This week's episode covers two recent opinions by Judge Neil Gorsuch, including Whole Women's Health v. Jackson (which determined whether injunctive lawsuits by abortion clinics to stop the Texas Heartbeat Law could proceed) and Dr. A v. Hochul (which asked whether President Biden's mandate could be enjoined pending a resolution on religious exceptions). You, the listener, are tasked with playing the part of Oliver Twist, and whether you want more or less of Judge Gorsuch's gruel is a joke that will make more sense during the episode. Law starts at (09:17), and the podcast will return after a short break at the end of January.
This week's episode (which is far less attractive than our November 21st episode) covers Thompson v. Clark, a case which asks how not-guilty a person must be to file a 1983 claim against a police officer accused of violating a person's Constitutional Rights. Although complicated and unsexy, its a case which is interesting in the context of police-officer civil liability. Law starts at (06:17).
Brace yourself, as this week's episode covers oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson's Women's Health, a case in which the justices debate the Constitutionality of a 15-week ban on abortions in Mississippi. Brett and Nazim go through the underlying precedent, and then cover the when, how, and why the Roe and Casey standards may be changed by this decision. The law starts at (03:11).
This week's episode is the podcast's favorite tradition, which is answering listener-submitted questions about Thanksgiving, the law, and somehow both of those topics together. This year includes Biden's Supreme Court, Justices as Thanksgiving dessert, and the proper evaluation of Turkey. Happy Thanksgiving and we'll be back on December 4, 2021.
This week's episode covers U.S. v. Vaello-Madero, a case which asks whether excluding residents of Puerto Rico from receiving federal benefits violates the Equal Protection Clause. The answer is cut-and-dry, but not for the reasons you think. Law starts at (06:02).
This week's episode covers United States v. Tsarnaev, which asks whether the Supreme Court will re-instate the death penalty for the Boston Marathon bomber based on two discrete issues of criminal procedure. The discussion on the story starts at (07:04), but the law begins at (17:24).
Brett and Nazim return with a discussion on the oral argument in Whole Women's Health v. Jackson and United States v. Texas, which both address the (procedural) Constitutionality of Texas' abortion ban supported by private enforcement. This discussion includes (1) what are they talking about, (2) how did this get here, and (3) is this going to be over soon. Law starts at (05:02); and for reference, there are minor sound static in the third act because Brett was pounding on his desk when he talked, but it goes away fairly quickly.
This week's case covers Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, which asks whether or not the Kentucky Attorney General can intervene in a case to defend a defunct abortion law when everyone else in the government has given up, but also Nazim's birthday, Nazim's favorite taco, and Nazim's ideal birthday dessert. Law starts at (10:08).
Gather round, all ye violent individuals, as we are discussing the text of the Armed Career Criminals Act through the case of Wooden v. U.S. Brett and Nazim discuss a few background cases on the ACCA, what Due Process requires of a criminal statute that gets discussed by the Court almost every year, and who would play Nazim in a biopic about his life. Law starts at (10:52).
Listen, if you're thinking that this title is just a cheap joke, you'll be happy to know that it is the heart and soul of this episode, which covers Nazim's favorite Constitutional issue, the Confrontation Clause, through the case of Hemphil v. New York. The law basically starts from the beginning, although you could start at (03:06) if we're being technical.
The boys are back in podcast town. The season kicks off with an analysis of President Biden's Vaccine Mandate under the most applicable provisions of the Constitution. Also, we added 15 minutes of content so we could talk about TOP 3 FAVORITE SNACKS! Our answers will not surprise you. The law kinda starts at (04:25), but then actually starts at (08:04).
Brett and Nazim take a break from their vacation to discuss the Supreme Court's denial of injunctive relief in the case of Whole Women's Health v. Jackson, which allowed a Texas abortion law to proceed.
It's the end of the term, so Brett and Nazim are coming at you LIVE from an online chatroom. This episode grades the predictions from last summer, and sets forth new predictions for next summer. The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court will return in October 2021.
With an episode title like this, you know its a party. This week's grab-bag episode covers cases regarding bankruptcy law (City of Chicago v. Fulton), immigration law (Pereida v. Wilkson), and admin law (Yellen v. Collins), all while discussing nu metals favorite sons. Not only does the law start at (07:40), but we don't even hit the into until (02:40).
This week's episode previews the biggest case of next year's term, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, in which the State of Mississippi has asked the newly-formed Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade. Brett and Nazim discuss a bit of the background of Roe and consider possible outcomes of the Dobbs decision. Law starts at (09:40), and details on our end-of-the-term episode over ZOOM start at (08:20).
This week's episode covers Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, in which the Supreme Court struck down a law which required charitable organizations to disclose their major donors. Brett and Nazim discuss the ideological split on the Court and what it means to be "conservative" in this day and age. No time stamp because this all killer, no filler. The law starts from the beginning.
Take it!! This week's episode covers Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, in which the Supreme Court struck down a California law that allowed access to union organizers on private property. Brett and Nazim discuss the implications of the 6-3 ideological split, but also shellfish and roller coasters. Law starts at (07:30).
This week's episode covers Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, where in one corner, we have Justice Alito upholding two Arizona voting laws, and the other corner, we have Big Sexy Paddington Prince Nazim advocating for the good people of Arizona. Good luck to both competitors. Law starts at (03:30).
This week's episode covers two Constitutional law cases, Lange v. California (how the hot pursuit exception applies to misdemeanors) and Mahanoy School District v. B.L. (holding that the First Amendment prevents school districts from disciplining out of school speech). From a big picture perspective, Brett and Nazim discuss what history teaches us about noisy drunk drivers and vengeful cheerleaders. Law starts at (05:45).
Sung to the tune of "My Favorite Things", this week's episode covers Terry v. US (holding that the First Step Act does not apply to Tier One offenders) and NCAA v. Allston (upholding a lower court's injunction against NCAA rules on compensation). Law starts at (07:20).
This week's episode gets the big cases out of the way early, as the Court dropped California v. Texas (holding that ACA survives another challenge for lack of standing) and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (holding a Philadelphia law restricting referrals to a Catholic adoption agency violates the Free Exercise Clause). Both cases are more than just the headlines suggestion, and are indicative of the Court's current make-up. Law starts at (04:40).
Brett and Nazim return from vacation to see what we can learn about judges from the cases of Van Buren v. U.S. (deciding "access" under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), Borden v. U.S. (deciding reckless mindset under ACCA), Sanchez v. Myorkas (deciding admission status for permanent residency, and Garland v. Dai (deciding whether the 9th Circuit can make up immigration rules). Law starts at (07:20).
Get ready to learn, folks, because this episode discusses time, poison, wars and 160 million dollars worth of garbage in the context of Guam v. U.S.. Although its mostly a case about statutory interpretation; and it's core, its the case you didn't know you needed to know more about. The law is a moving target here, but there's less nonsense than you may think.
This week's episode covers three recent decisions, CIC Services v. IRS (procedure for challenging IRS notice requirements), Caniglia v. Strom (community care-taking exception for the home) and Edwards v. Vannoy (retroactivity of unanimous verdicts). Law starts at (04:07) and an explanation for the episode title follows soon after.
Listen, there's a lot going on here. As a general proposition, this week's episode asks Brett and Nazim to narrow down which classification of lawyers would be best to sit with at a wedding table. Amidst discussing other wedding and marriage-related topics, your boys somehow find time to discuss recent opinions Facebook v. Duguid, Jones v. Mississippi, and Torres v. Madrid. A time stamp would be insulting to both of us, so we've done away with it this week.