Brett and Nazim are two attorneys who hate being attorneys. Each week, they discuss current Supreme Court cases with the intent to make the law more accessible to the average person, while ruminating on what makes the law both frustrating and interesting. This podcast is not legal advice and is for entertainment purposes only. If anything you hear leads you to believe you need legal advice, please contact an attorney immediately
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.
There's a lot of sexy topics at hand this week, as Brett and Nazim discuss uranium mining in Virginia Uranium v. Warren, secret graveyards in Knick v Township of Scott, and backstage drama at public access ala Murphy Brown in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck. Law starts in earnest at (06:50), but takes about two more minutes to really get settled.
This week covers a cavalcade of naughty, immoral and scandalous participants who found a mixed bag of justice before the Supreme Court, including Iancu v. Brunetti (dirty-named clothing designers), Flowers v. Mississippi (racist prosecutors), and Gundy v. U.S. (the U.S. Attorney General's Office). The law starts at the beginning but it certainly doesn't stay that way.
This week's episode discusses the recent passing of former Justice John Paul Stevens before turning to American Humanist Society v. American Legion, which covers whether or not a 100 year old cross violates the Establishment Clause. Law starts at (07:30) and there's a humdinger of a Thomas dissent towards the end.
It's a tough week for small government, as the Auer doctrine, the 21st Amendment, and local business associations all took one on this chin from the Supreme Court. Brett and Nazim discuss agency deference in Kisor v. Wilkie, and the Dormant Commerce Clause's effect on residency requirements for alcohol licenses in Tennessee Wine and Spirits Board v. Thomas. Law starts at (10:20).
This week's episode discusses the two criminal cases of Gable v. US and Mitchell v. Wisconsin, covering (1) why the double jeopardy clause is needlessly hard, (2) why Wisconsin gets to keep their Vampire Laws in effect, and (3) what is Clarence Thomas up to with a 20 page concurrence out of nowhere about precedent. Law starts at (05:00).
This week's episode covers the two political cases that highlighted the last day of the term, as Nazim gets indignant about the death of political gerrymanddering cases in Rucho v Common Cause, Brett recounts his China trip, and Roberts sits alone at the lunch table in Department of Commerce v. New York. The law starts at (2:45).
This week's episode covers topics that have roots in previous episodes, from the case of Quarles v. U.S., which covers the continued evolution of the Armed Career Criminals Act, to Nieves v. Bartlett, which covers whether probable cause defeats a retaliatory arrest claim as a matter of law, to Nazim being inappropriate, which has been in existence since episode one. Law starts at (06:51). Note: Due to scheduling issues, cases decided in the last two weeks of June will be covered in July.
As a supplement to last week's episode, Brett and Nazim cover the case of Bucklew v. Precyth, which discusses whether or not an individual can contest the death penalty on grounds that it would impose extreme pain just on him, and specifically Breyer's arguments concerning the Constitutionality of the Death Penalty. Law starts at (04:00). Note: Due to scheduling issues, all orders covered in the last week of June will be covered in July episodes.
This week's episodes cover a collection of cases that deal with everyone's slightly vanilla, left-wing centrist judge, as the cases of Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus (attorney application under the FDCA), Taggart v. Lorenzon (test for violating bankruptcy discharge), and JAM v. International Finance Corp. (evolution of immunity statutes for international organizations) all deal with our dude, Justice Breyer. Law starts at (02:35).
It's summertime, people, and what better way to ring in the season than discussing two procedural cases involving the health care system. The case of Azar v. Allina Health Services deals with administrative procedure in Medicare rules, and Merk v. Albrecht deals with legal standards for State preemption. If that isn't sexy enough for you, there's a killer Sam Cooke reference buried in the back half of the episode. Law starts at (08:22).
This year's summit on guns (covering the case of New York Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. New York) was rudely interrupted by an abortion case (Box v. Planned Parenthood), thus creating a Voltron-like Supreme Court podcast where no one is happy. Enjoy, kind of? Law starts at (08:25).
Listen gang, it's a holiday. Although this episode covers two decisions (Herrera v. Wyoming & Washing State Licensing Department v. Cougar Den), this episode has all the seriousness of an afternoon BBQ where Brett and Nazim cumulatively eat nine hotdogs. Come for the insight on meaningless cases, stay for Brett's half-baked ideas (there are about 3). Law starts at (09:47).
It's finally decision season, and Brett and Nazim are covering two cases with broader implications for the future. First is Apple v. Pepper, which deals with conservative and evolutionary approaches to anti-trust common law, and the second is Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt, which deals with whether or not a controversial Constitutional interpretation should be overruled. Law starts at (09:09).
