This week's episode covers a topic that will either (a) make you think differently about an important component of the American civil justice system, or (b) make you bored and confused. Brett and Nazim are hoping for the former as they cover general personal jurisdiction concepts, why law students are afraid of personal jurisdiction, and how all that comes together in the case of BNSF Railway Co. v Tyrell. Law starts at (08:39).
In this week's episode, Brett and Nazim discuss the importance of tuna melts, debate the fairness of Public Defender funding, discuss the scope of Ake v. Oklahoma, and finally land on McWilliams v. Dunn, a case that not only covers whether an indigent defendant is entitled to an independent expert in a criminal case, but also perfectly sums out the contrary points in Brett and Nazim's criminal law jurisprudence. Law starts at (06:06).
In this week's mini-episode, Brett and Nazim debate the District Court of Hawaii's recent opinion striking down the newest iteration of Trump's Executive Order Travel Ban.
This week's episode covers three cases that deal with how the criminal justice system makes money off criminal convictions, which include Nelson v. Colorado (whether the government has to refund your fees if you are later found guilty), Manrique v. U.S. (whether an appeal has to be amended if you want to appeal a subsequently determined monetary penalty) and Honeycutt v. U.S. (whether co-conspirators are jointly and severally liable for foreseeable profits from the conspiracy). Law starts at (04:38).
This week's case, Hernandez v. Mesa, untangles the procedure hurdles that result when a U.S. government official standing on U.S. soil shoots and kills a Mexican citizen standing on Mexican soil. Brett and Nazim discuss three big procedural hurdles, and why twenty feet in either direction make this case a lot easier to resolve. The law starts at (09:30), but please start at (06:26) if you live in the Bay Area and don't want to hear about cool countries you can party in at age 19.
Today's mini-episode covers the recent decisions in Glouchester County School Board v. G.G. and Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, which were both resolved earlier this week. Brett and Nazim also debate the merits of the "chili cheesesteak" and request very specific listener feedback on a question entitled "Beef on beef?"
A lot happens in the Supreme Court, and this episode fills in the gaps for cases where changes have occurred over the last few weeks. First, Brett and Nazim discuss the recent decisions in Buck v. Davis (is a racist expert grounds for IAC), and Frye v. Napoleon Schools (can a student file under the ADA for the schools' lack of accommodation), then the cases of Lee v. Tam (can you trademark racist rock band names) and Glouchester County v. G.G. (transgender bathroom case) are updated. There was a weirdly high number of curse words in this one, but they have been unconstitutionally beeped in post-production. Law starts at (4:00).
This week's episode covers the legal adventures of Will Smith's favorite city, as City of Miami v. Wells Fargo & City of Miami v. Bank of America covers whether or not a municipality can sue mortgage lenders for causing the late-2000s housing crisis under the Fair Housing Act. Brett and Nazim discuss whether or not standing, proximate cause, or damages will pose problems for Miami's lawsuit and also share their favorite Fresh Prince songs. Law starts at (03:30).
This week's episode covers a popular topic, the government's power to make rules regarding immigration, but from an entirely different angle. This week's episode covers the case of Jennings v. Rodriguez, which asks the Court to decide whether or not non-citizens are entitled to the same bail rights as U.S. citizens. Brett and Nazim cover the background of bail and why inconsistent precedent make this case more about judicial activism than anything else. Law starts immediately, with a few tangents about beer and travel later on.
Today's mini-episode covers the bleak prospects of the private lawsuit against President Donald Trump under the Emolument's Clause, an obscure part of the Constitution that is probably at the peak of its general relevancy. Brett and Nazim cover the main deficiencies of the lawsuit and discuss why it will likely not be successful going forward.
This week's episode continues the trend of President Trump hijacking our podcast, covering the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Washington v. Trump, which upheld the TRO preventing enforcement of Trump's Executive Order. Brett and Nazim cover the 5 major points from the decision and predict whether or not the Supreme Court has the interest in reversing, or even hearing, any of the government's arguments at the higher level. Law starts at (1:47).
