The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court

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.

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. 

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.