This week's episode covers King v Burwell, a case that saved Obamacare in America despite being almost completely incorrect from a strict statutory construction standpoint.  King is also compared to the Texas Disparate Housing case and how both cases illustrate the difference between being persuasive and being correct.   Brett and Nazim also share their thoughts on the outcome of the same sex marraige case, despite recording the day before it was decided.

In addition to discussing the decisions in Ohio v Clark, Brumfield v. Cain, and Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans, Brett and Nazim discuss (1) which case would be worse to lose, Obamacare or Same Sex Marriage, (2) who won the Confrontation Clause Wars of 2015, (3) what is the best way to stop Nazim from criticizing the TSA, and (4) what happens when your license plate contains accidental explicit sex language?

Spoiler Alert!  The answer is no.  However, that did not stop the Court from hearing Glossip v. Gross, a case that determines whether or not a drug that sedates death row inmates before death violates the 8th Amendment to the Constitution.  This episode talks about the likely ending to Glossip, along with a broader discussion about what the Supreme Court can really do when it comes to cases addressing the death penalty.

This week's episode reviews the recent decisions of Elonis v. U.S. and Abercrombie & Fitch v. EEOC.  Within this episode, Brett and Nazim talk about how the decisions were more limited than expected, but how that may be in the best interests of the Court and the government at large.  So rest easy, millenial-based businesses, your time has not yet come to be face the wrath of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

It's been a while since we've gotten into the background of the Supreme Court, so this week, Brett and Nazim discuss the self-imposed scope of the Supreme Court's Power by way of a weird behind-the-scenes nuance of the San Francisco v. Sheehan case on police force.  Much like any powerful individuals with unfettered power, the Supreme Court has had a strange amount of discretion in the limits of what it can do under the Constitution and has defined its role in the government carefully.  By discussing judicial review, Marbury v. Madison, and standing, Brett and Nazim illustrate how they're basically a government institution with the same morals as Spiderman.

This week's podcast covers Jesinoski v. Countrywide Loans, a case that deals directly with the mortgage crisis of the mid-2000s.  Brett and Nazim give background on the general topic of buying a house and why the Jesinoski case could give aggrieved homeowners a leg up against banks that caused this mess in the first place.

AKA, the Devil's Threesome.  This week, Brett and Nazim cover the case of Williams-Yullee v. Florida Bar, which decided whether restrictions on a Judge's campaign donations were a violation of the First Amendment.  This leads to a bigger discussion on Citizens United, in which popular opinions are polled to see if Citizens United is the worst decision of last few years, or the worst decision ever.

Brett and Nazim discuss the technical side of the death penalty, including how it is administered, the jury requirements and why Nazim thinks it costs too much.  The cases, Kansas v. Carr and Brumfield v. Cain, help show how the death penalty comes before the Court and also that Court officials adminstering the death penalty make the same dumb mistakes at work that we all do.

We're running back the same sex marriage case to talk about the Oral Argument held on April 28, 2015.  Brett and Nazim discuss the nuances of oral argument, who should be panicking based on the judge's questions, and which N'Sync member can be most associated to Justice Breyer.

Stop scoffing at that title.  This week's episode covers all aspects of the American Jury system, along with the current case of Warger v. Shauers, to help motivate you to celebrate, instead of cringe, when you receive your summons for jury duty.  Brett and Nazim also shed light on the seminal Family Matters episode where Urkel's persistance in the jury room acquits a man unfairly charged with robbery.

The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a real law with history, scope, thoughts and feelings, and this episode gives that devil its due.  Brett and Nazim address popular conclusions regarding the law to help shape ways to address the law's reach in either direction.

There is no good resolution to the case of Walker v. Sons of Confederate Soldiers.  Whether you are a free speech advocate or someone who simply doesn't appreciate images of slavery, the determination of whether or not Texas should allow Confederate Flag license plates will likely make you feel gross.  Brett and Nazim also revisit the premise of principal v. money in the context of why to enter into litigation.

Brett and Nazim discuss King v. Burwell, a dumb case based on dumb facts and dumb law that will probably have a dumb outcome.  Making lemonade out of lemons, Nazim shares a wealth of great knowledge about the background and current state of the law, while Brett shares how many hotdogs he can eat in one sitting.

