This week's episode covers Fisher v. University of Texas, which held that UOT's affirmative action program was in compliance with the Constitution and the Equal Protection clause. Brett and Nazim vet out how and why this program was able to pass the seemingly high barrier of strict scrutiny and what that says for future programs implementing similar procedures. Law starts (08:21), following this episode's rendition of "This Week in Ravioli Talk".
This week's episode first covers Beylund v. North Dakota and Voisine v. U.S., two cases that deal with the viability of criminal statutes aimed at stopping drunk driving and preventing firearm possession by domestic violence offenders. Law starts at (03:26) but there is one tangent on summer movies and the other featuring a controversial take on hamburgers. It's a serious episode, so you can let your hair down a little.
In this mini-episode, Brett and Nazim spend 30 minutes breaking down a one-line order from the Supreme Court in the immigration case of U.S. v. Texas, including why there is no decision, what will/should happen next now that the Executive Order has been quashed by the 5th Circuit, and whether this decision rests on solid Constitutional grounds or is just revenge for Obamacare. Law starts (0:37).
This week's episode takes a deep dive into Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstadt, the case that invalidated a Texas law that set impossibly high medical standards on abortion clinics. Brett and Nazim discuss how/whether this case changed the undue burden standard, and in light of this decision, where a women's right to choose currently sits in regard to all of our Constitutional rights. The Law starts at (9:00), but the intro covers the results of the Fantasy League and introduces a new game involving the multi-state bar exam.
This week's episode covers three big cases that were issued in the last week. Utah v. Strieff seemingly erodes the 4th amendment into a nub, U.S. v. Taylor seemingly destroys federalism, and Kirtsaeng v. Wiley & Sons seemingly opens the gates for frivolous copyright claims. You; however, luckily have an episode that addresses these concerns in order, for purposes of determining whether or not the sky is truly falling. Law starts at (3:56).
Brett and Nazim had some extra time this week, so this episode serves as a supplement to last Sunday's episode on non-SCOTUS decisions, which include the Connecticut assault rifle ban, Justice Thomas' possible retirement, and the Net Neutrality decision in D.C. circuit court. Law starts at (4:06).
It's been a boring week in the Supreme Court, so Brett and Nazim cover popular legal cases in lower Federal and State Courts, including the 9th Circuit concealed weapon decision, the Stanford Swimmer Judge controversy, the Google/Oracle slugfest, and a 9-1-1 Operator liability decision out of the 10th Circuit. The law starts at (7:56), but skipping that far passes our new favorite game "How Many Current Supreme Court Justices Have Seen One Episode of Game of Thrones"?
This edition of the expedited podcast covers the recent decisions in Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle (which held that double jeopardy applied to Puerto Rico), Dietz v. Bouldin (which held that a judge is allowed to call a jury back after releasing them), and Williams v. Pennsylvania (which held that a judge who worked on a death penalty case for the district attorney could not later hear the appeal on that same case. Law starts at (5:57).
Admin law gets a bad rap, because it's generally boring and hard to understand, so Brett and Nazim take this week to expound on its many virtues, including what it is, how you can get involved it, and how Courts resolve issues with agency decisions. After covering the Chevron decision in record time, Brett and Nazim cover United States Army Corps v. Hawkes, which deals with the travails of purchasing land subject to the Clean Water Act. Law basically starts at (2:32) and there's a five minute tangent about Peanut Butter and the song Under Pressure around (19:21).
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.