This week's episode is brought to you by the concept of bias, whether it be as a juror, a post-conviction judge, or a PA Supreme Court justice overturning a death penalty reprieve.  Brett and Nazim discuss Williams v. Pennsylvania, in which the Supreme Court has to determine whether or not a State Supreme Court judge should recuse himself from a death penalty appeal when that same judge was part of the original decision to sentence the defendant to death to begin with.

This week's podcast covers popular legal news stories currently in the media.  Brett and Nazim first discuss the potential appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, take a soft right turn into the San Bernardino iPhone issue with the FBI, take a hard right turn at the Hulk Hogan v. Gawker sex tape lawsuit, and then go generally off the rails discussing New Jersey's fight for your right to lose money betting on individual sporting events.

This week's episode covers three issues on federalism: (1) what it means for Kennedy to be pro-federalism and what other jurisdictional quirks belong to other justices (2) how Nazim responds to comments about his corrections to the Senate, and (3)  whether the current case of Taylor v. U.S., and the Hobbs Act generally, is a proper exercise of the Commerce Clause or an unreasonable extension of the War on Drugs. 

Brett is joined by Joe V., an anti-trust attorney, a Harvard Law graduate, and all-around smart guy to discuss Constitutional issues and Antitrust law.  Brett and Joe discuss how whether the evolution of the Second Amendment has hurt or helped gun rights, and also cover the case of North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, which is likely the most interesting court case you will hear this year about teeth-whitening. 

This week's episode covers recent oral arguments in World Women's Health v. Hellerstadt, which determines whether or not a Texas law that raised the standards for abortion clinics is liable under the undue burden test, and U.S. v. Voisine, which deals with whether the Federal Government can ban persons convicted of domestic violence from owning a gun.  If that all sounds a bit heavy, Brett talks about what internet celebrity he looks like and Nazim speaks French.

This week's episode covers the case of U.S. v. Texas, which determines whether or not President Obama's executive orders on immigration are Constitutional under the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.  Brett and Nazim discuss the elements of both orders, the DACA and the DAPA, and how those orders should be viewed through the President's existing Constitutional Powers under Article 2. 

Part Two of the "Nazim is on Vacation" episodes continues with a conversation about history with Justin, one of the longest-listening fans of the Citizen's Guide podcast.  Brett and Justin discuss a little American history, and include specific references to Bills of Attainder in the Bank Markazi v. Peterson case, the colonization of Puerto Rico in the Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Vital case, and how the Supreme Court views 19th Century Congressional grants of Native American land in the case of Nebraska v. Parker.  Special thanks to DJ Ray for the Serial-esque background music.

Brett and Ross continue their discussion about criminal cases before the Supreme Court, including Ocasio v. U.S., Lockhart v. U.S., Utah v. Strieff,  & Beylund v. Minnesota.  They also discuss the implications of Hurst v. Florida, and how Montgomery v. La may influence the upcoming case of Molina-Martinez v. U.S.

While Nazim was on vacation, Brett interviewed his friend Ross, a Public Defender in a City ABC Networks have deemed "Murder Town".  Brett and Ross discuss what is like to be a Public Defender, how to properly eat pizza, U.S. v. Luis, and bank robbery movies.  This was split into two parts, so please listen to Part Two.

It is a somber episode of the podcast this week as Brett and Nazim discuss the past, present and future implications of the passing of Justice Scalia.  This includes the positive and negative results from his originalist view of the Constitution along with what President Obama can/should do in regard to the subsequent appointment.

To celebrate Nazim's return from vacation, this week's podcast covers the "one person, one vote" case of Evenwell v. Abbott, where Brett and Nazim debate the age-old questions of "who cares?" and "what's the point?".  To round things out, the result in Duncan v. Owens is examined, along with a longer-than-necessary conversation about bologna.

This week's podcast covers the case of MNH Government Services v. Zaborowski, which determines whether or not mandatory arbitration clauses violate California laws on unconscionability.  Brett and Nazim discuss how this case plays into contract law and federal preemption, all continuing their transformation into a food podcast while eating dessert on the air.

This week Brett and Nazim take a break from reviewing individual SCOTUS cases in order to help you decide which bozo you should vote for president this November.  Instead of giving specific suggestions or candidates, Brett and Nazim discuss the jobs, authority, and powers held by the President under the Constitution and important Supreme Court case law to help you decide who to vote for based on what the President actually does.

This week's episode covers the cases of Bernard v. Minnesota, Beylund v. North Dakota, and Birchfield v. North Dakota, which deal with whether or not State statutes that punish a suspected drunk driver's refusal to take a blood or breath test are constitutional under the 4th amendment.  Full disclosure, there's a good chance that if you are a 4th amendment advocate or an advocate of the Lord of the Rings, cupcakes, brunch, bacon, or pancakes, there's going to be something said here that annoys you, so bring on the emails.  We're not afraid of your criticism.

This week's episode starts with discussing the recent opinion in Hurst v. Florida, the case which considered whether the Florida Death Penalty procedure was Constitutional.  After that, Brett and Nazim go through listener emails, which cover Wisconsin third-party liability evidence procedure, how much the 4th Amendment should coincide with how we feel about police, communist punitive damage theories, and why Civil Procedure is the worst class you can take in law school. 

The case of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Vital has two primary issues, which involve whether the legal concept of Double Jeopardy applies to cases tried in Puerto Rico and whether or not Puerto Rico is a separate and distinct sovereign from the Federal Government.  By coincidence (!!we swear!!) the words "double jeopardy" led to more than one tangent about game shows, so get ready to also hear about Alex Trebek, Family Feud, and Elimidate.

Today we're talking jobs, specifically why some jobs, like Hollywood shows like Game of Thrones, can require people to get naked while other jobs, like yours probably, is not allowed to make those requirements.  Within the scope of employment law, Brett and Nazim discuss why Hooters get sued by its employees, the Steve Sarkisian/USC lawsuit,  and the current Supreme Court case of Green v. Brennan.