So check it out. The intent with this episode was to have a short, slick analysis of Christie v. NCAA, which is both about gambling and federalism, but things almost immediately devolved in talk about fried chicken, Joe Arpaio, Separation of Powers, and Brett's gambling conspiracy theories. It's not all nonsense by any means, but if you're hear just for New Jersey's terrible legal arguments, that starts at (25:36).
This week's episode covers the case of Patchak v. Zinke, which on a small scope covers whether or not the government can force you to live next to a casino, but on a broader scale deals with who wins in a fight, the branch of government filled with mostly old white people who are out of touch with the average person, or the other branch of government who's like basically the same thing. Law starts at (04:06).
This week's episode covers three big happenings from the podcast's summer vacation. First, Brett and Nazim discuss the 9th Circuit's expansion of the "bona fide" relationship test, the new solicitor general, and then in a stunning twist of dramatic irony, discuss the term mootness and how the Travel Ban case may end up dismissed. Law starts at (03:14).
This week's episode marks the end of the 2016/2017 term for the podcast, and to close the book on this season Brett and Nazim discuss cases that were not selected for next term (starting at 03:46), interview the winner of last year's Supreme Court fantasy league to get secrets on how to win next year (starting at 17:56), and finally take listener questions about the term in general (starting at 37:40). Brett and Nazim are taking a short break, and will be back on October 1st.
Yo, how pumped are you right now? In this week's episode, Brett and Nazim discuss the history and procedure of impeachment for federal government employees, including how it works (i.e. Congress), what standards are used during the process (i.e. basically none), and the likelihood that it happens to the current president (i.e. probably not). Did that last line kill your buzz? Sorry, dude. It'll be OK. There's some jokes about bacon if that helps. Law starts at (02:35).
This week's episode takes a practical look at the law to see how three cases influence practicing lawyers on a day to day basis. As they often do, things went on and off the rails, so this week's episode breaks down as follows:
(0:00-02:40) - How is Nazim/How you will know the podcast has ended.
(02:40-19:20) - Attorney check-in/What judges do/Brett and Nazim are bad restaurant employees
(19:20-end) - Lee v. U.S. (is a guilty plea reversible when the lawyer gives wrong info about deportation), Goodyear Tire & Rubber v. Heager (must attorney fee sanctions be causally related to the bad conduct) and Midland Funding v. Johnson (are time-barred filings in bankruptcy court a violation of the FDCA).
This week's episode takes a look back at every 2017 case where Justice Gorsuch submitted a vote to gauge how conservative the new Justice is in respect to the rest of the bench. Brett and Nazim discuss what it means to be "conservative" and/or "liberal", and how the outcome of certain cases can reflect differently on the ideology that supports that outcome. You won't believe it, but the law starts from the very beginning.
In this mini-episode, Brett gives Nazim a Buzzfeed style quiz to determine which Supreme Court justice he most resembles. If you are starved for similar insight, please visit our twitter, facebook and/or website to learn your judicial spirit animal.
This week's podcast plays a game of whether three recent Supreme Court decisions are unreasonable extensions of the law for the travel ban (Trump v. Hawaii), eminent domain (Wisconsin v. Murr), and Brady material (Turner v. U.S.). For each case, Brett and Nazim try to figure out if the law has changed, and whether each decision could lead to ridiculous outcomes in the future. Law starts at (01:24).
Brett and Nazim discuss the recent story that President Trump wants to pardon himself, and while they agree he probably can't, they disagree on why not.
This week covers a trio of issues both generally and specifically related to the Trump Presidency. Brett and Nazim cover (1) the legal ramifications of the Donald Trump Jr. email scandal, (2) the Supreme Court's ruling im Maslenjak v. U.S., which considered the materiality of falsehoods on an immigration application, and then (3) the case of Husted v. A. Phillip Randolph Institute, a case for next term which considers whether Ohio can purge registered voters who fail to vote for six years. Law starts at (03:54).
