This week’s episode covers the case of Cooper v. Harris, a recent Supreme Court case which decided (1) when a State could use the Voting Rights Act as an excuse for racial gerrymandering and (2) when a State impermissibly used race as a factor for gerrymandering as opposed to permissibly using political affiliation. This week’s episode also covers the movie The Hunger Games, a recent trilogy of movies that botched the third installment, of which Brett and Nazim ruin the ending. Law starts at (04:41).
Racial Gerrymandering, Plus Like Four Hunger Games Tangents
Posted: June 4, 2017 by Nazim in Uncategorized0
So, there were a few updates: Manrique (which I just like saying) and that crazy Venezuela case and Tyrell (not the Bladerunner corporation) and the one where Miami sued banks for collapsing the economy… Yeah, those all came out. But a lot of people are falling behind just because they didn’t fill out their May ballots. Spring showers, I guess. Anyway, after all that ado, here are the updated rankings:
This week’s episode covers a hodgepodge of listener questions including (02:45) Bill Cosby and the marital privilege, (13:59) modern takes on the Third Amendment, (16:23) cheese steaks and the prosecutor’s role in mass incarceration, (26:28) Presidential nepotism and conflict of interest laws, (30:53) double jeopardy and why you should register your car, (33:19) Equal Protection and free tuition residency requirements, (35:53) the Nobility Clause, (40:03) video game movies and partisan hi-jacking of the Supreme Court, (42:06) the future of admin law and Chevron, and (44:13) why you shouldn’t go to law school.
This week’s episode covers the recently dismissed case of North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory, v. Harris, v. Whatever Republicans Want to Stand Up for Racist Gerrymandering, which includes how influential the case would have been on the more wide-spread problem of non-racist gerrymandering, and what we can take away from Roberts’ short opinion disavowing any value from the dismissal. The topical law above starts at (08:29), but Brett and Nazim also talk about how you can get arrested for laughing at Jeff Sessions starting at (0:57).
This week’s podcast covers two gay rights cases that will likely be before the Supreme Court next term. The first is Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, which asks whether Title VII (Brett calls it Title IX because he is terrible at roman numerals) bans sexual orientation discrimination, and the second is Masterpiece Cakes v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which asks whether a Colorado statute banning private sexual orientation discrimination violates the First Amendment. Law starts at (08:40).
Brett is joined by special guest Lindsey (@DCInbox) to cover the House of Representatives passage of the American Health Care Act, including the likelihood of passage through the Senate, current communication from both sides of the aisle, and how the preexisting condition components implicate federalism and State’s rights.
This week’s episode covers topical legal vacation spots, including (a) why Miami likely won the battle but lost the war, in Bank of America v. City of Miami (b) why Venezuela benefited off annoying lawyer tricks in Venezuela v. Helmerich and Payne, and (c) why San Francisco, Santa Clara, and other sanctuary cities benefited from poor document drafting in Trump v. Santa Clara. Law starts at (04:01).
Microsoft Corp. v. Baker
Posted: May 1, 2017 by beguide in Checks & Balances, Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Consumer Protection, Fantasy Supreme Court League, Uncategorized, White Skull
WHAT HAPPENED – XBOXs were created with (at least one) mechanical fallacy that ended breaking the system without warning. Plaintiffs (*cough* NERDS) filed a class action lawsuit in California against XBOX because of this defect. The California Court hearing this issue denied the Plaintiff’s right to proceed with a class action lawsuit on grounds that the class and case was not suitable for class action status. As is common in California, the plaintiff’s stipulated to a dismissal of their suit, appealed the denial of class certification and won.
WHY IS THIS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT: The State of California is the Chekov’s gun on this case brief, as the practice of dismissing a class action suit and appealing it subsequent to that dismissal is a procedure that is only done in California, as the Federal Rules require a different procedure in order to appeal this decision. The issue here is whether or not the Supreme Court is down with that procedure or not.
WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS: Allowing this procedure to pass would create two possible scenarios, one being specific to this case, and the other being more general. First, saying that this procedure is OK would allow an unwritten, contrary rule to be written in the Rules of Federal Procedure. Considering that the Supreme Court usually does that on their own, good money says that they are not OK with goddamn liberal Californians making their own rules. More broadly speaking, this case could allow individual jurisdictions to make their own rules all the time, which also is probably not what the Supreme Court wants to do either.
