This week's episode addresses three cases involving the government and the political process.  This includes Trump v. Barbara (addressing the merits of birthright citizenship), Louisianna v. Callais (further undermining the Voting Rights Act), and Watson v. Republican National Committe4e (addressing nuances of mail-in voting).  Nazim speaks in tongues and Brett touts the value of public libraries.  Law starts at (05:58).

Hi there.  This week's episode covers a lot to make up for all the time we've been away.  The episode starts with discussing LGBT rights (Little v. Hecox & Chiles v. Saalazar), then moves to the Second Amendment (Wolford v. Lopez & US v. Hemani) and concludes with government nonsense (Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump & Trump v. Slaughter).  Law starts at (03:56) and my apologies for the sound being below average.

The Supreme Court's term is over so it's time to panic.  This week's episode covers Trump v. CASA, which doesn't really talk about birthright citizenship, but maybe does something even worse.  This episode also covers Skrmetti v. US, which is maybe not as bad as it could have been.  It's a mixed bag, folks.  Law starts at (07:14).

This week's question asks the age old question of whether we are dealing with a Constitutional Crisis, or run-of-the-mill incompetency.  Brett and Nazim discuss the cases of Noam v. Garcia and Trump v. JGG to determine the scope of both Supreme Court orders and how to view the President's actions in light of the Constitution.  It's a fun episode!  Very unlikely to increase your anxiety!  Law starts at (05:25).

Brett and Nazim return to cover three Con Law cases.  The first, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, asks whether mandatory government ID verifications for adult websites violates the First Amendment.  The second, Skrmetti v. US, discusses the application Equal Protection Standard for LGBT discrimination.  The final case, Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Board, asks whether an entity owned by the Catholic Church which performs secular benefits is exempt from employment taxes.  The law starts at (05:41).

This week's episode covers the Supreme Court's decision in TikTok v. Garland, a great example of how the Federal government passing laws can end up as the Federal Government's own worst nightmare.  Nazim has returned, so enjoy commentary on snow days, getting old, and legos.  Law still starts from the beginning.

This week's episode, which covers the oral argument in Tiktok v. Garland, is just Brett and no Nazim.  We ask that you see past this fatal flaw and still enjoy discussion on why TikTok may not be a First Amendment case, what kind of First Amendment case it could be, and whether it would fail a strict scrutiny analysis.  Law starts from the beginning.

So you've won/lost the 2024 Presidential election, what comes next?  Brett and Nazim take some time to vet out what the 2024 election means for the President, the Supreme Court and Administrative Agencies.  Sprinkle in a touch of doom, and just a hint of gloom, and you've got a winning podcast episode.  Law starts from the beginning, with a healthy tangent in the middle about Nazim dressed in a hot-dog man costume. *Technical issue with episode has been fixed.

This week's episode discusses Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine, but not before discussing the potential success of lawsuits challenging the change in the Democratic candidate for President, and later discussing the many mysteries of the open ocean.  It's an action-packed episode, folks.  Law starts from the beginning.

This week's episode covers Trump v. U.S., which deals with the Court's new test for Presidential Immunity, how that test applies to former President Donald Trump, and whether Brett can talk Nazim off a ledge over the whole thing.  Law starts from the beginning.

This week's episode covers two criminal cases with bickering concurrences.  Rahimi v. U.S., holding that the Second Amendment does not invalidate a law disarming someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order, shows that a lot can happen in two summers, while Smith v. Arizona, holding that an expert witness cannot testify about a report the expert did not prepare, shows that twenty years is still not enough time to decide what testimonial means.  Law starts at (02:22).

This week's episode covers the cases of FDA v. Doctor's for Hippocratic Medicine and Cargill v. Garland, which deal with big legal issues in small legal ways.  The podcast starts by also discussing Big Sam Alito's recently foibles with judicial ethics and ends with a discussion on dance recital season.  The law basically starts from the beginning if you'll indulge a small anecdote.

This week's episode once again covers former President Donald Trump's cases before the Supreme Court, dealing mostly with Trump v. U.S. (whether a President has absolute immunity for criminal actions), but also covering Fischer v. U.S. (whether a statute meant to resolve evidence tampering can also be applied against January 6th Defendants).  Brett and Nazim, always sensitive to your tolerance for Trump cases, also give you a crash course in the Confrontation Clause in the third act of this episode by covering Smith v. Arizona.  Law starts at (05:43).

This week's episode covers the most recent abortion case before the Supreme Court, which covers less about the Constitution, and more about administrative law and the adversarial nature of the American legal system.  Brett and Nazim discuss the basics underlying the case and also predict the outcome based a fairly one-sided oral argument.  The law starts at (05:00).

Time is a flat circle, folks.  Fresh off the heels of two SCOTUS decisions, Brett and Nazim discuss the Supreme Court hearing Trump's Executive Immunity defense in Trump v. U.S., and the Supreme Court's holding in Trump v. Anderson which bars Colorado from removing Trump from the ballot.  Next time we'll talk about something else.  We promise.  At least we hope.  Law starts at (03:00) following some sweet Dune talk.

This week's episode covers Trump v. Anderson, which asks whether Colorado can prevent Donald Trump from being on the Presidential ballot due to the 14th Amendment.  Considering how insane this case is, your boys discuss the lower decision to determine how the Supreme Court will likely reverse this, while discussing history, January 6th, and Colorado statutes.  Law starts from the beginning.

Well hello there.  The podcast returns for a discussion on executive immunity (United States v. Trump), double jeopardy and the insanity defense (McElrath v. Georgia) and the second amendment's application to domestic violence crimes (Rahimni v. U.S.).  Other topics discussed include breakfast foods, Fortnight, and what 2024 may bring to the brains of legal scholars.  Law starts at (08:30)

Brett and Nazim are back to discuss the case of Students for Fair Admissions v. North Carolina/Harvard, in which the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action programs in school admissions.  The Law starts at (8:20), and Nazim's sound is wonky for like three minutes at the start.  We are sorry, but we missed you if that makes up for it.

Well hello there.  Your boys are back to discuss the two lousy decisions of Biden v. Nebraska (holding the President cannot forgive student loan debt pursuant to the HEROES Act) and 303 Creative v. Elenis (holding that Colorado's Public Accomodations Law violates the First Amendment's ban on compelled speech when applied to a wedding website designer).  Law starts at (02:21).

This week's episode covers big opinions from the past few weeks, including Twitter v. Taamneh (whether social media is civilly liable for terrorism), Sackett v. EPA (how do different justices interpret the Clean Water Act), Pork Council v. Ross (does the Dormant Commerce Clause bar California from legislating out of State) and Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (does fair use consider artistic merit or commercial usage).  Law starts at (4:40).

This week's episode covers two cases, Gonzales v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, which appear to cover broad, important issues at first (the recruitment of terrorism on the internet), but seem more likely to affect narrow, trivial issues later on (how Youtube recommends videos for you).  This episode also talks voting, Legend of Zelda and Shake Shack's Tiramisu Milk Shake.  Law starts at (5:30), but the milkshake gets reference all the way through, my dog.

This week's episode is jam-packed with current events, as it covers Clarence Thomas' recent ethics controversy, followed by Alliance for Hippocratic Oath v. United States FDA, which asks whether the Court can overrule FDA approval for abortion medication a few decades later.  This episode was recorded a few hours before the decision came out, but still goes into detail on the merits of the issue and how it compares to previous abortion cases to help explain the final opinion.  Law starts at (2:35).

Brett and Nazim continue last week's episode of covering new cases on the docket in 2023, which include Samia v. U.S. (does the Confrontation Clause bar vague, redacted accusations), Groff v. DeJoy (what level of accommodation do employers have to provide for religious exceptions, and Counterman v. Colorado (what level of mens rea is necessary when you are threatening people online).  Law starts at (2:20)

Look!  We're back!  Brett and Nazim return to discuss new cases added to the docket in 2023, including United States v. Hanson (whether an immigration statute is void for vagueness), and Jack Daniels Properties v. VIP Properties LLC (whether Jack Daniels can sue a Dog Toy manufacturer for trademark infringement).  We also discuss some current events and why the podcast was gone for a bit.  Law starts at (10:20).

There are no Christmas themed cases this year, so Brett and Nazim usher in our holiday break by covering In re Grand Jury, a case with anonymous parties, no facts, and the Supreme Court seemingly poised to overturn a generally reasonable 9th Circuit Decision.  Let the good times roll. The law starts at (9:23), some scheduling announcements start at (06:50), and Nazim's Gift List starts right after the theme song.  The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court will return sometime late winter/early spring.

Ho ho ho!  Just in time for the holidays, the podcast covers the most direct example of the Supreme Court possibly taking $20,000.00 out of your pocket.  This week, Brett and Nazim discuss Biden v. Nebraska, which covers whether the Supreme Court will vacate a stay on President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan by playing all the President's administrative law hits from the past few years.  Law starts at (05:05).

This week's episode covers the case of Haaland v. Brackeen, a case involving Tribal Sovereignty and (stop us if you've heard this before) an argument to overrule a decades-long statute because it was decided incorrectly in the first place.  Law starts at (06:50).

Happy Thanksgiving, folks.  This year's mailbag covers topics such as a Supreme Court code of ethics, the leaked Dobbs opinion, strict scrutiny on religious laws, and senate confirmation hearings, BUT ALSO covers a professional wrestling match called WARGAMES, football, and whether cheesecake is a pie.  It's all very on-brand and there's no time stamp because its Thanksgiving.  The podcast will return next Sunday (12/4).

If you love that age-old classic, you're going to love this week's episode covering Sackett v. EPA, which asks the Court to revisit the EPA's definition of "a wetland", after they were unable to come to a consensus sixteen years ago.  Brett and Nazim also discuss our upcoming Thanksgiving mailbag episode and the chances of Nazim eating himself to death next week.  The answer will not surprise you.  Law starts at a robust (10:15).

Brett and Nazim are bringing up the caboose on last week's news, covering Affirmative Action oral argument highlights, Lindsey Graham looking to avoid a subpoena, and Trump asking the Supreme Court to help protect his tax returns.  Everything old is new again.  Law starts at (04:55).

This week's episode serves as the spiritual successor to Thursday's episode on intellectual property, as Brett and Nazim discuss Andy Warhol Foundation for the Arts v. Goldsmith, which asks whether Warhol's depictions of a photograph are protected by the doctrine of fair use from the photographer and copyright holder of the original picture.  The law starts from the beginning.

Brett and Nazim continue a series of shorter episodes on fundamental legal topics.  This episode covers intellectual property, including what is protected, how it is protected, and why we sometimes let that protection lapse in the interests of good and evil.

This week's episode is a real SCOTUS ghost story for Nazim, as the podcast covers National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, which asks whether a California law which affects pork farms in other States violates the Dormant Commerce Clause.  Law starts at (03:13), but this is a generally silly episode from start to finish.

Brett and Nazim continue a series of shorter episodes on fundamental legal topics.  This episode covers the civil justice system, including how and why it takes so long, and how and why to avoid it.

Brett and Nazim continue a series of shorter episodes regarding fundamental legal topics.  This episode covers the criminal justice system, including how it works and why you should try to avoid it.

In honor of the prosciutto playboy's birthday, Brett and Nazim cover the two big voting rights cases before the Supreme Court this term.  The first is Merrill v. Milligan, which covers Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as it applies to Alabama's district map, and Moore v. Harper, which covers the Independent State Legislature Theory as it applies to North Carolina's district map.  Law starts at (03:05).

The age old battle over discrimination in public accommodations is back in this week's episode, as Brett and Nazim cover the case of 303 Creative, Inc. v. Elenis, which asks whether the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act violates a business' First Amendment rights when it requires a web-site designer to provide services for same sex weddings.  Law starts at (3:02).

This week's coming at you extra neutral this week, as Brett and Nazim try to take a neutral approach to two big Supreme Court issues and also say the word "neutral" about a hundred times.  In particular, this week's episode covers the Supreme Court's review of the 11th Circuit's decision regarding Donald Trump's confidential documents, and the upcoming case of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard / North Carolina.  The law starts from the beginning.

