This week's episode covers recent decisions in U.S. v. Tsarnaev (reinstating the death penalty for the Boston Marathon Bomber) and Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center (allowing AG to intervene in abortion case when everyone else gave up).  It's all killer, no filler because the law starts at (1:33).

This week's episode is all about drugs and the mindset needed to distribute drugs illegally.  Ruan v. U.S. asks whether a doctor accused of violating the Controlled Substance Act should be judged by an objective standard (would every doctor think this was wrong), or a subjective standard (did this doctor think this was wrong).  Law starts at (05:00).

Well, Mene Gene, it is the Establishment Clause vs. the Free Exercise Clause because this week's case is Carson v. Minkin, in which a Supreme Court with three new justices must decide whether a State can refuse children from choose religious schools under a State-Scholarship program.  Law starts at (11:00).

The title this week is more literal than figurative, as we cover Ramirez v. Collier, a case which asks whether someone receiving the death penalty is Constitutionally required to have a religious figure of their choosing physically touching the person and audibly praying.  The law starts at (16:20), but the intro is more about practicing criminal law, as opposed to like whether seafood belongs in ravioli.

This week's episode covers all the things you love: Ted Cruz, Shaky Campaign Finance Laws, and rich people winning political offices.  Your boys revisit some food talk while discussing Federal Elections Commission v. Ted Cruz, which discussed whether Ted Cruz can get repaid for a $10,000.00 loan he made to Ted Cruz.  Law starts at (10:35).

We have one more emergency episode, which covers the Supreme Court's decisions in NFIB v. DOL and Biden v. Missouri, which discusses why one mandate is OK and the other mandate is not OK.  Once again, there's probably more administrative law than you're expecting.  Law starts from the beginning.

Sound the alarm, as we are back with an emergency podcast discussing the oral argument in National Federation of Independent Businesses (i.e. the Dudes) v. Department of Labor, and Biden v. Missouri, two cases discussing the Constitutionality of President Biden's Vaccine Mandate, BUT only through the context of Administrative Law.  The law starts from the beginning.

This week's episode covers two recent opinions by Judge Neil Gorsuch, including Whole Women's Health v. Jackson (which determined whether injunctive lawsuits by abortion clinics to stop the Texas Heartbeat Law could proceed) and Dr. A v. Hochul (which asked whether President Biden's mandate could be enjoined pending a resolution on religious exceptions).  You, the listener, are tasked with playing the part of Oliver Twist, and whether you want more or less of Judge Gorsuch's gruel is a joke that will make more sense during the episode.  Law starts at (09:17), and the podcast will return after a short break at the end of January.

This week's episode (which is far less attractive than our November 21st episode) covers Thompson v. Clark, a case which asks how not-guilty a person must be to file a 1983 claim against a police officer accused of violating a person's Constitutional Rights.  Although complicated and unsexy, its a case which is interesting in the context of police-officer civil liability.  Law starts at (06:17).

Brace yourself, as this week's episode covers oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson's Women's Health, a case in which the justices debate the Constitutionality of a 15-week ban on abortions in Mississippi.  Brett and Nazim go through the underlying precedent, and then cover the when, how, and why the Roe and Casey standards may be changed by this decision.  The law starts at (03:11).

This week's episode is the podcast's favorite tradition, which is answering listener-submitted questions about Thanksgiving, the law, and somehow both of those topics together.  This year includes Biden's Supreme Court, Justices as Thanksgiving dessert, and the proper evaluation of Turkey.  Happy Thanksgiving and we'll be back on December 4, 2021.

This week's episode covers U.S. v. Vaello-Madero, a case which asks whether excluding residents of Puerto Rico from receiving federal benefits violates the Equal Protection Clause.  The answer is cut-and-dry, but not for the reasons you think.  Law starts at (06:02).

This week's episode covers United States v. Tsarnaev, which asks whether the Supreme Court will re-instate the death penalty for the Boston Marathon bomber based on two discrete issues of criminal procedure.  The discussion on the story starts at (07:04), but the law begins at (17:24).

Brett and Nazim return with a discussion on the oral argument in Whole Women's Health v. Jackson and United States v. Texas, which both address the (procedural) Constitutionality of Texas' abortion ban supported by private enforcement.  This discussion includes (1) what are they talking about, (2) how did this get here, and (3) is this going to be over soon.  Law starts at (05:02); and for reference, there are minor sound static in the third act because Brett was pounding on his desk when he talked, but it goes away fairly quickly.

This week's case covers Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, which asks whether or not the Kentucky Attorney General can intervene in a case to defend a defunct abortion law when everyone else in the government has given up, but also Nazim's birthday, Nazim's favorite taco, and Nazim's ideal birthday dessert.  Law starts at (10:08).

Gather round, all ye violent individuals, as we are discussing the text of the Armed Career Criminals Act through the case of Wooden v. U.S.  Brett and Nazim discuss a few background cases on the ACCA, what Due Process requires of a criminal statute that gets discussed by the Court almost every year, and who would play Nazim in a biopic about his life.  Law starts at (10:52).

Listen, if you're thinking that this title is just a cheap joke, you'll be happy to know that it is the heart and soul of this episode, which covers Nazim's favorite Constitutional issue, the Confrontation Clause, through the case of Hemphil v. New York. The law basically starts from the beginning, although you could start at (03:06) if we're being technical.

The boys are back in podcast town.  The season kicks off with an analysis of President Biden's Vaccine Mandate under the most applicable provisions of the Constitution.  Also, we added 15 minutes of content so we could talk about TOP 3 FAVORITE SNACKS! Our answers will not surprise you.  The law kinda starts at (04:25), but then actually starts at (08:04).

Brett and Nazim take a break from their vacation to discuss the Supreme Court's denial of injunctive relief in the case of Whole Women's Health v. Jackson, which allowed a Texas abortion law to proceed. 

It's the end of the term, so Brett and Nazim are coming at you LIVE from an online chatroom.  This episode grades the predictions from last summer, and sets forth new predictions for next summer.  The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court will return in October 2021.

With an episode title like this, you know its a party. This week's grab-bag episode covers cases regarding bankruptcy law (City of Chicago v. Fulton), immigration law (Pereida v. Wilkson), and admin law (Yellen v. Collins), all while discussing nu metals favorite sons.  Not only does the law start at (07:40), but we don't even hit the into until (02:40).

This week's episode previews the biggest case of next year's term, Dobbs v. Jackson  Women's Health Organization, in which the State of Mississippi has asked the newly-formed Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade.  Brett and Nazim discuss a bit of the background of Roe and consider possible outcomes of the Dobbs decision.  Law starts at (09:40), and details on our end-of-the-term episode over ZOOM start at (08:20).

This week's episode covers Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, in which the Supreme Court struck down a law which required charitable organizations to disclose their major donors.  Brett and Nazim discuss the ideological split on the Court and what it means to be "conservative" in this day and age.  No time stamp because this all killer, no filler.  The law starts from the beginning.