435 afleveringen

The Supreme Court decision syllabus, read without personal commentary. See: Wheaton and Donaldson v. Peters and Grigg, 33 U.S. 591 (1834) and United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. Photo by: Davi Kelly. Founded by RJ Dieken. Now hosted by Jake Leahy. Frequent guest host Jeff Barnum. *Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast‪)‬ Jake Leahy

    • Overheid

The Supreme Court decision syllabus, read without personal commentary. See: Wheaton and Donaldson v. Peters and Grigg, 33 U.S. 591 (1834) and United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. Photo by: Davi Kelly. Founded by RJ Dieken. Now hosted by Jake Leahy. Frequent guest host Jeff Barnum. *Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.

    Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon (Malicious Prosecution)

    Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon (Malicious Prosecution)

    Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon This case involves a dispute between petitioner Jascha Chiaverini and police officers from Napoleon, Ohio. The officers charged Chiaverini, a jewelry store owner, with three crimes: receiving stolen property, a misdemeanor; dealing in precious metals without a license, also a misdemeanor; and money laundering, a felony. After obtaining a warrant, the police arrested Chiaverini and detained him for three days. But county prosecutors later dropped the case. Chiave...

    • 5 min.
    Diaz v. United States (Evidence / Expert Testimony)

    Diaz v. United States (Evidence / Expert Testimony)

    Petitioner Delilah Diaz was stopped at a port of entry on the United States-Mexico border. Border patrol officers searched the car that Diaz was driving and found more than 54 pounds of methamphetamine hidden in the vehicle. Diaz was charged with importing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§952 and 960, charges that required the Government to prove that Diaz “knowingly” transported drugs. In her defense, Diaz claimed not to know that the drugs were hidden in the car. To rebut...

    • 5 min.
    United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC (Bankruptcy Fee Remedy)

    United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC (Bankruptcy Fee Remedy)

    United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC Two Terms ago, in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 596 U. S. 464, the Court held that a statute violated the Bankruptcy Clause’s uniformity requirement because it permitted different fees for Chapter 11 debtors depending on the district where their case was filed. In this case, the Court is asked to determine the appropriate remedy for that constitutional violation. As noted in Siegel, there are three options: (1) refund fees for the thousands of d...

    • 7 min.
    Campos-Chavez v. Garland (Immigration)

    Campos-Chavez v. Garland (Immigration)

    Campos-Chavez v. GarlandTo initiate the removal of an alien from the United States who is either “inadmissible” under 8 U. S. C. §1182 or “deportable” under §1227, the Federal Government must provide the alien with “written notice” of the proceedings. §§1229(a)(1), (2). Two types of “written notice” are described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of §1229(a): Paragraph (1) provides that the alien be given a written “ ‘notice to appear,’ ” or NTA, which must set out, among other things, “[t]he time an...

    • 7 min.
    Garland v. Cargill (2nd Amendment)

    Garland v. Cargill (2nd Amendment)

    The National Firearms Act of 1934 defines a “machinegun” as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U. S. C. §5845(b). With a machinegun, a shooter can fire multiple times, or even continuously, by engaging the trigger only once. This capability distinguishes a machinegun from a semiautomatic firearm. With a semiautomatic firearm, the shooter ...

    • 10 min.
    FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (Birth Control)

    FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (Birth Control)

    FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic MedicineIn 2000, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new drug application for mifepristone tablets marketed under the brand name Mifeprex for use in terminating pregnancies up to seven weeks. To help ensure that Mifeprex would be used safely and effectively, FDA placed additional restrictions on the drug’s use and distribution, for example requiring doctors to prescribe or to supervise prescription of Mifeprex, and requiring patients to have three in-pe...

    • 11 min.

Top-podcasts in Overheid

De Dienst
AIVD
De Uitvoering
Het ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid (JenV)
Dossier Delict - de podcast van het NIFP
NIFP
Hoe het allemaal mis ging
Chris en Tink
De top kijkt om
Interviews met oud-bewindspersonen en oud-topambtenaren
Samen Sterker Podcast Defensie
Ministerie van Defensie

Suggesties voor jou

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments
Oyez
We the People
National Constitution Center
Cases and Controversies
Bloomberg Law
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts
Slate Podcasts
Divided Argument
Will Baude, Dan Epps
Strict Scrutiny
Crooked Media