Brett and Nazim revisit three cases that were covered last term through their recent oral arguments, including Bostock v. Clayton County (considering the applicability of "sex" discrimination to sexual orientation under Title VII), R.G. v. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC (considering trans rights under the same statute), and New York Pistol and Rifle Assoc. v. City of New York (whether a repealed NYC gun law can still be considered under the Fourth Amendment.  Law starts at (02:42).  The Podcast will return on January 26,2020.

It's RFRA-MAS here at the podcast this week, as Brett and Nazim cover two cases involving religious rights before the Supreme Court, (1) Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrisey-Berru (whether the Court can decide employment discrimination cases for religious organizations) and (2) FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir (whether RFRA claims are entitled to money damages.  Law starts at (05:04).

Listen, the amount you enjoyed/understood the pun in the title to this episode is directly proportionate to how much you're gonna like this episode, which covers George v. Public.Resource.Org, a case that asks whether or not annotations in the State Code are protected by copyright law.  The law here starts at (07:24), but you're going to miss subtext and themes in the opening monologue, and plus there's some substantial condiment talk at the end.

This week's episode covers a few cases that have stalled out before making the vaunted grounds of the Supreme Court's docket.  These cases include Remington Arms v. Soto (Sandy Hook lawsuit on gun advertising), Trump v. Vance (the never-ending quest for Trump's tax returns), Haidak v. University of Mass (College Due Process), and Syed v. Maryland (the Serial murder case).  Law starts at (05:10).

This week's episode is a mix of law questions, SCOTUS questions, thanksgiving questions, nonsense questions, and HYBRID questions (which is a mix of at least two) from the listeners.  Happy Thanksgiving, and we'll see you next Sunday.

This week's episode covers Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, which discusses whether or not the government's decision to wind-down DACA is constitutional, compliant with the APA, and/or just generally morally bankrupt.  Law starts from the beginning.

This week's episode is slightly abbreviated, because Nazim is injured and can't laugh without screaming in pain.  With that in mind, the case of Kansas v. Glover is discussed, which asks whether the police can assume the registered driver of a vehicle is the driver of that vehicle before performing a stop.  It's both more and less complicated than it sounds.  Law starts at (07:50), and we're covering the DACA case next week.

There are two main points in this week's episode.  First, this week's episode covers the case of Ramos v. Louisiana, which asks whether or not the requirement of a unanimous jury verdict applies through the fourteenth amendment.  Second, Brett and Nazim discuss whether Thanksgiving should be replaced with Italian food.  Turkey Parm forever.  Law starts at (05:45).

The case of Epinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue is a real Constitutional Main Event.  In one corner, is the Establishment Clauses ban on government funding of religious private schools, and in the other is the Free Exercise Clause's argument that the State cannot ban a specific use of a scholarship.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is the crooked pro wrestling referee.  Law starts from the beginning.

This week's episode tackles the first of three immigration cases this year, leading to considerations of law, policy and practicality.  Brett and Nazim discuss Kansas v. Garcia, which deals with a State's right to prosecute illegal works using Federal forms, which in turn deals with express and implied preemption, Federal superiority and the practical State criminal law.  Law starts at (06:45).

This week's episode covers the case of Rotkiske v. Klemm, which asks whether or not the Time of Discovery defense applies to the Fair Debt Collection Practice.  You may not know this, but Brett and Nazim are uniquely qualified to discuss the law in this case.  You may know this, but Brett and Nazim still spend most of the episode talking about wrestling and nonsense.  Law starts at (05:30).

This week's episode discusses the case of Kahler v. Kansas, which broadly asks the Supreme Court if the insanity defense is protected under the Constitution.  Brett and Nazim go through the applicable insanity defenses and eventually discuss the less interesting ways under which this case will probably be decided.  Law starts at (07:06).

Dibs on that joke.  This week's episode starts the term with a discussion on impeachment, with the judicial and political aspects of the process being the focus, as opposed to whether or not we like President Trump.  Law starts from the beginning.  

