Note:\xa0 The "C" segment of this episode (and the show notes) contain hilarious explicit language in order to discuss a recent development in trademark law.\xa0 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.\xa0 First, we look at the aftermath of\xa0Jane Doe v. Wright, which we first discussed in Episodes 117 and 133.\xa0 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\xa0Kolbe v. Hogan, which we called a "landmark" case way back in Episode 47.\xa0 Find out how a federal district court judge in Massachusetts just applied\xa0Kolbe 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.\xa0 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?\xa0 Listen and find out! Finally, we end\xa0with the answer to the fiendishly hard Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #71 about whether a state can discriminate against out-of-state competitors.\xa0 Don't forget to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page\xa0so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None!\xa0 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