VR33 - Did Trump’s DHS really just “end greencards” for people living in the US? Is everyone here on a visa going to have to return to their home countries--potentially with legal bars to returning of ten years or more--to process their cases? Who is the USCIS policy memo on “adjustment of status” to permanent residency which has caused massive amounts of fear and uncertainty in immigrant communities around the country this past weekend actually targeting, and who might still be able to get through? As always, the answers to these questions are much more nuanced than a 30-second viral video could ever convey and there is real reason to hope beyond the headlines.  Matt has written some of the most thorough analysis yet published since the memo’s release and he is here to tell us that it is many ways both much better and in others much worse than reported. We take a closer look at what the media coverage of this story has gotten wrong (and what it has missed) while going deep on the alleged legal justifications for this new interpretation of the law to see how it all holds up.

1. “Adjustment of Status is a Matter of Discretion and Administrative Grace, and an Extraordinary Relief that Permits Applicants to Dispense with the Ordinary Consular Visa Process,” USCIS Policy Memorandum dated 5/21/26

2. “Did DHS Really Just Stop Processing Greencards? A Closer Look,” Matt Cameron, DEPORTNATION (5/23/26)

3. “Adjusting Expectations,” Matt Cameron, DEPORTNATION (May 27, 2026)

4. Matter of Blas, Int. Dec. #2485, BIA (1974)(adopted by AG 1976) 

5. Matter of Arai, Int. Dec. #2027, BIA (1970)

OA1264 - Sherise Doyley was in the early stages of labor, in a hospital bed, preparing to deliver her baby, when nurses wheeled in a computer. On the screen was a judge, notifying her of an emergency order by the State of Florida to attempt to force her to undergo a C-section, instead of first attempting vaginal delivery. For 3 hours she advocated for herself, without an attorney, barely covered in a hospital gown.

How was any of this legal? What is happening? Jenessa breaks down the history of our rights to make our own medical decisions and how that is legally modified in pregnancy, Lydia shares her own birth experience and how these situations could be handled with actual compassion, and Thomas holds very still in hopes our eyes are based on movement (just kidding, Thomas is very supportive and also outraged). Come rage against the machine with us and hopefully breathe life into a revived pro-choice movement, before it’s too late.

• Amy Yurkanin (Mar. 14, 2026), They Didn’t Want to Have C-Sections. A Judge Would Decide How They Gave Birth, ProPublica.

  • Video clips of Doyley hearing, provided by ProPublica’s Facebook page

• Anuli Njoku, Marian Evans, Lillian Nimo-Sefah, & Jonell Bailey (2023). Listen to the Whispers before They Become Screams: Addressing Black Maternal Morbidity and Mortality in the United States, 11 Healthcare 438.

• Brad N. Greenwood, Rachel R. Hardeman, Laura Huang, & Aaron Sojourner (2020), Physician–patient racial concordance and disparities in birthing mortality for newborns, 117 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 21194.

• Maternal Mortality Prevention (Dec. 18, 2025). Data from the Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, CDC.

• Bracey Harris & Elizabeth Chuck (Jan. 9, 2026), 'Her worst fear has come to pass': Midwife who advocated for Black women dies after giving birth, NBC News.

• Camila Domonoske (Apr. 17, 2018), 'Father Of Gynecology,' Who Experimented On Slaves, No Longer On Pedestal In NYC, NPR.

• Megan L. Swanson, Sara Whetstone, Tushani Illangasekare, & Amy (Meg) Autry (2021), Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reparations: The Debt We Owe (and Continue to Accumulate), 5 Health Equity 353.

• Nicole Loy (May 16, 2025), Pain and Gynecology: Raising Standards of Care, The Healthcare Review at Cornell University.

• Jess Mador (July 29, 2025), A Brain-Dead Pregnant Woman Was Kept Alive in Georgia. It’s Unclear if State Law Required It, KFF Health News.

• (June 2025), Pregnancy Exceptionalism: A Review of Restrictions on Advance Directives, Pregnancy Justice.

• U.S. Const. amend. IX

• Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

• Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952)

• Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)

• Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)

• Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

• Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

• Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022)

• Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993)

• State Dept. of Human Services v. Northern, 563 S.W.2d 197 (1978)

• Lane v. Candura, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 377 (1978)

• Koskenoja v. Whitmer, Mich. Ct. Cl. (2026)

• (Apr. 20, 2026), Michigan Pregnancy Exclusion Law is Unconstitutional, Compassion & Choices.

