely home situated on it, taking a title as joint tenants. A few years later, they married and had a child, Kelly. Several years after that, Wendy and Hubert divorced. Wendy and Kelly continued to live on the land after the divorce, although title remained in the names of both Hubert and Wendy. Hubert moved out of state, conveying all his title and interest in the land by deed to Kelly. Shortly after, Hubert was killed one evening when a motorcycle fell on him while he was cycling by the ocean. He died without a will. Who has title to the land?
May 5, 2025 at 12:43 AM
openargs.bsky.social
Last week's #T3BE (quote skeet to play) is kind of funny because Dylan might have been fine if he simply didn't PUSH MARCIA'S MOTORCYCLE INTO THE OCEAN lol but whatever. Episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...
This is a screenshot of the text of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam, question 67! The text is as follows: Marcia decided she needed more spice in her life and she purchased a brand-new, fast red motorcycle. She parked it in the garage attached to her house for safekeeping. Unfortunately, her flashy new two-wheeler caught the attention of one of her neighbors, Dylan. Dylan loved motorcycles, but fell on hard times and did not have enough money to purchase one for himself. He was an engineer and adept at creating gadgets from things around his workshop. After seeing Marcia’s new motorcycle, he created an automatic garage door opener that could open any automatic garage door. One night, he used the device to open Marcia’s garage door, hot-wire the motorcycle, and take it for a joyride. Dylan intended only to drive it around town, show off to his friends, and enjoy the wind in his hair for a few hours before returning the motorcycle to Marcia’s garage without her knowing. However, while Dylan was out cruising around, he detoured to his friend’s party at the beach. After parking Marcia’s motorcycle atop the cliffs overlooking the ocean, he felt a rush of anger at the unfairness of the world, pushed the motorcycle off the cliff, and watched it fall and crash into the water below. According to the common law, what crime is Dylan guilty of?
April 28, 2025 at 6:15 PM
openargs.bsky.social
The press pool is gratuitously playing to the fans as we wait on #KarenRead opening statements
April 22, 2025 at 1:37 PM
openargs.bsky.social
Our original no-frills T3BE is back! Quote skeet to play, answer choices are listed in the episode, argue about it with a friend: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...
This is the text of Question 66 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam. A father was walking in Golden Gate Park with his young daughter when they passed by Blue Heron Lake. The daughter walked close to the edge of the lake, as she wanted to feed the herons that inhabited the lake. The daughter got too close, fell in, and began to drown because she could not swim. The father yelled for help because he did not know how to swim either. A nature photographer was standing nearby and had been photographing the beautiful scenery at the park when he heard the father’s screams for help. The photographer dropped his expensive, professional camera to jump in the lake and save the daughter. The camera was destroyed beyond repair. When the father met the photographer at the edge of the lake, the father thanked him profusely and promised to pay the photographer to replace the camera in a few weeks. Two weeks later, when the photographer asked for the money to purchase a new camera, the father had a change of heart and refused to pay. Can the photographer recover the cost of the camera from the father under the common law?
April 17, 2025 at 2:39 PM