If there's one overarching theme this week, it's that technology is not easy for lawyers. Brett and Nazim discuss US Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International (regarding free speech and government coercion), while also discussing how oral argument must go over ZOOM. Also, we had our own technology issue, so there's a small echo for Brett's track that was mostly edited out, but you can hear it from time to time. Law starts basically from the start.
The Supreme Court gives us something to write home about this week, as the podcast covers cases that are dismissed on procedural grounds, and not on the merits. This includes City of Boise v. Martin (criminalizing homelessness), NY Rifle Assoc. v. NYC (criminalizing gun travel), and Trump v. Vance (bird-doggin' those tax returns). Law starts at (06:20), but the podcast ends with KING OF THE JUICES!!
This week's podcast covers Ramos v. Louisiana, in which a DEEPLY DIVIDED COURT provides multiple opinions on whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires States to have unanimous jury verdicts. Law starts at (04:14).
Gather 'round, podcast listeners, and lend your ears to the case of CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co, a case that is as much about "safe-berth clauses" and "strict liability", as it is about sea monsters, the uncharted ocean, and famous treatise authors. This episode covers more of the latter and you gotta squint real hard to see the law so time-stamps would be frivolous.
Brett and Nazim address a few factual issues that were not addressed in last week's episode on the Wisconsin voting case and discuss whether anything changes their opinion from last Sunday.
So check it out, this episode is not as fluffy as the last few weeks, but does cover the recent case of RNC v. DNC, in which a 5-4 majority either (1) upheld Constitutional protections against tyranny, or (2) disenfranchised Democratic voters in the midst of an emergency. THE ANSWER MAY SURPRISE YOU!! Law starts at (09:10), but you'd be missing a long Frozen analogy that rules. Also, we are going to end on positive notes from here on out, so from (36:00), Brett and Nazim shared good things going on in life.
This week's episode covers PTO v. Booking.com, a case that not only discusses the application of "generic" terms to websites, but also continues are on-going efforts of covering the least-stressful cases as possible. Enjoy this one with a cup of chamomile tea. Law starts at (07:30).
Turns out we couldn't quit you that easily. This week covers the recent decision in Kahler v. Kansas, which is as much about State's rights and Due Process as it is about dogs who want you to murder people. Law starts at (07:35).
This week's episode accomplishes two things. First, your boys cover the Delaware-centric case of Carney v. Adams, which asks why a clearly unconstitutional way to appoint judges took this long to fix. Second, your main dudes discuss pie (a lot), despotism, cartoons, and other topics to help lighten the mood. Law starts at (12:30). Also, we are going to a less-regular schedule, but we are not stopping the podcast, so don't panic if we're not here next week.
This week's episode covers June Medical Services v. Russo, which addresses the value of precedent and third party standing in abortion cases by essentially re-litigating the Whole Women's Health case from a few years ago. Law starts at (04:02).
Ok, here's the situation. Brett went away on a weekend's vacation, so the first half of this is talking about the Star Wars Theme Park at Disney World. Around the (15:00) mark, the episode turns to Barton v. Barr and Kansas v. Garcia, which both discuss judicial interpretation of immigration statutes. This one is heavy on nonsense, so we'll tighten things up next week.
This week's episode covers Justice Sotomayor's dissent in Wolf v. Cook County, which generally discusses injunctions, the power of judicial review and the current Court's approach to the current Administration. The law starts from the beginning and generally stays on topic until the end, when we start talking about Burger King and the Masked Singer.
The podcast continues Confusing Statute Month, as Brett and Nazim discuss the Clear Water Act through the case of City of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund. This case covers exciting things like the definition of the word "from", so there's a lot of tangents. To that point, the law starts at (09:27).
This week's episode brings back another dysfunctional reoccurring guest, the Affordable Care Act, through the case of Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. United States, which asks whether or the not the government can refuse to pay insurers statutory payments. It's a doozy. The law starts from the beginning, but it's subject to constant interruptions.
This week's episode involves reoccurring guest the Armed Career Criminals Act, as Brett and Nazim discuss Shular v. U.S., which asks whether a categorical approach to drug crimes under the ACCA has officially renders this statute a dumpster fire, legally speaking. Law starts at (06:17).
This week's episode re-visits the procedural nuances of the death penalty, by covering McKinney v. Arizona, which essentially asks whether Death Penalty review cases are stuck back in time (like Back to the Future) or can go forward in time (like Back to the Future 2). Law starts at (05:47).
That's right, folks. To celebrate New Jersey's most notorious traffic scandal, Nazim no longer sounds like hes recording from the inside of a trash can. This week's episode covers BRIDGE-GATE(!!), i.e. Kelly v. U.S., which asks whether or not a nefarious government traffic scheme constitutes fraud in the legal sense of the word. Law starts at (06:55).
Brett and Nazim revisit three cases that were covered last term through their recent oral arguments, including Bostock v. Clayton County (considering the applicability of "sex" discrimination to sexual orientation under Title VII), R.G. v. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC (considering trans rights under the same statute), and New York Pistol and Rifle Assoc. v. City of New York (whether a repealed NYC gun law can still be considered under the Fourth Amendment. Law starts at (02:42). The Podcast will return on January 26,2020.
It's RFRA-MAS here at the podcast this week, as Brett and Nazim cover two cases involving religious rights before the Supreme Court, (1) Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrisey-Berru (whether the Court can decide employment discrimination cases for religious organizations) and (2) FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir (whether RFRA claims are entitled to money damages. Law starts at (05:04).
Listen, the amount you enjoyed/understood the pun in the title to this episode is directly proportionate to how much you're gonna like this episode, which covers George v. Public.Resource.Org, a case that asks whether or not annotations in the State Code are protected by copyright law. The law here starts at (07:24), but you're going to miss subtext and themes in the opening monologue, and plus there's some substantial condiment talk at the end.
This week's episode covers a few cases that have stalled out before making the vaunted grounds of the Supreme Court's docket. These cases include Remington Arms v. Soto (Sandy Hook lawsuit on gun advertising), Trump v. Vance (the never-ending quest for Trump's tax returns), Haidak v. University of Mass (College Due Process), and Syed v. Maryland (the Serial murder case). Law starts at (05:10).
This week's episode is a mix of law questions, SCOTUS questions, thanksgiving questions, nonsense questions, and HYBRID questions (which is a mix of at least two) from the listeners. Happy Thanksgiving, and we'll see you next Sunday.
This week's episode covers Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, which discusses whether or not the government's decision to wind-down DACA is constitutional, compliant with the APA, and/or just generally morally bankrupt. Law starts from the beginning.
This week's episode is slightly abbreviated, because Nazim is injured and can't laugh without screaming in pain. With that in mind, the case of Kansas v. Glover is discussed, which asks whether the police can assume the registered driver of a vehicle is the driver of that vehicle before performing a stop. It's both more and less complicated than it sounds. Law starts at (07:50), and we're covering the DACA case next week.
There are two main points in this week's episode. First, this week's episode covers the case of Ramos v. Louisiana, which asks whether or not the requirement of a unanimous jury verdict applies through the fourteenth amendment. Second, Brett and Nazim discuss whether Thanksgiving should be replaced with Italian food. Turkey Parm forever. Law starts at (05:45).