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

OA1263 - Two of the most egregiously impeachable things ever to happen in the United States have just occurred on the same day this week: 

1. The so-called “settlement” between Donald Trump and his own IRS which guarantees his immunity from consequences for any financial  a slush fund for his friends and family and 

2. A Texas federal judge forcing a Rhode Island hospital to turn over records for trans kids while also attempting to specifically limit where this order can be challenged--and making absurd threats to anyone who even thinks about talking about challenging it

We take a closer look at the alleged legal basis for both actions and how the Trump “settlement” compares to the previous record-holder for Presidential financial corruption set 123 years ago before getting on to much better news in today’s footnote: an underdog Boston lawyer who has taken to the mic to call out some much bigger law dogs.

1. “Settlement” Agreement, President Donald Trump et al. v. Internal Revenue Service et al. (5/18/2026)

2. Untitled document, Office of the Attorney General (5/19/2026)

3. Order Closing Case, President Donald Trump et al. v. Internal Revenue Service et al., Southern District of Florida (5/18/2026)

4. Complaint, Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges v. Donald J. Trump, D.C. District Court (5/20/2026)

5. Order of Court, In RE: Motion to Quash Administrative Subpoena to Rhode Island Hospital, First Cir. (5/19/2026)

6. Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoena In Duces Tecum, In Re: Administrative Subpoena 25-1431-032 to Rhode Island Hospital, Rhode Island District Court (5/4/2026)

7. @joerezlaw on Instagram

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

VR32 - As the economic effects of Trump’s war of choice in the Middle East begin to hit home, his party is playing the one card it has going into the midterms: the promise of fully restoring open white supremacy to the US immigration system. We begin with a sampler platter of amuse douche from a recent episode of Tim Pool’s podcast–mercifully free of Tim Pool–to get a sense of how the MAGA right is talking about immigration reform these days. Matt then gives a brief history lesson about the openly racist origins of the Immigration Act of 1924 and the Cold War origins of the 1965 Hart-Celler bill which Republicans are now trying to repeal before we dive into the main course: a recent piece in The Federalist written in support of Rep. Andy Ogle’s Assimilation Act. Why do these people hate families so much? Can Congress really end birthright citizenship? And can you really build an entire thinkpiece entirely out of red flags? Join us this week on Vapid Response Wednesday to find out.

1. The National Visa Bulletin’s website

2. Whom We Shall Welcome (1952)

3. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

4. It’s Long Past Time To Scrap Hart-Celler And Insist That Immigrants Assimilate (John Daniel Davidson, The Federalist; 5/15/2026)

Watch us on YouTube!

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

OA1262 - How are a car accident in California, a tax fraud case in Nevada, and two bus accidents in New York and Pennsylvania all connected to the Dobbs abortion case? Find out on this week’s accidental too-deep dive into state sovereignty. Jenessa read a bunch of extra cases just to be thorough, and accidentally uncovered Kavanaugh planting the seeds that would grow into the “egregiously wrong” “rule” for ignoring stare decisis. But also mostly we’ll talk about the weird world of state sovereignty, Clarence Thomas being obnoxious and ahistorical while accusing everyone else of being ahistorical, and Sotomayor getting some peace for a change to write a pleasant little 9-0 decision about some non-partisan procedural legal nerdery that benefits injured plaintiffs.

• Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979)

• Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 587 U.S. 230 (2019)

  • Listen to oral arguments on Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1299; Timestamp for Kavanaugh dropping the “egregiously wrong” bomb: 50:47

• Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020), Kavanaugh concurrence

• Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022)

• Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp., 607 U.S. ___ (2026)

• The “major questions doctrine” Kavanaugh inception timeline:

  • U.S. Telecom Association v. F.C.C., 855 F.3d 381, 422-423 (D.C. Cir 2017), Kavanaugh dissent

  • Repeal of the Clean Power Plan, 84 Fed. Reg. 32520, 32529 (proposed Jul. 8, 2019) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 60).

  • West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. 697 (2022)

Additional sources:

• Episodes 1229 & 1230 for an in-depth explanation of immunities, including state and federal sovereign immunity: “The complicated web of immunities that makes accountability so difficult”

• Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793)

• U.S. Const. amend. XI

• Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890)

• Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

OA1261 - Today on Rapid Response Friday: a new fight for reproductive rights reaches SCOTUS, (some) justice on ICE, and two very different kinds of dicks get their day in court. (N.B.: Shortly after this recording, the Supreme Court entered a full stay in the mifepristone case pending disposition of a certiorari petition 7-2 (Thomas & Alito dissenting).)

