We welcome Nazim back from vacation this episode, and to cover their butts for episodes recorded four weeks ago, Brett and Nazim cover U.S. Army Corps v. Hawkes (which was covered in the last episode on admin law) and Foster v. Chatman (which deals with racial considerations in jury selection).
This week's episode covers the contentious topic of eminent domain, which is the when the government is permitted to use or take your Property. Brett and Nazim cover how that is done directly as seen in Kelo v. City of New London, and indirectly by way of the Takings Clause as seen in the upcoming case Murr v. Wisconsin. The Law starts at (5:00), and Brett shares his world famous pasta sauce recipe at (15:00).
The purpose of this episode was to cover Dietz v. Boldin, which deals with whether or not a civil case should result in a mistrial when the jury was released momentarily before being brought back in by the judge; however, it soon became about a host of topics in civil law, including general jury elements, the 7th amendment, working in personal injury, picking jurors, discovery, and the general life of the civil attorney/law clerk. Spoiler, it's boring. Law starts at (5:08).
This week predicts how the Court would evaluate the North Carolina Bathroom law, and transgender rights in general, under the concepts of Substantive Due Process, Equal Protection and Vagueness. Brett and Nazim also discuss two circuit court cases that deal with transgender rights, Fields v. Smith and Glenn v. Brumby. Legal analysis starts at (4:15).
Brett and Nazim gather on short notice to discuss the recent decision in Zubik v. Burwell, specifically what happens next, why this is the best outcome, and whether this would have been the decision had Scalia still been on the Court.
What do drunk driving, getting fired for speaking your mind and terrorism have in common? In addition to being things that scare middle-class white people, each of these topics are the subject of this week's episode, which takes a look at the oral arguments in Beylund v. North Dakota on the 4th amendment, the free-speech decision in Heffernan v. City of Patterson, and the Bank Markazi v. Peterson decision regarding the use of Iranian funds to pay off a civil judgment.
This week's episode covers complicated topics (labor unions & trademarks) through the prism of football (Tom Brady & the Washington Redskins). Brett and Nazim discuss Tom Brady's 2nd Circuit appeal, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, Lee v. Tam and Profootball, Inc. v. Blackhorse. Nazim also attempts to get revenge on Brett for the last football episode by administering a test of difficult football questions to Brett and Jess.
This week's guest Kim is an old law school friend of Brett andNazim, and a dedicated employee within family court and the childprotection system. Through that experience, Brett and Kimdiscuss Voisine v. U.S., Clark v. Ohio, V.L. v. E.L., and generalwomen's and family rights cases within the Supreme Court. Please note that the opinions expressed in this podcast belongsolely to the presenters and do not reflect the opinions of anygovernment or governmental agency.
This week's episode covers the general nuances of copyright law, including how to get one, how to enforce one, and why the internet is killing all of them. Brett and Nazim also cover the case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, in which the Supreme Court must decide whether a student who made approximately one million dollars selling imported textbooks may receive attorney fees against the textbook publisher who sued him unsuccessfully for copyright infringement.
This week's episode is a hodgepodge of legal topics, including review of a judge's ability to sue for Constitutional violations from the legislature, the unavoidable stalemate coming in U.S. v. Texas, and a review of speedy trial rights in sentencing from Betterman v. Montana. Brett and Nazim also rank hot East Coast sandwiches in this week's edition of The Citizen's Guide to the Food Court.
This week's episode on Zubik v. Burwell, the latest challenge to the Contraceptive Mandate under the First Amendment. In addition to discussing the original Hobby Lobby decision (again) and RFRA laws (again) and the Affordable Care Act (again), Brett and Nazim also discuss whether or not the Supreme Court will come to a final resolution, or just prolong these cases into infinity.
Brett is joined by his long-time friend Joanna, a female attorney working for the Government, to discuss government regulation in the field of public health. Brett and Joanna discuss Whole Women's Health, Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual, Zubik v. Burwell, and who are the best and worst two characters on MTV's Teen Mom.
A few cases have been decided that relate back to old episodes, so this week Brett and Nazim cycle back to Evenwell v. Abbott, the one person one vote case, Luis v. U.S., the Medicare fraud asset forfeiture case, and Lockhart v. U.S., the sex assault grammar case, to determine how the Court ruled and what those rulings mean for the future.
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.
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.
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.
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.