This week's episode covers the recently dismissed case of North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory, v. Harris, v. Whatever Republicans Want to Stand Up for Racist Gerrymandering, which includes how influential the case would have been on the more wide-spread problem of non-racist gerrymandering, and what we can take away from Roberts' short opinion disavowing any value from the dismissal. The topical law above starts at (08:29), but Brett and Nazim also talk about how you can get arrested for laughing at Jeff Sessions starting at (0:57).
This week's podcast covers two gay rights cases that will likely be before the Supreme Court next term. The first is Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, which asks whether Title VII (Brett calls it Title IX because he is terrible at roman numerals) bans sexual orientation discrimination, and the second is Masterpiece Cakes v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which asks whether a Colorado statute banning private sexual orientation discrimination violates the First Amendment. Law starts at (08:40).
Brett is joined by special guest Lindsey (@DCInbox) to cover the House of Representatives passage of the American Health Care Act, including the likelihood of passage through the Senate, current communication from both sides of the aisle, and how the preexisting condition components implicate federalism and State's rights.
This week's episode covers topical legal vacation spots, including (a) why Miami likely won the battle but lost the war, in Bank of America v. City of Miami (b) why Venezuela benefited off annoying lawyer tricks in Venezuela v. Helmerich and Payne, and (c) why San Francisco, Santa Clara, and other sanctuary cities benefited from poor document drafting in Trump v. Santa Clara. Law starts at (04:01).
This week's episode covers two cases, Sessions v. Dimaya & Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, which cover the Constitutionality and fairness of removal statutes that require deportation on statutory grounds. Law starts at (09:18), but you'd be missing discussions on French politics and a special guest appearance by Nazim's wife Katya, who discusses some helpful men's fashion tips for the summer.
This mini-episode covers the recent opinions in Nelson v. Colorado, Manrique v. U.S, and the Court's recent denial of Arkansas Death Penalty Appeals.
With the 2016/2017 term plodding toward its conclusion, Brett and Nazim discuss a few civil cases that fell through the cracks, including Lewis v. Clark (covering tribal sovereign immunity for casino employees), Microsoft Corp. v. Baker (weird civil procedure moves in class action lawsuits, and Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates (intervention standards when you hate your municipality). Law starts at (05:32).
Things have been pretty serious lately, so this week's episode takes a leisurely detour into the legal implications following United Airlines forcibly dragging a passenger off the plane, which discussions on include contract law, the FAA's agency authority, trespasser liability, and somehow Ralph Nader. Spoiler Alert, the law mostly favors the airline and the law starts at (15:40!), so lets be careful out there, folks!
What started as a late night podcast covering Manuel v. City of Joliet (Ted Danson), SW General v. NLRB (Steve Guttenberg), and Moore v. Texas (Tom Selleck), ended up becoming a deeper discussion about judicial discretion and the Supreme Court nomination of Neil Gorsuch (the baby). Law starts at (04:21).
This week's episode covers a topic that will either (a) make you think differently about an important component of the American civil justice system, or (b) make you bored and confused. Brett and Nazim are hoping for the former as they cover general personal jurisdiction concepts, why law students are afraid of personal jurisdiction, and how all that comes together in the case of BNSF Railway Co. v Tyrell. Law starts at (08:39).
In this week's episode, Brett and Nazim discuss the importance of tuna melts, debate the fairness of Public Defender funding, discuss the scope of Ake v. Oklahoma, and finally land on McWilliams v. Dunn, a case that not only covers whether an indigent defendant is entitled to an independent expert in a criminal case, but also perfectly sums out the contrary points in Brett and Nazim's criminal law jurisprudence. Law starts at (06:06).
In this week's mini-episode, Brett and Nazim debate the District Court of Hawaii's recent opinion striking down the newest iteration of Trump's Executive Order Travel Ban.
This week's episode covers three cases that deal with how the criminal justice system makes money off criminal convictions, which include Nelson v. Colorado (whether the government has to refund your fees if you are later found guilty), Manrique v. U.S. (whether an appeal has to be amended if you want to appeal a subsequently determined monetary penalty) and Honeycutt v. U.S. (whether co-conspirators are jointly and severally liable for foreseeable profits from the conspiracy). Law starts at (04:38).
