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.

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.

The Third Wrongest Decision of the 2023 Term

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).

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).

The Two Wrongest Decisions of the 2023 Term

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 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).

Opinionpalooza

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 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.

Down Goes the Internet

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).

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).

No Way FDA

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)

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)

New Kids on the Docket (Part 2)

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).

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).

New Kids on the Docket (Part 1)

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.

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.

The Seminal Case of "A" v. "The"

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).

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).

The Grinch Who Stole Student Loan Forgiveness

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).

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).

Conservative Law Heat Check

Brett and Nazim are two attorneys who hate being attorneys.  Each week, they discuss current Supreme Court cases with the intent to make the law more accessible to the average person, while ruminating on what makes the law both frustrating and interesting.  This podcast is not legal advice and is for entertainment purposes only.  If anything you hear leads you to believe you need legal advice, please contact an attorney immediately

Great podcast for learning about the supreme court in a palpable way

Entertaining podcast

Good podcast but volume is too low!! I listen on max volume and it isn’t very loud

Good but

The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court

Today's episode covers the controversial Executive Order by Donald Trump, which bars the entry of certain foreign citizens to the United States, and the subsequent lawsuits filed by the ACLU.  Brett and Nazim cover the specifics of the Order and whether different elements are dumb (things that are protected against by Separation of Powers), a bummer (things that are legal but not how you would like them done), or dangerous (things that are a non-hyperbolic threat to democracy).  Enjoy!!

Today's episode covers the controversial Executive Order by Donald Trump, which bars the entry of certain foreign citizens to the United States, and the subsequent lawsuits filed by the ACLU.  Brett and Nazim cover the specifics of the Order and whether different elements are dumb (things that are protected against by Separation of Powers), a bummer (things that are legal but not how you would like them done), or dangerous (things that are a non-hyperbolic threat to democracy).  Enjoy!!

Donald Trump's Executive Order on Immigration

Your boys are back and discussing the wild world of substantive due process.  After recounting their short break and sharing what vegetables they learned were gross in the last two weeks, Brett and Nazim begin a three-part discussion on substantive due process, abortion, and Roe v. Wade.  This week covers the background of the right to privacy we have in the Constitution, even though those words are not actually written anywhere.

Your boys are back and discussing the wild world of substantive due process.  After recounting their short break and sharing what vegetables they learned were gross in the last two weeks, Brett and Nazim begin a three-part discussion on substantive due process, abortion, and Roe v. Wade.  This week covers the background of the right to privacy we have in the Constitution, even though those words are not actually written anywhere.

What is Substantive Due Process Exactly??

This week's episode covers Carpenter v. U.S., which covers whether or not 4th Amendment protections apply to your cell phone records, so if you're a fan of privacy arguments, feeling paranoid about the government spying on you, the latter episodes of the Serial podcast, or new ways that the movie Scream has been made moot by technology, this episode is right in your wheelhouse.  Law starts at (03:34).

This week's episode covers Carpenter v. U.S., which covers whether or not 4th Amendment protections apply to your cell phone records, so if you're a fan of privacy arguments, feeling paranoid about the government spying on you, the latter episodes of the Serial podcast, or new ways that the movie Scream has been made moot by technology, this episode is right in your wheelhouse.  Law starts at (03:34).

Cell Phones and the 4th Amendment

This week's episode covers Brady material, which is a fancy way of describing exculpatory evidence that prosecutors are Constitutionally required to hand over to criminal defendants prior to trial.  Brett and Nazim discuss the origins of this doctrine and how that impacts the current cases of Turner v. U.S. and Overton v. U.S.  Law starts at (04:45).

This week's episode covers Brady material, which is a fancy way of describing exculpatory evidence that prosecutors are Constitutionally required to hand over to criminal defendants prior to trial.  Brett and Nazim discuss the origins of this doctrine and how that impacts the current cases of Turner v. U.S. and Overton v. U.S.  Law starts at (04:45).

Handing Over the Smoking Gun

This week's episode discusses two Supreme Court cases in the context of how Supreme Court cases move the needle with the general public.  D.C. v. Heller deals with guns, the second amendment, and whether a State can ban the private ownership of handguns.  Heien v. North Carolina talks about whether a police officer's knowledge of arcane traffic laws affects should affect an otherwise valid traffic stop.

This week's episode discusses two Supreme Court cases in the context of how Supreme Court cases move the needle with the general public.  D.C. v. Heller deals with guns, the second amendment, and whether a State can ban the private ownership of handguns.  Heien v. North Carolina talks about whether a police officer's knowledge of arcane traffic laws affects should affect an otherwise valid traffic stop.

D.C. v. Heller & Heien v. North Carolina

The case of Epinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue is a real Constitutional Main Event.  In one corner, is the Establishment Clauses ban on government funding of religious private schools, and in the other is the Free Exercise Clause's argument that the State cannot ban a specific use of a scholarship.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is the crooked pro wrestling referee.  Law starts from the beginning.