Brett and Nazim continue their series of shorter episodes with a companion episode to the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard / North Carolina case on Equal Protection.  This episode reviews how it applies, the three applicable standards and the two elements of the test.  It also discusses Third Eye Blind and the Philadelphia Phillies playoff chances.

Brett and Nazim start a series of shorter episodes regarding fundamental legal topics.  This episode covers the Executive Branch, including what it includes, the extent of its power, and how the Supreme Court has shaped its authority over the past few years.

Brett and Nazim start a series of shorter episodes regarding fundamental legal topics.  This episode covers the Judicial Branch, including what cases they can hear, how they are organized, and how appellate procedure works.

Brett and Nazim start a series of shorter episodes regarding fundamental legal topics.  This episode covers Congress, including who can serve, what they do, and how they compare to other International legislative bodies.

It's the end of the term, so Brett and Nazim are coming at you LIVE from an online google chatroom.  This episode grades our evergreen predictions from last summer, and sets forth new predictions for what is hoping will be a less bleak summer in 2023.  The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court will return in October 2022.

This week's episode previews some of the cases that will be covered next term, including cases about Delaware, Voting Rights, the Chevron Doctrine, Andy Warhol, Native American Sovereignty, the Independent State Legislature Theory and Affirmative Action.  Your boys also discuss next week's Live Season Finale Episode.  The law startst at (06:30).

It's the end the term, so this week's episode ties up loose ends, which include: a mea culpa on cannon ownership (2:00); the plan so far for the Season Finale episode (5:00); discussion on Concepcion v. U.S. (how judge's should interpret the First Step Act), Hemphill v. NY (whether there are exceptions to the Confrontation Clause, and Ruan v. U.S. (mens rea requirements for doctors violate drug distribution laws).

This week's episode covers three cases which discuss recent Supreme Court decisions on Native American Law and Tribal Sovereignty, including Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (holding that State law has criminal jurisdiction on tribal land), Denezpi v. U.S (holding that the Double Jeopardy clause does not bar successive prosecutions involving CFR courts) and Yselta Del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (holding that Texas does not have jurisdiction to regulate gaming activities on reservations).  Law starts at (1:30).

This week's celebration of administrative law features two John Roberts Opinions; one of which suggests the Supreme Court is OK with the end of the world (West Virginia v. EPA) and also favors Biden's half-baked use of Admin Law over Trump's even-less baked use of Admin Law (Biden v. Texas).  Law starts at (3:15).

This week's episode discusses two cases in which the Supreme Court prioritized Free Exercise Clause rights over Establishment Clause rights.  Carson v. Makin states that Maine cannot provide a voucher system that excludes religious schools and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District states that a football coach cannot be barred from saying a silent prayer after a football game.  Brett and Nazim discuss both cases in detail and try to determine how influential these cases are from a big picture perspective.  Law starts from the beginning.

This week's episode covers New York Rifle and Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, where the Supreme Court struck down a New York City gun law on grounds that it violated an new interpretation of the Second Amendment.  Brett and Nazim discuss how this case amends the standard and how much it affects States' abilities to regulate guns. Law starts at (04:40).

This week's episode laments the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, including Brett and Nazim's criticisms of the majority and concurring opinions, and a discussion on how this case alters the legacy of the justices and politicians involved.  The law starts from the beginning.

The podcast returns strong off its summer bye week, covering three cases which deal with conservative majorities, including Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez (can a Circuit Court create bond hearings for detained immigrants), Garland v. Gonzalez (can detained immigrants sue the government to get bond hearings), and American Hospital Assoc. v. Becerra (how dead is the Chevron doctrine).  Law starts at (4:40).

This week's episode covers three Supreme Court Orders that don't have long opinions, but cover interesting issues that may pop up a few years down the line.  This includes Netchoice LLC v. Paxton (instituting a stay on a Texas law that wants to ban social media platforms from banning Republicans), Louisianna v Biden (allowing an administrative agency to speculate the costs on greenhouse gases), and Guillen v. League of United Latin American Citizens (allowing depositions of Texas lawmakers for a Voting Rights Act case).  Law starts at (01:45).

This week's episode covers the text, punctuation, history, case law, current developments, and future predictions on the Second Amendment and reasonable gun control regulations.  We intended on covering two cases about federalism, but never got around to it.  The law starts from the beginning.

This week's episode discusses the political influence of two cases.  The first is FEC v. Cruz where Ted Cruz struck down campaign finance laws, and the second is Patel v. Garland in which the Court refused to consider mistakes in immigration removal proceedings.  The answer may surprise you, but probably not.  Law starts from the beginning.

You asked for it, and you got it, folks.  This week's episode covers Shurtleff v. City of Boston, aka the second-most interesting thing that happened in the Supreme Court two weeks ago.  There's a lot to disagree with here, from the decision that flags aren't government speech, to Gorsuch's take-down of the Lemon test.  Law starts at (02:07).

On this week's podcast, Brett interviews Gabe Roth from Fix the Court about judicial ethics and recusal reform for the Supreme Court.  Gabe discusses the scope of Fix the Court's reform in light of current events, what is like to testify before Congress, and the future of any such reform at the legislative level.  Nazim returns from captivity next week.

The emergency podcast alarm has rarely sounded so definitely, as Brett and Nazim discuss the fall-out from Alito's leaked opinion in Dobbs, including what a draft opinion means for the outcome of the case, what a leak means for the credibility of the Supreme Court, and whether this decision will likely be the majority decision.  Law starts from the jump.

This week's case discusses Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, in which the Court must determine whether a public school football coach who prays on the field violates the Establishment Clause.  This case is ripe with factual issues, legal issues, and sadly very little discussion about actual football.  Law starts at (02:35).

This week's episode covers the age-old battle of LAWS v. CONSTITUTION.  The first case is U.S. v. Vaello-Madero, in which the Supreme Court held that denying Puerto Rican residents SSI benefits did not violate Equal Protection.  The second case is City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, in which the Supreme Court tied the First Amendment in knots trying to resolve sign problems.  Law starts at (02:04).

This week's episode covers Concepcion v. U.S., which continues the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Step Act, a bi-partisan law aimed at lowering sentencings for drug dealers, but maybe wasn't drafted super well.  Law starts at (04:10).

This week's episode starts with a discussion on Justice Jackson's appointment to the Supreme Court (starts from the beginning), and moves to a discussion about Shurtleff v. City of Boston (17:26), which asks whether a government policy which allows citizen's flags can exclude a religious flag under the First Amendment.

This week's supersized episode covers the Senate Confirmation hearings of Ketanji Brown Jackson, while also covering Clarence Thomas, Ramirez v. Collier, and Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Election Commission.  The law starts from the beginning and is mostly consistent except for a conversation about parenting, reality shows, and Encanto in the third act.  The podcast is also taking next week off, but will return on April 10, 2022.

This week's episode covers two brief Supreme Court orders with big political ramifications for the future.  Moore v. Harper (N.C.) and Toth v. Chapment (PA) are two State Supreme Court decisions where the Court decided the political maps instead of the legislature.  This is discussed through the fact that Brett saw Harry Potter for the first time and now wants to talk about it twenty years after its release.  Law starts at (09:45) but your house gets 10 points if you listen all the way through!

This week's episode covers recent decisions in U.S. v. Tsarnaev (reinstating the death penalty for the Boston Marathon Bomber) and Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center (allowing AG to intervene in abortion case when everyone else gave up).  It's all killer, no filler because the law starts at (1:33).

This week's episode is all about drugs and the mindset needed to distribute drugs illegally.  Ruan v. U.S. asks whether a doctor accused of violating the Controlled Substance Act should be judged by an objective standard (would every doctor think this was wrong), or a subjective standard (did this doctor think this was wrong).  Law starts at (05:00).

This week's episode covers Biden v. Texas, a case which asks whether Biden is required to continue a Trump era immigration policy due to some kind of administrative law revenge plot.  This week's episode also discussed how this whole ordeal is analogous to the Philadelphia Eagles 2022 campaign.  Law starts at (03:23).

Well, Mene Gene, it is the Establishment Clause vs. the Free Exercise Clause because this week's case is Carson v. Minkin, in which a Supreme Court with three new justices must decide whether a State can refuse children from choose religious schools under a State-Scholarship program.  Law starts at (11:00).

The title this week is more literal than figurative, as we cover Ramirez v. Collier, a case which asks whether someone receiving the death penalty is Constitutionally required to have a religious figure of their choosing physically touching the person and audibly praying.  The law starts at (16:20), but the intro is more about practicing criminal law, as opposed to like whether seafood belongs in ravioli.

This week's episode covers all the things you love: Ted Cruz, Shaky Campaign Finance Laws, and rich people winning political offices.  Your boys revisit some food talk while discussing Federal Elections Commission v. Ted Cruz, which discussed whether Ted Cruz can get repaid for a $10,000.00 loan he made to Ted Cruz.  Law starts at (10:35).

This week's episode starts by discussing the pending retirement of Stephen Breyer and what the Court loses with his absence.  The podcast then shifts to the case of NY State Rifle and Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, which asks whether a concealed-carry permit process violates the Second Amendment.  The law starts from the beginning, but Nazim peppers in like 40 dad jokes with different degrees of appropriateness.

We have one more emergency episode, which covers the Supreme Court's decisions in NFIB v. DOL and Biden v. Missouri, which discusses why one mandate is OK and the other mandate is not OK.  Once again, there's probably more administrative law than you're expecting.  Law starts from the beginning.

Sound the alarm, as we are back with an emergency podcast discussing the oral argument in National Federation of Independent Businesses (i.e. the Dudes) v. Department of Labor, and Biden v. Missouri, two cases discussing the Constitutionality of President Biden's Vaccine Mandate, BUT only through the context of Administrative Law.  The law starts from the beginning.

This week's episode covers two recent opinions by Judge Neil Gorsuch, including Whole Women's Health v. Jackson (which determined whether injunctive lawsuits by abortion clinics to stop the Texas Heartbeat Law could proceed) and Dr. A v. Hochul (which asked whether President Biden's mandate could be enjoined pending a resolution on religious exceptions).  You, the listener, are tasked with playing the part of Oliver Twist, and whether you want more or less of Judge Gorsuch's gruel is a joke that will make more sense during the episode.  Law starts at (09:17), and the podcast will return after a short break at the end of January.

This week's episode (which is far less attractive than our November 21st episode) covers Thompson v. Clark, a case which asks how not-guilty a person must be to file a 1983 claim against a police officer accused of violating a person's Constitutional Rights.  Although complicated and unsexy, its a case which is interesting in the context of police-officer civil liability.  Law starts at (06:17).

Brace yourself, as this week's episode covers oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson's Women's Health, a case in which the justices debate the Constitutionality of a 15-week ban on abortions in Mississippi.  Brett and Nazim go through the underlying precedent, and then cover the when, how, and why the Roe and Casey standards may be changed by this decision.  The law starts at (03:11).

This week's episode is the podcast's favorite tradition, which is answering listener-submitted questions about Thanksgiving, the law, and somehow both of those topics together.  This year includes Biden's Supreme Court, Justices as Thanksgiving dessert, and the proper evaluation of Turkey.  Happy Thanksgiving and we'll be back on December 4, 2021.

This week's episode covers U.S. v. Vaello-Madero, a case which asks whether excluding residents of Puerto Rico from receiving federal benefits violates the Equal Protection Clause.  The answer is cut-and-dry, but not for the reasons you think.  Law starts at (06:02).

This week's episode covers United States v. Tsarnaev, which asks whether the Supreme Court will re-instate the death penalty for the Boston Marathon bomber based on two discrete issues of criminal procedure.  The discussion on the story starts at (07:04), but the law begins at (17:24).

Brett and Nazim return with a discussion on the oral argument in Whole Women's Health v. Jackson and United States v. Texas, which both address the (procedural) Constitutionality of Texas' abortion ban supported by private enforcement.  This discussion includes (1) what are they talking about, (2) how did this get here, and (3) is this going to be over soon.  Law starts at (05:02); and for reference, there are minor sound static in the third act because Brett was pounding on his desk when he talked, but it goes away fairly quickly.

This week's case covers Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, which asks whether or not the Kentucky Attorney General can intervene in a case to defend a defunct abortion law when everyone else in the government has given up, but also Nazim's birthday, Nazim's favorite taco, and Nazim's ideal birthday dessert.  Law starts at (10:08).

