This week's episode discusses the political influence of two cases. The first is FEC v. Cruz where Ted Cruz struck down campaign finance laws, and the second is Patel v. Garland in which the Court refused to consider mistakes in immigration removal proceedings. The answer may surprise you, but probably not. Law starts from the beginning.
You asked for it, and you got it, folks. This week's episode covers Shurtleff v. City of Boston, aka the second-most interesting thing that happened in the Supreme Court two weeks ago. There's a lot to disagree with here, from the decision that flags aren't government speech, to Gorsuch's take-down of the Lemon test. Law starts at (02:07).
On this week's podcast, Brett interviews Gabe Roth from Fix the Court about judicial ethics and recusal reform for the Supreme Court. Gabe discusses the scope of Fix the Court's reform in light of current events, what is like to testify before Congress, and the future of any such reform at the legislative level. Nazim returns from captivity next week.
The emergency podcast alarm has rarely sounded so definitely, as Brett and Nazim discuss the fall-out from Alito's leaked opinion in Dobbs, including what a draft opinion means for the outcome of the case, what a leak means for the credibility of the Supreme Court, and whether this decision will likely be the majority decision. Law starts from the jump.
This week's case discusses Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, in which the Court must determine whether a public school football coach who prays on the field violates the Establishment Clause. This case is ripe with factual issues, legal issues, and sadly very little discussion about actual football. Law starts at (02:35).
This week's episode covers the age-old battle of LAWS v. CONSTITUTION. The first case is U.S. v. Vaello-Madero, in which the Supreme Court held that denying Puerto Rican residents SSI benefits did not violate Equal Protection. The second case is City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, in which the Supreme Court tied the First Amendment in knots trying to resolve sign problems. Law starts at (02:04).
This week's episode covers Concepcion v. U.S., which continues the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Step Act, a bi-partisan law aimed at lowering sentencings for drug dealers, but maybe wasn't drafted super well. Law starts at (04:10).
This week's episode starts with a discussion on Justice Jackson's appointment to the Supreme Court (starts from the beginning), and moves to a discussion about Shurtleff v. City of Boston (17:26), which asks whether a government policy which allows citizen's flags can exclude a religious flag under the First Amendment.
This week's supersized episode covers the Senate Confirmation hearings of Ketanji Brown Jackson, while also covering Clarence Thomas, Ramirez v. Collier, and Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Election Commission. The law starts from the beginning and is mostly consistent except for a conversation about parenting, reality shows, and Encanto in the third act. The podcast is also taking next week off, but will return on April 10, 2022.
This week's episode covers recent decisions in U.S. v. Tsarnaev (reinstating the death penalty for the Boston Marathon Bomber) and Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center (allowing AG to intervene in abortion case when everyone else gave up). It's all killer, no filler because the law starts at (1:33).
This week's episode is all about drugs and the mindset needed to distribute drugs illegally. Ruan v. U.S. asks whether a doctor accused of violating the Controlled Substance Act should be judged by an objective standard (would every doctor think this was wrong), or a subjective standard (did this doctor think this was wrong). Law starts at (05:00).
Well, Mene Gene, it is the Establishment Clause vs. the Free Exercise Clause because this week's case is Carson v. Minkin, in which a Supreme Court with three new justices must decide whether a State can refuse children from choose religious schools under a State-Scholarship program. Law starts at (11:00).
The title this week is more literal than figurative, as we cover Ramirez v. Collier, a case which asks whether someone receiving the death penalty is Constitutionally required to have a religious figure of their choosing physically touching the person and audibly praying. The law starts at (16:20), but the intro is more about practicing criminal law, as opposed to like whether seafood belongs in ravioli.
This week's episode covers all the things you love: Ted Cruz, Shaky Campaign Finance Laws, and rich people winning political offices. Your boys revisit some food talk while discussing Federal Elections Commission v. Ted Cruz, which discussed whether Ted Cruz can get repaid for a $10,000.00 loan he made to Ted Cruz. Law starts at (10:35).
We have one more emergency episode, which covers the Supreme Court's decisions in NFIB v. DOL and Biden v. Missouri, which discusses why one mandate is OK and the other mandate is not OK. Once again, there's probably more administrative law than you're expecting. Law starts from the beginning.
Sound the alarm, as we are back with an emergency podcast discussing the oral argument in National Federation of Independent Businesses (i.e. the Dudes) v. Department of Labor, and Biden v. Missouri, two cases discussing the Constitutionality of President Biden's Vaccine Mandate, BUT only through the context of Administrative Law. The law starts from the beginning.