The case of Epinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue is a real Constitutional Main Event.  In one corner, is the Establishment Clauses ban on government funding of religious private schools, and in the other is the Free Exercise Clause's argument that the State cannot ban a specific use of a scholarship.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is the crooked pro wrestling referee.  Law starts from the beginning.

Religious Rights Royal Rumble

Welcome to the Second Annual Summit on Guns, where Brett and Nazim take a yearly look at the Court's view on the Second Amendment and D.C. v. Heller.  This episode is focused specifically on the rejected petition of Friedman v. City of Highland Park, where the Court refused to hear a case contesting a ban on assault weapons.  In addition to discussing guns, Brett and Nazim also discuss Scalia's most recent comments on race and higher education.

Welcome to the Second Annual Summit on Guns, where Brett and Nazim take a yearly look at the Court's view on the Second Amendment and D.C. v. Heller.  This episode is focused specifically on the rejected petition of Friedman v. City of Highland Park, where the Court refused to hear a case contesting a ban on assault weapons.  In addition to discussing guns, Brett and Nazim also discuss Scalia's most recent comments on race and higher education.

How Do You Solve  A Problem like Scalia (and Mass Shootings)?

Brett and Nazim break down one of the more controversial decisions of 2014, by discussing their initial thoughts on the case and then expanding on those thoughs after actually reading the decision for the first time.

Brett and Nazim break down one of the more controversial decisions of 2014, by discussing their initial thoughts on the case and then expanding on those thoughs after actually reading the decision for the first time.

Hobby Lobby

This week's episode tackles the first of three immigration cases this year, leading to considerations of law, policy and practicality.  Brett and Nazim discuss Kansas v. Garcia, which deals with a State's right to prosecute illegal works using Federal forms, which in turn deals with express and implied preemption, Federal superiority and the practical State criminal law.  Law starts at (06:45).

This week's episode tackles the first of three immigration cases this year, leading to considerations of law, policy and practicality.  Brett and Nazim discuss Kansas v. Garcia, which deals with a State's right to prosecute illegal works using Federal forms, which in turn deals with express and implied preemption, Federal superiority and the practical State criminal law.  Law starts at (06:45).

Immigration Door #1

Dibs on that joke.  This week's episode starts the term with a discussion on impeachment, with the judicial and political aspects of the process being the focus, as opposed to whether or not we like President Trump.  Law starts from the beginning.  

Dibs on that joke.  This week's episode starts the term with a discussion on impeachment, with the judicial and political aspects of the process being the focus, as opposed to whether or not we like President Trump.  Law starts from the beginning.

Impeachment Pit

This week's episode covers the Fourth Amendment, and specifically why police officers should err on the side of getting a a warrant to avoid cases being taken to the Supreme Court.  Brett and Nazim cover Collins v. Virgnia and Byrd v. U.S. (starting at 19:20), but not before discussing the Constitutionality of anti-homeless legislation (starting at 5:47) and why the Benjamin Button movie sucks (that's from the jump, homie).

This week's episode covers the Fourth Amendment, and specifically why police officers should err on the side of getting a a warrant to avoid cases being taken to the Supreme Court.  Brett and Nazim cover Collins v. Virgnia and Byrd v. U.S. (starting at 19:20), but not before discussing the Constitutionality of anti-homeless legislation (starting at 5:47) and why the Benjamin Button movie sucks (that's from the jump, homie).

Just Get a Damn Warrant

Brett and Nazim discuss King v. Burwell, a dumb case based on dumb facts and dumb law that will probably have a dumb outcome.  Making lemonade out of lemons, Nazim shares a wealth of great knowledge about the background and current state of the law, while Brett shares how many hotdogs he can eat in one sitting.

Brett and Nazim discuss King v. Burwell, a dumb case based on dumb facts and dumb law that will probably have a dumb outcome.  Making lemonade out of lemons, Nazim shares a wealth of great knowledge about the background and current state of the law, while Brett shares how many hotdogs he can eat in one sitting.

Obamacare

This week's episode covers whether or not Christmas displays are a violation of the Establishment clause, by going through cases like Lee v. Weisman, Lynch v. Donnelly, Allegheny County v. ACLU, &amp; McCreary County v. ACLU.  In addition, Brett and Nazim discuss the current cases of Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapelton, Saint Peter's Health Care System v. Kaplan, and Dignity Health v. Rollins, which cover whether or not institutions that are religious, but not churches, qualify for ERISA exceptions .  The law starts at (03:59).