Gather round, all ye violent individuals, as we are discussing the text of the Armed Career Criminals Act through the case of Wooden v. U.S.  Brett and Nazim discuss a few background cases on the ACCA, what Due Process requires of a criminal statute that gets discussed by the Court almost every year, and who would play Nazim in a biopic about his life.  Law starts at (10:52).

Listen, if you're thinking that this title is just a cheap joke, you'll be happy to know that it is the heart and soul of this episode, which covers Nazim's favorite Constitutional issue, the Confrontation Clause, through the case of Hemphil v. New York. The law basically starts from the beginning, although you could start at (03:06) if we're being technical.

The boys are back in podcast town.  The season kicks off with an analysis of President Biden's Vaccine Mandate under the most applicable provisions of the Constitution.  Also, we added 15 minutes of content so we could talk about TOP 3 FAVORITE SNACKS! Our answers will not surprise you.  The law kinda starts at (04:25), but then actually starts at (08:04).

Brett and Nazim take a break from their vacation to discuss the Supreme Court's denial of injunctive relief in the case of Whole Women's Health v. Jackson, which allowed a Texas abortion law to proceed.

It's the end of the term, so Brett and Nazim are coming at you LIVE from an online chatroom.  This episode grades the predictions from last summer, and sets forth new predictions for next summer.  The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court will return in October 2021.

With an episode title like this, you know its a party. This week's grab-bag episode covers cases regarding bankruptcy law (City of Chicago v. Fulton), immigration law (Pereida v. Wilkson), and admin law (Yellen v. Collins), all while discussing nu metals favorite sons.  Not only does the law start at (07:40), but we don't even hit the into until (02:40).

This week's episode previews the biggest case of next year's term, Dobbs v. Jackson  Women's Health Organization, in which the State of Mississippi has asked the newly-formed Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade.  Brett and Nazim discuss a bit of the background of Roe and consider possible outcomes of the Dobbs decision.  Law starts at (09:40), and details on our end-of-the-term episode over ZOOM start at (08:20).

This week's episode covers Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, in which the Supreme Court struck down a law which required charitable organizations to disclose their major donors.  Brett and Nazim discuss the ideological split on the Court and what it means to be "conservative" in this day and age.  No time stamp because this all killer, no filler.  The law starts from the beginning.

Take it!!  This week's episode covers Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, in which the Supreme Court struck down a California law that allowed access to union organizers on private property.  Brett and Nazim discuss the implications of the 6-3 ideological split, but also shellfish and roller coasters.  Law starts at (07:30).

This week's episode covers Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, where in one corner, we have Justice Alito upholding two Arizona voting laws, and the other corner, we have Big Sexy Paddington Prince Nazim advocating for the good people of Arizona.  Good luck to both competitors.  Law starts at (03:30).

This week's episode covers two Constitutional law cases, Lange v. California (how the hot pursuit exception applies to misdemeanors) and Mahanoy School District v. B.L. (holding that the First Amendment prevents school districts from disciplining out of school speech).  From a big picture perspective, Brett and Nazim discuss what history teaches us about noisy drunk drivers and vengeful cheerleaders.  Law starts at (05:45).

Sung to the tune of "My Favorite Things", this week's episode covers Terry v. US (holding that the First Step Act does not apply to Tier One offenders) and NCAA v. Allston (upholding a lower court's injunction against NCAA rules on compensation).  Law starts at (07:20).

This week's episode gets the big cases out of the way early, as the Court dropped California v. Texas (holding that ACA survives another challenge for lack of standing) and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (holding a Philadelphia law restricting referrals to a Catholic adoption agency violates the Free Exercise Clause).  Both cases are more than just the headlines suggestion, and are indicative of the Court's current make-up.  Law starts at (04:40).

Brett and Nazim return from vacation to see what we can learn about judges from the cases of Van Buren v. U.S. (deciding "access" under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), Borden v. U.S. (deciding reckless mindset under ACCA), Sanchez v. Myorkas (deciding admission status for permanent residency, and Garland v. Dai (deciding whether the 9th Circuit can make up immigration rules).  Law starts at (07:20).

Get ready to learn, folks, because this episode discusses time, poison, wars and 160 million dollars worth of garbage in the context of Guam v. U.S..  Although its mostly a case about statutory interpretation; and it's core, its the case you didn't know you needed to know more about.  The law is a moving target here, but there's less nonsense than you may think.

This week's episode covers three recent decisions, CIC Services v. IRS (procedure for challenging IRS notice requirements), Caniglia v. Strom (community care-taking exception for the home) and Edwards v. Vannoy (retroactivity of unanimous verdicts).  Law starts at (04:07) and an explanation for the episode title follows soon after.

Listen, there's a lot going on here.  As a general proposition, this week's episode asks Brett and Nazim to narrow down which classification of lawyers would be best to sit with at a wedding table.  Amidst discussing other wedding and marriage-related topics, your boys somehow find time to discuss recent opinions Facebook v. Duguid, Jones v. Mississippi, and Torres v. Madrid.  A time stamp would be insulting to both of us, so we've done away with it this week.

Buckle up, because this week we're talking crack cocaine, online dating, and positive aspects of Donald Trump's presidency.  This week's case is Terry v. United States, which asks whether the Supreme Court can amend a poorly-written statute on mass incarceration.  Law starts at (07:25).

This week's episode covers the case of Thomas More Law Center v. Bontas, which covers whether a California law that requires the disclosure of charitable donors violates the First Amendment.  The law starts with a sick burn on Nazim at (05:00).

This week's episode revisits the good old days of high school, specifically the case of Mahanoy School District v. BL, where the Supreme Court must decide whether a high school that suspended a student for making a vulgar Snapchat about school sports violates the First Amendment.  The law kinda generally takes shape around (11:00) but stays pretty consistent.

This week's episode covers a proposed 13 justice Supreme Court in the context of a genie that only grants political wishes, along with Google's victory against Oracle in the realm of the Paw Patrol, sexy workplaces, and the Venus De Milo.  Law starts at (05:48).

That's right, Hulkamaniacs.  This week's supersized episode covers this year's Wrestelmania while covering the past, present and future implications that Ford Motor Company v. Bandemere has on personal jurisdiction.  A time stamp would be pointless, but there's a surprising amount of law that is certainly more than I originally intended.

We're talking sequels and remakes this week, as the podcast covers Collins v. Mnuchin (how to destroy a real estate admin agency in one easy step) and Edwards v. Vannoy (whether a rule about unanimous jury verdicts applies retroactively), two cases that carry on the spirit of decisions from last term.  In this analogy, Collins is Chris Pratt, Selia Law is Sam Neil.  Law starts at a robust (09:33).

This week's episode covers the hard-hitting questions associated with CIC Services v. Internal Revenue Service and American tax law in general, including things like, does Nazim like horror movies?  Would you rather kill or marry textual statutory interpretation?  Is this case going to de-fang the IRS?  Who is winning the NCAA bracket pool? (Law starts at 11:16).

We got it bad, so bad, because we're covering Torres v. Madrid, a case which asks whether or not you are seized under the Fourth Amendment when you get shot twice but are able to run away.  Real practical stuff right here.  Law starts at (04:58).

This week's episode is brought to you by arguing with your friends, as we cover the cases and dissents in U.S. Fish and Wildlife v. Sierra Club (FOIA's application to admin law) and Uzuegbuna v. Preczewski (pursuing nominal damages in Constitutional Law violations).  The law starts at (04:30).

This week's episode covers the case of Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee, which asks once again whether neutral-looking voting laws that discriminate based on race violate whatever is left of the Voting Rights Act.  The law starts at (2:30), but there are two food tangents we hope you enjoy.

This week's episode is all about SPORTS!  Brett and Nazim qualify their knowledge about college sports (including whether Nazim knows who Tim Tebow is) and then much later cover NCAA v. Alston, which asks whether regulations on student athlete benefits are a violation of anti-trust regulations.  There's no timestamp because honestly it would be too hard to figure out when things get legal.

First off, you're welcome for that amazing episode title.  Second, this episode covers the case of Republic of Germany v. Phillip, which covers how the Supreme Court uses the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act to resolve property theft in the 1940s.  Depending on how you view the Supreme Court, the result will probably not surprise you.  Law starts at (04:50).

This week's episode covers Facebook v. Duguid, a case involving allegations that Facebook violated federal law, defenses under the First Amendment, judicial interpretations of statutes, and how you could interrupt someone's dinner in the 1980s.  The law starts at (10:30).

You may think that Star Wars and the case of Van Buren v. U.S. have nothing in common; however, this episode strives to show how the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act should have had greater impact on Princess Leia and the Resistance at large.  Brett and Nazim discuss how the Court should interpret the term access, but not before revealing their favorite Star Wars characters.  Nazim's answer shouldn't surprise you.  Law starts at (13:50).

This week's episode involves Nazim, a Big Computer Boy, explaining the case of Google v. Oracle to Brett, a complete Luddite.  In addition to explaining fair use and its application to computer language, your boys also discuss Pokemon, Jurassic Park, Akira and Nintendo to keep things extra hip and cool.  The law starts at (07:20) and we're happy to see you.

Gather round, children, to hear the story of RFRA-MAS, as told by Brett and Nazim to a live google-hangout crowd.  RFRA Claus and Burwell the Elf discuss the history of RFRA, it's current application in the case of Tanzin v. Tanzir, and then take audience questions.  The podcast is taking a holiday break, but will return on January 24th, 2021.  Merry RFRA-MAS to all and to all a good night.

This week's episode covers last week's news stories involving the Supreme Court, including the election, COVID-19, the death penalty, and the census.  The law starts at (08:49), but you'd miss your invitation to the Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court Holiday Party.  EDIT: a correction on what Nazim said about the impact of masks can be found here.

This week's episode discusses Texas v. Pennsylvania and Kelly v. Pennsylvania, the two recent failed attempts to reverse the election through the Supreme Court.  The podcast welcomes a Supreme Court expert to help analyze the heart of this issue, and then Brett and Nazim discuss Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo.  Law starts basically from the beginning.

This week's case covers Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, which asks whether a Philadelphia law banning discrimination in the process of fostering children violates the First Amendment rights of a Catholic agency.  The law starts at (07:20), but you'd miss a real brain buster from Nazim.

Happy Thanksgiving, folks.  This year's mailbag covers everything from pandemic oral arguments to best Thanksgiving pies, with a lot of things in between.  The law never starts, and this is light on law even for our standards.

This week's amazingly-titled episode discusses the case of Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, which asks whether a California law that grants labor organizers access to private property violates the Fifth Amendment.  The law kinda starts at (11:00), but actually starts at (13:40), which is indicative of the legal focus in this episode.

This week's episode covers the oral argument in California v. Texas, in which the Court once is asked to determine the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.  Brett and Nazim start the law at (05:00), but get into the merits of the decision at (14:06).  Then somewhere towards the end Nazim reviews obscure Midwestern cherry candy.

This week's episode eschews any legal analysis about the election and instead covers the somehow less stressful conversation of whether children can be sentenced to life in prison without parole in Jones v. Mississippi.  Brett's audio is lightly wonky around minute five, but it fixes pretty quickly.  The law starts at (06:17) and the Supreme Court is not reversing the election.

This week's extra spooky episode broadly covers the Delaware Constitutional case before the Supreme Court, Carney v. Adams, but as a mechanism for discussing the recent Supreme Court election cases in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Wisconsin.  Law starts at (04:31).

This week's episode takes a deep dive into the Senate Confirmation Hearings of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, as Brett and Nazim discuss the point of confirmation hearings and how they view Justice Barracuda's responses.  Law starts at (06:16).

The boys are back, folks.  This week's episode discusses the many ridiculous Voter Suppression lawsuits that have popped up over the last few weeks and whether the State action in question is valid, or just looking to stop people from voting.  The law starts at (12:45), but this episode's namesake begins at (07:10).  Also, our apologies for the sound quality this week, we plan on fixing it for next week.

Good morning.  This week, Brett is joined by Gabe Roth from Fix the Court, an organization aimed at Supreme Court reform.  Brett and Gabe discuss term limits, the proper role of the Supreme Court in democracy and ethical obligations of the justices.  Gabe can be reached at @FixtheCourt on twitter.  The regular show will return next week.

