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.
Buckle up, because this week we're talking crack cocaine, online dating, and positive aspects of Donald Trump's presidency. This week's case is Terry v. United States, which asks whether the Supreme Court can amend a poorly-written statute on mass incarceration. Law starts at (07:25).
This week's episode covers the case of Thomas More Law Center v. Bontas, which covers whether a California law that requires the disclosure of charitable donors violates the First Amendment. The law starts with a sick burn on Nazim at (05:00).
This week's episode revisits the good old days of high school, specifically the case of Mahanoy School District v. BL, where the Supreme Court must decide whether a high school that suspended a student for making a vulgar Snapchat about school sports violates the First Amendment. The law kinda generally takes shape around (11:00) but stays pretty consistent.
This week's episode covers a proposed 13 justice Supreme Court in the context of a genie that only grants political wishes, along with Google's victory against Oracle in the realm of the Paw Patrol, sexy workplaces, and the Venus De Milo. Law starts at (05:48).
That's right, Hulkamaniacs. This week's supersized episode covers this year's Wrestelmania while covering the past, present and future implications that Ford Motor Company v. Bandemere has on personal jurisdiction. A time stamp would be pointless, but there's a surprising amount of law that is certainly more than I originally intended.
We're talking sequels and remakes this week, as the podcast covers Collins v. Mnuchin (how to destroy a real estate admin agency in one easy step) and Edwards v. Vannoy (whether a rule about unanimous jury verdicts applies retroactively), two cases that carry on the spirit of decisions from last term. In this analogy, Collins is Chris Pratt, Selia Law is Sam Neil. Law starts at a robust (09:33).
This week's episode covers the hard-hitting questions associated with CIC Services v. Internal Revenue Service and American tax law in general, including things like, does Nazim like horror movies? Would you rather kill or marry textual statutory interpretation? Is this case going to de-fang the IRS? Who is winning the NCAA bracket pool? (Law starts at 11:16).