The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court

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 ne...

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 N...

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...

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 Constitutiona...

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. ...

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 D...

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 o...

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 r...

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 la...

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 sta...

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:...

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 a...

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 ca...

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....

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 la...

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-conspirat...

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...