It's the end of the term, so Brett and Nazim are coming at you LIVE from Brett's living room, covering topics like (1) the best story lines from last year, (2) what story lines will symbolize next year's term, and (3) an actual, human winner of the Fantasy League.  Dreams really do come true.  The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court will return on October 6, 2019.

Good morning.  In this guest episode, Brett talks with Simon Tam, bass player of the band that fought the Lanham Act in Lee v. Tam.   Brett and Simon discuss what its like to bring a lawsuit before the Supreme Court, the state of Free Speech, the dynamics of playing in a rock band, the appropriate tenor for diss-tracks and what its like to rock on the front steps of the Supreme Court.

There's a lot of sexy topics at hand this week, as Brett and Nazim discuss uranium mining in Virginia Uranium v. Warren, secret graveyards in Knick v Township of Scott, and backstage drama at public access ala Murphy Brown in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck.  Law starts in earnest at (06:50), but takes about two more minutes to really get settled.

This week covers a cavalcade of naughty, immoral and scandalous participants who found a mixed bag of justice before the Supreme Court, including Iancu v. Brunetti (dirty-named clothing designers), Flowers v. Mississippi (racist prosecutors), and Gundy v. U.S. (the U.S. Attorney General's Office). The law starts at the beginning but it certainly doesn't stay that way.

This week's episode discusses the recent passing of former Justice John Paul Stevens before turning to American Humanist Society v. American Legion, which covers whether or not a 100 year old cross violates the Establishment Clause.  Law starts at (07:30) and there's a humdinger of a Thomas dissent towards the end.

It's a tough week for small government, as the Auer doctrine, the 21st Amendment, and local business associations all took one on this chin from the Supreme Court.  Brett and Nazim discuss agency deference in Kisor v. Wilkie, and the Dormant Commerce Clause's effect on residency requirements for alcohol licenses in Tennessee Wine and Spirits Board v. Thomas.  Law starts at (10:20).

This week's episode discusses the two criminal cases of Gable v. US and Mitchell v. Wisconsin, covering (1) why the double jeopardy clause is needlessly hard, (2) why Wisconsin gets to keep their Vampire Laws in effect, and (3) what is Clarence Thomas up to with a 20 page concurrence out of nowhere about precedent.  Law starts at (05:00).

This week's episode covers the two political cases that highlighted the last day of the term, as Nazim gets indignant about the death of political gerrymanddering cases in Rucho v Common Cause, Brett recounts his China trip, and Roberts sits alone at the lunch table in Department of Commerce v. New York.  The law starts at (2:45).

This week's episode covers topics that have roots in previous episodes, from the case of Quarles v. U.S., which covers the continued evolution of the Armed Career Criminals Act, to Nieves v. Bartlett, which covers whether probable cause defeats a retaliatory arrest claim as a matter of law, to Nazim being inappropriate, which has been in existence since episode one.  Law starts at (06:51).  Note: Due to scheduling issues, cases decided in the last two weeks of June will be covered in July.

As a supplement to last week's episode, Brett and Nazim cover the case of Bucklew v. Precyth, which discusses whether or not an individual can contest the death penalty on grounds that it would impose extreme pain just on him, and specifically Breyer's arguments concerning the Constitutionality of the Death Penalty.  Law starts at (04:00).  Note:  Due to scheduling issues, all orders covered in the last week of June will be covered in July episodes.

This week's episodes cover a collection of cases that deal with everyone's slightly vanilla, left-wing centrist judge, as the cases of Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus (attorney application under the FDCA), Taggart v. Lorenzon (test for violating bankruptcy discharge), and JAM v. International Finance Corp. (evolution of immunity statutes for international organizations) all deal with our dude, Justice Breyer.  Law starts at (02:35).

It's summertime, people, and what better way to ring in the season than discussing two procedural cases involving the health care system.  The case of Azar v. Allina Health Services deals with administrative procedure in Medicare rules, and Merk v. Albrecht deals with legal standards for State preemption.  If that isn't sexy enough for you, there's a killer Sam Cooke reference buried in the back half of the episode.  Law starts at (08:22).