This week's episode covers a proposed 13 justice Supreme Court in the context of a genie that only grants political wishes, along with Google's victory against Oracle in the realm of the Paw Patrol, sexy workplaces, and the Venus De Milo. Law starts at (05:48).
That's right, Hulkamaniacs. This week's supersized episode covers this year's Wrestelmania while covering the past, present and future implications that Ford Motor Company v. Bandemere has on personal jurisdiction. A time stamp would be pointless, but there's a surprising amount of law that is certainly more than I originally intended.
We're talking sequels and remakes this week, as the podcast covers Collins v. Mnuchin (how to destroy a real estate admin agency in one easy step) and Edwards v. Vannoy (whether a rule about unanimous jury verdicts applies retroactively), two cases that carry on the spirit of decisions from last term. In this analogy, Collins is Chris Pratt, Selia Law is Sam Neil. Law starts at a robust (09:33).
This week's episode covers the hard-hitting questions associated with CIC Services v. Internal Revenue Service and American tax law in general, including things like, does Nazim like horror movies? Would you rather kill or marry textual statutory interpretation? Is this case going to de-fang the IRS? Who is winning the NCAA bracket pool? (Law starts at 11:16).
We got it bad, so bad, because we're covering Torres v. Madrid, a case which asks whether or not you are seized under the Fourth Amendment when you get shot twice but are able to run away. Real practical stuff right here. Law starts at (04:58).
This week's episode is brought to you by arguing with your friends, as we cover the cases and dissents in U.S. Fish and Wildlife v. Sierra Club (FOIA's application to admin law) and Uzuegbuna v. Preczewski (pursuing nominal damages in Constitutional Law violations). The law starts at (04:30).
This week's episode covers the case of Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee, which asks once again whether neutral-looking voting laws that discriminate based on race violate whatever is left of the Voting Rights Act. The law starts at (2:30), but there are two food tangents we hope you enjoy.
This week's episode is all about SPORTS! Brett and Nazim qualify their knowledge about college sports (including whether Nazim knows who Tim Tebow is) and then much later cover NCAA v. Alston, which asks whether regulations on student athlete benefits are a violation of anti-trust regulations. There's no timestamp because honestly it would be too hard to figure out when things get legal.
First off, you're welcome for that amazing episode title. Second, this episode covers the case of Republic of Germany v. Phillip, which covers how the Supreme Court uses the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act to resolve property theft in the 1940s. Depending on how you view the Supreme Court, the result will probably not surprise you. Law starts at (04:50).
This week's episode covers Facebook v. Duguid, a case involving allegations that Facebook violated federal law, defenses under the First Amendment, judicial interpretations of statutes, and how you could interrupt someone's dinner in the 1980s. The law starts at (10:30).
You may think that Star Wars and the case of Van Buren v. U.S. have nothing in common; however, this episode strives to show how the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act should have had greater impact on Princess Leia and the Resistance at large. Brett and Nazim discuss how the Court should interpret the term access, but not before revealing their favorite Star Wars characters. Nazim's answer shouldn't surprise you. Law starts at (13:50).
This week's episode involves Nazim, a Big Computer Boy, explaining the case of Google v. Oracle to Brett, a complete Luddite. In addition to explaining fair use and its application to computer language, your boys also discuss Pokemon, Jurassic Park, Akira and Nintendo to keep things extra hip and cool. The law starts at (07:20) and we're happy to see you.
Gather round, children, to hear the story of RFRA-MAS, as told by Brett and Nazim to a live google-hangout crowd. RFRA Claus and Burwell the Elf discuss the history of RFRA, it's current application in the case of Tanzin v. Tanzir, and then take audience questions. The podcast is taking a holiday break, but will return on January 24th, 2021. Merry RFRA-MAS to all and to all a good night.
This week's episode covers last week's news stories involving the Supreme Court, including the election, COVID-19, the death penalty, and the census. The law starts at (08:49), but you'd miss your invitation to the Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court Holiday Party.
EDIT: a correction on what Nazim said about the impact of masks can be found here.
This week's episode discusses Texas v. Pennsylvania and Kelly v. Pennsylvania, the two recent failed attempts to reverse the election through the Supreme Court. The podcast welcomes a Supreme Court expert to help analyze the heart of this issue, and then Brett and Nazim discuss Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo. Law starts basically from the beginning.
This week's case covers Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, which asks whether a Philadelphia law banning discrimination in the process of fostering children violates the First Amendment rights of a Catholic agency. The law starts at (07:20), but you'd miss a real brain buster from Nazim.
Happy Thanksgiving, folks. This year's mailbag covers everything from pandemic oral arguments to best Thanksgiving pies, with a lot of things in between. The law never starts, and this is light on law even for our standards.
This week's amazingly-titled episode discusses the case of Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, which asks whether a California law that grants labor organizers access to private property violates the Fifth Amendment. The law kinda starts at (11:00), but actually starts at (13:40), which is indicative of the legal focus in this episode.
This week's episode covers the oral argument in California v. Texas, in which the Court once is asked to determine the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Brett and Nazim start the law at (05:00), but get into the merits of the decision at (14:06). Then somewhere towards the end Nazim reviews obscure Midwestern cherry candy.
This week's episode eschews any legal analysis about the election and instead covers the somehow less stressful conversation of whether children can be sentenced to life in prison without parole in Jones v. Mississippi. Brett's audio is lightly wonky around minute five, but it fixes pretty quickly. The law starts at (06:17) and the Supreme Court is not reversing the election.
This week's extra spooky episode broadly covers the Delaware Constitutional case before the Supreme Court, Carney v. Adams, but as a mechanism for discussing the recent Supreme Court election cases in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Wisconsin. Law starts at (04:31).
This week's episode takes a deep dive into the Senate Confirmation Hearings of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, as Brett and Nazim discuss the point of confirmation hearings and how they view Justice Barracuda's responses. Law starts at (06:16).
The boys are back, folks. This week's episode discusses the many ridiculous Voter Suppression lawsuits that have popped up over the last few weeks and whether the State action in question is valid, or just looking to stop people from voting. The law starts at (12:45), but this episode's namesake begins at (07:10). Also, our apologies for the sound quality this week, we plan on fixing it for next week.
Good morning. This week, Brett is joined by Gabe Roth from Fix the Court, an organization aimed at Supreme Court reform. Brett and Gabe discuss term limits, the proper role of the Supreme Court in democracy and ethical obligations of the justices. Gabe can be reached at @FixtheCourt on twitter. The regular show will return next week.
This week's episode covers the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an American icon both on and off the Court. Brett and Nazim discuss the impact Justice Ginsburg had on American jurisprudence and discuss the impact of appointing her replacement.