This week's episode is a mix of law questions, SCOTUS questions, thanksgiving questions, nonsense questions, and HYBRID questions (which is a mix of at least two) from the listeners.  Happy Thanksgiving, and we'll see you next Sunday.

This week's episode covers Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, which discusses whether or not the government's decision to wind-down DACA is constitutional, compliant with the APA, and/or just generally morally bankrupt.  Law starts from the beginning.

This week's episode is slightly abbreviated, because Nazim is injured and can't laugh without screaming in pain.  With that in mind, the case of Kansas v. Glover is discussed, which asks whether the police can assume the registered driver of a vehicle is the driver of that vehicle before performing a stop.  It's both more and less complicated than it sounds.  Law starts at (07:50), and we're covering the DACA case next week.

There are two main points in this week's episode.  First, this week's episode covers the case of Ramos v. Louisiana, which asks whether or not the requirement of a unanimous jury verdict applies through the fourteenth amendment.  Second, Brett and Nazim discuss whether Thanksgiving should be replaced with Italian food.  Turkey Parm forever.  Law starts at (05:45).

The case of Epinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue is a real Constitutional Main Event.  In one corner, is the Establishment Clauses ban on government funding of religious private schools, and in the other is the Free Exercise Clause's argument that the State cannot ban a specific use of a scholarship.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is the crooked pro wrestling referee.  Law starts from the beginning.

This week's episode tackles the first of three immigration cases this year, leading to considerations of law, policy and practicality.  Brett and Nazim discuss Kansas v. Garcia, which deals with a State's right to prosecute illegal works using Federal forms, which in turn deals with express and implied preemption, Federal superiority and the practical State criminal law.  Law starts at (06:45).

This week's episode covers the case of Rotkiske v. Klemm, which asks whether or not the Time of Discovery defense applies to the Fair Debt Collection Practice.  You may not know this, but Brett and Nazim are uniquely qualified to discuss the law in this case.  You may know this, but Brett and Nazim still spend most of the episode talking about wrestling and nonsense.  Law starts at (05:30).

This week's episode discusses the case of Kahler v. Kansas, which broadly asks the Supreme Court if the insanity defense is protected under the Constitution.  Brett and Nazim go through the applicable insanity defenses and eventually discuss the less interesting ways under which this case will probably be decided.  Law starts at (07:06).

Dibs on that joke.  This week's episode starts the term with a discussion on impeachment, with the judicial and political aspects of the process being the focus, as opposed to whether or not we like President Trump.  Law starts from the beginning.  

It's the end of the term, so Brett and Nazim are coming at you LIVE from Brett's living room, covering topics like (1) the best story lines from last year, (2) what story lines will symbolize next year's term, and (3) an actual, human winner of the Fantasy League.  Dreams really do come true.  The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court will return on October 6, 2019.