This week's case, Hernandez v. Mesa, untangles the procedure hurdles that result when a U.S. government official standing on U.S. soil shoots and kills a Mexican citizen standing on Mexican soil. Brett and Nazim discuss three big procedural hurdles, and why twenty feet in either direction make this case a lot easier to resolve. The law starts at (09:30), but please start at (06:26) if you live in the Bay Area and don't want to hear about cool countries you can party in at age 19.
Today's mini-episode covers the recent decisions in Glouchester County School Board v. G.G. and Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, which were both resolved earlier this week. Brett and Nazim also debate the merits of the "chili cheesesteak" and request very specific listener feedback on a question entitled "Beef on beef?"
A lot happens in the Supreme Court, and this episode fills in the gaps for cases where changes have occurred over the last few weeks. First, Brett and Nazim discuss the recent decisions in Buck v. Davis (is a racist expert grounds for IAC), and Frye v. Napoleon Schools (can a student file under the ADA for the schools' lack of accommodation), then the cases of Lee v. Tam (can you trademark racist rock band names) and Glouchester County v. G.G. (transgender bathroom case) are updated. There was a weirdly high number of curse words in this one, but they have been unconstitutionally beeped in post-production. Law starts at (4:00).
This week's episode covers the legal adventures of Will Smith's favorite city, as City of Miami v. Wells Fargo & City of Miami v. Bank of America covers whether or not a municipality can sue mortgage lenders for causing the late-2000s housing crisis under the Fair Housing Act. Brett and Nazim discuss whether or not standing, proximate cause, or damages will pose problems for Miami's lawsuit and also share their favorite Fresh Prince songs. Law starts at (03:30).
This week's episode covers a popular topic, the government's power to make rules regarding immigration, but from an entirely different angle. This week's episode covers the case of Jennings v. Rodriguez, which asks the Court to decide whether or not non-citizens are entitled to the same bail rights as U.S. citizens. Brett and Nazim cover the background of bail and why inconsistent precedent make this case more about judicial activism than anything else. Law starts immediately, with a few tangents about beer and travel later on.
Today's mini-episode covers the bleak prospects of the private lawsuit against President Donald Trump under the Emolument's Clause, an obscure part of the Constitution that is probably at the peak of its general relevancy. Brett and Nazim cover the main deficiencies of the lawsuit and discuss why it will likely not be successful going forward.
This week's episode continues the trend of President Trump hijacking our podcast, covering the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Washington v. Trump, which upheld the TRO preventing enforcement of Trump's Executive Order. Brett and Nazim cover the 5 major points from the decision and predict whether or not the Supreme Court has the interest in reversing, or even hearing, any of the government's arguments at the higher level. Law starts at (1:47).
This week's episode discusses the merits of Donald Trump's new SCOTUS pick, who Brett and Nazim have affectionately nicknamed "Judge Neil". Brett and Nazim discuss Judge's Neil's judicial background, the appropriate response for Democratic politicians looking to block the appointment, and Brett shares one of the many stories that will prevent him from ever sitting on the Supreme Court bench. Law starts at (03:10). Also, the intent was to also cover the Emolument's Clause and respond to some feedback on the Executive Order, but we will cover that in a separate episode.
Today's episode covers the controversial Executive Order by Donald Trump, which bars the entry of certain foreign citizens to the United States, and the subsequent lawsuits filed by the ACLU. Brett and Nazim cover the specifics of the Order and whether different elements are dumb (things that are protected against by Separation of Powers), a bummer (things that are legal but not how you would like them done), or dangerous (things that are a non-hyperbolic threat to democracy). Enjoy!!
With Nazim on vacation, this week's episode features special guest Lindsey C. (@DCInbox), who monitors Congress and Congressional communications for her website DC Inbox. Lindsey and Brett discuss the logistics and timeline for an Affordable Care Act/Obamacare repeal, new Supreme Court appointees, and current Supreme Court cases on districts and the Voting Rights Act.
This week's episode runs back America's favorite game, where Nazim tries to guess whether or not horrible lawyer mistakes automatically entitle defendants to new trials. Brett and Nazim also cover the case of Lee v. U.S., where an immigration attorney forgot to inform the client that a guilty plea would result in deportation, and Buck v. Davis, where an attorney put on an expert that shared horribly racist opinions with the jury. Law starts at (03:31).
The War on Terror takes a weird turn this week, as Brett and Nazim cover the cases of Ziglar v. Abbasi, Turkmen v. Abbasi, & Ashcroft v. Abasi, which decide whether or not enemy combatants who were wrongfully detained at Guantanamo Bay may sue government officials for civil damages. Law starts at (06:19).