April 17, 2018

Listen to the Episode

From The Official Website:

Note: The “C” segment of this episode (and the show notes) contain hilarious explicit language in order to discuss a recent development in trademark law. You’ve been warned!

In the preshow, we tamp down on some unwarranted liberal freakout regarding a recent White House Executive Order regarding the last few fraying strands of our social safety net.

After that, we revisit three cases we told you we’d be keeping an eye on. First, we look at the aftermath of Jane Doe v. Wright, which we first discussed in Episodes 117 and 133. Back then, we told you about the fate of a single young woman in state custody who was denied her right to an abortion; today, we tell you about the nationwide class action that was just certified in Garza v. Hargan.

Next, we revisit Kolbe v. Hogan, which we called a “landmark” case way back in Episode 47. Find out how a federal district court judge in Massachusetts just applied Kolbe in upholding the Massachusetts ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

For our third revisit, we take a look at another trademark case in light of the Slants case (Matal v. Tam) that we first discussed with Simon Tam way back in Episode 33 and reported on Tam’s victory before the Supreme Court in Episode 80. The Slants’s victory paved the way for disparaging and offensive trademarks, but what about garden-variety “immoral or scandalous” ones, like FUCT clothing or “Big Dick Nick” towels? Listen and find out!

Finally, we end with the answer to the fiendishly hard Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #71 about whether a state can discriminate against out-of-state competitors.

Show Notes & Links

  1. This is Alphr’s list of the “15 Best Podcasts of 2018” — and wow, we’re in some good company!
  2. You can click here to read the White House Executive Order on “Reducing Poverty in America;” we quoted from Section 5 at the end.
  3. We first discussed Jane Doe v. Wright in Episodes 117 and 133.
  4. We first told you about Kolbe v. Hogan in Episode 47; now, you can read the Massachusetts decision in Worman v. Healey. Also, if you like briefs, you can read the petition for certiorari, the State of Maryland’s opposition, and the petitioners’ reply.
  5. We told you about the Slants’s case back in our Episode 33 interview with Simon Tam and reported on Tam’s Supreme Court in in Episode 80; today, we discuss In re Brunetti, which applies the Matal v. Tam holding to the rst of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a).
  6. Finally, the link you’ve been waiting fo: the Deadspin article about “Big Dick Nick.”

Law Talkin' Stuff

It's in the Constitution
Law Court Thingies
Magic Law Words






  • [00:00:00] Intro
  • [00:03:40] Executive Order about Medicaid, SNAP, TANF
  • [00:08:27] Breakin' (Down) The Law: Garza v. Hargan update (Abortion rights)
    • [00:12:30] Federal rule 23
  • [00:18:00] Kolbe v. Hogan update Maryland's ban on semiautomatic weapons and high capacity magazines
    • [00:21:40] Rational basis test and Employment Division v. Smith
    • [00:24:00] Strict scrutiny
    • [00:24:34] Intermediate scrutiny
  • [00:29:45] Andrew was Right: Massachusetts ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines
  • [00:39:22] Matal v. Tam update trademark of The Slants
    • [00:42:30] In re Brunetti
  • [00:50:45] New Patron Tuesday
  • [00:53:40] Thomas Takes the Bar Exam: Whether a state can discriminate against out-of-state competitors (answer)
  • [01:06:33] Outro