
About this episode
Continuing their "Good Law" series, Matt and Jenessa talk about Baggett v. Bullitt. This case held that "a State cannot require an employee to take an unduly vague oath containing a promise of future conduct at the risk of prosecution for perjury or loss of employment, particularly where the exercise of First Amendment freedoms may thereby be deterred." Jenessa gives a fascinating science breakdown on cognitive dissonance and what the effect of these vague oaths actually is. It's counter-intuitive and very interesting!
Get every episode summarized
Each time Opening Arguments publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
No transcript yet
This episode has not been transcribed. Request it and it moves to the front of the queue.
More episodes
More from Opening Arguments

Most Lindsay Clancy Coverage Has the Law All Wrong
Opening Arguments

ICE Went Undercover To Expose a Vast Antifa "Conspiracy"
Opening Arguments

Supreme Court Says Why Prevent Trump Violating the Constitution Before It Even H...
Opening Arguments

Meta Must Pay, Bannon's Judge Pushes Back, and a Dolly Parton Shoutout from the...
Opening Arguments