Brett and Nazim embark on a marathon session to resolve all the cases that were discussed on the podcast this term. The first batch covers the "Jan Brady" political cases, in that MVA v. Mansky (whether Minnesota's political apparel ban at election polls is unconstitutional), and Abbott v. Perez (whether Texas' District Maps are a violation of the Voting Rights Act) fell by the wayside in lieu of all the other nonsense this term. Law starts at (06:50).
This week's episode is more than just catchy Hall & Oates songs, but instead covers Carpenter v. U.S., a case that discusses how the Supreme Court believes the 4th Amendment applies to cell phone information that discloses your location. Brett and Nazim debate the evolution of the 4th Amendment and which Justice's approach was most prudent (the answer MAY surprise you!). Law starts at (04:26).
Harken back to the good old days of four weeks ago, when the worst thing going on was Gil v. Whiteford getting dismissed on standing issues and Brett's Netflix being mildly frustrating. Brett and Nazim (full of youthful vigor) discuss the state of gerrymandering lawsuits going forward, and add in the case of United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, which dismissed a courtroom shackles case on account of mootness. Law starts at (07:43).
This week's episode covers the new Supreme Court Justice, "Second Best" Brett Kavanaugh, a Justice who no one knows anything about, but can't help buy try to analyze. Then, "First Best" Brett and "The One and Only" Nazim discuss South Dakota v. Wayfair and how the Court should approach overruling precedent. Law starts at (04:38).
The podcast gets contentious this week, as Brett and Nazim agree to disagree about (1) whether a Big Mac is a club sandwich (up to 10:25), (2) religious justices on the Supreme Court (up to 23:00), and (3) National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, the recent decision holding California's FACT Act, which requires specific disclosures of family planning centers that dissuade abortions, unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment.
Yeesh! Quite a week at the Supreme Court, amiright?? This week's episode covers Anthony Kennedy's Retirement through the lens of Trump v. Hawaii, and Janus v. AFSCME to break down what the future may hold for a five justice conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Law starts at (08:.....no, just kidding. It starts from the beginning).
This week's episode is all about REMANDS; including what they are, how they work, how a lower judge should consider a remanded case, etc. Brett and Nazim discuss Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lungren (does sovereign immunity apply to in rem actions) and Byrd v. U.S. (do persons unnamed on a rental agreement have privacy rights in a rental car) and how those remands speak to the Court's control over lower appellate judges. Law starts from the beginning, as you get to hear Nazim's reaction in real time to the Court's decision in Gil v. Whitford (which we will talk about next week).
This week's episode covers three big questions. (1) How big of a deal is the decision in Husted v. A. Phillip Randolph Instit.(can Ohio purge old voter rolls, (2) How big of a deal is the decision in McCoy v. Louisiana (can a criminal attorney admit guilt over a defendant's objection), and (3) What's a big deal when it comes to the Supreme Court (you know, like what is a "big deal" exactly??) Nazim's metaphor game is particularly strong in this one btw. Law starts at (07:14).
This week's episode covers the recent decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case which balanced the value of anti-discrimination statutes against the religious protections of the First Amendment to figure a compromise that likely everyone hates. Law starts at (04:37)
This week's episode covers the recent decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis, which can be more aptly stated as Overly Power Arbitration Act v. Sensible Worker's Rights Requests. Brett and Nazim break down the basis for the decision, debate judicial activism, and talk about why Weezer sucks. Law starts at (05:14).
This week's episode covers the improbable case of Christie v. NCAA, where New Jersey's second bite at legalizing State gambling actually worked, and now Federal Gambling laws are unconstitutional. Brett and Nazim celebrate this brand new world by setting odds for one-on-one fights between Supreme Court Justices. Law starts at (04:15), but it takes a while to get focused.
Brett and Nazim celebrate their 200th episode (!!!) the only way they know how, by talking about food for way too long, going on a weird tangent about the Mueller investigation that dovetails into the shady side of corporate law, and finally landing on Trump v. Hawaii, the travel ban case that asks the Supreme Court to gauge how prejudiced the President is allowed to be before we do anything about it. Law starts at (11:50).
This week's episode covers judges, and more specifically judicial mistakes currently before the Supreme Court. Brett and Nazim discuss Rosales-Mireles v. U.S, which basically covers how the Court should approach math problems, and Dalmazzi v. U.S., which discusses the current applicability of Civil War military appointment statutes. Law starts at (04:30).
