The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court

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 t...

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 maste...

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 st...

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 l...

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...

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...

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 lawye...

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 whic...

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...

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).