The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court

This week's episode covers the perils of gerrymandering in Louisianna v. Callais, in which the Supreme Court reversed course on a districting map that may alter the application of the Voting Rights Act moving forward.  Nazim's sad and Brett tries to cheer him up.  You'll laugh.  You'll cry.  You probably just won't have fair access to voting in the foreseeable future.  Law starts from the beginning, but starts to go off track once the discussion moves to Weird Al.

This week's long over-due covers the past, present and future on international law and the Supreme Court.  You (as Bill Murray in Scrooged) will enjoy the tarriffs in Learning Resources v. Trump (Buster Poindexter in Scrooged), birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara (Carole Kane in Scrooged) and removal proceedings in Blanche v. Lau (the faceless Grim Reaper in Scrooged).  The law kind of starts from the beginning but is regularly interrupted by tangents.  We missed you, too.

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 regarding fundamental legal topics.  This episode covers the criminal justice system, including how it works and why you should try to avoid it.

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.

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).

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.

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 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.

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.

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.