1. Louisiana v. FDA et al, filed Oct 6, 2025

2. SCOTUS stay order in Danco Laboratories v. Louisiana et al(5/14/26)

3. Full bodycam footage of the arrest of Jeana Renea Gamble, Fox10 (11/21/2025)

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

VR31 - Is Justice Clarence Thomas the single most interesting person in American public life right now? Matt is here to argue that case upon the dismal milestone of Thomas officially becoming the second longest-serving justice in US Supreme Court history.  After a brief homage to Anita Hill’s tenacity at Thomas’s 1991 Senate confirmation hearing, we try to better understand the mind of this unusual man who has done uniquely massive amounts of damage to our legal system and our rights through a review of a speech he recently delivered at the University of Texas at Austin’s Civitas Institute. Why did a former supporter of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers get fully behind the Reagan agenda, and why does he now believe that there is nothing wrong with Black Americans that harsher policing, the end of affirmative action, and lowering taxes on billionaires can’t fix? Does he know that the intended audience of libertarian conservative Black nationalists he is trying to speak to is approximately the same size as the dedicated core of lefty capital-P Progressive devotees of Woodrow Wilson he is telling them to fear? Also, perhaps less importantly--where, exactly, is “Skanksville”?

1. “Remarks on the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence,” Clarence Thomas (full text of address given April 20, 2026)(full video here)

2. The Enigma of Clarence Thomas, Corey Robin (2019)

OA1260 - The Supreme Court lectures us on the right way to combat racism, which is to close our eyes and pretend it’s not happening. In Louisiana v. Callais… the court guts the Voting Rights Act, weaponizes the 14th Amendment against prevention of racial discrimination in the name of preventing racial discrimination, and opens the door to banning basically all government or government-sponsored practices designed to combat racism. Or national origin discrimination. And probably gender discrimination. However bad you’ve heard this is, it’s worse. Listen to Jenessa and Thomas slowly lose their minds as they game out the myriad implications of this nonsense.

Previous episode on this topic: 1199 “They’re Going to End the Voting Rights Act. But at Least We Got to Hear KBJ Murder a Guy in Court”

If Matt has a footnote fetish(tm), I guess Jenessa has a shownote fetish because she has so many that I need to put it in a google doc.

OA1259 - This week in Rapid Response Friday: who is the government protecting but not binding these days--and who are they binding but not protecting? We consider DOJ’s newest low in the absurd indictment of former FBI director James Comey for two counts of aggravated beach photography before moving on to a roundup of the federal government’s latest openly corrupt settlements with MAGA friends and supporters. Finally in today’s footnote: are Massachusetts police okay? 

1. Indictment in U.S. v. James Brian Comey, Jr.(4/26/26)

2. Docket in Flynn v. U.S.

3. Rep. Jamie Raskin’s letter to Acting AG Todd Blanche re: Flynn settlement (4/6/26)

4. Complaint in Ashli Babbit wrongful death suit (filed 1/5/2024)

5. Complaint in Sullivan v. U.S. (J6 suit)

6. Complaint in Trump v. IRS

7. Disciplinary summary from Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (“POST”) Commission

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Hey folks! Instead of VR this week we're putting out an episode-length preview of the latest Law'd Awful Movies! It's the TV show Bull. It sucks. And it's supposed to be about Dr. Phil? This thing is weird.

OA1258 - The Social Media Victims Law Center just made history in a Los Angeles courtroom by holding Meta and Google accountable for mental health harms which they successfully argued to a jury knowingly caused harm to children. In a novel legal theory, these plaintiffs argued that they were harmed not through a lack of content moderation or other editorial choices which might otherwise be protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, but by the fundamental design of platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Youtube. SMVLC founder Matthew Bergman joins to share how his decades of litigating on behalf of people harmed by asbestos brought him to this groundbreaking lawsuit and what it might mean for the thousands of other actions the SMVLC has brought around the US, as well as the upcoming claims which will be litigated by state AGs later this year. Where do the immunities guaranteed by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act end and the harmful and potentially addicting features which social media platforms have knowingly baked into the design of their platforms begin? Is “social media addiction” a demonstrable mental health issue or just a way to pathologize a bad habit? And could these well-meaning suits pose any threats to our privacy and civil liberties in the name of protecting children? We take on these and many more of the questions raised by some of the most fascinating and controversial civil litigation of the 21st century so far.

1. Attorney Matthew Bergman’s bio from Lewis & Clark Law’s website

2. Social Media Victims Law Center website

3. Addiction By Design, Natasha Dow Shull, Princeton University Press (2014)

4. Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., 995 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2021)

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!