It's the end of the term, so Brett and Nazim are coming at you LIVE from an online google chatroom. This episode grades our evergreen predictions from last summer, and sets forth new predictions for what is hoping will be a less bleak summer in 2023. The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court will return in October 2022.
This week's episode previews some of the cases that will be covered next term, including cases about Delaware, Voting Rights, the Chevron Doctrine, Andy Warhol, Native American Sovereignty, the Independent State Legislature Theory and Affirmative Action. Your boys also discuss next week's Live Season Finale Episode. The law startst at (06:30).
It's the end the term, so this week's episode ties up loose ends, which include: a mea culpa on cannon ownership (2:00); the plan so far for the Season Finale episode (5:00); discussion on Concepcion v. U.S. (how judge's should interpret the First Step Act), Hemphill v. NY (whether there are exceptions to the Confrontation Clause, and Ruan v. U.S. (mens rea requirements for doctors violate drug distribution laws).
This week's episode covers three cases which discuss recent Supreme Court decisions on Native American Law and Tribal Sovereignty, including Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (holding that State law has criminal jurisdiction on tribal land), Denezpi v. U.S (holding that the Double Jeopardy clause does not bar successive prosecutions involving CFR courts) and Yselta Del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (holding that Texas does not have jurisdiction to regulate gaming activities on reservations). Law starts at (1:30).
This week's celebration of administrative law features two John Roberts Opinions; one of which suggests the Supreme Court is OK with the end of the world (West Virginia v. EPA) and also favors Biden's half-baked use of Admin Law over Trump's even-less baked use of Admin Law (Biden v. Texas). Law starts at (3:15).
This week's episode discusses two cases in which the Supreme Court prioritized Free Exercise Clause rights over Establishment Clause rights. Carson v. Makin states that Maine cannot provide a voucher system that excludes religious schools and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District states that a football coach cannot be barred from saying a silent prayer after a football game. Brett and Nazim discuss both cases in detail and try to determine how influential these cases are from a big picture perspective. Law starts from the beginning.
This week's episode covers New York Rifle and Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, where the Supreme Court struck down a New York City gun law on grounds that it violated an new interpretation of the Second Amendment. Brett and Nazim discuss how this case amends the standard and how much it affects States' abilities to regulate guns. Law starts at (04:40).
This week's episode laments the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, including Brett and Nazim's criticisms of the majority and concurring opinions, and a discussion on how this case alters the legacy of the justices and politicians involved. The law starts from the beginning.
The podcast returns strong off its summer bye week, covering three cases which deal with conservative majorities, including Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez (can a Circuit Court create bond hearings for detained immigrants), Garland v. Gonzalez (can detained immigrants sue the government to get bond hearings), and American Hospital Assoc. v. Becerra (how dead is the Chevron doctrine). Law starts at (4:40).
This week's episode covers three Supreme Court Orders that don't have long opinions, but cover interesting issues that may pop up a few years down the line. This includes Netchoice LLC v. Paxton (instituting a stay on a Texas law that wants to ban social media platforms from banning Republicans), Louisianna v Biden (allowing an administrative agency to speculate the costs on greenhouse gases), and Guillen v. League of United Latin American Citizens (allowing depositions of Texas lawmakers for a Voting Rights Act case). Law starts at (01:45).
This week's episode covers the text, punctuation, history, case law, current developments, and future predictions on the Second Amendment and reasonable gun control regulations. We intended on covering two cases about federalism, but never got around to it. The law starts from the beginning.
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).