The Most Important Supreme Court Cases of 2019 (Real Law Review) // LegalEagle


  1. LegalEagle

    LegalEagle6 bulan yang lalu

    Why Indochino Suits? ($359 Premium Suits + free shipping) []: Off-the-rack suits NEVER fit right. Indochino makes fully custom suits that fit perfectly using any material I want, with all of the options I want. And they cost 1/3rd of what normal suits costs. I’ve purchased them with my own money for years, so I’m thrilled they are now a sponsor.

  2. Kendra Parris

    Kendra Parris13 hari yang lalu

    @********** What do you mean by "exceptions"? There's no such thing as an exception to a constitutional amendment. I suspect the answer to your question is going to be "it depends on the facts." So you have situations like the following: cops are called to do a wellness check on father who sounds suicidal. When cops come to the father's home to do the wellness check, they happen to find pot on the table. Can they use the pot to bring criminal charges? In my state, yes, they can -- as long as they weren't entering the residence with the purpose of looking for illegal drugs, any illegal drugs that are incidentally found could be used in a state prosecution -- despite that the father didn't consent to search or even invite the cops in, and despite that they didn't have a warrant. They had police power to enter to do the wellness check, any illegal items or acts that happen to be discovered can be used against the resident. I don't know if this is the kind of "exception" you mean, but Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is a minefield of very fact-intensive analysis.

  3. Get the pitchforks !

    Get the pitchforks !Bulan Yang lalu

    If I get to the point where I can afford a bespoke suit, I will look into ordering the black summerweight men's suit of my dreams from indochino. Yes, I'm female. But I want a men's suit.😊 I'm a little gender interesting.😁 I mean...I would think they'd overlook the boobs and take my money anyway, because capitalism.

  4. Chris McKenzie

    Chris McKenzieBulan Yang lalu

    Objection: the Batson challenge stems from batson v Kentucky not Batson v Missipppi

  5. biologyprodigy

    biologyprodigyBulan Yang lalu

    it is a nice suit

  6. Robert Franz

    Robert FranzBulan Yang lalu

    @McGillicuddy7 Pasco asbestos

  7. 1wikingman

    1wikingman9 jam yang lalu

    If you pass out your blood is free real estate... okay

  8. MAC SandSquid

    MAC SandSquid6 hari yang lalu

    Objection to item 6: Implied consent allowed the police to draw the blood from the unconscious driver without a warrant. By his agreeing to the terms of obtaining a driver's license, which included agreeing to provide a blood (breath or urine) sample when used to determine impairment. Since was licensed, the police knew that the driver had already given consent. This ruling is a further refining given several years ago where a person could withdraw consent. This case only enforces the States ability to regulate the safe operation of vehicles. Though, I agree a warrant would have made the point moot. Or the driver be admitted to the hospital for safety and the blood tests taken for medical reasons could be subpoenaed.

  9. David Carmer

    David Carmer6 hari yang lalu

    Honestly, this channel makes me want to have a job where I need to 'suit up.'

  10. Moni Ion

    Moni Ion16 hari yang lalu

    Wow, we have a Romanian as the director of the Patent and Trademark Office. I think it's cool.

  11. Thad Wuj

    Thad Wuj17 hari yang lalu

    I was really annoyed by the court's ruling re: the cross and other biblical type references. They claim it's acceptable under the guise of ceremonial or historical purpose, but these references are often misinterpreted or misrepresented by many to indicate that the government does promote a theology. Accepting these references blurs the lines to an unacceptable degree. Also, the ceremonial/historical reference argument is essentially "we've done this for a long time and will not change", but just because something is tradition does not make it ethically permissible or protected by the law.

  12. Rannon

    Rannon19 hari yang lalu

    I guess things from the fifties is, if you can't remember your history (same with under god)! 17:19 Which it is, during the time they say it in court, five minutes later it's because the US is a "Christian nation!" ;) Edit: I think I remember that one of the monuments saved by this is some kind of cross or Jesus-figure which was raised as an advertisement for a film back in the days!

