The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court

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).