ROOT FOR MICROSOFT IF: you want that extra class action money going toward more HALO sequels.
ROOT FOR BAKER IF: the Rules of Civil Procedure were made to be broken.
PREDICTION: Microsoft 9-0
Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates
Posted: May 1, 2017 by beguide in Business Entities, case summaries, Civil Procedure, Fantasy Supreme Court League, Standing, Uncategorized, White Skull
WHAT HAPPENED: To help convey this generally procedural issue, let’s treat this like a professional wrestling event.
(Best Jim Ross Impersonation)
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! IN THIS CORNER, PLAINTIFF LAROE! A MAN WHO WANTS TO DEVELOP HIS PROPERTY AND IS BEING STYMED BY GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS! WHAT AN UNDERDOG! THIS FANCIES TO BE A REAL SLOBBERKNOCKER!
AND IN THIS CORNER! TOWN OF CHESTER! A MUNICIPALITY THAT DOESN’T LIKE LAROE AND HAS PASSED ZONING REGULATIONS TO GET IN HIS WAY! WHAT AN EVIL CHAMPION THAT LOOKS TO RETAIN ITS DOMINANCE OVER LAND USE! THE CROWD REALLY HATES THEM!
THE MATCH HAS STARTED AND WE ARE READY TO……WHAT A MINUTE, WHATS THAT SOUND??? THAT’S LAROE ESTATE’S MUSIC! WHAT ARE THEY DOING HERE?!? LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE HAVE A THREE-WAY BATTLE!
WHY IS THIS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT: In legal speak, Laroe Estates wants to intervene in a lawsuit between the landowner and the township, which procedurally means you want to get involved in a case that is ongoing because you have an interest at stake. Laroe was denied intervention because the Court held that Laroe lacked “standing”, which is the requirement that you are harmed in the underlying litigation and that the litigation will be able to solve that harm. This is a weird ruling, because standing is usually presumed if you can meet the other requirements of intervention.
WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS: Although one could argue that this case could help shape the requirements for intervention going forward, it seems more likely that the Court is just going to remand this decision back to the Lower Court so that they can come up with a clearer way to deny intervention that doesn’t require the Court to address a weird loophole in the rules. Ultimately, this is not that common of a problem, as most people who meet the elements of intervention inherently have standing, so although this seems like a big deal, my guess is the Court will just be asking the Lower Court to use the elements to deny intervention, if denial is that important.
ROOT FOR TOWN OF CHESTER IF: WE NEED TO SETTLE THIS CASE IN A STEEL CAGE, BROTHER!!
ROOT FOR LAROE ESTATES IF: AND HERE COMES THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE HAVE A ROYAL RUMBLE!!
PREDICTION: Laroe Estates 7-1
Sessions v. Dimaya
Posted: May 1, 2017 by beguide in case summaries, Criminal Procedure, Due Process, Fantasy Supreme Court League, Lawyers, Legislation, Uncategorized, White Skull
WHAT HAPPENED: Defendant, who is a legal immigrant, was charged with burglaries, which warranted mandatory removal under the Federal Immigration State as a “violent felony”.
WHY IS THIS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT: The defendant did not contest the underlying charges, but more whether or not the “violent felony” language, which includes any “felony that is likely to result in violence to persons or property”, was unconstitutionally vague. Under the Due Process clause, criminal statutes can be invalidated if they do not give citizens fair notice of what is being punished, which came up two years ago in a case, Johnson v. U.S.. In Johnson, the Court held that the term “violent felony” was vague as it applied to the Armed Career Criminals Act, so the question here is whether the same applies to the Immigration Act.
WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS: Should the Lower Court’s decision invalidating the Act hold, the procedure for removing violent felons would need to be re-written to either (a) articulate what a violent felony is more specifically, or (b) just make all felonies grounds for removal. Since Congress doesn’t like MORE work on the table and panicking about dangerous immigrants is all the rage these days, my guess is that Supreme Court isn’t in a hurry to be on the front page of FOX NEWS for the next year.
ROOT FOR SESSIONS IF: You’re scared of violent immigrants.
ROOT FOR DIMAYA IF: you are more interested in fostering conservative panic more that you are afraid of violent immigrants.
PREDICTION: Sessions 6-3