  13. Get the pitchforks !

    Get the pitchforks !Bulan Yang lalu

    Why does Wilbur Ross look like a death's head?

  14. Dustin Smith

    Dustin SmithBulan Yang lalu

    I think there’s a reason this video has less views then most others. Still great video!

  15. Robert McGarry

    Robert McGarryBulan Yang lalu

    Fuct. A shorter more efficient four letter word, that's evolution...

  16. DNAsGhostzHouze

    DNAsGhostzHouzeBulan Yang lalu

    Time for me to trademark my new product Slüt Cola...

  17. Favored Fox

    Favored FoxBulan Yang lalu

    Can you do a video on baker acts?

  18. Old Lady

    Old LadyBulan Yang lalu

    Objection! The Federal Court just ruled on sentencing Paul Manafort that it was double jeopardy to sentence him on both federal and state charges. The lawmakers knew that Trump would pardon Manafort which is why they wanted him charged both federally and state. This just happened.

  19. TheMan WithThePlan

    TheMan WithThePlanBulan Yang lalu

    359 dollars thats expensive

  20. mortdeus

    mortdeusBulan Yang lalu

    hah, i was looking at his suit too and was like "damn thats a nice looking suit".

  21. linkuei83

    linkuei83Bulan Yang lalu

    While I hate everything about law, the lingo alone makes my head spin, your videos do make a solid case on why I should watch em.

  22. CheezitsChrist

    CheezitsChristBulan Yang lalu

    I would greatly appreciate if a person more familiar with legal concepts could please explain one part of this video to me. From 13:26 - 14:36 , it is describing my understanding of double jeopardy, but I do not exactly understand the distinction between how that protects “for the same offense” but not “for the same conduct”. Explaining to a Lehman, what exactly enables a state to prosecute/not prosecute between these two terms? Thank you!

  23. mike Johnson

    mike JohnsonBulan Yang lalu

    Lmao dont add the citizen question on concise because illegal aliens might get offended... hahahahahaha

  24. Michael Pisciarino

    Michael PisciarinoBulan Yang lalu

    2:28 Viewpoint Discrimination Trademarking racial slurs 4:28 Profane Trademarks 4:40 Jury Selection of Curtis Flowers 6:49 Census Citizenship question 10:32 Partisan Gerrymandering (is not going away, "nothing new") 12:31 Dual Sovereignty Doctrine 14:34 Searches & Seizures 16:34 Peace Cross 18:07 Indochino

  25. Rocky

    RockyBulan Yang lalu

    *Whispers: Indochino*

  26. sokami mashibe

    sokami mashibeBulan Yang lalu

    I saw that special surprise at a very specific minute mark early in the video ^^

  27. Benjamin Krake

    Benjamin KrakeBulan Yang lalu

    Why would a citizenship question deter legal Latinos who are citizens from answering it? Seems like the only people who would not want to answer it would be non-citizens fearing deportation.. Who coincidentally should not be counted in the census because they should not be represented as legal US citizens in congress. Because they are not legal citizens. Pretty simple if you ask me.

  28. Hartia

    HartiaBulan Yang lalu

    Holy shit! Kavanaugh turned out to be a pretty good judge? i'm glad.

  29. Ars Poetica

    Ars PoeticaBulan Yang lalu

    Objection! At 3:00, profanity is clearly and blatantly displayed where children can see it.

  30. Mathieu Molle

    Mathieu MolleBulan Yang lalu

    Quickly becoming my favorite fucting channel on youtube

  31. The Reprehensible

    The ReprehensibleBulan Yang lalu

    >Video demonetized because of "FUCT"... That's fuct up.

  32. Charlie Quanstrom

    Charlie QuanstromBulan Yang lalu

    With all due respect, never ever ever say "hashtag" anything ever again. That was fuct.

  33. Faf Dus

    Faf DusBulan Yang lalu

    to any smart people from the united states are lawyers instead of engineers. lawyers dont really provide growth and benefits for the rest of us they could but they dont. small ones. we need more people creating value instead of taking it........ accountants can be just as badtoo................