This week's episode covers the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an American icon both on and off the Court.  Brett and Nazim discuss the impact Justice Ginsburg had on American jurisprudence and discuss the impact of appointing her replacement.

It's the end of the term, so Brett and Nazim are coming at you LIVE over ZOOM, covering topics like (1) judging predictions from last year, (2) picking story lines for next year, and (3) re-visiting the whole "cutting your sandwich" debate.  The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court will return in October 2020.

In this week's episode, Brett and Nazim answer questions which include; but are not limited to, the Constitutionality of State mask regulations, the cancelled bar exam, sad sports defeats, a Federal law on masks, whether ice cream is soup, Kavanaugh one-year report card, COVID employment law, and being a terrible banquet-hall employee.

This week's episode covers two administrative law decisions that were not covered in previous podcast episodes, including Selia Law v. CFPB (separation of powers concerns cut the head, but not the body of the Consumer Financial Protection Board), and Little Sisters of the Poor v. PA (Presidential interpretation of ACA which limits contraceptives doesn't violate the law).  Law starts in earnest at (04:40), but goes on a long salad dressing tangent from (08:38-16-:18).

This week's podcast covers three cases involving the government, including Colorado v. Baca (the faithless electors case), US Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International (the First Amendment to international corporations case), and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Ins. v. United States (the government is a deadbeat case).  Law starts at (07:39).

This week's episode covers the case of Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrisey-Berru, which immunizes church schools from employment discrimination claims under the First Amendment, and also the Nevada COVID law that limits church attendance.  The sound is lightly wonky in the beginning, but it doesn't continue throughout the episode.  Otherwise, the law starts at (05:34).

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.

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.

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).

In this holiday mailbag episode, Brett and Nazim debate the Establishment Clause, answer listener questions, and talk about why eggnog is gross.  Happy holidays, and we will see you next Sunday.

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).

This week's episode covers the case of Patchak v. Zinke, which on a small scope covers whether or not the government can force you to live next to a casino, but on a broader scale deals with who wins in a fight, the branch of government filled with mostly old white people who are out of touch with the average person, or the other branch of government who's like basically the same thing.  Law starts at (04:06).

This week's episode covers three big happenings from the podcast's summer vacation.  First, Brett and Nazim discuss the 9th Circuit's expansion of the "bona fide" relationship test, the new solicitor general, and then in a stunning twist of dramatic irony, discuss the term mootness and how the Travel Ban case may end up dismissed.  Law starts at (03:14).

This week's episode marks the end of the 2016/2017 term for the podcast, and to close the book on this season Brett and Nazim discuss cases that were not selected for next term (starting at 03:46), interview the winner of last year's Supreme Court fantasy league to get secrets on how to win next year (starting at 17:56), and finally take listener questions about the term in general (starting at 37:40).  Brett and Nazim are taking a short break, and will be back on October 1st.

Yo, how pumped are you right now?  In this week's episode, Brett and Nazim discuss the history and procedure of impeachment for federal government employees, including how it works (i.e. Congress), what standards are used during the process (i.e. basically none), and the likelihood that it happens to the current president (i.e. probably not).  Did that last line kill your buzz?  Sorry, dude. It'll be OK.  There's some jokes about bacon if that helps. Law starts at (02:35).

This week's episode takes a practical look at the law to see how three cases influence practicing lawyers on a day to day basis.  As they often do, things went on and off the rails, so this week's episode breaks down as follows: (0:00-02:40) - How is Nazim/How you will know the podcast has ended. (02:40-19:20) - Attorney check-in/What judges do/Brett and Nazim are bad restaurant employees (19:20-end) - Lee v. U.S. (is a guilty plea reversible when the lawyer gives wrong info about deportation), Goodyear Tire & Rubber v. Heager (must attorney fee sanctions be causally related to the bad conduct) and Midland Funding v. Johnson (are time-barred filings in bankruptcy court a violation of the FDCA).

This week's episode takes a look back at every 2017 case where Justice Gorsuch submitted a vote to gauge how conservative the new Justice is in respect to the rest of the bench.  Brett and Nazim discuss what it means to be "conservative" and/or "liberal", and how the outcome of certain cases can reflect differently on the ideology that supports that outcome.  You won't believe it, but the law starts from the very beginning.

In this mini-episode, Brett gives Nazim a Buzzfeed style quiz to determine which Supreme Court justice he most resembles.  If you are starved for similar insight, please visit our twitter, facebook and/or website to learn your judicial spirit animal.

This week's podcast plays a game of whether three recent Supreme Court decisions are unreasonable extensions of the law for the travel ban (Trump v. Hawaii), eminent domain (Wisconsin v. Murr), and Brady material (Turner v. U.S.).  For each case, Brett and Nazim try to figure out if the law has changed, and whether each decision could lead to ridiculous outcomes in the future.  Law starts at (01:24).

Brett and Nazim discuss the recent story that President Trump wants to pardon himself, and while they agree he probably can't, they disagree on why not.

This week covers a trio of issues both generally and specifically related to the Trump Presidency.  Brett and Nazim cover (1) the legal ramifications of the Donald Trump Jr. email scandal, (2) the Supreme Court's ruling im Maslenjak v. U.S., which considered the materiality of falsehoods on an immigration application, and then (3) the case of Husted v. A. Phillip Randolph Institute, a case for next term which considers whether Ohio can purge registered voters who fail to vote for six years.  Law starts at (03:54).

In 1971, the Supreme Court established the Court's ability to create an independent tort claim for Constitutional violations when no such claim was created by Congress.  Over 40 years later, the Court is still trying to put the genie back in the bottle, most recently with the Court's holding in Ziglar v. Abasi, which denied Guantanamo Bay detainees the right to sue government agents.  Brett and Nazim go through the history of Bivens claims and how the current Court has changed the original test.  Law starts generally from the beginning, but Bivens specific at (07:00).

Good new for this week's podcast, there's a new fantasy Supreme Court champ, bad news for this week's podcast, the police are shooting people.  This week's ushers in our Third Annual Summit on Guns by covering the cases of Hernandez v. Mesa (shooting across the Mexican border), and Los Angeles v. Mendez (shooting after not adequately announcing you were police).  Fantasy announcement starts at (03:05); Law starts at (07:37).

Monday was a bad day for the KGB Spies, as the Supreme Court decided to hear the Travel Ban case, modified the existing stay, and gave kids attending a church day care a significantly less chance of cracking their skulls open.  Brett and Nazim sift through the wreckage to determine if the amended stay of the Travel Ban is more harm than good, and whether Trinity Lutheran is a blatant Constitutional violation or just a sign of the times.  Law starts at (03:47).

Brett and Nazim wrap up the final day of the Supreme Court term by discussing Anthony Kennedy's possible-but-maybe-not-but-probably-someday-before-the-apocalypse retirement, the same-sex birth certificate decision of Pavan v. Smith, and how a newly balanced Court might affect Roe v. Wade.

This week's case covers how First Amendment Free Speech protections have adapted to internet communication (Packingham v. North Carolina) and evolving views on racism and hate speech (Lee v Tam), through two cases that are just as much about about Constitutional tests as they are about Alito and Kennedy telling each other to shut up.  Law starts at (04:12).

Brett and Nazim re-visit the Travel Ban to discuss whether the 9th Circuit's non-Constitutional approach holds more water than the sexier Establishment Clause arguments of the 4th Circuit.

This week's episode takes a long detour through the Supreme Court's potential review of the Travel Ban at the highest level, with Brett and Nazim discussing each potential Justices view on the appeal and staying the lower order.  The case of Sessions v. Morales-Santana is also covered, which pairs an interesting discussion on intermediate scrutiny with a bummer ending that ruins it for everyone.  Law starts at (05:43), with a bad-ass Sam Neal/Michael Chrichton discussion around  (14:00).

The podcast celebrates Brett's birthday this week by haphazardly covering Wonder Woman (the movie), Wonder Woman (the gender quality lawsuit), digging bodies up out of a graveyard, the availability of State Codes on Google, Tyrell v. BNSF Railway (personal jurisdiction and Ginsburg/Sotomayor fighting), Laroe Estates v. City of Chester (intervention and standing), Bitchin' Camaros, Home Alone and Die Hard as Christmas movies, Honeycutt v. U.S. (joint and several liability in conspiracy convictions), Advocate Health Care v. Stapelton (ERISA coverage for church-affiliated business), and Nazim's harsh review of the Thomas the Tank Engine movie.  "Law" starts at (04:09), but its a bumpy ride.

This week's episode covers the case of Cooper v. Harris, a recent Supreme Court case which decided (1) when a State could use the Voting Rights Act as an excuse for racial gerrymandering and (2) when a State impermissibly used race as a factor for gerrymandering as opposed to permissibly using political affiliation.    This week's episode also covers the movie The Hunger Games, a recent trilogy of movies that botched the third installment, of which Brett and Nazim ruin the ending.  Law starts at (04:41).

This week's episode covers a hodgepodge of listener questions including (02:45) Bill Cosby and the marital privilege, (13:59) modern takes on the Third Amendment, (16:23) cheese steaks and the prosecutor's role in mass incarceration, (26:28) Presidential nepotism and conflict of interest laws, (30:53) double jeopardy and why you should register your car, (33:19) Equal Protection and free tuition residency requirements, (35:53) the Nobility Clause, (40:03) video game movies and partisan hi-jacking of the Supreme Court, (42:06) the future of admin law and Chevron, and (44:13) why you shouldn't go to law school.

This week's episode covers the recently dismissed case of North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory, v. Harris, v. Whatever Republicans Want to Stand Up for Racist Gerrymandering, which includes how influential the case would have been on the more wide-spread problem of non-racist gerrymandering, and what we can take away from Roberts' short opinion disavowing any value from the dismissal.  The topical law above starts at (08:29), but Brett and Nazim also talk about how you can get arrested for laughing at Jeff Sessions starting at (0:57).

This week's podcast covers two gay rights cases that will likely be before the Supreme Court next term.  The first is Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, which asks whether Title VII (Brett calls it Title IX because he is terrible at roman numerals) bans sexual orientation discrimination, and the second is Masterpiece Cakes v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which asks whether a Colorado statute banning private sexual orientation discrimination violates the First Amendment.  Law starts at (08:40).

Brett is joined by special guest Lindsey (@DCInbox) to cover the House of Representatives passage of the American Health Care Act, including the likelihood of passage through the Senate, current communication from both sides of the aisle, and how the preexisting condition components implicate federalism and State's rights.

This week's episode covers topical legal vacation spots, including (a) why Miami likely won the battle but lost the war, in Bank of America v. City of Miami (b) why Venezuela benefited off annoying lawyer tricks in Venezuela v. Helmerich and Payne, and (c) why San Francisco, Santa Clara, and other sanctuary cities benefited from poor document drafting in Trump v. Santa Clara.  Law starts at (04:01).

This week's episode covers two cases, Sessions v. Dimaya & Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, which cover the Constitutionality and fairness of removal statutes that require deportation on statutory grounds.  Law starts at (09:18), but you'd be missing discussions on French politics and a special guest appearance by Nazim's wife Katya, who discusses some helpful men's fashion tips for the summer.

This mini-episode covers the recent opinions in Nelson v. Colorado, Manrique v. U.S, and the Court's recent denial of Arkansas Death Penalty Appeals.

With the 2016/2017 term plodding toward its conclusion, Brett and Nazim discuss a few civil cases that fell through the cracks, including Lewis v. Clark (covering tribal sovereign immunity for casino employees), Microsoft Corp. v. Baker (weird civil procedure moves in class action lawsuits, and Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates (intervention standards when you hate your municipality).  Law starts at (05:32).

Things have been pretty serious lately, so this week's episode takes a leisurely detour into the legal implications following United Airlines forcibly dragging a passenger off the plane, which discussions on include contract law, the FAA's agency authority, trespasser liability, and somehow Ralph Nader.  Spoiler Alert, the law mostly favors the airline and the law starts at (15:40!), so lets be careful out there, folks!

