Brett and Nazim celebrate the holiday lull between Xmas and New Years by discussing the recent decisions in Stitt v. US (ACCA interpretation of burglary) and Mount Lemon Fire District v. Guido (ADA interpretation of government agencies), while also vamping about the holiday season. There's more nonsense at the end the beginning, so if you don't like hearing about how to celebrate New Years, the law ends after the case discussion.
Just in time for the holidays, this week's episode covers the case of American Legion v. American Humanist Association, which asks the Court whether a 93-year-old monument to World War I veterans violates the Establishment Clause because it is shaped like a cross. The law technically starts at (02:25), but if you're no-fun and the title of this episode isn't intriguing to you, the law starts at (08:00).
This week's episode takes a long over-due detour into the world of International Law, as Brett and Nazim discuss Jam v. International Finance Corp., which discusses whether or not International Organizations are entitled to the same immunity protections as the Governments that make them up Voltron-style. Law starts at (05:30).
This week's episode centers on a listener email, in which an intrepid college student shared a sample opinion he wrote for Virginia Uranium v. Warren (a case about federal preemption of State law), and now Brett and Nazim have to decide whether to join the opinion outright, write a concurrence, or write a dissent. Talk about Robots taking over the government starts at (01:40); Law talk starts at (08:24).
This week's episode takes a deep dive into the Armed Career Criminal Act, a Federal Sentencing Enhancement Statute that is regularly before the Supreme Court on interpretation issues. Brett and Nazim discuss U.S. v. Stitt (Is Burglary of a Mobile Home rreeeeaaallllyyyy burglary?) and Stokeling v. U.S. (Are gentle robberies rrreeaaallllyy robberies??). Law starts at (5:00).
Brett and Nazim celebrate Thanksgiving early by taking questions from listeners about the law, Thanksgiving, and random things like whether a straw has one hole or two. The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court will return on December 2nd.
This week's episode discusses Knick v. Township of Scott, PA, which on its face deals with the correct forum for Takings Clause cases, but on the sly is probably the best fact pattern we've dealt with so far on the podcast. The law starts in earnest at (10:06), but this episode generally covers Weird Al, realizing the law is boring, how young Nazim looks, bail bonds, and being a real estate lawyer.
Brett and Nazim cover sex offenders and Separation of Powers in the form of Gundy v. U.S., a case that asks whether Congressional delegation regarding sex offender registration to the attorney general violates the Constitution. The law starts at (06:15), but there's a fair amount of tangents, including some solid Jeopardy talk.
This week's episode tips its toes into International Law, and Brett and Nazim discuss treaties and how treaties fit into the hierarchy of domestic law. This episode also covers two cases involving U.S. treaties, Washington State Licensing Dept. v. Cougar Den and Herrera v. Wyoming. Law starts at (10:49).
Break out your Von Dutch hats, it's time to talk Truckers, and by proxy, employment relationships and arbitration clauses. By popular demand, Brett and Nazim discuss New Prime, Inc. v. Olivera, which covers generally how poorly arbitration clauses are applied across the board. Law starts at (06:52).
Listen, this episodes a little off the hinges. The primary case is Frank v. Gaos, which discusses whether class action claims that don't actually give people money are legit, sort of sets the stage for a tangent-filled discussion between tired Nazim and punchy Brett. The law starts in earnest at (06:32), get side-tracked and basically starts at (14:24).
This week's episode covers Madison v. Alabama, and whether or not the 8th Amendment bars the execution of someone who lacks mental capacity, but first Brett and Nazim read the single greatest listener feedback we've ever received. There's no time stamp this week, because the intro is worth your time, and we'll probably be making jokes about it until the end of time.
This week's episode covers Double Jeopardy, and specifically whether the Court will overturn the separate sovereigns doctrine in the upcoming case of Gamble v. U.S. Brett and Nazim discuss recent Double Jeopardy decisions to see if this case is a secret plot by the government to expand Presidential power, or just strange bedfellows looking to change the law. Law starts generally at (05:40).
Well hello there. Considering that Congress has ruined our summer vacation, Brett and Nazim are here early to discuss "Second Best Brett" Kavanaugh's calamity of an appointment before the Supreme Court. The "law" starts at (03:07), and for the record, I wanted to call this episode "You Give Brett a Bad Name".
