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).

The case of Epinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue is a real Constitutional Main Event.  In one corner, is the Establishment Clauses ban on government funding of religious private schools, and in the other is the Free Exercise Clause's argument that the State cannot ban a specific use of a scholarship.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is the crooked pro wrestling referee.  Law starts from the beginning.

This week's episode tackles the first of three immigration cases this year, leading to considerations of law, policy and practicality.  Brett and Nazim discuss Kansas v. Garcia, which deals with a State's right to prosecute illegal works using Federal forms, which in turn deals with express and implied preemption, Federal superiority and the practical State criminal law.  Law starts at (06:45).

This week's episode covers the case of Rotkiske v. Klemm, which asks whether or not the Time of Discovery defense applies to the Fair Debt Collection Practice.  You may not know this, but Brett and Nazim are uniquely qualified to discuss the law in this case.  You may know this, but Brett and Nazim still spend most of the episode talking about wrestling and nonsense.  Law starts at (05:30).

This week's episode discusses the case of Kahler v. Kansas, which broadly asks the Supreme Court if the insanity defense is protected under the Constitution.  Brett and Nazim go through the applicable insanity defenses and eventually discuss the less interesting ways under which this case will probably be decided.  Law starts at (07:06).

Dibs on that joke.  This week's episode starts the term with a discussion on impeachment, with the judicial and political aspects of the process being the focus, as opposed to whether or not we like President Trump.  Law starts from the beginning.  

It's the end of the term, so Brett and Nazim are coming at you LIVE from Brett's living room, covering topics like (1) the best story lines from last year, (2) what story lines will symbolize next year's term, and (3) an actual, human winner of the Fantasy League.  Dreams really do come true.  The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court will return on October 6, 2019.

Good morning.  In this guest episode, Brett talks with Simon Tam, bass player of the band that fought the Lanham Act in Lee v. Tam.   Brett and Simon discuss what its like to bring a lawsuit before the Supreme Court, the state of Free Speech, the dynamics of playing in a rock band, the appropriate tenor for diss-tracks and what its like to rock on the front steps of the Supreme Court.