This week’s episode is all about drugs and the mindset needed to distribute drugs illegally. Ruan v. U.S. asks whether a doctor accused of violating the Controlled Substance Act should be judged by an objective standard (would every doctor think this was wrong), or a subjective standard (did this doctor think this was wrong). Law starts at (05:00).
This week’s episode covers Biden v. Texas, a case which asks whether Biden is required to continue a Trump era immigration policy due to some kind of administrative law revenge plot. This week’s episode also discussed how this whole ordeal is analogous to the Philadelphia Eagles 2022 campaign. Law starts at (03:23).
Check out this episode!
Well, Mene Gene, it is the Establishment Clause vs. the Free Exercise Clause because this week’s case is Carson v. Minkin, in which a Supreme Court with three new justices must decide whether a State can refuse children from choose religious schools under a State-Scholarship program. Law starts at (11:00).
The title this week is more literal than figurative, as we cover Ramirez v. Collier, a case which asks whether someone receiving the death penalty is Constitutionally required to have a religious figure of their choosing physically touching the person and audibly praying. The law starts at (16:20), but the intro is more about practicing criminal law, as opposed to like whether seafood belongs in ravioli.
This week’s episode covers all the things you love: Ted Cruz, Shaky Campaign Finance Laws, and rich people winning political offices. Your boys revisit some food talk while discussing Federal Elections Commission v. Ted Cruz, which discussed whether Ted Cruz can get repaid for a $10,000.00 loan he made to Ted Cruz. Law starts at (10:35).
This week’s episode starts by discussing the pending retirement of Stephen Breyer and what the Court loses with his absence. The podcast then shifts to the case of NY State Rifle and Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, which asks whether a concealed-carry permit process violates the Second Amendment. The law starts from the beginning, but Nazim peppers in like 40 dad jokes with different degrees of appropriateness.
Check out this episode!
We have one more emergency episode, which covers the Supreme Court’s decisions in NFIB v. DOL and Biden v. Missouri, which discusses why one mandate is OK and the other mandate is not OK. Once again, there’s probably more administrative law than you’re expecting. Law starts from the beginning.
Sound the alarm, as we are back with an emergency podcast discussing the oral argument in National Federation of Independent Businesses (i.e. the Dudes) v. Department of Labor, and Biden v. Missouri, two cases discussing the Constitutionality of President Biden’s Vaccine Mandate, BUT only through the context of Administrative Law. The law starts from the beginning.
This week’s episode covers two recent opinions by Judge Neil Gorsuch, including Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson (which determined whether injunctive lawsuits by abortion clinics to stop the Texas Heartbeat Law could proceed) and Dr. A v. Hochul (which asked whether President Biden’s mandate could be enjoined pending a resolution on religious exceptions). You, the listener, are tasked with playing the part of Oliver Twist, and whether you want more or less of Judge Gorsuch’s gruel is a joke that will make more sense during the episode. Law starts at (09:17), and the podcast will return after a short break at the end of January.
This week’s episode (which is far less attractive than our November 21st episode) covers Thompson v. Clark, a case which asks how not-guilty a person must be to file a 1983 claim against a police officer accused of violating a person’s Constitutional Rights. Although complicated and unsexy, its a case which is interesting in the context of police-officer civil liability. Law starts at (06:17).
The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court 