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).

Brace yourself, as this week's episode covers oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson's Women's Health, a case in which the justices debate the Constitutionality of a 15-week ban on abortions in Mississippi.  Brett and Nazim go through the underlying precedent, and then cover the when, how, and why the Roe and Casey standards may be changed by this decision.  The law starts at (03:11).

This week's episode is the podcast's favorite tradition, which is answering listener-submitted questions about Thanksgiving, the law, and somehow both of those topics together.  This year includes Biden's Supreme Court, Justices as Thanksgiving dessert, and the proper evaluation of Turkey.  Happy Thanksgiving and we'll be back on December 4, 2021.

This week's episode covers U.S. v. Vaello-Madero, a case which asks whether excluding residents of Puerto Rico from receiving federal benefits violates the Equal Protection Clause.  The answer is cut-and-dry, but not for the reasons you think.  Law starts at (06:02).

This week's episode covers United States v. Tsarnaev, which asks whether the Supreme Court will re-instate the death penalty for the Boston Marathon bomber based on two discrete issues of criminal procedure.  The discussion on the story starts at (07:04), but the law begins at (17:24).

Brett and Nazim return with a discussion on the oral argument in Whole Women's Health v. Jackson and United States v. Texas, which both address the (procedural) Constitutionality of Texas' abortion ban supported by private enforcement.  This discussion includes (1) what are they talking about, (2) how did this get here, and (3) is this going to be over soon.  Law starts at (05:02); and for reference, there are minor sound static in the third act because Brett was pounding on his desk when he talked, but it goes away fairly quickly.

This week's case covers Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, which asks whether or not the Kentucky Attorney General can intervene in a case to defend a defunct abortion law when everyone else in the government has given up, but also Nazim's birthday, Nazim's favorite taco, and Nazim's ideal birthday dessert.  Law starts at (10:08).

Gather round, all ye violent individuals, as we are discussing the text of the Armed Career Criminals Act through the case of Wooden v. U.S.  Brett and Nazim discuss a few background cases on the ACCA, what Due Process requires of a criminal statute that gets discussed by the Court almost every year, and who would play Nazim in a biopic about his life.  Law starts at (10:52).

Listen, if you're thinking that this title is just a cheap joke, you'll be happy to know that it is the heart and soul of this episode, which covers Nazim's favorite Constitutional issue, the Confrontation Clause, through the case of Hemphil v. New York. The law basically starts from the beginning, although you could start at (03:06) if we're being technical.