OA293: My Deference & Auer Deference (Kisor v. Wilkie)
Opening Arguments
Opening Arguments Media LLC
4.3 • 3.7K Ratings
🗓️ 2 July 2019
⏱️ 68 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
Summary
Today's episode revisits a narrow area of administrative law we last discussed in Episode 266, namely, Auer deference. Andrew made a bold prediction in that episode, and find out where he was wrong -- and where he was right now that the Supreme Court has ruled in Kisor v. Wilkie. We also discuss the recent unsealing of court records thanks to a CNN reporter and we witness the return of listener favorite segment "Are You A Cop?" with a fabulous question about drinking and driving. Buckle up!
We begin, however, with a look at a recent request made by CNN's Katelyn Polantz regarding certain court proceedings and records relating to the Mueller Investigation. Does this mean that "BILL BARR KILLED 7 OPEN INVESTIGATIONS?" (No.) But it is significant, and you won't want to miss why.
Then, it's time for a deep-dive explainer that starts with a reminder on the principles of agency deference. Don't remember the exact difference between Chevron deference and Auer deference? We've got you covered -- including, in particular, how the latter came under attack in Kisor v. Wilkie, a case involving a retired servicemember challenging the internal agency regulations governing disability pay. Should the courts defer to an agency's interpretation of its own rules, or should it be wildly activist and defer to Neil Gorsuch's interpretation of those rules? Kisor gives us a slightly different answer than you might expect, all while angling us towards the day soon to come in which the Supreme Court greatly expands the power of the judicial branch.
After that, it's time for Are You A Cop? featuring some truly terrible advice for how to beat a DUI arrest. (Please do not do this.) We talk about standards of evidence while debunking the notion that you should... drink more when you're pulled over? (It's a weird question.)
As if that wasn't enough, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #132 about an escaped, de-fanged, venomous snake. Who's responsible? Listen and find out!
Appearances
Andrew will be a guest at the Mueller She Wrote live show in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2019; click that link to buy tickets, and come up and say hi! And remember: if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show (or at your live show!), drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
Show Notes & Links
- This is the Raw Story article we criticize during the "A" segment, and to verify what we've said is correct, you can read (a) Polantz's request; (b) the Court's order; (c) Exhibit A (Search Warrants); (d) Exhibit B (Wiretapping); and (e) Exhibit C (Pen Register/Trap & Trace). Phew!
- We previewed Kisor v. Wilkie (read decision) in Episode 266. And, in breaking down Justice Roberts's holding in Kisor, we also expose shoddy journalism like this Daily Beast article.
-Support
us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
-Follow us
on Twitter: @Openargs
-Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and
don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!
-For
show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which
now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki
-And
finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
Transcript
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
| 0:00.0 | So I hold myself in contempt if you try to pull me up here to court without attorney. |
| 0:10.0 | I'll ask the questions here, Carjackowilly, objection! |
| 0:23.0 | I'm going to allow it at characterizes the defenders of Carjackow. |
| 0:29.0 | You didn't kill Thompson, but you did Mr. Wells? |
| 0:33.0 | Yes! Yes, I killed that Thompson! I killed it! I killed it! |
| 0:45.0 | You're out of order! You're out of order! The whole trial is out of order! Get out of order! |
| 0:55.0 | Welcome to Opening Arguments, the podcast that pairs an inquisitive interviewer with the real-life lawyer. |
| 1:00.0 | This podcast is sponsored by the Law Offices of P. Andrew Torres, LLC for Entertainment Purposes, |
| 1:05.0 | is not intended as legal advice, and does not form an attorney-client relationship. |
| 1:09.0 | Don't take legal advice from a podcast. |
| 1:13.0 | Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is episode 293. |
| 1:22.0 | I'm Thomas Smith. That over there is P. Andrew Torres. That's why you're doing it. |
| 1:25.0 | I'm fantastic, Thomas. How are you? |
| 1:27.0 | Doing well. I'm most excited for a couple announcements as you are listening. |
| 1:34.0 | If you are listening promptly when this was released, we have our live Q&A tonight at 4 Pacific 7 East. |
| 1:42.0 | That's going to be a whole lot of fun. I'm sure there are plenty of things that the listeners want to know from you that the patrons, sorry, not the patrons get to ask the questions. |
| 1:51.0 | That's the whole, that's the whole stick. I'm sure they're very curious about some of your opinions on maybe the debate. |
| 1:57.0 | Other stuff we'll see. So that's going to be a lot of fun. I'm also excited for your little teaser right now. |
| 2:03.0 | Yeah, so not a joke, not a gag. There is a super interesting baseball law case that we are going to get to. |
| 2:12.0 | Hopefully next week it is a lawsuit brought by former umpire angel Hernandez and it illustrates a really important principle of law. |
| 2:23.0 | It's really, really neat. It is an ideal deep dive. I wanted to do it today, but we can't. |
| 2:29.0 | So we're going to try and do it next week. |
... |
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.

