This week's episode addresses three cases involving the government and the political process. This includes Trump v. Barbara (addressing the merits of birthright citizenship), Louisianna v. Callais (further undermining the Voting Rights Act), and Watson v. Republican National Committe4e (addressing nuances of mail-in voting). Nazim speaks in tongues and Brett touts the value of public libraries. Law starts at (05:58).

Hi there. This week's episode covers a lot to make up for all the time we've been away. The episode starts with discussing LGBT rights (Little v. Hecox & Chiles v. Saalazar), then moves to the Second Amendment (Wolford v. Lopez & US v. Hemani) and concludes with government nonsense (Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump & Trump v. Slaughter). Law starts at (03:56) and my apologies for the sound being below average.

The Supreme Court's term is over so it's time to panic. This week's episode covers Trump v. CASA, which doesn't really talk about birthright citizenship, but maybe does something even worse. This episode also covers Skrmetti v. US, which is maybe not as bad as it could have been. It's a mixed bag, folks. Law starts at (07:14).

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).