The dreaded BORING TERM strikes again, as Brett and Nazim take a stab at covering bankruptcy law. This episode discusses general bankruptcy practice withing the scope of Taggart v. Lorenzen, which asks whether a creditor who violates the automatic stay has a mistake of law defense. Pay your bills! The Law starts at (05:27).
Brett and Nazim are on their best behavior this week, as the episode deals with three LGBT cases that the Supreme Court decided to hear for next term. The main case R.G. & G.R. Funeral Homes v. EEOC, deals with the interpretation of Title VII regarding sex discrimination, and the episode serves as a primer to more detailed discussion next term. The law starts from the very beginning, inappropriate jokes are bleeped out, and the Avengers talk is at an all-time low. Just try not to get to used to it.
The case of California Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt should be enough for an exciting episode (dealing with federalism, State immunity, and precedent) that Brett and Nazim could stick to the issues, but as all good episodes go, this one takes some twists and turns around cheese talk, disparaging surrounding States, and how to explain Easter to non-Christians. To that end, the law starts early and goes off track, so if you're really hard up for the law, it starts around (09:06).
This week's episode covers the Freedom of Information Act, and how the Court will look at the pending case of Food Market Institute v. Argus Leader Media, which asks whether or not customer information is "confidential" to bar disclosure under FOIA laws. In the general theme of secrecy, Brett and Nazim share closely held secrets, like who likes Game of Thrones more, and who drinks Mountain Dew. Law starts at (07:55).
Look out drunks, because Wisconsin is coming for your blood. This week's episode covers the case of Mitchell v. Wisconsin, which asks whether the police can take the blood of a passed out drunk driver without a warrant. Brett and Nazim discuss oral argument in general, previous cases on this topic and which opinion of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is the lesser-est of three evils. Law starts at (06:05).
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).
This week's episode covers Madison v. Alabama, and whether or not the 8th Amendment bars the execution of someone who lacks mental capacity, but first Brett and Nazim read the single greatest listener feedback we've ever received. There's no time stamp this week, because the intro is worth your time, and we'll probably be making jokes about it until the end of time.
This week's episode covers Double Jeopardy, and specifically whether the Court will overturn the separate sovereigns doctrine in the upcoming case of Gamble v. U.S. Brett and Nazim discuss recent Double Jeopardy decisions to see if this case is a secret plot by the government to expand Presidential power, or just strange bedfellows looking to change the law. Law starts generally at (05:40).
Well hello there. Considering that Congress has ruined our summer vacation, Brett and Nazim are here early to discuss "Second Best Brett" Kavanaugh's calamity of an appointment before the Supreme Court. The "law" starts at (03:07), and for the record, I wanted to call this episode "You Give Brett a Bad Name".
It's the end of the term, so Brett and Nazim are recording LIVE in front of a studio audience of three in Brett's dining room. Brett and Nazim draft storylines they think will be popular this time next year, while recapping the Court's term and talking about who is the most famous Bundy (Al, Peg, Ted, or King Kong). The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court will return on October 7th, 2018.
Brett and Nazim wrap up the remaining cases of the 2017/2018 term, including Hughes v. U.S. (Whether changes in sentencing guidelines affect C pleas), Rosales-Mireles v. U.S. (Whether standard of review for sentencing mistakes should be ridiculous), Cox v. U.S.(Whether military judges should be fired over technical appointment issues), Sveen v. Melin (Whether Contracts Clause negates statute which changes beneficiaries after divorce), Currier v. Virginia (Whether Double Jeopardy bars severed trial), and Collins v. Virginia (Whether automobile exceptions takes precedence over property rights in the 4th Amendment). Whew. Law starts at (10:19).
Brett and Nazim embark on a marathon session to resolve all the cases that were discussed on the podcast this term. The first batch covers the "Jan Brady" political cases, in that MVA v. Mansky (whether Minnesota's political apparel ban at election polls is unconstitutional), and Abbott v. Perez (whether Texas' District Maps are a violation of the Voting Rights Act) fell by the wayside in lieu of all the other nonsense this term. Law starts at (06:50).
This week's episode is more than just catchy Hall & Oates songs, but instead covers Carpenter v. U.S., a case that discusses how the Supreme Court believes the 4th Amendment applies to cell phone information that discloses your location. Brett and Nazim debate the evolution of the 4th Amendment and which Justice's approach was most prudent (the answer MAY surprise you!). Law starts at (04:26).