What started as a late night podcast covering Manuel v. City of Joliet (Ted Danson), SW General v. NLRB (Steve Guttenberg), and Moore v. Texas (Tom Selleck), ended up becoming a deeper discussion about judicial discretion and the Supreme Court nomination of Neil Gorsuch (the baby).  Law starts at (04:21).

This week's episode covers a topic that will either (a) make you think differently about an important component of the American civil justice system, or (b) make you bored and confused.  Brett and Nazim are hoping for the former as they cover general personal jurisdiction concepts, why law students are afraid of personal jurisdiction, and how all that comes together in the case of BNSF Railway Co. v Tyrell.  Law starts at (08:39).

In this week's episode, Brett and Nazim discuss the importance of tuna melts, debate the fairness of Public Defender funding, discuss the scope of Ake v. Oklahoma, and finally land on McWilliams v. Dunn, a case that not only covers whether an indigent defendant is entitled to an independent expert in a criminal case, but also perfectly sums out the contrary points in Brett and Nazim's criminal law jurisprudence.  Law starts at (06:06).

In this week's mini-episode, Brett and Nazim debate the District Court of Hawaii's recent opinion striking down the newest iteration of Trump's Executive Order Travel Ban.

This week's episode covers three cases that deal with how the criminal justice system makes money off criminal convictions, which include Nelson v. Colorado (whether the government has to refund your fees if you are later found guilty), Manrique v. U.S. (whether an appeal has to be amended if you want to appeal a subsequently determined monetary penalty) and Honeycutt v. U.S. (whether co-conspirators are jointly and severally liable for foreseeable profits from the conspiracy).  Law starts at (04:38).

This week's case, Hernandez v. Mesa, untangles the procedure hurdles that result when a U.S. government official standing on U.S. soil shoots and kills a Mexican citizen standing on Mexican soil.  Brett and Nazim discuss three big procedural hurdles, and why twenty feet in either direction make this case a lot easier to resolve.  The law starts at (09:30), but please start at (06:26) if you live in the Bay Area and don't want to hear about cool countries you can party in at age 19.

Today's mini-episode covers the recent decisions in Glouchester County School Board v. G.G. and Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, which were both resolved earlier this week.  Brett and Nazim also debate the merits of the "chili cheesesteak" and request very specific listener feedback on a question entitled "Beef on beef?"

A lot happens in the Supreme Court, and this episode fills in the gaps for cases where changes have occurred over the last few weeks.  First, Brett and Nazim discuss the recent decisions in Buck v. Davis (is a racist expert grounds for IAC), and Frye v. Napoleon Schools (can a student file under the ADA for the schools' lack of accommodation), then the cases of Lee v. Tam (can you trademark racist rock band names) and Glouchester County v. G.G. (transgender bathroom case) are updated.  There was a weirdly high number of curse words in this one, but they have been unconstitutionally beeped in post-production.  Law starts at (4:00).

This week's episode covers the legal adventures of Will Smith's favorite city, as City of Miami v. Wells Fargo & City of Miami v. Bank of America covers whether or not a municipality can sue mortgage lenders for causing the late-2000s housing crisis under the Fair Housing Act.  Brett and Nazim discuss whether or not standing, proximate cause, or damages will pose problems for Miami's lawsuit and also share their favorite Fresh Prince songs.  Law starts at (03:30).

This week's episode covers a popular topic, the government's power to make rules regarding immigration, but from an entirely different angle.  This week's episode covers the case of Jennings v. Rodriguez, which asks the Court to decide whether or not non-citizens are entitled to the same bail rights as U.S. citizens.  Brett and Nazim cover the background of bail and why inconsistent precedent make this case more about judicial activism than anything else.  Law starts immediately, with a few tangents about beer and travel later on.

Today's mini-episode covers the bleak prospects of the private lawsuit against President Donald Trump under the Emolument's Clause, an obscure part of the Constitution that is probably at the peak of its general relevancy.  Brett and Nazim cover the main deficiencies of the lawsuit and discuss why it will likely not be successful going forward.

This week's episode continues the trend of President Trump hijacking our podcast, covering the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Washington v. Trump, which upheld the TRO preventing enforcement of Trump's Executive Order.  Brett and Nazim cover the 5 major points from the decision and predict whether or not the Supreme Court has the interest in reversing, or even hearing, any of the government's arguments at the higher level.  Law starts at (1:47).

This week's episode discusses the merits of Donald Trump's new SCOTUS pick, who Brett and Nazim have affectionately nicknamed "Judge Neil".  Brett and Nazim discuss Judge's Neil's judicial background, the appropriate response for Democratic politicians looking to block the appointment, and Brett shares one of the many stories that will prevent him from ever sitting on the Supreme Court bench.  Law starts at (03:10).  Also, the intent was to also cover the Emolument's Clause and respond to some feedback on the Executive Order, but we will cover that in a separate episode.

Today's episode covers the controversial Executive Order by Donald Trump, which bars the entry of certain foreign citizens to the United States, and the subsequent lawsuits filed by the ACLU.  Brett and Nazim cover the specifics of the Order and whether different elements are dumb (things that are protected against by Separation of Powers), a bummer (things that are legal but not how you would like them done), or dangerous (things that are a non-hyperbolic threat to democracy).  Enjoy!!

With Nazim on vacation, this week's episode features special guest Lindsey C. (@DCInbox), who monitors Congress and Congressional communications for her website DC Inbox.  Lindsey and Brett discuss the logistics and timeline for an Affordable Care Act/Obamacare repeal, new Supreme Court appointees, and current Supreme Court cases on districts and the Voting Rights Act.

This week's episode runs back America's favorite game, where Nazim tries to guess whether or not horrible lawyer mistakes automatically entitle defendants to new trials.  Brett and Nazim also cover the case of Lee v. U.S., where an immigration attorney forgot to inform the client that a guilty plea would result in deportation, and Buck v. Davis, where an attorney put on an expert that shared horribly racist opinions with the jury.  Law starts at (03:31).

The War on Terror takes a weird turn this week, as Brett and Nazim cover the cases of Ziglar v. Abbasi, Turkmen v. Abbasi, & Ashcroft v. Abasi, which decide whether or not enemy combatants who were wrongfully detained at Guantanamo Bay may sue government officials for civil damages.  Law starts at (06:19).

In this mini-episode, Nazim checks in from across the pond to discuss White v. Pauley, the Court's new test for imposing civil liability on government officials, and the mechanics of eating oneself to death.

When history looks back on the case of NLRB v. SW General, Inc., it will serve as a weird time capsule for our current government, featuring bipartisan passive aggressiveness, poor statutory construction, and Congress doing nothing.  Brett and Nazim untangle this mess while also covering the failed lawsuit to appoint Merrick Garland and the potential undoing of the filibuster.   Law starts at (04:45).

This week's episode covers Brady material, which is a fancy way of describing exculpatory evidence that prosecutors are Constitutionally required to hand over to criminal defendants prior to trial.  Brett and Nazim discuss the origins of this doctrine and how that impacts the current cases of Turner v. U.S. and Overton v. U.S.  Law starts at (04:45).

This week's episode covers whether or not Christmas displays are a violation of the Establishment clause, by going through cases like Lee v. Weisman, Lynch v. Donnelly, Allegheny County v. ACLU, & McCreary County v. ACLU.  In addition, Brett and Nazim discuss the current cases of Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapelton, Saint Peter's Health Care System v. Kaplan, and Dignity Health v. Rollins, which cover whether or not institutions that are religious, but not churches, qualify for ERISA exceptions .  The law starts at (03:59).

This min-episode covers the Court's recent decisions in Shaw and Salman, two criminal procedure cases where technical arguments were denied in favor of keeping the law as is.

This week's episode covers two cases that relate to the rights of children in schools, including the older case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (covering free speech) and the more recent case of Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools (covering administrative remedies for disabled children).  The law starts at (06:16), but jumping ahead would deprive you of the joy of discovering which host is more likely to eat food out of the garbage.

This week's episode is a rip-roaring dive into the exciting world of civil procedure.  Brett and Nazim discuss how to start a lawsuit, why some lawsuits get dismissed before trial, and why the case of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne International is as much about international relations as it is about pleading standards.  Law starts at (03:12), and we mention a lot of listeners by name in this one.

Brett and Nazim drop by early this week to cover possible lawsuits challenging Donald Trump's presidency, election, and impeachment, and why the Jill Stein Green Party lawsuits are likely to be dismissed by on procedural grounds.

There is a lot to unpack with the case of Packingham v. North Carolina, a First Amendment case that asks whether or not the government can criminalize a sex offender's use of social media and other popular websites.  This week, Brett and Nazim discuss how this plays into general Free Speech Law, Due Process considerations, and ex post facto precedent.  This week stays pretty on topic, so the law generally starts at (02:45).

With topics like this, one would think this would be the most exciting episode of the year; however, that premise ignores the fact that the Supreme Court is a mostly boring institution.  This week, Brett and Nazim cover Shaw v. U.S., Salman v. U.S., and Glouchester County School Board v. G.G. to show why most of the what the Supreme Court does is ticky-tacky administrative decisions that do not always affect broader civil rights.  The law starts at (04:36), but things generally stay on topic from the beginning until Empire Strikes Back comes up around the twenty-six minute mark.

Just in case you're traveling this week, enjoy this mini-episode to pass the time.  There is no specific Supreme Court case , but instead Brett and Nazim talk about where they stand with the legal profession, whether they regret going to law school, and whether they would advocate for others to go to law school.   Happy Thanksgiving!

This week's episode looks at the vacant 9th seat to the Supreme Court and the Court's history with Justices who were appointed but never sat on the bench.  FULL DISCLOSURE - This episode was recorded in the sweet, innocent time of early September, so there's some sections of this that are moot based on the election.  In other words, come for the history, stay to laugh at the bad predictions from a month ago.  Technically the law starts at (06:39), but the intro sets the table amidst a few short tangents.

However you feel about the election, it is undeniable that the Supreme Court will be changing over the next few years.  To help map out some of those changes, Brett and Nazim cover a host of different topics stemming from Donald Trump's most recent win the presidential election; including, will Garland be appointed, will a new Scalia be appointed, and will Roe v. Wade be overturned.  No time-stamp because there is generally less nonsense then usual.

Seriously, though.  Justice Elena Kagan has the least amount of time on the bench, has been recused from big cases, and rarely writes majority opinions or dissents.  Brett and Nazim tackle that question (i.e. "the Deal") by looking at political cases that balance policy and procedure, including AZ Christina School Tuition Organization v. Winn and AZ Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (i.e. Arizona v. the Super PACS), and the current case of Bethune Hill v. VI State Board of Elections.  Law starts at (07:40).

This week's episode covers Justice Samuel Alito, and instead of focusing on his "Scalito" moniker, Brett and Nazim cover three cases regarding free speech that present a more tempered and emotional view of Justice Alito that rarely gets talked about.  Those cases include Morse v. Frederick (Bonghitz 4 Jesus), Snyder v. Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church), and Reed v. Town of Gilbert Arizona (Religious Signs).  Law starts at (06:26).

This week's episode takes a deep dive into Justice Anthony Kennedy, including his background, his famous decisions and how similar he is other noted Republican-but-also-super-liberal Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.  Brett and Nazim also discuss how his writing on the same marriage cases may affect the transgender rights cases likely to be arriving within the next year.  The law false-starts around (04:47) but then goes for real at (07:22).

Good news and bad news this week.  Good news - there's been a new addition to the Citizen's Guide Family.  Bad news - the 4th Amendment is getting ground into nothing.  This week's spotlight shines on Justice Sotomayor and the case of Manuel v. City of Joliet.

Everyone knows Ruth Bader Ginsburg the Justice, but this week takes a look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg the creative ACLU attorney who helped shape intermediate scrutiny through gender disparity cases.  These cases, including Fronterio v. Richardson, Weinberger v. Wisenfeld,and Duren v. Missouri, show how equal protection and gender was first developed, often with unexpected methods and angles.  Brett and Nazim then cover the case of Lynch v. Morales Santana, which is either a continuation of Ginsburg's jurisprudence, or a totally new path based on immigration.  Law starts at (08:55).