Like most great story arcs, our discussion into Equal Protection has a depressing epilogue.  Through cases concerning equal protection and affirmative action, Brett and Nazim talk about how the Court's rigid approach to Equal Protection has blocked anti-discrimination efforts up through this term of the Supreme Court.  The current case before the Supreme Court, which deals with the Texas Housing Authority and the Court's Disparate Impact test, is the litmus test under which to be depressed by.

This week discusses the Supreme Court's decision on whether a State can ban gay marriage.  Brett & Nazim cover this history of gay rights in the Supreme Court (spoiler:its bad), and how the current court may decide the issue (spoiler:its good). 

Brett and Nazim discuss the convoluted way that the Supreme Court evaluates Equal Protection Claims.  In addition to walking through the three major tests used by the Court, the primary cases discussed involve why Virginia Military Academy could not exclude women, and then UPS v. Young, which deals with pregnancy discrimination in the workplace.

Brett and Nazim start a three-part discussion on Equal Protection and the Gay Marriage decision this summer that begins with how the Constitution has used creative means to ban private discrimination in states and private businesses.  The Abercrombie & Fitch v. EEOC case is also discussed, which discussed the age-old battle between trendy clothes and religious freedom.

Brett and Nazim continue to empty out the mailbag, discussing whether the Federal or State government could require mandatory vaccinations, the inner workings of the Supreme Court, and the difference between judicial interpretation of the law and judicial activism.  The last email also brings up the cases of Johnson v. U.S. and Whitfield v. U.S., where simple semantics could influence broader sentencing policy on guns and drugs.

Brett and Nazim open up the listener mailbag to answer questions posed by listeners and update previous cases that have since been decided.  The topics this week include Holt v. Hobbs, smart phone technology, why DUI checkpoints are acceptable under the 4th amendment, and the possible scope of the Confrontation Clause decision.  Due to the general breadth of this episode, we split it into two, so the remaining topics will be covered next week. Same Breyer time, same Breyer Channel.

The thesis of this week's episode is that taxes are nothing to be trifled with.  First, Brett and Nazim discuss the many ways that citizens have failed trying to make income taxes unconstitutional.  Afterward, Brett and Nazim discuss Comptroller of Maryland v. Wynn, in which the Court is asked to determine if a State is required to credit taxes paid to other states under the Dormant Commerce Clause.  Finally, Brett's wife Jess comes on to confuse the issue entirely.

This week's episode covers Ohio v. Clark, which asks whether or not a teacher may testify on behalf of a three year old child who was the only witness to a child abuse case under the Confrontation Clause.  This presents a good example of how the law can complicate an objective view of a bad situation, or how a sensitive topic can otherwise deny a citizen's Constitutional rights.  Either way, Brett and Nazim get real awkward debating the issue somewhere around the 35 minuute mark, so get ready for that.

This week's episode discusses the legal issues surrounding the police in Ferguson, MS and Staton Island, NY.  The goal here was to take a strictly legal and objective overview of the issues in each case, specifically what a grand jury does, why you can't sue the government and what the Constitution says about police use of deadly force, without getting too deep into the political issues that made up most of the media coverage.  Let's call this one better late than never.

This week handles a hypothetical only a paranoid conspiracy theorist could love.  Through the lens of whether police could solve crimes by searching fingerprints given to access smart phones, Brett and Nazim discuss how the 4th amendment has evolved with technology, specifically through cases like Katz v U.S., Riley v. California and Maryland v. King.  We also cover which Supreme Court Justice loves the Philly Phanatic.

This week's episode cover topics that include; but are not limited to, jury duty, learning when you hate your job, why cigarettes are awesome, federalism, standing, Bush v. Gore, and ultimately the legalization of marijuana.  Brett and Nazim talk about the legal issues surrounding this topic and how the decision could find itself before the Supreme Court in the next few years.

Brett and Nazim discuss the case of Elonis v. U.S., which covers whether or not the Supreme Court will afford special protection to threatening statements made on Facebook and/or prosecute people who share pictures of food.  That last part is a joke, but seriously stop doing that.