  34. reverant tangent

    reverant tangentBulan Yang lalu

    Wait. Kavanaugh did something right by preventing trump from taking another step towards autocratic rule? I'm confused.

  35. Zac Russell

    Zac RussellBulan Yang lalu

    Would love to see you cover the carpenter v Murphy case (now sharp v Murphy being reheard later this term) it relates to Indian law and criminal jurisdiction

  36. Mark Ford

    Mark FordBulan Yang lalu

    Secure in their PERSONS. There is literally nothing more personal to someone than their blood.

  37. seesch

    seeschBulan Yang lalu

    Its not the cops business if I'm drunk on a beach. That is not a crime.

  38. T G

    T GBulan Yang lalu

    The most important SC ruling of our lifetimes is being discussed today. Right now. If ruled on correctly, the left will never be able to “ban” semi automatic firearms. And with a little luck it may lead to the repeal of the unconstitutional NFA of 1934. We can hope.

  39. Jack Shepard

    Jack ShepardBulan Yang lalu

    Love the tie

  40. Torfinn Zempel

    Torfinn ZempelBulan Yang lalu

    Objection, none of the Justices that voted against hearing the Gerrymandering case can legitimately claim to be Originalists. As any true Originalist would throw out any Gerrymandering being done as unconstitutional, under the preceps that the authors of the constitution where adamantly opposed to political parties, and Gerrymandering serves only to benefit political parties at the expense of the citizenry.

  41. Robert Franz

    Robert FranzBulan Yang lalu

    Tldr: Dems should lean in hard on partisan gerrymandering post bluewave 2020, and purge DOJ of Trump appointees so it can move aggressively against Trump-Era felons before the statutes of limitations run out.

  42. P L

    P LBulan Yang lalu

    Yearly follow ups on Supreme Court decisions would be great for this channel!

  43. icemule

    icemuleBulan Yang lalu

    Only in this Country can you not ask if you are a citizen. Dems just don't want Americans to now that there are 30 million illegals here as they continue to push amnesty. That old number of 11 million was way off, as most agreed back then that there were close to 20 million, but the Media goes with the B.S 11 million number. There's probably 11 million in just Ca. and Texas. Funny how the Bushes seem to always appoint a sketchy "Republican" or out right liberal loons, like this "Lawyer".

  44. icemule

    icemuleBulan Yang lalu

    Makes you look "fly", more like lord of the flies, are we back in the 70's?

  45. Alice

    AliceBulan Yang lalu

    I love Trump

  46. Irregardless _

    Irregardless _Bulan Yang lalu

    The gerrymandering decision is so obviously wrong it's disgusting.

  47. pazwaz oneill

    pazwaz oneillBulan Yang lalu

    Please do a DACA video

  48. P Flo

    P FloBulan Yang lalu

    Title 7 please

  49. holysh*t its me

    holysh*t its meBulan Yang lalu

    HAHA fuct

  50. Brandon Allen

    Brandon AllenBulan Yang lalu

    That gerrymandering case made me sad

  51. Nawaf The FearBraker

    Nawaf The FearBrakerBulan Yang lalu

    Wait, does double jeopardy mean you can be federally prosecuted for owning marijuana even though it's legal in your state?

  52. Jonas Ark

    Jonas Ark2 bulan yang lalu

    "Freedom is like urinal cakes to today's society." Tetsu de Rothchild The dignity off law. When one commits a crime a peer brings justice. That is the dignity of law. Freedom to me means hard work, for some it means they can do what ever they want. I say. "The dignity of law. " Tetsu de Rothchild

  53. Johnny Shields

    Johnny Shields2 bulan yang lalu

    I better see Flowers, Gamble, and Timbs here.

  54. therugburnz

    therugburnz2 bulan yang lalu

    #6 searches&seizures. To me the line should be the testing. The police may draw the blood and preserve it and maintain custody. They must get a warrant before testing. It could even be tested and the results sealed until a judge allows it to he known to council. I think any more lack of security in person effects is more than to far.

