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)

This week's episode covers the recent decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis, which can be more aptly stated as Overly Power Arbitration Act v. Sensible Worker's Rights Requests.  Brett and Nazim break down the basis for the decision, debate judicial activism, and talk about why Weezer sucks.  Law starts at (05:14).