This week's episode discusses the merits of Donald Trump's new SCOTUS pick, who Brett and Nazim have affectionately nicknamed "Judge Neil". Brett and Nazim discuss Judge's Neil's judicial background, the appropriate response for Democratic politicians looking to block the appointment, and Brett shares one of the many stories that will prevent him from ever sitting on the Supreme Court bench. Law starts at (03:10). Also, the intent was to also cover the Emolument's Clause and respond to some feedback on the Executive Order, but we will cover that in a separate episode.
Today's episode covers the controversial Executive Order by Donald Trump, which bars the entry of certain foreign citizens to the United States, and the subsequent lawsuits filed by the ACLU. Brett and Nazim cover the specifics of the Order and whether different elements are dumb (things that are protected against by Separation of Powers), a bummer (things that are legal but not how you would like them done), or dangerous (things that are a non-hyperbolic threat to democracy). Enjoy!!
With Nazim on vacation, this week's episode features special guest Lindsey C. (@DCInbox), who monitors Congress and Congressional communications for her website DC Inbox. Lindsey and Brett discuss the logistics and timeline for an Affordable Care Act/Obamacare repeal, new Supreme Court appointees, and current Supreme Court cases on districts and the Voting Rights Act.
This week's episode runs back America's favorite game, where Nazim tries to guess whether or not horrible lawyer mistakes automatically entitle defendants to new trials. Brett and Nazim also cover the case of Lee v. U.S., where an immigration attorney forgot to inform the client that a guilty plea would result in deportation, and Buck v. Davis, where an attorney put on an expert that shared horribly racist opinions with the jury. Law starts at (03:31).
The War on Terror takes a weird turn this week, as Brett and Nazim cover the cases of Ziglar v. Abbasi, Turkmen v. Abbasi, & Ashcroft v. Abasi, which decide whether or not enemy combatants who were wrongfully detained at Guantanamo Bay may sue government officials for civil damages. Law starts at (06:19).
In this mini-episode, Nazim checks in from across the pond to discuss White v. Pauley, the Court's new test for imposing civil liability on government officials, and the mechanics of eating oneself to death.
When history looks back on the case of NLRB v. SW General, Inc., it will serve as a weird time capsule for our current government, featuring bipartisan passive aggressiveness, poor statutory construction, and Congress doing nothing. Brett and Nazim untangle this mess while also covering the failed lawsuit to appoint Merrick Garland and the potential undoing of the filibuster. Law starts at (04:45).
This week's episode covers Brady material, which is a fancy way of describing exculpatory evidence that prosecutors are Constitutionally required to hand over to criminal defendants prior to trial. Brett and Nazim discuss the origins of this doctrine and how that impacts the current cases of Turner v. U.S. and Overton v. U.S. Law starts at (04:45).
This week's episode covers whether or not Christmas displays are a violation of the Establishment clause, by going through cases like Lee v. Weisman, Lynch v. Donnelly, Allegheny County v. ACLU, & McCreary County v. ACLU. In addition, Brett and Nazim discuss the current cases of Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapelton, Saint Peter's Health Care System v. Kaplan, and Dignity Health v. Rollins, which cover whether or not institutions that are religious, but not churches, qualify for ERISA exceptions . The law starts at (03:59).
This min-episode covers the Court's recent decisions in Shaw and Salman, two criminal procedure cases where technical arguments were denied in favor of keeping the law as is.
This week's episode covers two cases that relate to the rights of children in schools, including the older case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (covering free speech) and the more recent case of Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools (covering administrative remedies for disabled children). The law starts at (06:16), but jumping ahead would deprive you of the joy of discovering which host is more likely to eat food out of the garbage.
This week's episode is a rip-roaring dive into the exciting world of civil procedure. Brett and Nazim discuss how to start a lawsuit, why some lawsuits get dismissed before trial, and why the case of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne International is as much about international relations as it is about pleading standards. Law starts at (03:12), and we mention a lot of listeners by name in this one.
Brett and Nazim drop by early this week to cover possible lawsuits challenging Donald Trump's presidency, election, and impeachment, and why the Jill Stein Green Party lawsuits are likely to be dismissed by on procedural grounds.
There is a lot to unpack with the case of Packingham v. North Carolina, a First Amendment case that asks whether or not the government can criminalize a sex offender's use of social media and other popular websites. This week, Brett and Nazim discuss how this plays into general Free Speech Law, Due Process considerations, and ex post facto precedent. This week stays pretty on topic, so the law generally starts at (02:45).