This week's spotlight shines on Justice Clarence Thomas and how Thomas' conservative views were bolstered by the presence of Justice Scalia.  Brett and Nazim discuss popular Establishment Clause cases to give context to how Thomas and Scalia worked together and then address the case of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley, which asks whether or not Missouri can use the First Amendment to avoid giving nominal government services to a church-run day care.  Law starts at (9:04).

This week's episode continues our weekly focus on individual Justices, with this week's Justice du jour being Stephen Breyer.  Brett and Nazim discuss Breyer's background and cover influential death penalty cases over the last four decades to see if there is traction on finding the death penalty unconstitutional.  Lastly, the current pending case of Moore v. Texas is covered, which asks whether or not the Court has the power to overturn State standards for instituting death that appear at face value to be out of touch.

This week's episode starts a series of episodes that will examine individual justices, including their background, their big cases, and one big question about them moving forward.  This week covers Chief Justice Roberts, and specifically how Roberts stacks up against Rehnquist, Burger, and Warren.  Law starts at (02:06).

This week's episode covers a recent Supreme Court denial of an emergency petition by Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson to appear as "Libertarian" and not "Independent" on an Ohio voting ballot.  Surprisingly enough, how you appear on a voting ballot has a history with the Supreme Court and it's own test.  Also surprising this week is the revelation that one of the hosts currently serves as an elected government official.  You'll never guess who! (Spoiler: you probably can).  Law starts at (03:12).

In what is hopefully the end of our discussion on the Voting Rights Act, Brett and Nazim take one more spin around North Carolina NCAAP v. McCrory to discuss what the most recent decision denying a stay of the 4th Circuit's decision means both practically and politically.  Brett and Nazim also discuss the most recent Michigan case where the Voting Rights Act was used to strike down a ban on straight ticket voting.  The law starts at (03:28), but listening from the beginning may add more context to all the Star Wars jokes.

This week's episode is a good representation of why its difficult to cover current events in podcast form.  Brett and Nazim begin by discussing the 4th Circuit decision in North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory, which struck down a North Carolina law under grounds that it violated the broad provisions of the Voting Rights Act.  Then, future Brett and Nazim from two weeks later come in to discuss the Supreme Court's grant of cert to this case.  Then finally, just Brett updates the most recent ruling declining a stay from last Thursday.  Law starts at (05:26).

In part one of a two part CLIFFHANGER (!!!), this week's episode introduces the Voting Rights Act, and specifically how it created a dunce corner for States who could not be trusted to pass fair, non-racist voting laws.  After the goodness of the statute is covered at length, Brett and Nazim discuss how the Supreme Court destroyed that part of the statute in Shelby County v. Holder.  General law talk begins around (03:44) but specific Voting Rights Act law starts at (10:10).

This week's episode takes us back to the year 2000 when all hell broke loose in the Presidential Election.   Brett and Nazim dive deep into the Bush v. Gore case, including why the case came before the Supreme Court, the lower decisions that put the Supreme Court in place to "decide" the election, and how much blame the Supreme Court should take from this with sixteen years of hindsight on our side.  The entire episode covers the broad context of the issue, but the most specific law starts around (09:30).

This week's mini-episode covers two State law issues that deal with victorious and/or spiteful Public Defenders, with the first being Delaware's Death Penalty being declared unconstitutional after a case involving the PD's office, and the second being Missouri's PD Office appointing public officials to criminal cases as revenge for a lack of funding.  The recent Third Circuit decision denying New Jersey's sports gambling law is also tacked on, which covers the extent of federal power over selective States.  Law starts at (02:54).

This week's episode continues the discussion from last week about non-BOR amendments, only this week is decidedly more positive.  This week centers mostly on voting, equality, and taxes; and to liven things up, Brett and Nazim suggest fairly unworkable changes to our existing system of government.   Finally, Brett and Nazim discuss whether or not Citizens United, or any other proposal, will be the next amendment on this list.  Law starts at (06:52).

The non-Bill of Rights Amendments, 11 through 27, cover a host of different topics including government regulation, voting, and equality; and this week's episode covers part one of our efforts to rank these amendments from the bottom up.  The goal is to cover how the Constitution is amended, and whether its possible for an amendment to be passed in the upcoming future.  This episode covers rankings 17-9, which include amendments that appear non-consequential, amendments that seem like objectively bad ideas, and amendments that prohibit alcohol consumption.  Law starts at (01:50).

Planes are going down over ABQ, as this is the finale of Season 2 of the Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court.  Much like last year, Brett and Nazim make podcast announcements, cover cases were cert. was denied, wrap up the historical value of this term, and laugh at their own jokes.  Unlike last year, we're still coming back next week with more podcasts.  Podcast announcement starts at (6:39) and law starts at (13:59).

This week's episode wraps up the 2015/2016 term, where Brett and Nazim almost come to blows over Spokeo v. Robbins, guess Thomas' complaints with Green v. Brennan, share a laugh over Nichols v. US, vet out the appellate process over Welch v. US, and ruminate about the government over McDonnell v. U.S.   Law starts at (6:22).

This week's episode covers Fisher v. University of Texas, which held that UOT's affirmative action program was in compliance with the Constitution and the Equal Protection clause.  Brett and Nazim vet out how and why this program was able to pass the seemingly high barrier of strict scrutiny and what that says for future programs implementing similar procedures.  Law starts (08:21), following this episode's rendition of "This Week in Ravioli Talk".

This week's episode first covers Beylund v. North Dakota and Voisine v. U.S., two cases that deal with the viability of criminal statutes aimed at stopping drunk driving and preventing firearm possession by domestic violence offenders.  Law starts at (03:26) but there is one tangent on summer movies and the other featuring a controversial take on hamburgers.  It's a serious episode, so you can let your hair down a little.

In this mini-episode, Brett and Nazim spend 30 minutes breaking down a one-line order from the Supreme Court in the immigration case of U.S. v. Texas, including  why there is no decision, what will/should happen next now that the Executive Order has been quashed by the 5th Circuit, and whether this decision rests on solid Constitutional grounds or is just revenge for Obamacare.  Law starts (0:37).

This week's episode takes a deep dive into Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstadt, the case that invalidated a Texas law that set impossibly high medical standards on abortion clinics.  Brett and Nazim discuss how/whether this case changed the undue burden standard, and in light of this decision, where a women's right to choose currently sits in regard to all of our Constitutional rights.  The Law starts at (9:00), but the intro covers the results of the Fantasy League and introduces a new game involving the multi-state bar exam.

This week's episode covers three big cases that were issued in the last week.  Utah v. Strieff seemingly erodes the 4th amendment into a nub, U.S. v. Taylor seemingly destroys federalism, and Kirtsaeng v. Wiley & Sons seemingly opens the gates for frivolous copyright claims.  You; however, luckily have an episode that addresses these concerns in order, for purposes of determining whether or not the sky is truly falling.  Law starts at (3:56).

Brett and Nazim had some extra time this week, so this episode serves as a supplement to last Sunday's episode on non-SCOTUS decisions, which include the Connecticut assault rifle ban, Justice Thomas' possible retirement, and the Net Neutrality decision in D.C. circuit court.  Law starts at (4:06).

It's been a boring week in the Supreme Court, so Brett and Nazim cover popular legal cases in lower Federal and State Courts, including the 9th Circuit concealed weapon decision, the Stanford Swimmer Judge controversy, the Google/Oracle slugfest, and a 9-1-1 Operator liability decision out of the 10th Circuit.  The law starts at (7:56), but skipping that far passes our new favorite game "How Many Current Supreme Court Justices Have Seen One Episode of Game of Thrones"?

This edition of the expedited podcast covers the recent decisions in Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle (which held that double jeopardy applied to Puerto Rico), Dietz v. Bouldin (which held that a judge is allowed to call a jury back after releasing them), and Williams v. Pennsylvania (which held that a judge who worked on a death penalty case for the district attorney could not later hear the appeal on that same case.  Law starts at (5:57).

Admin law gets a bad rap, because it's generally boring and hard to understand, so Brett and Nazim take this week to expound on its many virtues, including what it is, how you can get involved it, and how Courts resolve issues with agency decisions.  After covering the Chevron decision in record time, Brett and Nazim cover United States Army Corps v. Hawkes, which deals with the travails of purchasing land subject to the Clean Water Act.  Law basically starts at (2:32) and there's a five minute tangent about Peanut Butter and the song Under Pressure around (19:21).

We welcome Nazim back from vacation this episode, and to cover their butts for episodes recorded four weeks ago, Brett and Nazim cover U.S. Army Corps v. Hawkes (which was covered in the last episode on admin law) and Foster v. Chatman (which deals with racial considerations in jury selection).

This week's episode covers the contentious topic of eminent domain, which is the when the government is permitted to use or take your Property.  Brett and Nazim cover how that is done directly as seen in Kelo v. City of New London, and indirectly by way of the Takings Clause as seen in the upcoming case Murr v. Wisconsin.  The Law starts at (5:00), and Brett shares his world famous pasta sauce recipe at (15:00).

The purpose of this episode was to cover Dietz v. Boldin, which deals with whether or not a civil case should result in a mistrial when the jury was released momentarily before being brought back in by the judge; however, it soon became about a host of topics in civil law, including general jury elements, the 7th amendment, working in personal injury, picking jurors, discovery, and the general life of the civil attorney/law clerk.  Spoiler, it's boring.  Law starts at (5:08).

This week predicts how the Court would evaluate the North Carolina Bathroom law, and transgender rights in general, under the concepts of Substantive Due Process, Equal Protection and Vagueness.  Brett and Nazim also discuss two circuit court cases that deal with transgender rights, Fields v. Smith and Glenn v. Brumby.  Legal analysis starts at (4:15).

Brett and Nazim gather on short notice to discuss the recent decision in Zubik v. Burwell, specifically what happens next, why this is the best outcome, and whether this would have been the decision had Scalia still been on the Court.

What do drunk driving, getting fired for speaking your mind and terrorism have in common?  In addition to being things that scare middle-class white people, each of these topics are the subject of this week's episode, which takes a look at the oral arguments in Beylund v. North Dakota on the 4th amendment, the free-speech decision in Heffernan v. City of Patterson, and the Bank Markazi v. Peterson decision regarding the use of Iranian funds to pay off a civil judgment.

This week's episode covers complicated topics (labor unions & trademarks) through the prism of football (Tom Brady & the Washington Redskins).  Brett and Nazim discuss Tom Brady's 2nd Circuit appeal, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, Lee v. Tam and Profootball, Inc. v. Blackhorse.  Nazim also attempts to get revenge on Brett for the last football episode by administering a test of difficult football questions to Brett and Jess.

This week's guest Kim is an old law school friend of Brett andNazim, and a dedicated employee within family court and the childprotection system.  Through that experience, Brett and Kimdiscuss Voisine v. U.S., Clark v. Ohio, V.L. v. E.L., and generalwomen's and family rights cases within the Supreme Court. Please note that the opinions expressed in this podcast belongsolely to the presenters and do not reflect the opinions of anygovernment or governmental agency.

This week's episode covers the general nuances of copyright law, including how to get one, how to enforce one, and why the internet is killing all of them.  Brett and Nazim also cover the case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, in which the Supreme Court must decide whether a student who made approximately one million dollars selling imported textbooks may receive attorney fees against the textbook publisher who sued him unsuccessfully for copyright infringement.

This week's episode is a hodgepodge of legal topics, including review of a judge's ability to sue for Constitutional violations from the legislature, the unavoidable stalemate coming in U.S. v. Texas, and a review of speedy trial rights in sentencing from Betterman v. Montana.  Brett and Nazim also rank hot East Coast sandwiches in this week's edition of The Citizen's Guide to the Food Court.

This week's episode on Zubik v. Burwell, the latest challenge to the Contraceptive Mandate under the First Amendment.  In addition to discussing the original Hobby Lobby decision (again) and RFRA laws (again) and the Affordable Care Act (again), Brett and Nazim also discuss whether or not the Supreme Court will come to a final resolution, or just prolong these cases into infinity.

Brett is joined by his long-time friend Joanna, a female attorney working for the Government, to discuss government regulation in the field of public health.  Brett and Joanna discuss Whole Women's Health, Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual, Zubik v. Burwell, and who are the best and worst two characters on MTV's Teen Mom.

