This week's case covers Kisor v. Wlkie, which specifically questions whether or not Supreme Court precedent that defers to agency interpretations of their own regulations is Constitutional. This case covers admin law in general, when a Court should overturn precedent, and whether or not the Constitution permits delegating such power to un-elected officials. Now, just in case that sounds too serious, the words "The Farts Doctrine" comes up more than once. Law starts at (03:49).
Brett and Nazim have gone big-time, as this week's episode covers Flowers v. Mississippi, a criminal Batson challenge case that's far more famous for being ripe for podcast commentary. In place of ephemeral music and gotcha journalism, Brett and Nazim talk about the criminal justice system, Batson challenges, jury selection, and Clarence Thomas talking at oral argument. Law starts at (06:32).
Hold on to your butts gang, cuz Brett and Nazim are talking THE WALL! By way of background, Brett is sick with Kathleen Turner voice and Nazim has one foot on the door with busy weekend plans, so this episode is general coverage about whatever the hell is going on with the government these days, and then a quick and dirty look at Iancu v. Brunetti, which covers free speech and the trademark office.....again. (Law starts at 04:45).
AKA THIS AGAIN. This week's episode takes a dive into the last four years of gerrymandering cases to suss out what the Court is talking about in the current cases of Virginia v. Bethune-Hill (2019), Lamone v. Benisk, and Rucho v. Common Cause. Come for the nuanced political discussion, stay to hear how beaten-down Nazim is on this issue compared to four years ago. Law starts at (07:20).
This week covers the recent opinions in Timbes v. Indiana (Excessive fines and the Incorporation Doctrine), Madison v. Alabama (Death Penalty Capacity, and Garza v. Idaho (Ineffective Assistance for Appeals), but more importantly, it's time for wild dissents and the Men who love them. Law starts at (5:00) and Nazim spoils Infinity War and JAWS if you haven't seen it yet.
This immaculately titled episode covers the case of Department of Commerce v. New York as a play in two parts. The first part discusses the policy merits of asking a citizenship question on the census, the second predicts whether the lower court's ruling removing the question will hold up. Without giving it away, there's a good chance you won't like one of the part. Law starts at (07:05).
In honor of the Verona High School Debate Team (the East Coast's best High School Debate Team obv), Brett and Nazim debate the value of winning a boat, numbers, state flags, bacon, federalism, getting drunk, buying birth control on Amazon, Constitutional Amendments and Tennessee Wine and Spirits Assoc. v. Blair, which asks the Court whether the 21st Amendment supersedes the Dormant Commerce Clause. Law starts at (11:26).
The case of Timbs v. Indiana poses a very outcome dependent question of whether or not civil forfeiture is unfair and poorly managed, so to keep this podcast interesting, Brett and Nazim go through each argument for and against and assign a numerical value to really see what they think at the end of the day. The law was supposed to start at (05:06), but it gets side-tracked with DMV stories and truly starts at (09:18).
In response to the Supreme Court's late night session last Thursday, Brett and Nazim discuss the Court's recent injunction of the Louisiana Abortion Statute, and the Court's reversal of a death penalty stay in Alabama for a defendant who was not provided his religious counselor of choice during the execution. Law starts at (2:00).
I know that title is supposed to be a cliff-hanger, but the answer is yes. In support of such a thesis, Brett and Nazim discuss the Court's holdings in New Prime v. Oliveira and U.S. v. Stokeling, which both discuss how the Supreme Court is generally being used to clean up poorly written statutes. The play concludes with a great Dr. Pepper analogy. Law starts (01:52).
This week's episode covers a case that is not even a fraction of as delicious as it sounds, Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, which covers whether Apple is engaging in Anti-Trust violations for how they allow apps on to your iPhone. This episode goes off the rails early and often, so while the law starts at (05:37), you might miss which host doesn't know how to use Microsoft Excel and which host is a master of the DARK WEB (the answer may surprise you!).
Like all great podcasts, Brett and Nazim have devoted this week's episode to all the topical news stories from two weeks ago, including Ginsburg's health and the practicality of term limits, the Mueller investigation's mystery corporation, and Judge Kav-another-beer's first opinion. Law starts at (05:20).