This week's episode covers whether or not Christmas displays are a violation of the Establishment clause, by going through cases like Lee v. Weisman, Lynch v. Donnelly, Allegheny County v. ACLU, &amp; McCreary County v. ACLU.  In addition, Brett and Nazim discuss the current cases of Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapelton, Saint Peter's Health Care System v. Kaplan, and Dignity Health v. Rollins, which cover whether or not institutions that are religious, but not churches, qualify for ERISA exceptions .  The law starts at (03:59).

Have a Happy [Establishment-Clause-Approved] Holiday

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 careful out there, folks!

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 careful out there, folks!

When Can An Airline Forcibly Drag You Off the Airplane?

This week's episode covers Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and specifically the oral arguments that took place a week ago and terrified everyone of the outcome.  Brett and Nazim take the approach of trying to find a compromise for this case that will (1) not invalidate all discrimination laws, and (2) not result in people ordering offensive cakes to prove a point.  It's a delicate balance that hopefully the Court will handle more efficiently.  Case in point, law starts at (03:04).

This week's episode covers Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and specifically the oral arguments that took place a week ago and terrified everyone of the outcome.  Brett and Nazim take the approach of trying to find a compromise for this case that will (1) not invalidate all discrimination laws, and (2) not result in people ordering offensive cakes to prove a point.  It's a delicate balance that hopefully the Court will handle more efficiently.  Case in point, law starts at (03:04).

The Gang Solves the Masterpiece Cakes Crisis

This week's episode covers June Medical Services v. Russo, which addresses the value of precedent and third party standing in abortion cases by essentially re-litigating the Whole Women's Health case from a few years ago.  Law starts at (04:02).

This week's episode covers June Medical Services v. Russo, which addresses the value of precedent and third party standing in abortion cases by essentially re-litigating the Whole Women's Health case from a few years ago.  Law starts at (04:02).

Roe v. Wa(De Ja Vu)

This week's episodes cover a collection of cases that deal with everyone's slightly vanilla, left-wing centrist judge, as the cases of Obduskey v. McCarthy &amp; Holthus (attorney application under the FDCA), Taggart v. Lorenzon (test for violating bankruptcy discharge), and JAM v. International Finance Corp. (evolution of immunity statutes for international organizations) all deal with our dude, Justice Breyer.  Law starts at (02:35).

This week's episodes cover a collection of cases that deal with everyone's slightly vanilla, left-wing centrist judge, as the cases of Obduskey v. McCarthy &amp; Holthus (attorney application under the FDCA), Taggart v. Lorenzon (test for violating bankruptcy discharge), and JAM v. International Finance Corp. (evolution of immunity statutes for international organizations) all deal with our dude, Justice Breyer.  Law starts at (02:35).

It's Breyer Time!

This week Brett and Nazim are "peak Brett and Nazim", as the Brett crows about the Eagles winning the Super Bowl and Nazim discusses how to improve voting districts.  In addition to covering the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision which declared the district maps unconstitutional, the case of Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky is also discussed, which covers whether statutes banning political apparel at voting stations violate the First Amendment.  The law technically starts at (06:48), but there's some turbulence until like the ten minute mark.

This week Brett and Nazim are "peak Brett and Nazim", as the Brett crows about the Eagles winning the Super Bowl and Nazim discusses how to improve voting districts.  In addition to covering the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision which declared the district maps unconstitutional, the case of Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky is also discussed, which covers whether statutes banning political apparel at voting stations violate the First Amendment.  The law technically starts at (06:48), but there's some turbulence until like the ten minute mark.

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia

This week's episode covers the recent decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case which balanced the value of anti-discrimination statutes against the religious protections of the First Amendment to figure a compromise that likely everyone hates.  Law starts at (04:37)

This week's episode covers the recent decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case which balanced the value of anti-discrimination statutes against the religious protections of the First Amendment to figure a compromise that likely everyone hates.  Law starts at (04:37)

The Masterpiece Cakes Decision is Terrible

This week's episode is covers a slew of recent decisions dealing with guilty pleas (Class v. U.S.), statutory interpretation (Digital Realty Trust v. Somers), and math (Murphy v. Smith).  Brett and Nazim discuss each decision and focus on whether or not the facts of the case matter when dealing with bad statutes.  Law starts at (03:22).

This week's episode is covers a slew of recent decisions dealing with guilty pleas (Class v. U.S.), statutory interpretation (Digital Realty Trust v. Somers), and math (Murphy v. Smith).  Brett and Nazim discuss each decision and focus on whether or not the facts of the case matter when dealing with bad statutes.  Law starts at (03:22).

Decisions in Class, Somers, and Murphy

The best podcast episodes on physical health. Episodes talk about your diet, sleep, exercise and all the things that people do to improve their physical health and live a healthier life. This topic is for everyone, with applications in all of our everyday lives. Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!

Best Episodes on Physical Health & Your Body

The best podcast episodes about true crime. For any thrill seeking podcast listeners who just can't get enough of the captivating stories of murderers and criminals. This topic has all the best episodes from many different true crime podcasts.  Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!