A few cases have been decided that relate back to old episodes, so this week Brett and Nazim cycle back to Evenwell v. Abbott, the one person one vote case, Luis v. U.S., the Medicare fraud asset forfeiture case, and Lockhart v. U.S., the sex assault grammar case, to determine how the Court ruled and what those rulings mean for the future.

This week's episode is brought to you by the concept of bias, whether it be as a juror, a post-conviction judge, or a PA Supreme Court justice overturning a death penalty reprieve.  Brett and Nazim discuss Williams v. Pennsylvania, in which the Supreme Court has to determine whether or not a State Supreme Court judge should recuse himself from a death penalty appeal when that same judge was part of the original decision to sentence the defendant to death to begin with.

This week's podcast covers popular legal news stories currently in the media.  Brett and Nazim first discuss the potential appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, take a soft right turn into the San Bernardino iPhone issue with the FBI, take a hard right turn at the Hulk Hogan v. Gawker sex tape lawsuit, and then go generally off the rails discussing New Jersey's fight for your right to lose money betting on individual sporting events.

This week's episode covers three issues on federalism: (1) what it means for Kennedy to be pro-federalism and what other jurisdictional quirks belong to other justices (2) how Nazim responds to comments about his corrections to the Senate, and (3)  whether the current case of Taylor v. U.S., and the Hobbs Act generally, is a proper exercise of the Commerce Clause or an unreasonable extension of the War on Drugs.

Brett is joined by Joe V., an anti-trust attorney, a Harvard Law graduate, and all-around smart guy to discuss Constitutional issues and Antitrust law.  Brett and Joe discuss how whether the evolution of the Second Amendment has hurt or helped gun rights, and also cover the case of North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, which is likely the most interesting court case you will hear this year about teeth-whitening.

This week's episode covers recent oral arguments in World Women's Health v. Hellerstadt, which determines whether or not a Texas law that raised the standards for abortion clinics is liable under the undue burden test, and U.S. v. Voisine, which deals with whether the Federal Government can ban persons convicted of domestic violence from owning a gun.  If that all sounds a bit heavy, Brett talks about what internet celebrity he looks like and Nazim speaks French.

This week's episode covers the case of U.S. v. Texas, which determines whether or not President Obama's executive orders on immigration are Constitutional under the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.  Brett and Nazim discuss the elements of both orders, the DACA and the DAPA, and how those orders should be viewed through the President's existing Constitutional Powers under Article 2.

Part Two of the "Nazim is on Vacation" episodes continues with a conversation about history with Justin, one of the longest-listening fans of the Citizen's Guide podcast.  Brett and Justin discuss a little American history, and include specific references to Bills of Attainder in the Bank Markazi v. Peterson case, the colonization of Puerto Rico in the Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Vital case, and how the Supreme Court views 19th Century Congressional grants of Native American land in the case of Nebraska v. Parker.  Special thanks to DJ Ray for the Serial-esque background music.

Brett and Ross continue their discussion about criminal cases before the Supreme Court, including Ocasio v. U.S., Lockhart v. U.S., Utah v. Strieff,  & Beylund v. Minnesota.  They also discuss the implications of Hurst v. Florida, and how Montgomery v. La may influence the upcoming case of Molina-Martinez v. U.S.

While Nazim was on vacation, Brett interviewed his friend Ross, a Public Defender in a City ABC Networks have deemed "Murder Town".  Brett and Ross discuss what is like to be a Public Defender, how to properly eat pizza, U.S. v. Luis, and bank robbery movies.  This was split into two parts, so please listen to Part Two.

It is a somber episode of the podcast this week as Brett and Nazim discuss the past, present and future implications of the passing of Justice Scalia.  This includes the positive and negative results from his originalist view of the Constitution along with what President Obama can/should do in regard to the subsequent appointment.

To celebrate Nazim's return from vacation, this week's podcast covers the "one person, one vote" case of Evenwell v. Abbott, where Brett and Nazim debate the age-old questions of "who cares?" and "what's the point?".  To round things out, the result in Duncan v. Owens is examined, along with a longer-than-necessary conversation about bologna.

This week's podcast covers the case of MNH Government Services v. Zaborowski, which determines whether or not mandatory arbitration clauses violate California laws on unconscionability.  Brett and Nazim discuss how this case plays into contract law and federal preemption, all continuing their transformation into a food podcast while eating dessert on the air.

This week Brett and Nazim take a break from reviewing individual SCOTUS cases in order to help you decide which bozo you should vote for president this November.  Instead of giving specific suggestions or candidates, Brett and Nazim discuss the jobs, authority, and powers held by the President under the Constitution and important Supreme Court case law to help you decide who to vote for based on what the President actually does.

This week's episode covers the cases of Bernard v. Minnesota, Beylund v. North Dakota, and Birchfield v. North Dakota, which deal with whether or not State statutes that punish a suspected drunk driver's refusal to take a blood or breath test are constitutional under the 4th amendment.  Full disclosure, there's a good chance that if you are a 4th amendment advocate or an advocate of the Lord of the Rings, cupcakes, brunch, bacon, or pancakes, there's going to be something said here that annoys you, so bring on the emails.  We're not afraid of your criticism.

This week's episode starts with discussing the recent opinion in Hurst v. Florida, the case which considered whether the Florida Death Penalty procedure was Constitutional.  After that, Brett and Nazim go through listener emails, which cover Wisconsin third-party liability evidence procedure, how much the 4th Amendment should coincide with how we feel about police, communist punitive damage theories, and why Civil Procedure is the worst class you can take in law school.

The case of Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Vital has two primary issues, which involve whether the legal concept of Double Jeopardy applies to cases tried in Puerto Rico and whether or not Puerto Rico is a separate and distinct sovereign from the Federal Government.  By coincidence (!!we swear!!) the words "double jeopardy" led to more than one tangent about game shows, so get ready to also hear about Alex Trebek, Family Feud, and Elimidate.

Today we're talking jobs, specifically why some jobs, like Hollywood shows like Game of Thrones, can require people to get naked while other jobs, like yours probably, is not allowed to make those requirements.  Within the scope of employment law, Brett and Nazim discuss why Hooters get sued by its employees, the Steve Sarkisian/USC lawsuit,  and the current Supreme Court case of Green v. Brennan.

The Christmas episode of the Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court takes a few detours before getting into Foster v. Chatman, including playing Price is Right with the Dean and Deluca catalog and talking about why Brett hates tiny airplanes.  Once that's out of the way, Brett and Nazim discuss the merits of the Foster case and read emails from people within the criminal justice system about how effective the Court is at resolving racial discrimination in the selection of a jury.

Welcome to the Second Annual Summit on Guns, where Brett and Nazim take a yearly look at the Court's view on the Second Amendment and D.C. v. Heller.  This episode is focused specifically on the rejected petition of Friedman v. City of Highland Park, where the Court refused to hear a case contesting a ban on assault weapons.  In addition to discussing guns, Brett and Nazim also discuss Scalia's most recent comments on race and higher education.

In 2012, Congress passed the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act, which allowed the Plaintiffs in Bank Markazi v. Peterson to obtain Iranian funds held in New York to satisfy a judgment rendered in U.S. Courts.  This action created a host of issues which are dealt with in this week's episode, including why judgments are the most important part of every civil case, the Court's view on Separation of Powers issues, whether this is a Bill of Attainder and what is a Bill of Attainder.

There are a lot of cases and issues that fall through the cracks; so this week Brett and Nazim cover the following issues in timed intervals:  Bill Simmons' comment that Obama should be a Supreme Court Justice, Hurst v. Florida, Ke$ha, Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual, the future president's views on gun rights, France's ban on head scarves, Alabama's refusal to admit certain kinds of immigrants, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association, the confidentiality of prisoner emails, and Tyson Foods v. Bouaphekeo.

To celebrate the one year anniversary of this podcast, Brett made a dance mix of all of the outtakes he saved over the last year for Nazim.  Instead of hogging this present for the two of us, we figured we'd share it, even though it probably doesn't make sense to anyone but us.  Either way, enjoy and thanks for listening.

This week's case is Fisher v. University of Texas, where a rejected applicant seeks to declare the school's affirmative action program a violation of the Constitution and Equal Protection.  In addition to the Supreme Court precedent that brought us here, Brett and Nazim also discuss their own experiences applying for law school and how they ended up at the same place at the same time.

This week covers Spokeo v. Robbins, a case where one intrepid, mischaracterized plaintiff attempts to take down Big Credit Report under an poorly-written Congressional statute (stop us if you've heard this before).  The key legal concept here is Standing, which covers who can bring claims in our judicial system, and Brett and Nazim use an example which deals directly with someone's poor spelling.

This week's episode covers Montgomery v. Louisiana, which discusses whether or not a rule that bars automatic life sentences without parole for juveniles convicted of murder should apply retroactively to a juvenile given life without parole 40 some odd years ago.  Brett and Nazim also discuss the differences between the juvenile justice system and the adult juvenile justice system, and whether or not the moral considerations of the Halloween sequels will influence the decisions of the Court.

The Supreme Court's review of Duncan v. Owens is a great example of a easy-sounding case that may have long lasting effects on how the Court views criminal law.  Brett and Nazim talk about why the 7th Circuit granted habeas corpus seemingly out of no where and why this case could be a martyr for broader change.

In a vacuum, the issue in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, which is whether or not a plaintiff can pursue a lawsuit after the defendant has fully settled the claim, sounds ridiculous.  Although this seems like a straight forward answer, the added element of class action makes this case a rich topic for this week's episode, where Brett and Nazim discuss how to file a class action, why class actions exist, and what you should do with the class action notices you get in the mail.

Free Speech is a many-faceted concept that usually results in the Supreme Court making impractical decisions on seemingly arbitrary law.  This week, Brett and Nazim discuss the case of Heffernan v. City of Patterson, which talks about whether the Government can discipline you at work when they think you are engaged in free speech, but you argue that you are not.  That is, until lawyers get involved, and then argue that you are engaged in free speech and the government argues that you are not.

This week's podcast covers police searches under the 4th Amendment in two different regards.  First, Brett and Nazim take a closer look at dog sniff searches and the 4th Amendment, and specifically whether dog sniffs are a flawed practice and what could be done if they are.  Then the case of Utah v. Strieff is covered, where the Court decides whether or not an officer who makes an illegal search is excused when the defendant had an arrest warrant and therefore could have been searched had the officer known about it, which could open the door for the bizarro "bad faith exception".

This week's episode about the criminal elements needed to convict someone is the converse to last week's episode about Constitutional elements that protect criminal defendants.  In addition to talking about how criminal law works at a fundamental level, Brett and Nazim also cover inchoate crimes, why learning about criminal law is boring, why How to Get Away With Murder on ABC sucks, Ocasio v. U.S., how Madden gets harder as you get older, Lockhart v. US, and habitual offender statutes.

This week's episode is in response to an email we received in response to the "When Can Police Search Your Car Episode", which addressed reasons why giving police too much discretion to invade privacy has practical consequences.  Going off that point, Brett and Nazim explain why the criminal justice system has significant punishments against the State when a person's Constitutional rights are violated, and use the cases of Arizona v. Youngblood, a current case before the Supreme Court Luis v. U.S., and a recent incident with the Delaware crime lab to show how the law forces the Court to decide between letting guilty people go free to protect against imprisoning innocent people.

This week ends the three-part discussion on abortion and the Supreme Court, discussing cases that have shaped the Court's undue burden test that evaluates State laws that attempt to regulate or embolden a woman's right to choose.  Brett and Nazim also discuss two cases which will likely go before the Supreme Court this term, which deal with a continuation of the Hobby Lobby decision and heightened regulations for clinics performing abortion services.

This week's podcast attempts the inenviable task of discussing Roe v. Wade without upsetting anybody.  This week covers Roe, Webster v. Planning Services, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey to outline what rights we have under the Constitution following the cases and under what grounds the Supreme Court tied abortion in to the Constituion.  If that all seems to dark for you, we also propose a Supreme Court fantasy league for the upcoming term and Nazim explains why he likes people posting pictures of food on social media.