  55. therugburnz

    therugburnz2 bulan yang lalu

    #7 let it go. & I'm not just atheist, I'm Anti-theist. Atheists !!!, please challenge be the Big ones FIRST. One nation, Indivisible with ... your fn kidding me We had to say AMEN to

  56. Robert Marley

    Robert Marley2 bulan yang lalu

    This is BS. It is an infringement of religious liberties as well as illegally obtaining a person's property. Unless they had an open cut while passed out they have no right to take blood. They did this to me while i was homeless and fell asleep on a apt building stairs. I woke up chained to a hospital bed. When they pulled the catheter out i was bleeding and blood waa in my urine. Also everyone should be considered a possible Jehovah witness or any other religion that has the same beliefs to not infringe on those people.

  57. Angel Redmond

    Angel Redmond2 bulan yang lalu

    Is there any YT channels just like this but for Canadian law ?

  58. Angel Redmond

    Angel Redmond2 bulan yang lalu

    We do love our beaver ;)

  59. Angel Redmond

    Angel Redmond2 bulan yang lalu

    @sonicpsycho13 HAHAHAHAHA that's golden . It absolutely should be called that 💯

  60. sonicpsycho13

    sonicpsycho132 bulan yang lalu

    They should call it "Legal Beaver".

  61. Aaron Glicco

    Aaron Glicco2 bulan yang lalu

    #7 the key word here is "without a warrant" which is super easy to obtain , and quickly, if somebody is suspected of a crime like that, i feel that however, without first obtaining a warrant, police will now wait for people to simply be unconscious, perhaps by a nasty accidental knock to the noggin with a nightstick, to prove any additional causes. the erosion of the fourth amendment this is a definite one.

  62. Nikita Johnson

    Nikita Johnson2 bulan yang lalu

    Any recommendations where a female can find the appropriate litigious attire? You must know a few?🙏🏻

  63. Marcus Sellers

    Marcus Sellers2 bulan yang lalu

    Objection: alcohol in the bloodstream does not drop because it is absorbed by the bloodstream. It drops as it is processed by the liver.

  64. Jamie Ward

    Jamie Ward2 bulan yang lalu

    They're all going to jail soon! I caught them all lying! They were told and now it's jail time for the most high crime's! Good luck and good riddance!

  65. Jargon Madjin

    Jargon Madjin2 bulan yang lalu

    Kinda "fuct" that US seems to have laws contradicting each other, hmm

  66. Jargon Madjin

    Jargon Madjin2 bulan yang lalu

    @TwoHeavens Even so, I'd probably be a little cautious if I spent time there, then again you could say the same for any country you weren't born/raised in

  67. TwoHeavens

    TwoHeavens2 bulan yang lalu

    @Jargon Madjin it's not as bad as it sounds in a general sense. We're probably better off than a fair number of European governments for example, and the vast majority of said laws are wildly specific and not the business of the average Joe, Jane or attack helicopter.

  68. Jargon Madjin

    Jargon Madjin2 bulan yang lalu

    @TwoHeavens Kind of terrifies me to even step foot in the US, lol

  69. TwoHeavens

    TwoHeavens2 bulan yang lalu

    There's probably something in the ball park of 50,000 laws on just the Federal books, and probably six times that in regulations empowered by those laws again, just at the Federal level. It's honestly shocking that contradictions don't happen more often, thankfully, that's what the courts are for.

  70. Adam Sanders

    Adam Sanders2 bulan yang lalu

    Devin, I just wanted to let you know that you are looking quite fly in that Indochino suit today.

  71. Alex

    Alex2 bulan yang lalu


  72. Sygless

    Sygless2 bulan yang lalu

    Uhg, I hate gerrymandering and think it should be unconstitutional or at least illegal. Lines should be drawn to best represent an area not help swing votes one way or another.

  73. Glen Murie

    Glen Murie2 bulan yang lalu

    It would be interesting to see what happens when you tackle the topic of the legality of IDreporter demonetization. :)

  74. peperlover99

    peperlover992 bulan yang lalu

    Objection! John Roberts is, and has never been, a Centrist. The fucker is a Conservative through and through.