America's favorite game returns, as Brett and Nazim decide whether Garza v. Idaho (can a lawyer override a client's request for an appeal when the client waived appellate rights pursuant to a plea agreement) constitutes Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, along with a few other half-explained scenarios. The law technically starts from the beginning but them goes on some kind of weird Mozzarella stick tangent before starting again at (09:28).
Today's episode covers the specific nuances underlying Obdusky v. McCarthy and Holthus, a case with topics as sexy as the names in its caption, including debt collection, mortgages, and statutory interpretation. Brett and Nazim spice it up even further by talking about non-legal legal work, rooting for the Eagles in the playoffs today, and Nazim's beloved mason jar. Law starts at (5:50).
Brett and Nazim celebrate the holiday lull between Xmas and New Years by discussing the recent decisions in Stitt v. US (ACCA interpretation of burglary) and Mount Lemon Fire District v. Guido (ADA interpretation of government agencies), while also vamping about the holiday season. There's more nonsense at the end the beginning, so if you don't like hearing about how to celebrate New Years, the law ends after the case discussion.
Just in time for the holidays, this week's episode covers the case of American Legion v. American Humanist Association, which asks the Court whether a 93-year-old monument to World War I veterans violates the Establishment Clause because it is shaped like a cross. The law technically starts at (02:25), but if you're no-fun and the title of this episode isn't intriguing to you, the law starts at (08:00).
This week's episode takes a long over-due detour into the world of International Law, as Brett and Nazim discuss Jam v. International Finance Corp., which discusses whether or not International Organizations are entitled to the same immunity protections as the Governments that make them up Voltron-style. Law starts at (05:30).
This week's episode centers on a listener email, in which an intrepid college student shared a sample opinion he wrote for Virginia Uranium v. Warren (a case about federal preemption of State law), and now Brett and Nazim have to decide whether to join the opinion outright, write a concurrence, or write a dissent. Talk about Robots taking over the government starts at (01:40); Law talk starts at (08:24).
This week's episode takes a deep dive into the Armed Career Criminal Act, a Federal Sentencing Enhancement Statute that is regularly before the Supreme Court on interpretation issues. Brett and Nazim discuss U.S. v. Stitt (Is Burglary of a Mobile Home rreeeeaaallllyyyy burglary?) and Stokeling v. U.S. (Are gentle robberies rrreeaaallllyy robberies??). Law starts at (5:00).
Brett and Nazim celebrate Thanksgiving early by taking questions from listeners about the law, Thanksgiving, and random things like whether a straw has one hole or two. The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court will return on December 2nd.
This week's episode discusses Knick v. Township of Scott, PA, which on its face deals with the correct forum for Takings Clause cases, but on the sly is probably the best fact pattern we've dealt with so far on the podcast. The law starts in earnest at (10:06), but this episode generally covers Weird Al, realizing the law is boring, how young Nazim looks, bail bonds, and being a real estate lawyer.
Brett and Nazim cover sex offenders and Separation of Powers in the form of Gundy v. U.S., a case that asks whether Congressional delegation regarding sex offender registration to the attorney general violates the Constitution. The law starts at (06:15), but there's a fair amount of tangents, including some solid Jeopardy talk.
This week's episode tips its toes into International Law, and Brett and Nazim discuss treaties and how treaties fit into the hierarchy of domestic law. This episode also covers two cases involving U.S. treaties, Washington State Licensing Dept. v. Cougar Den and Herrera v. Wyoming. Law starts at (10:49).
Break out your Von Dutch hats, it's time to talk Truckers, and by proxy, employment relationships and arbitration clauses. By popular demand, Brett and Nazim discuss New Prime, Inc. v. Olivera, which covers generally how poorly arbitration clauses are applied across the board. Law starts at (06:52).
Listen, this episodes a little off the hinges. The primary case is Frank v. Gaos, which discusses whether class action claims that don't actually give people money are legit, sort of sets the stage for a tangent-filled discussion between tired Nazim and punchy Brett. The law starts in earnest at (06:32), get side-tracked and basically starts at (14:24).