Your boys are back and discussing the wild world of substantive due process.  After recounting their short break and sharing what vegetables they learned were gross in the last two weeks, Brett and Nazim begin a three-part discussion on substantive due process, abortion, and Roe v. Wade.  This week covers the background of the right to privacy we have in the Constitution, even though those words are not actually written anywhere.

In the season finale of the 2014/15 term, Brett and Nazim discuss the cases that were not selected for the 2015/16 term and also go over some superlatives from the last year.  To tide everyone over for the two week break, Brett and Nazim also discuss dinosaurs, tattoos, rap icons, LOST, and being old.  The Citizens Guide to the Supreme Court will be back on September 13, 2015.

We're getting to the end of the relevant cases for the 2015 term, so this week ties up the loose ends that haven't been covered so far.  In particular, Brett and Nazim discuss Kimble v. Marvel, a case patent case by day that serves as an interesting comment about precedent by night.  The case of Bullard v. Blue Hill Banik is also covered along with a general overview about what happens in bankruptcy proceedings.

This week's episode takes a break from the seriousness of the Supreme Court to discuss the ridiculous and sublime details of the Tom Brady Federal Court case.  Specifically, Brett and Nazim discuss what search and due process rights either side has in this situation and what chances Tom Brady has of getting an injunction granted.  To ensure that this episode is free of any bias, Nazim is qualified as a person who knows very little about football and Brett keeps his hatred for all football teams that are not the Philadelphia Eagles at a simmer until the very end.

This week's episode covers two foreign policy cases that speak to broader issues about Substantive Due Process, Marriage and the President of the United States.  Kerry v. Din discusses the Due Process rights of a person who is denied entry into the United States and Zivotsky v. Kerry addresses whether or not Congress or the President can recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  While both cases are important in their own right, Dinn presents an interesting foreshadowing into the Same Sex Marriage decisions and Zivotsky allows Brett to trick Nazim into supporting Donald Trump's presidential campaign.

This week's episode is all about controversial stances on long-held American Institutions.  Brett and Nazim first take down BIG SANDWICH and then turn their attention to the Exclusionary Rule, the 4th Amendment stanards of probable cause & reasonable suspicion, and finally the balance between personal property & the need to fight crime.  Through the cases of Rodriguez v. U.S. and California v. Navarette, Brett and Nazim come full circle from ambitious, liberal law students to grumpy old men.

In connection with the case of Mata v. Lynch, Brett and Nazim discuss how bad an attorney has to be to overturn a criminal conviction.  Afterward, they play a game called "Is This Ineffective Assistance of Counsel?", which discusses whether or not bad-mouthing your client to a jury or falling asleep during trial warrants a new trial for criminal defendants.

This week covers Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Districting Committee & EPA v. Michigan, which are two cases where the political result of both did not mesh with Brett and Nazim's view of the legal rationale in the Court's decisions.  In addition, Brett and Nazim play a spirited game of F@#$, Marry, Kill with American pasttimes and figure out what "Naziming" is.

This week's episode covers the Court's most recent decisions regarding same sex marriage and lethal injection.  In both cases, Brett and Nazim discuss technical legal issues with the decisions and why it is not unreasonable to feel one way about the result but still question certain Constitutional elements in the legal reasoning.   Brett and Nazim also ask deep, insightful questions about Bigfoot, which is the next big issue our Nation needs to tackle.

This week's episode covers King v Burwell, a case that saved Obamacare in America despite being almost completely incorrect from a strict statutory construction standpoint.  King is also compared to the Texas Disparate Housing case and how both cases illustrate the difference between being persuasive and being correct.   Brett and Nazim also share their thoughts on the outcome of the same sex marraige case, despite recording the day before it was decided.

In addition to discussing the decisions in Ohio v Clark, Brumfield v. Cain, and Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans, Brett and Nazim discuss (1) which case would be worse to lose, Obamacare or Same Sex Marriage, (2) who won the Confrontation Clause Wars of 2015, (3) what is the best way to stop Nazim from criticizing the TSA, and (4) what happens when your license plate contains accidental explicit sex language?

Spoiler Alert!  The answer is no.  However, that did not stop the Court from hearing Glossip v. Gross, a case that determines whether or not a drug that sedates death row inmates before death violates the 8th Amendment to the Constitution.  This episode talks about the likely ending to Glossip, along with a broader discussion about what the Supreme Court can really do when it comes to cases addressing the death penalty.

This week's episode reviews the recent decisions of Elonis v. U.S. and Abercrombie & Fitch v. EEOC.  Within this episode, Brett and Nazim talk about how the decisions were more limited than expected, but how that may be in the best interests of the Court and the government at large.  So rest easy, millenial-based businesses, your time has not yet come to be face the wrath of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

It's been a while since we've gotten into the background of the Supreme Court, so this week, Brett and Nazim discuss the self-imposed scope of the Supreme Court's Power by way of a weird behind-the-scenes nuance of the San Francisco v. Sheehan case on police force.  Much like any powerful individuals with unfettered power, the Supreme Court has had a strange amount of discretion in the limits of what it can do under the Constitution and has defined its role in the government carefully.  By discussing judicial review, Marbury v. Madison, and standing, Brett and Nazim illustrate how they're basically a government institution with the same morals as Spiderman.

This week's podcast covers Jesinoski v. Countrywide Loans, a case that deals directly with the mortgage crisis of the mid-2000s.  Brett and Nazim give background on the general topic of buying a house and why the Jesinoski case could give aggrieved homeowners a leg up against banks that caused this mess in the first place.

AKA, the Devil's Threesome.  This week, Brett and Nazim cover the case of Williams-Yullee v. Florida Bar, which decided whether restrictions on a Judge's campaign donations were a violation of the First Amendment.  This leads to a bigger discussion on Citizens United, in which popular opinions are polled to see if Citizens United is the worst decision of last few years, or the worst decision ever.

Brett and Nazim discuss the technical side of the death penalty, including how it is administered, the jury requirements and why Nazim thinks it costs too much.  The cases, Kansas v. Carr and Brumfield v. Cain, help show how the death penalty comes before the Court and also that Court officials adminstering the death penalty make the same dumb mistakes at work that we all do.

We're running back the same sex marriage case to talk about the Oral Argument held on April 28, 2015.  Brett and Nazim discuss the nuances of oral argument, who should be panicking based on the judge's questions, and which N'Sync member can be most associated to Justice Breyer.

Stop scoffing at that title.  This week's episode covers all aspects of the American Jury system, along with the current case of Warger v. Shauers, to help motivate you to celebrate, instead of cringe, when you receive your summons for jury duty.  Brett and Nazim also shed light on the seminal Family Matters episode where Urkel's persistance in the jury room acquits a man unfairly charged with robbery.

The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a real law with history, scope, thoughts and feelings, and this episode gives that devil its due.  Brett and Nazim address popular conclusions regarding the law to help shape ways to address the law's reach in either direction.

There is no good resolution to the case of Walker v. Sons of Confederate Soldiers.  Whether you are a free speech advocate or someone who simply doesn't appreciate images of slavery, the determination of whether or not Texas should allow Confederate Flag license plates will likely make you feel gross.  Brett and Nazim also revisit the premise of principal v. money in the context of why to enter into litigation.

Brett and Nazim discuss King v. Burwell, a dumb case based on dumb facts and dumb law that will probably have a dumb outcome.  Making lemonade out of lemons, Nazim shares a wealth of great knowledge about the background and current state of the law, while Brett shares how many hotdogs he can eat in one sitting.

Like most great story arcs, our discussion into Equal Protection has a depressing epilogue.  Through cases concerning equal protection and affirmative action, Brett and Nazim talk about how the Court's rigid approach to Equal Protection has blocked anti-discrimination efforts up through this term of the Supreme Court.  The current case before the Supreme Court, which deals with the Texas Housing Authority and the Court's Disparate Impact test, is the litmus test under which to be depressed by.

This week discusses the Supreme Court's decision on whether a State can ban gay marriage.  Brett & Nazim cover this history of gay rights in the Supreme Court (spoiler:its bad), and how the current court may decide the issue (spoiler:its good).

Brett and Nazim discuss the convoluted way that the Supreme Court evaluates Equal Protection Claims.  In addition to walking through the three major tests used by the Court, the primary cases discussed involve why Virginia Military Academy could not exclude women, and then UPS v. Young, which deals with pregnancy discrimination in the workplace.

Brett and Nazim start a three-part discussion on Equal Protection and the Gay Marriage decision this summer that begins with how the Constitution has used creative means to ban private discrimination in states and private businesses.  The Abercrombie & Fitch v. EEOC case is also discussed, which discussed the age-old battle between trendy clothes and religious freedom.

Brett and Nazim continue to empty out the mailbag, discussing whether the Federal or State government could require mandatory vaccinations, the inner workings of the Supreme Court, and the difference between judicial interpretation of the law and judicial activism.  The last email also brings up the cases of Johnson v. U.S. and Whitfield v. U.S., where simple semantics could influence broader sentencing policy on guns and drugs.

Brett and Nazim open up the listener mailbag to answer questions posed by listeners and update previous cases that have since been decided.  The topics this week include Holt v. Hobbs, smart phone technology, why DUI checkpoints are acceptable under the 4th amendment, and the possible scope of the Confrontation Clause decision.  Due to the general breadth of this episode, we split it into two, so the remaining topics will be covered next week. Same Breyer time, same Breyer Channel.

The thesis of this week's episode is that taxes are nothing to be trifled with.  First, Brett and Nazim discuss the many ways that citizens have failed trying to make income taxes unconstitutional.  Afterward, Brett and Nazim discuss Comptroller of Maryland v. Wynn, in which the Court is asked to determine if a State is required to credit taxes paid to other states under the Dormant Commerce Clause.  Finally, Brett's wife Jess comes on to confuse the issue entirely.

This week's episode covers Ohio v. Clark, which asks whether or not a teacher may testify on behalf of a three year old child who was the only witness to a child abuse case under the Confrontation Clause.  This presents a good example of how the law can complicate an objective view of a bad situation, or how a sensitive topic can otherwise deny a citizen's Constitutional rights.  Either way, Brett and Nazim get real awkward debating the issue somewhere around the 35 minuute mark, so get ready for that.

This week's episode discusses the legal issues surrounding the police in Ferguson, MS and Staton Island, NY.  The goal here was to take a strictly legal and objective overview of the issues in each case, specifically what a grand jury does, why you can't sue the government and what the Constitution says about police use of deadly force, without getting too deep into the political issues that made up most of the media coverage.  Let's call this one better late than never.

This week handles a hypothetical only a paranoid conspiracy theorist could love.  Through the lens of whether police could solve crimes by searching fingerprints given to access smart phones, Brett and Nazim discuss how the 4th amendment has evolved with technology, specifically through cases like Katz v U.S., Riley v. California and Maryland v. King.  We also cover which Supreme Court Justice loves the Philly Phanatic.

This week's episode cover topics that include; but are not limited to, jury duty, learning when you hate your job, why cigarettes are awesome, federalism, standing, Bush v. Gore, and ultimately the legalization of marijuana.  Brett and Nazim talk about the legal issues surrounding this topic and how the decision could find itself before the Supreme Court in the next few years.

Brett and Nazim discuss the case of Elonis v. U.S., which covers whether or not the Supreme Court will afford special protection to threatening statements made on Facebook and/or prosecute people who share pictures of food.  That last part is a joke, but seriously stop doing that.

Brett and Nazim break down one of the more controversial decisions of 2014, by discussing their initial thoughts on the case and then expanding on those thoughs after actually reading the decision for the first time.

This week's episode discusses two Supreme Court cases in the context of how Supreme Court cases move the needle with the general public.  D.C. v. Heller deals with guns, the second amendment, and whether a State can ban the private ownership of handguns.  Heien v. North Carolina talks about whether a police officer's knowledge of arcane traffic laws affects should affect an otherwise valid traffic stop.

Brett and Nazim discuss three important issues.  (1) How to get to the Supreme Court.  (2) The two main viewpoints of the Supreme Court. (3)  Why the they do not passive agressively hate each other.

Brett and Nazim revel in their professional failures and discuss the nine justices that make up the Supreme Court.  To solve the problem of remembering their names, the two share an acronym that is easy to remember and objectively related to their respective ideologies.