Today's unnervingly straight-laced episode covers the unnervingly chaotic decision in Espinoza v. Montana Dept of Revenue, wherein the Court takes turns yelling at each other about the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause, and Montana's apparently oppressive effort to help kids go to school.  Law starts from the beginning.

The World's Greatest Podcast covers bias this week, as the incredibly handsome Brett and the always insightful Nazim discuss how our preexisting beliefs can affect decisions on the 9th Amendment, the Presidency, and the recent decision in Trump v. Vance (Brett did not know Mazars existed, so that case is covered more briefly).  Law starts at (02:45) and stays pretty consistent.

To celebrate the 300th episode, the podcast goes through a 2020 edition of the "Which Justice Are You" Buzzfeed Quiz from a few years ago.  You can also submit your answers for review on any of our social media accounts.  There is also little to no law in this episode.

This week's episode asks Nazim (specifically) what he thinks about each of the strange opinions in June Medical Services v. Russo, the recent Supreme Court decision which struck down a Louisiana law which set high medical requirements for abortion clinics.  The law starts at (02:20), but there's a long tangent about the theater sometime around 40 minutes.

This week's episode is a symposium on weird political opinions, as Brett and Nazim discuss the DACA decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of California, while also discussing the Flynn criminal dismissal.  We also talk about the Undertaker.  Law starts at (07:05).

In this week's episode, Brett and Nazim talk about all the good things and the bad things that may be about Bostock v. Clayton County, the recent landmark decision by the Supreme Court holding that employers cannot fire LGBT employees under Title 9.  Law starts at (03:28).

This episode is a tale in two-parts.  The first is about Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, which discusses whether a ban on political robo-calls violates the First Amendment.  The second is Brett and Nazim discussing multiple questions about pasta.  Even by our standards, there's a lot of tangents here. The law starts in earnest at (10:45).

This week's episode covers the Supreme Court's discussion around qualified immunity, which covers the recent case of Mesa v. Hernandez, plus a few of the pending cases which have not been accepted to the Supreme Court's docket.  Law starts at (09:40).

This week's episode covers the collection of cases dealing with the Puerto Rico Oversight Management and Economic Stability Act, and whether or not the appointment of an oversight board complies with Article II of the Constitution.  Law starts at (09:53).

Listen, if the prospect of Colorado Dept. of State v. Baca (i.e. can electoral college voters do whatever they want) brings you anxiety, allow this episode to calm you down.  Recorded in two parts because we lost part of the first version, the legal analysis has the weight and experience of two guys who talked about this twice over the weekend.  Law starts at (12:00).

This week's episode covers the recent decisions in Kansas v. Glover (does the 4th Amendment protect against police stops to investigate suspended licenses) and Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org (does copyright law protect annotations to the Georgia Code).  Come for the legal analysis, stay for the Sex in the City references.  Law starts at (04:12).

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.