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.
It's the end of the term, so Brett and Nazim are coming at you LIVE over ZOOM, covering topics like (1) judging predictions from last year, (2) picking story lines for next year, and (3) re-visiting the whole "cutting your sandwich" debate. The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court will return in October 2020.
In this week's episode, Brett and Nazim answer questions which include; but are not limited to, the Constitutionality of State mask regulations, the cancelled bar exam, sad sports defeats, a Federal law on masks, whether ice cream is soup, Kavanaugh one-year report card, COVID employment law, and being a terrible banquet-hall employee.
This week's episode covers two administrative law decisions that were not covered in previous podcast episodes, including Selia Law v. CFPB (separation of powers concerns cut the head, but not the body of the Consumer Financial Protection Board), and Little Sisters of the Poor v. PA (Presidential interpretation of ACA which limits contraceptives doesn't violate the law). Law starts in earnest at (04:40), but goes on a long salad dressing tangent from (08:38-16-:18).
This week's podcast covers three cases involving the government, including Colorado v. Baca (the faithless electors case), US Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International (the First Amendment to international corporations case), and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Ins. v. United States (the government is a deadbeat case). Law starts at (07:39).
This week's episode covers the case of Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrisey-Berru, which immunizes church schools from employment discrimination claims under the First Amendment, and also the Nevada COVID law that limits church attendance. The sound is lightly wonky in the beginning, but it doesn't continue throughout the episode. Otherwise, the law starts at (05:34).
Today's unnervingly straight-laced episode covers the unnervingly chaotic decision in Espinoza v. Montana Dept of Revenue, wherein the Court takes turns yelling at each other about the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause, and Montana's apparently oppressive effort to help kids go to school. Law starts from the beginning.
The World's Greatest Podcast covers bias this week, as the incredibly handsome Brett and the always insightful Nazim discuss how our preexisting beliefs can affect decisions on the 9th Amendment, the Presidency, and the recent decision in Trump v. Vance (Brett did not know Mazars existed, so that case is covered more briefly). Law starts at (02:45) and stays pretty consistent.
To celebrate the 300th episode, the podcast goes through a 2020 edition of the "Which Justice Are You" Buzzfeed Quiz from a few years ago. You can also submit your answers for review on any of our social media accounts. There is also little to no law in this episode.
This week's episode asks Nazim (specifically) what he thinks about each of the strange opinions in June Medical Services v. Russo, the recent Supreme Court decision which struck down a Louisiana law which set high medical requirements for abortion clinics. The law starts at (02:20), but there's a long tangent about the theater sometime around 40 minutes.
This week's episode is a symposium on weird political opinions, as Brett and Nazim discuss the DACA decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of California, while also discussing the Flynn criminal dismissal. We also talk about the Undertaker. Law starts at (07:05).
In this week's episode, Brett and Nazim talk about all the good things and the bad things that may be about Bostock v. Clayton County, the recent landmark decision by the Supreme Court holding that employers cannot fire LGBT employees under Title 9. Law starts at (03:28).
This episode is a tale in two-parts. The first is about Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, which discusses whether a ban on political robo-calls violates the First Amendment. The second is Brett and Nazim discussing multiple questions about pasta. Even by our standards, there's a lot of tangents here. The law starts in earnest at (10:45).