First Mondays

If you need your First Mondays fix, there's a new bonus episode for Patreon subscribers! We talk all things cert pool, and (spoiler alert) Dan and Ian really disagree. Subscribe at patreon.com/firstmondays.

As we ease into the argument-free season of the term, we recap some grants, take a look at the opinion in Bank of American Corp. v. Miami, and relish a great hotline call full of 90s clerking gossip. And speaking of gossip, what's the deal with Justice Gorsuch not joining the cert pool? We have some theories.

Recapping the last arguments for October Term 2016, and more.

It was a pretty big week at the Supreme Court. First, we talk about what the heck is going with expiring execution drugs in Arkansas, and how that plays out within SCOTUS chambers. Then, for the first time since the beginning of this podcast, we had nine justices at oral argument. And even though Perry v. Merit Systems Protections Board is kind of a boring case, Justice Gorsuch gave us something to talk about. Then, we get into the long-awaited Trinity Lutheran case, complete with audio from Justices Kennedy and Breyer. Finally, it's our last oral argument preview of the term-- but don't worry, we still have a couple months of opinions to look forward to.

It's the beginning of the end of OT2016— the first week of the last sitting of the year. We're coming at you with two big previews. First, what do old tires and religious expression have to do with each other? Oh, only the biggest case of the year, probably: Trinity Lutheran Church Of Columbia v. Comer. And then, just how ineffective does counsel have to be for it to truly prejudice the client? Plus, we've got hotline calls, a new QP game, and a tantalizing preview a much-sought-after brief from Texas.

We've been cranking out some awesome interview shows for our Patreon subscribers. And if you're not one of them, well, you're missing out. Here are snippets from the two latest bonus episodes, one with Rakesh Kilaru, former associate counsel to President Obama, and one with Misha Tseytlin, Solicitor General of Wisconsin. If you want to hear the rest of their conversations, it's not too late to become a Patreon subscriber! Your monthly donations help us keep growing, improving, and doing more episodes with the experts you want to hear from.

In our fourth episode of tracking Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court, we get into the greatest hits of his confirmation hearings. How do you pronounce his name? Does the "frozen trucker case" invoke the absurdity doctrine? Which Democrat Senator threw him a "softball" of a question? Plus, we'll do some quick recaps of arguments and opinions, which may involve another inductee to the #BadLawyerGate Hall of Fame. And stick around after the music for a friendly discussion of amicus briefs (get it? friendly!). 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.

This week it’s First Mondays XL, with more Supreme Court content than you can shake a gavel at. First off, we respond to a bunch of listener feedback about stuff we got wrong, stuff we got right, and stuff no one can quite figure out. (Here’s looking at you, “statement respecting the denial.”) After that, we unpack some opinions about the copyright issues around cheerleading uniforms, the statute of limitations around claiming damages, and the rights a child with autism has under IDEA. Plus, we try out our radio voices to get through a weird analogy about British rock bands in NLRB v. SW General, Inc. For one of our coolest argument recaps yet, we go straight to the source: Wisconsin’s Solicitor General, Misha Tseytlin, who had his first argument in Murr v. Wisconsin last week. You’ll be surprised, as he was, about who gave him the hardest time from the bench. Then, we look ahead to Tuesday’s crimmigration argument in Lee v. United States. Just how ineffective does his counsel have to be proven to keep Mr. Le

We took a week off, and 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 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.

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.

This week we try to get to the bottom of a dissent to denial from Justice Sotomayor. (Two words: firing squad.) We also talk to immigration attorney Andrea Sáenz about the upcoming 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 a list of Supreme Court Justices who Judge Posner of the 7th Circuit deems "pretty good." (Hint: it's a short list.)

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 thing, it's not too late to become a subscriber! Visit our website, firstmondays.fm, and click on the Support tab. Your monthly donations help us keep growing, improving, and doing more episodes with the experts you want to hear from.

After a long break, the Supreme Court is back in session, and we resume our regularly schedule 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.

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?

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 before clerking for Justice Kagan. They also dissect some of Judge Gorsuch's opinions, answer a hotline question about his homeland, and reveal the surprising person Judge Gorsuch called first after receiving the nomination.

This week, Dan and Ian have a conversation with Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court correspondent for 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 another surprise caller gives us a twist on the Questions Demented game.

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.

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!

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?

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.