It's the end of the term, so Brett and Nazim are recording LIVE in front of a studio audience of three in Brett's dining room. Brett and Nazim draft storylines they think will be popular this time next year, while recapping the Court's term and talking about who is the most famous Bundy (Al, Peg, Ted, or King Kong). The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court will return on October 7th, 2018.
Brett and Nazim wrap up the remaining cases of the 2017/2018 term, including Hughes v. U.S. (Whether changes in sentencing guidelines affect C pleas), Rosales-Mireles v. U.S. (Whether standard of review for sentencing mistakes should be ridiculous), Cox v. U.S.(Whether military judges should be fired over technical appointment issues), Sveen v. Melin (Whether Contracts Clause negates statute which changes beneficiaries after divorce), Currier v. Virginia (Whether Double Jeopardy bars severed trial), and Collins v. Virginia (Whether automobile exceptions takes precedence over property rights in the 4th Amendment). Whew. Law starts at (10:19).
Brett and Nazim embark on a marathon session to resolve all the cases that were discussed on the podcast this term. The first batch covers the "Jan Brady" political cases, in that MVA v. Mansky (whether Minnesota's political apparel ban at election polls is unconstitutional), and Abbott v. Perez (whether Texas' District Maps are a violation of the Voting Rights Act) fell by the wayside in lieu of all the other nonsense this term. Law starts at (06:50).
This week's episode is more than just catchy Hall & Oates songs, but instead covers Carpenter v. U.S., a case that discusses how the Supreme Court believes the 4th Amendment applies to cell phone information that discloses your location. Brett and Nazim debate the evolution of the 4th Amendment and which Justice's approach was most prudent (the answer MAY surprise you!). Law starts at (04:26).
Harken back to the good old days of four weeks ago, when the worst thing going on was Gil v. Whiteford getting dismissed on standing issues and Brett's Netflix being mildly frustrating. Brett and Nazim (full of youthful vigor) discuss the state of gerrymandering lawsuits going forward, and add in the case of United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, which dismissed a courtroom shackles case on account of mootness. Law starts at (07:43).
This week's episode covers the new Supreme Court Justice, "Second Best" Brett Kavanaugh, a Justice who no one knows anything about, but can't help buy try to analyze. Then, "First Best" Brett and "The One and Only" Nazim discuss South Dakota v. Wayfair and how the Court should approach overruling precedent. Law starts at (04:38).
The podcast gets contentious this week, as Brett and Nazim agree to disagree about (1) whether a Big Mac is a club sandwich (up to 10:25), (2) religious justices on the Supreme Court (up to 23:00), and (3) National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, the recent decision holding California's FACT Act, which requires specific disclosures of family planning centers that dissuade abortions, unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment.
Yeesh! Quite a week at the Supreme Court, amiright?? This week's episode covers Anthony Kennedy's Retirement through the lens of Trump v. Hawaii, and Janus v. AFSCME to break down what the future may hold for a five justice conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Law starts at (08:.....no, just kidding. It starts from the beginning).
This week's episode is all about REMANDS; including what they are, how they work, how a lower judge should consider a remanded case, etc. Brett and Nazim discuss Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lungren (does sovereign immunity apply to in rem actions) and Byrd v. U.S. (do persons unnamed on a rental agreement have privacy rights in a rental car) and how those remands speak to the Court's control over lower appellate judges. Law starts from the beginning, as you get to hear Nazim's reaction in real time to the Court's decision in Gil v. Whitford (which we will talk about next week).
This week's episode covers three big questions. (1) How big of a deal is the decision in Husted v. A. Phillip Randolph Instit.(can Ohio purge old voter rolls, (2) How big of a deal is the decision in McCoy v. Louisiana (can a criminal attorney admit guilt over a defendant's objection), and (3) What's a big deal when it comes to the Supreme Court (you know, like what is a "big deal" exactly??) Nazim's metaphor game is particularly strong in this one btw. Law starts at (07:14).
This week's episode covers the recent decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case which balanced the value of anti-discrimination statutes against the religious protections of the First Amendment to figure a compromise that likely everyone hates. Law starts at (04:37)