meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
Opening Arguments

OA187: Lowering the Lukumi Bar?

Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments Media LLC

Law, Opinion, Politics, News, Liberal, Legal, Supremecourt, Harvard, Atheist

4.33.7K Ratings

🗓️ 30 June 2018

⏱️ 65 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Today's Bonus Episode asks if there's a way to make sense of the Supreme Court's Lukumi jurisprudence in light of this week's rulings in Trump v. Hawaii (the Travel Ban), Masterpiece Cakeshop, and the somewhat surprising decision to remand the Arlene's Flowers case back to the state of Washington. We begin, however, by checking in with the Southern District of New York's Order approving the Taint Team's review of documents seized from Michael Cohen's offices by the Department of Justice.  How many documents did the Team recommend the Court withhold as privileged?  The answer may surprise you! After that, we revisit the thesis advanced by Andrew Seidel in Episode 180 that the Supreme Court's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop might result in a more vigorous application of its 1993 decision in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). Next, we break down the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in NIFLA v. Becerra, in which the Court struck down a California law regulating so-called "crisis pregnancy centers." After all that, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #82 involving the legality of a search for heroin.  If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None!  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links
  1. Check out the Southern District of New York's Order regarding Cohen's meager haul of privileged documents.
  2. Andrew Seidel set forth his "Lukumi bar" thesis in Episode 180; you can read Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) for yourself and then compare it with both Trump v. Hawaii and Masterpiece Cakeshop.
  3. We discussed Planned Parenthood v. Casey at length in a two-part series:  Episode 27 and Episode 28; you might want to compare the statute approved in that case with the one struck down by the Court in NIFLA v. Becerra.
Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

He thought I was going to read me my rights.

0:04.3

You have the right to have your face kicked in by me.

0:06.3

You have the right to have your balls stomp by him.

0:08.4

I'll wait where I'm at.

0:18.6

They're pretty simple.

0:19.8

The forms are all standard, boilerplate.

0:21.8

OK, well, we're all hungry.

0:23.0

We're going to get to our hot plate soon enough.

0:24.5

All right, let's talk about the contract here.

0:26.7

Sorry.

0:31.0

You'd be surprised how many doors a letter from a lawyer

0:34.2

can open or close.

0:36.1

It seems like you're talking slower

0:37.7

since you started charging by the hour.

0:44.6

What's the meaning of this?

0:45.4

This is my quiet time.

0:46.4

We're going to have to take you into custody.

0:48.4

That's outrageous.

0:49.2

What am I charged with?

0:50.0

Don't have to tell you anymore.

0:51.3

Clearly haven't been reading your Scalia.

0:55.0

Welcome to Opening Arguments, the podcast

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Opening Arguments Media LLC, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Opening Arguments Media LLC and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.