In 1971, the Supreme Court established the Court's ability to create an independent tort claim for Constitutional violations when no such claim was created by Congress. Over 40 years later, the Court is still trying to put the genie back in the bottle, most recently with the Court's holding in Ziglar v. Abasi, which denied Guantanamo Bay detainees the right to sue government agents. Brett and Nazim go through the history of Bivens claims and how the current Court has changed the original test. Law starts generally from the beginning, but Bivens specific at (07:00).
Good new for this week's podcast, there's a new fantasy Supreme Court champ, bad news for this week's podcast, the police are shooting people. This week's ushers in our Third Annual Summit on Guns by covering the cases of Hernandez v. Mesa (shooting across the Mexican border), and Los Angeles v. Mendez (shooting after not adequately announcing you were police). Fantasy announcement starts at (03:05); Law starts at (07:37).
Monday was a bad day for the KGB Spies, as the Supreme Court decided to hear the Travel Ban case, modified the existing stay, and gave kids attending a church day care a significantly less chance of cracking their skulls open. Brett and Nazim sift through the wreckage to determine if the amended stay of the Travel Ban is more harm than good, and whether Trinity Lutheran is a blatant Constitutional violation or just a sign of the times. Law starts at (03:47).
Brett and Nazim wrap up the final day of the Supreme Court term by discussing Anthony Kennedy's possible-but-maybe-not-but-probably-someday-before-the-apocalypse retirement, the same-sex birth certificate decision of Pavan v. Smith, and how a newly balanced Court might affect Roe v. Wade.
This week's case covers how First Amendment Free Speech protections have adapted to internet communication (Packingham v. North Carolina) and evolving views on racism and hate speech (Lee v Tam), through two cases that are just as much about about Constitutional tests as they are about Alito and Kennedy telling each other to shut up. Law starts at (04:12).
Brett and Nazim re-visit the Travel Ban to discuss whether the 9th Circuit's non-Constitutional approach holds more water than the sexier Establishment Clause arguments of the 4th Circuit.
This week's episode takes a long detour through the Supreme Court's potential review of the Travel Ban at the highest level, with Brett and Nazim discussing each potential Justices view on the appeal and staying the lower order. The case of Sessions v. Morales-Santana is also covered, which pairs an interesting discussion on intermediate scrutiny with a bummer ending that ruins it for everyone. Law starts at (05:43), with a bad-ass Sam Neal/Michael Chrichton discussion around (14:00).
The podcast celebrates Brett's birthday this week by haphazardly covering Wonder Woman (the movie), Wonder Woman (the gender quality lawsuit), digging bodies up out of a graveyard, the availability of State Codes on Google, Tyrell v. BNSF Railway (personal jurisdiction and Ginsburg/Sotomayor fighting), Laroe Estates v. City of Chester (intervention and standing), Bitchin' Camaros, Home Alone and Die Hard as Christmas movies, Honeycutt v. U.S. (joint and several liability in conspiracy convictions), Advocate Health Care v. Stapelton (ERISA coverage for church-affiliated business), and Nazim's harsh review of the Thomas the Tank Engine movie. "Law" starts at (04:09), but its a bumpy ride.
This week's episode covers the case of Cooper v. Harris, a recent Supreme Court case which decided (1) when a State could use the Voting Rights Act as an excuse for racial gerrymandering and (2) when a State impermissibly used race as a factor for gerrymandering as opposed to permissibly using political affiliation. This week's episode also covers the movie The Hunger Games, a recent trilogy of movies that botched the third installment, of which Brett and Nazim ruin the ending. Law starts at (04:41).
This week's episode covers a hodgepodge of listener questions including (02:45) Bill Cosby and the marital privilege, (13:59) modern takes on the Third Amendment, (16:23) cheese steaks and the prosecutor's role in mass incarceration, (26:28) Presidential nepotism and conflict of interest laws, (30:53) double jeopardy and why you should register your car, (33:19) Equal Protection and free tuition residency requirements, (35:53) the Nobility Clause, (40:03) video game movies and partisan hi-jacking of the Supreme Court, (42:06) the future of admin law and Chevron, and (44:13) why you shouldn't go to law school.
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).