This week's episode covers oral arguments and recent decisions with varying degrees of stakes. Brett and Nazim discuss Abbott v. Perez (which might decide the fate of modern democracy) Jesner v. Arab Bank PLC (which may facilitate terrorism), SAS Institute v. Matal (which deals with paperwork), and Trump v. Hawaii (which has something to do with the President). Law starts at (04:18).
This week's episode covers two recent decisions by the Court, including Microsoft v. U.S. (where the Court determined the dispute was moot after passage of the CLOUD Act), and Dimaya v. Sessions (where the Court invalidated the Immigrant Removal Act on grounds of vagueness under the Due Process Clause). Law starts at (08:48), but you'd be missing some pretty dope NASA talk.
Maybe a 6 out of 10? Depends on how you feel about lawsuits destined to fail, since this week we are covering sovereign immunity and the inherently futility of trying to hold the government accountable for bad actions. Brett and Nazim discuss the cases of Kisela v. Hughes (do police get qualified immunity for shooting people?) and Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (can the government stop your free speech rights by arresting you if you kind of deserve to be arrested). Law starts at (05:50).
This week's episode covers double jeopardy, a legal concept that should be easy, but technical legal rules have made complicated and kind of boring. To that end(!!), Brett and Nazim spice up the case of Currier v. Virginia, where the Court has to determine whether a severed charge can be tried following an acquittal. Law starts at (07:09), but before them Nazim talks about how he thinks he could be the Bachelor, sooooooooo skip at your own peril.
This week's episode tackles the wild and unpredictable world of Family Court, where everyone is nuts and there are no rules. Brett and Nazim cover the case of Sveen v. Melin, where the Court is asked whether a revocation upon divorce statute automatically changes a life insurance beneficiary retroactively, or if people have to still do it themselves. Law starts at (06:00).
This week's episode, which was intended to a brief discussion on Hughes v. U.S. to compensate for Brett's lost voice, quickly turned into a more substantive discussion on plurality opinions, sentencing guidelines and actual buffets. So the title isn't really a joke, cuz like the last ten minutes is legit all about buffets. The law starts at (03:36), but if you hate food talk, feel free to bail around the time Brett talks about eating oysters at the Chinese buffet.
First off, this week's episode covers the case of National Institute of Family and Life Advocate v. Becerra, which decides whether or not a California Statute (the FACT Act) that requires specific disclosures of Reproductive Family Centers violates the First Amendment. Brett and Nazim have a brief crash course on general abortion rights under the Constitution and then cover why the statute may end up a 1-1 tie. Secondly, I think we did a really good job with the title of the podcast this week. Law starts at (03:11).
This week is a total bummer, as Brett and Nazim cover two cases, Microsoft Corp. v. U.S. (dealing with the U.S. jurisdiction to seize digital assets overseas) and Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31 (aka the Unions)(dealing paying union dues when you're not the union), that depending on how you feel about privacy or organized labor could be a real downer. Brett and Nazim look on the bright side of both cases, by either arguing why the good side should win or why it won't be a bad thing if they lose. (Law at 5:20).
We're live from Brett's living room today, as Brett and Nazim go old school to explain why immigrants don't have bail hearings (Jennings v. Rodriguez), why Congress can decide cases for the Courts (Patchak v. Zinke), and why podcasters shouldn't eat while recording. Law starts at (03:10).
This week's episode is covers a slew of recent decisions dealing with guilty pleas (Class v. U.S.), statutory interpretation (Digital Realty Trust v. Somers), and math (Murphy v. Smith). Brett and Nazim discuss each decision and focus on whether or not the facts of the case matter when dealing with bad statutes. Law starts at (03:22).
That's right folks!! The Supreme Court is coming after your precious Amazon purchases, as the case of South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. will decide whether adding State taxes to online purchases violates the Dormant Commerce Clause. Brett and Nazim discuss Federalism and the DCC at length, brag about living in a State that will be unaffected by the whole ordeal, and sing a weird amount. Law starts at (04:17).
This week Brett and Nazim are "peak Brett and Nazim", as the Brett crows about the Eagles winning the Super Bowl and Nazim discusses how to improve voting districts. In addition to covering the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision which declared the district maps unconstitutional, the case of Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky is also discussed, which covers whether statutes banning political apparel at voting stations violate the First Amendment. The law technically starts at (06:48), but there's some turbulence until like the ten minute mark.