This week's episode covers Carpenter v. U.S., which covers whether or not 4th Amendment protections apply to your cell phone records, so if you're a fan of privacy arguments, feeling paranoid about the government spying on you, the latter episodes of the Serial podcast, or new ways that the movie Scream has been made moot by technology, this episode is right in your wheelhouse.  Law starts at (03:34).

So check it out.  The intent with this episode was to have a short, slick analysis of Christie v. NCAA, which is both about gambling and federalism, but things almost immediately devolved in talk about fried chicken, Joe Arpaio, Separation of Powers, and Brett's gambling conspiracy theories.  It's not all nonsense by any means, but if you're hear just for New Jersey's terrible legal arguments, that starts at (25:36).

This week's episode covers the case of Patchak v. Zinke, which on a small scope covers whether or not the government can force you to live next to a casino, but on a broader scale deals with who wins in a fight, the branch of government filled with mostly old white people who are out of touch with the average person, or the other branch of government who's like basically the same thing.  Law starts at (04:06).

This week's episode covers three big happenings from the podcast's summer vacation.  First, Brett and Nazim discuss the 9th Circuit's expansion of the "bona fide" relationship test, the new solicitor general, and then in a stunning twist of dramatic irony, discuss the term mootness and how the Travel Ban case may end up dismissed.  Law starts at (03:14).

This week's episode marks the end of the 2016/2017 term for the podcast, and to close the book on this season Brett and Nazim discuss cases that were not selected for next term (starting at 03:46), interview the winner of last year's Supreme Court fantasy league to get secrets on how to win next year (starting at 17:56), and finally take listener questions about the term in general (starting at 37:40).  Brett and Nazim are taking a short break, and will be back on October 1st.

Yo, how pumped are you right now?  In this week's episode, Brett and Nazim discuss the history and procedure of impeachment for federal government employees, including how it works (i.e. Congress), what standards are used during the process (i.e. basically none), and the likelihood that it happens to the current president (i.e. probably not).  Did that last line kill your buzz?  Sorry, dude. It'll be OK.  There's some jokes about bacon if that helps. Law starts at (02:35).

This week's episode takes a practical look at the law to see how three cases influence practicing lawyers on a day to day basis.  As they often do, things went on and off the rails, so this week's episode breaks down as follows:

(0:00-02:40) - How is Nazim/How you will know the podcast has ended.

(02:40-19:20) - Attorney check-in/What judges do/Brett and Nazim are bad restaurant employees

(19:20-end) - Lee v. U.S. (is a guilty plea reversible when the lawyer gives wrong info about deportation), Goodyear Tire & Rubber v. Heager (must attorney fee sanctions be causally related to the bad conduct) and Midland Funding v. Johnson (are time-barred filings in bankruptcy court a violation of the FDCA).

This week's episode takes a look back at every 2017 case where Justice Gorsuch submitted a vote to gauge how conservative the new Justice is in respect to the rest of the bench.  Brett and Nazim discuss what it means to be "conservative" and/or "liberal", and how the outcome of certain cases can reflect differently on the ideology that supports that outcome.  You won't believe it, but the law starts from the very beginning.

In this mini-episode, Brett gives Nazim a Buzzfeed style quiz to determine which Supreme Court justice he most resembles.  If you are starved for similar insight, please visit our twitter, facebook and/or website to learn your judicial spirit animal.

This week's podcast plays a game of whether three recent Supreme Court decisions are unreasonable extensions of the law for the travel ban (Trump v. Hawaii), eminent domain (Wisconsin v. Murr), and Brady material (Turner v. U.S.).  For each case, Brett and Nazim try to figure out if the law has changed, and whether each decision could lead to ridiculous outcomes in the future.  Law starts at (01:24).