The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court

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)