Harken back to the good old days of four weeks ago, when the worst thing going on was Gil v. Whiteford getting dismissed on standing issues and Brett's Netflix being mildly frustrating. Brett and Nazim (full of youthful vigor) discuss the state of gerrymandering lawsuits going forward, and add in the case of United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, which dismissed a courtroom shackles case on account of mootness. Law starts at (07:43).
This week's episode covers the new Supreme Court Justice, "Second Best" Brett Kavanaugh, a Justice who no one knows anything about, but can't help buy try to analyze. Then, "First Best" Brett and "The One and Only" Nazim discuss South Dakota v. Wayfair and how the Court should approach overruling precedent. Law starts at (04:38).
The podcast gets contentious this week, as Brett and Nazim agree to disagree about (1) whether a Big Mac is a club sandwich (up to 10:25), (2) religious justices on the Supreme Court (up to 23:00), and (3) National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, the recent decision holding California's FACT Act, which requires specific disclosures of family planning centers that dissuade abortions, unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment.
Yeesh! Quite a week at the Supreme Court, amiright?? This week's episode covers Anthony Kennedy's Retirement through the lens of Trump v. Hawaii, and Janus v. AFSCME to break down what the future may hold for a five justice conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Law starts at (08:.....no, just kidding. It starts from the beginning).
This week's episode is all about REMANDS; including what they are, how they work, how a lower judge should consider a remanded case, etc. Brett and Nazim discuss Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lungren (does sovereign immunity apply to in rem actions) and Byrd v. U.S. (do persons unnamed on a rental agreement have privacy rights in a rental car) and how those remands speak to the Court's control over lower appellate judges. Law starts from the beginning, as you get to hear Nazim's reaction in real time to the Court's decision in Gil v. Whitford (which we will talk about next week).
This week's episode covers three big questions. (1) How big of a deal is the decision in Husted v. A. Phillip Randolph Instit.(can Ohio purge old voter rolls, (2) How big of a deal is the decision in McCoy v. Louisiana (can a criminal attorney admit guilt over a defendant's objection), and (3) What's a big deal when it comes to the Supreme Court (you know, like what is a "big deal" exactly??) Nazim's metaphor game is particularly strong in this one btw. Law starts at (07:14).
This week's episode covers the recent decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case which balanced the value of anti-discrimination statutes against the religious protections of the First Amendment to figure a compromise that likely everyone hates. Law starts at (04:37)
This week's episode covers the recent decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis, which can be more aptly stated as Overly Power Arbitration Act v. Sensible Worker's Rights Requests. Brett and Nazim break down the basis for the decision, debate judicial activism, and talk about why Weezer sucks. Law starts at (05:14).
This week's episode covers the improbable case of Christie v. NCAA, where New Jersey's second bite at legalizing State gambling actually worked, and now Federal Gambling laws are unconstitutional. Brett and Nazim celebrate this brand new world by setting odds for one-on-one fights between Supreme Court Justices. Law starts at (04:15), but it takes a while to get focused.
Brett and Nazim celebrate their 200th episode (!!!) the only way they know how, by talking about food for way too long, going on a weird tangent about the Mueller investigation that dovetails into the shady side of corporate law, and finally landing on Trump v. Hawaii, the travel ban case that asks the Supreme Court to gauge how prejudiced the President is allowed to be before we do anything about it. Law starts at (11:50).
This week's episode covers judges, and more specifically judicial mistakes currently before the Supreme Court. Brett and Nazim discuss Rosales-Mireles v. U.S, which basically covers how the Court should approach math problems, and Dalmazzi v. U.S., which discusses the current applicability of Civil War military appointment statutes. Law starts at (04:30).
This week's episode covers oral arguments and recent decisions with varying degrees of stakes. Brett and Nazim discuss Abbott v. Perez (which might decide the fate of modern democracy) Jesner v. Arab Bank PLC (which may facilitate terrorism), SAS Institute v. Matal (which deals with paperwork), and Trump v. Hawaii (which has something to do with the President). Law starts at (04:18).
This week's episode covers two recent decisions by the Court, including Microsoft v. U.S. (where the Court determined the dispute was moot after passage of the CLOUD Act), and Dimaya v. Sessions (where the Court invalidated the Immigrant Removal Act on grounds of vagueness under the Due Process Clause). Law starts at (08:48), but you'd be missing some pretty dope NASA talk.
Maybe a 6 out of 10? Depends on how you feel about lawsuits destined to fail, since this week we are covering sovereign immunity and the inherently futility of trying to hold the government accountable for bad actions. Brett and Nazim discuss the cases of Kisela v. Hughes (do police get qualified immunity for shooting people?) and Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (can the government stop your free speech rights by arresting you if you kind of deserve to be arrested). Law starts at (05:50).
