Armchair Justice

Some times there are disconnects between what the Supreme Court says, and what they media says the Supreme Court says. 

The 4th Amendment protects you against the government searching your home. There are a few exceptions. Today we discuss one of them.

When you sue someone, one of the first things you want to do is figure out how much you are owed. But to do that, you must decide which type of damages are owed. Nominal damages are, like they sound, "damage-in-name-only"; usually confined to a dollar. The question that the court faced was whether or not those damages are real enough to count in a lawsuit. Against John and James's better judgement, the court decided that those damages are real enough; nominal damages count for the court.

Your home is the most sacred and protected location. Unless there is an emergency, the police can't enter your house without a warrant. The question is, if the police are pursuing you can you dodge them by entering your residence? 

When can you sue another nation? Almost never. But one exception is for War Crimes. In our first episode about international law we discuss how heirs of Jewish art collectors failed to convince the Supreme Court to hear their case.

It's been for years since the city of Baltimore sued BP for causing climate change. Finally, the case has made its way to the Supreme Court. But even when the Supreme Court decides, they are only answering the question, which jurisdiction is this case to heard in. We haven't even gotten to the merits of the case. Listen to our podcast to find out why this is the case. 

Free speech zones are unconstitutional. For Georgia-Gwinnett student Chike Uzuegbunam, that much is clear. In fact, when he challenged Georgia-Gwinnett's free speech zone policy, Georgia-Gwinnett agreed with him and changed their policy. So why is Uzuegbunam still suing? Because, he doesn't just want Georgia-Gwinnett to agree with him, he wants to the Supreme Court to agree. In this case we tackle standing, harms, and the value of a good lawyer at the beginning of any lawsuit.

With all the rioting in in Washington, D.C., we wanted to take this episode to explain the pillar of our legal theory: We are a nation of laws, not men. 

In this episode we spend time discussing the first half of the 2020 term. We bring up a decision from a case we reviewed and dig in deeper to more Constitutional theory.

Last term the Supreme Court determined that a non-unanimous jury conviction was unconstitutional. This term they decide whether it is merely a rule change, and thus not retroactive, or if that decision was a fundamental right, thereby releasing everyone who has ever been convicted by an non-unanimous jury.