This week's episode covers the perils of gerrymandering in Louisianna v. Callais, in which the Supreme Court reversed course on a districting map that may alter the application of the Voting Rights Act moving forward. Nazim's sad and Brett tries to cheer him up. You'll laugh. You'll cry. You probably just won't have fair access to voting in the foreseeable future. Law starts from the beginning, but starts to go off track once the discussion moves to Weird Al.

This week's long over-due covers the past, present and future on international law and the Supreme Court. You (as Bill Murray in Scrooged) will enjoy the tarriffs in Learning Resources v. Trump (Buster Poindexter in Scrooged), birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara (Carole Kane in Scrooged) and removal proceedings in Blanche v. Lau (the faceless Grim Reaper in Scrooged). The law kind of starts from the beginning but is regularly interrupted by tangents. We missed you, too.

This week's episode addresses three cases involving the government and the political process. This includes Trump v. Barbara (addressing the merits of birthright citizenship), Louisianna v. Callais (further undermining the Voting Rights Act), and Watson v. Republican National Committe4e (addressing nuances of mail-in voting). Nazim speaks in tongues and Brett touts the value of public libraries. Law starts at (05:58).

Hi there. This week's episode covers a lot to make up for all the time we've been away. The episode starts with discussing LGBT rights (Little v. Hecox & Chiles v. Saalazar), then moves to the Second Amendment (Wolford v. Lopez & US v. Hemani) and concludes with government nonsense (Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump & Trump v. Slaughter). Law starts at (03:56) and my apologies for the sound being below average.

The Supreme Court's term is over so it's time to panic. This week's episode covers Trump v. CASA, which doesn't really talk about birthright citizenship, but maybe does something even worse. This episode also covers Skrmetti v. US, which is maybe not as bad as it could have been. It's a mixed bag, folks. Law starts at (07:14).

This week's question asks the age old question of whether we are dealing with a Constitutional Crisis, or run-of-the-mill incompetency. Brett and Nazim discuss the cases of Noam v. Garcia and Trump v. JGG to determine the scope of both Supreme Court orders and how to view the President's actions in light of the Constitution. It's a fun episode! Very unlikely to increase your anxiety! Law starts at (05:25).

Brett and Nazim return to cover three Con Law cases. The first, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, asks whether mandatory government ID verifications for adult websites violates the First Amendment. The second, Skrmetti v. US, discusses the application Equal Protection Standard for LGBT discrimination. The final case, Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Board, asks whether an entity owned by the Catholic Church which performs secular benefits is exempt from employment taxes. The law starts at (05:41).

This week's episode covers the Supreme Court's decision in TikTok v. Garland, a great example of how the Federal government passing laws can end up as the Federal Government's own worst nightmare. Nazim has returned, so enjoy commentary on snow days, getting old, and legos. Law still starts from the beginning.