This week's episode covers double jeopardy, a legal concept that should be easy, but technical legal rules have made complicated and kind of boring. To that end(!!), Brett and Nazim spice up the case of Currier v. Virginia, where the Court has to determine whether a severed charge can be tried following an acquittal. Law starts at (07:09), but before them Nazim talks about how he thinks he could be the Bachelor, sooooooooo skip at your own peril.
This week's episode tackles the wild and unpredictable world of Family Court, where everyone is nuts and there are no rules. Brett and Nazim cover the case of Sveen v. Melin, where the Court is asked whether a revocation upon divorce statute automatically changes a life insurance beneficiary retroactively, or if people have to still do it themselves. Law starts at (06:00).
This week's episode, which was intended to a brief discussion on Hughes v. U.S. to compensate for Brett's lost voice, quickly turned into a more substantive discussion on plurality opinions, sentencing guidelines and actual buffets. So the title isn't really a joke, cuz like the last ten minutes is legit all about buffets. The law starts at (03:36), but if you hate food talk, feel free to bail around the time Brett talks about eating oysters at the Chinese buffet.
First off, this week's episode covers the case of National Institute of Family and Life Advocate v. Becerra, which decides whether or not a California Statute (the FACT Act) that requires specific disclosures of Reproductive Family Centers violates the First Amendment. Brett and Nazim have a brief crash course on general abortion rights under the Constitution and then cover why the statute may end up a 1-1 tie. Secondly, I think we did a really good job with the title of the podcast this week. Law starts at (03:11).
This week is a total bummer, as Brett and Nazim cover two cases, Microsoft Corp. v. U.S. (dealing with the U.S. jurisdiction to seize digital assets overseas) and Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31 (aka the Unions)(dealing paying union dues when you're not the union), that depending on how you feel about privacy or organized labor could be a real downer. Brett and Nazim look on the bright side of both cases, by either arguing why the good side should win or why it won't be a bad thing if they lose. (Law at 5:20).
We're live from Brett's living room today, as Brett and Nazim go old school to explain why immigrants don't have bail hearings (Jennings v. Rodriguez), why Congress can decide cases for the Courts (Patchak v. Zinke), and why podcasters shouldn't eat while recording. Law starts at (03:10).
This week's episode is covers a slew of recent decisions dealing with guilty pleas (Class v. U.S.), statutory interpretation (Digital Realty Trust v. Somers), and math (Murphy v. Smith). Brett and Nazim discuss each decision and focus on whether or not the facts of the case matter when dealing with bad statutes. Law starts at (03:22).
That's right folks!! The Supreme Court is coming after your precious Amazon purchases, as the case of South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. will decide whether adding State taxes to online purchases violates the Dormant Commerce Clause. Brett and Nazim discuss Federalism and the DCC at length, brag about living in a State that will be unaffected by the whole ordeal, and sing a weird amount. Law starts at (04:17).
This week Brett and Nazim are "peak Brett and Nazim", as the Brett crows about the Eagles winning the Super Bowl and Nazim discusses how to improve voting districts. In addition to covering the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision which declared the district maps unconstitutional, the case of Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky is also discussed, which covers whether statutes banning political apparel at voting stations violate the First Amendment. The law technically starts at (06:48), but there's some turbulence until like the ten minute mark.
This week's episode welcomes back Nazim by covering recent decisions issued by the Court. It's a banner week for Clarence Thomas, as in one case he ruins a house party (D.C. v. Wesby), and the other involves he discounts an incredibly racist juror affidavit (Tharpe v Sellers). Law starts at (07:20).
Nazim's still on vaca, so Brett is joined by special guest Penni, who comes on to share background in Native American law in the United States, cover a specific case concerning tribal immunity (Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lungren), and try to breeze through two water rights cases (Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado & Florida v. Georgia). Law starts at (12:36).
With Nazim on vacation, special guest Lindsey (@DCInbox) joins Brett to discuss cases that deal with voter disenfranchisement (Husted v. A. Phillip Randolph Institute) and gerrymandering (Abbott v. Perez). Law starts at (13:20) and Lindsey makes midterm predictions at the end.
This week's episode is all about mistakes, as lawyers and podcasters. Brett and Nazim center this episode around McCoy v. Louisiana, which asks whether or not an attorney who concedes guilt during a First Degree Murder trial has violated his client's Constitutional right to an attorney. This episode covers the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel, goes through a few examples, and even covers a short background on Louisiana law, but first and foremost, Brett and Nazim discuss probably the greatest listener comment we've received. Law starts at (05:56).
