The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court

The Citizens Guide to the Supreme Court
The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court

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

  1. The 2024 Presidential Election

    12 DE NOV.

    The 2024 Presidential Election

    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.

    1h6min
  2. The Rise and Fall of Chevron

    23 DE JUL.

    The Rise and Fall of Chevron

    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.

    54min
  3. Trump Immunity Decision

    2 DE JUL.

    Trump Immunity Decision

    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.

    1h10min
  4. 50 Shades of Originalism

    25 DE JUN.

    50 Shades of Originalism

    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).

    50min
  5. Abortion & Guns (Civ Pro & Statutory Interpretation)

    17 DE JUN.

    Abortion & Guns (Civ Pro & Statutory Interpretation)

    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.

    50min
  6. The Case Against Donald Trump

    30 DE ABR.

    The Case Against Donald Trump

    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).

    57min
  7. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine Oral Argument

    31 DE MAR.

    FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine Oral Argument

    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).

    1h1min
  8. Colorado, Executive Immunity and Yes We're Talking About Trump Again.

    5 DE MAR.

    Colorado, Executive Immunity and Yes We're Talking About Trump Again.

    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.

    54min
Ver tudo (426)

4,4
de 5
227 avaliações

Sobre

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

Informações

  • Criado por
    The Citizens Guide to the Supreme Court
  • Anos de atividade
    2014 - 2024
  • Episódios
    426
  • Classificação
    Livre
  • Copyright
    © 2014-2017, Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court
  • Site do podcast
    The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court

Você também pode gostar de

Para ouvir episódios explícitos, inicie sessão.

Fique por dentro deste podcast

Inicie sessão ou crie uma conta para seguir podcasts, salvar episódios e receber as atualizações mais recentes.
Selecionar um país ou região

África, Oriente Médio e Índia

Ásia‑Pacífico

Europa

América Latina e Caribe

Estados Unidos e Canadá