"V" is the letter of the day today, as we are covering VOCABULARY this week on the Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court. Brett and Nazim cover three current cases which debate the meanings of statutory text, including Murphy v. Smith (how much is 25%?), Digital Realty Trust v. Somers (what is a whistle blower?), and SAS Institute v. Matal (what is a final written decision?). Law starts at (04:25).
This week's episode covers the Fourth Amendment, and specifically why police officers should err on the side of getting a a warrant to avoid cases being taken to the Supreme Court. Brett and Nazim cover Collins v. Virgnia and Byrd v. U.S. (starting at 19:20), but not before discussing the Constitutionality of anti-homeless legislation (starting at 5:47) and why the Benjamin Button movie sucks (that's from the jump, homie).
We're going back in time a bit this week to cover the cases of Sessions v. Dimaya and Jennings v. Rodriguez to discuss how Judge Neil's originalist sensibilities will impact two cases from last term that deal with immigration removal statutes. Additionally, Brett laments the loss of Carson Wentz and predicts hell fire and brimstone if the Eagles win the Super Bowl. Law starts at (04:42).
This week's episode covers Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and specifically the oral arguments that took place a week ago and terrified everyone of the outcome. Brett and Nazim take the approach of trying to find a compromise for this case that will (1) not invalidate all discrimination laws, and (2) not result in people ordering offensive cakes to prove a point. It's a delicate balance that hopefully the Court will handle more efficiently. Case in point, law starts at (03:04).
This week's episode covers the Alien Tort Statute and the current case of Jesner v. Arab Bank, which covers whether a corporations can be liable under said Alien Tort Statute. Brett and Nazim also relish their Web 100 nomination by the ABA and discuss the appropriate amount of relishing one should do when reading about attorneys getting disciplined. Law starts at (05:50).
This week's episode covers guilty pleas, from the practical (why the ubiquity of guilty pleas makes sense but mostly furthers the unfairness of the criminal justice system), to the theoretical (the current case of Class v. U.S., which broadly covers whether a guilty plea waives your right to challenge the Constitutionality of the underlying charge). Law starts at (03:50).
To celebrate arguably the best holiday, Brett and Nazim take listener questions about who would be the worst judicial Thanksgiving Day guest, Presidential Turkey Pardons, and actual legal questions at the end. Happy Thanksgiving; and otherwise, we will see you next week.
This week's episode covers Miranda Rights, from the ridiculous (the Louisiana Supreme Court holding that a defendant's request for a "lawyer, dog" was not an equivocal invocation of Miranda rights) to the sublime (City of Hayes v. Vogt in which a police officer's incriminating statements in a job interview were used against him in a pretrial hearing). The law starts from the beginning, but Vogt specifically starts at (24:43).
This week's episode covers District of Columbia v. Wesby, a case that appears super interesting at a surface level (house-parties, cops, possible strippers), but is sort of boring a few meters deep (probable cause, qualified immunity, mens rea). Brett and Nazim get into the details, but not before breaking out a 8 movie bracket to determine the best house party movie of all time. Law starts at (03:40), House Party nonsense from (11:19-23:05).
This week's episode celebrates both Nazim's birthday and the death of American democracy. Depending on how you feel about the Supreme Court and its inherent authority, the case of Gil v. Whitford could substantially impact politics and voting throughout the United States, or could be another missed opportunity by the Court to fix a systemic problem in our government. Brett and Nazim discuss general gerrymandering issues, how this case will likely play out, and give Nazim a soapbox at the end to discuss why all districting is terrible. Law starts from the beginning.
This week's episode celebrates everything that is terrible about gainful employment. Brett and Nazim spend the first part of the episode disincentivizing you from wanting to become a lawyer by sharing stories about the profession, and then cover the case of NLRB v. Murphy's Oil (also Epic Systems v. Lewis & Ernst and Young v. Morris), which discuss whether the National Labor Relations Act supersedes the National Arbitration Act by providing a right to class actions for employees who sign mandatory employment arbitration agreements. Case discuss starts at (13:08).
This week's episode covers Carpenter v. U.S., which covers whether or not 4th Amendment protections apply to your cell phone records, so if you're a fan of privacy arguments, feeling paranoid about the government spying on you, the latter episodes of the Serial podcast, or new ways that the movie Scream has been made moot by technology, this episode is right in your wheelhouse. Law starts at (03:34).
So check it out. The intent with this episode was to have a short, slick analysis of Christie v. NCAA, which is both about gambling and federalism, but things almost immediately devolved in talk about fried chicken, Joe Arpaio, Separation of Powers, and Brett's gambling conspiracy theories. It's not all nonsense by any means, but if you're hear just for New Jersey's terrible legal arguments, that starts at (25:36).