Short Circuit

Is qualified immunity a narrow doctrine focused on protecting the police when they make “split second decisions”? If you listen to its defenders you would get that impression. The reality is far, far different. And IJ now has the stats to back that up. In this special episode, we welcome on IJ’s Bob McNamara and data scientist Jason Tiezzi to discuss a new report Unaccountable: How Qualified Immunity Shields a Wide Range of Government Abuses, Arbitrarily Thwarts Civil Rights, and Fails to Fulfill Its Promises. It presents an analysis of over 7,000 federal appellate decisions over an eleven-year period and tells us a lot about how qualified immunity actually works in practice. We dig into many of its findings, such as that only 27% of appeals where qualified immunity was at issue involved excessive force. And that almost one in five qualified immunity appeals involved First Amendment claims. Listen in to hear the details, including about how this massive study was put together. And click below in the show note

A bit of a free speech derby this week, one opinion about free speech itself and another about how to just get to the First Amendment in the first place. We start in Florida with something that’s becoming a theme on the show: The Eleventh Circuit ruling that a law championed by the state’s governor and passed by the state legislature violates the First Amendment. The opinion concerns part of the “Stop WOKE Act” (acronym alert) and how the court pretty easily found that the law regulates speech, doesn't pass scrutiny, and therefore is unconstitutional. But IJ’s Paul Avelar cautions that although the result may have seemed obvious it actually wasn’t that obvious because of some prior inconsistent cases. Then we hop over to California where IJ’s Christian Lansinger tells us of a horse that dare not speak its name. At least if it wants to race. But putting aside the right to give a horse a name that makes fun of someone else (in this case, the name is “Malpractice Meuser”), the Ninth Circuit focused on procedural

Everyone says we need more housing, right? Not all local governments agree. Maybe they’re fine with more housing over there but not where developers actually want to build it. Justin Pearson of IJ joins us to tell a story of local shenanigans in his home town in New York state where a long saga to build some homes ended in a glorious flame-out of judicial abdication. There’s regulatory takings, zoning, ripeness, and even a religious liberty angle in this case from the Second Circuit. Then your host makes an offer that’s too good to be true. Because it isn’t. Crypto backed by gold might sound like an odd concept, and it was too odd for a scam artist to stay out of prison. But not before he bilked several million dollars from investors. However, that didn’t prevent him from arguing that the “history and tradition” of his Sixth Amendment right to force witnesses to testify meant he could rope in a few federal government employees. Did the denial of his request mean the court should throw out his conviction? Your

A special episode on artificial intelligence and the law, including how we find the law. Ed Walters, a pioneer in bringing AI to legal research, joins us to separate the artificial wheat from the chaff. He explains that a lot of the recent news about the failures of AI models have been due to using the wrong models for the wrong things, not the models themselves. He walks us through a near future when lawyers can use AI to not just find points of law but write memos or briefs. We’re also joined by IJ’s Paul Sherman, our resident AI aficionado, who recently wrote a letter to the Fifth Circuit about a proposed rule it has regarding AI use and brief writing. There’s a lot of promise out there but also a lot of danger in the government—including courts—overreacting. We also talk a bit about copyright issues and AI and what’s on the horizon. Are we approaching the Singularity? Ed thinks likely not, but there’s still worries we should be aware of.

An electric episode where we just might short the circuits. That’s because we dive into some capital “D” Drama at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Amid fighting and commissioner turnover related to renewable energy prices and an election, FERC makes a consequential decision without first going to the full board. And later the Sixth Circuit catches that hand in the judicial cookie jar. Dan Knepper of IJ drops by to explain some of the complexities of energy policy and how to remedy its violation when everyone doesn’t dot their i’s. Then Bobbi Taylor of IJ leads us (along with 43 police officers) into a home where no drugs (or the suspect) are found but many family members are seriously injured. Qualified immunity? The Third Circuit prefers a jury. Also, you learn what Sir Walter Scott meant by a “palmer.” And does anyone use paper copies of the Federal Reporter anymore? PJM Interconnection v. FERC Anglemeyer v. Ammons Politico piece Dan mentions Sir Walter Scott's Marmion

We’re joined by the SCOTUS Ladies, two “Supreme Court super fans.” They are Anastasia Boden and Elizabeth Slattery and they’re here to talk about their new blogging project but also to share their wider knowledge of the Constitution, public interest litigation, and even the federal courts of appeals. They each pick a case from the Fifth Circuit by Judge Willett, who you’ll learn is a very self-proclaimed “middle-management circuit judge.” First it’s the big question everyone is asking: Has the Supreme Court impliedly overruled Humphrey’s Executor? Minds seem to differ among the judges. Plus we have a bit of a rumble about structure vs. substance. Then we Netflix and chill while a rogue prosecutor goes after the streaming service and won’t let go—until the court recognizes a loophole in Younger abstention. Consumer Research v. CPSC Netflix v. Babin Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. SCOTUS Ladies

The Ninth Circuit recently had some pretty harsh words for the FBI’s egregious behavior when the Bureau decided to crack open some vaults in Los Angeles. The FBI tried to forfeit all kinds of property held in these vaults from innocent owners. Rob Frommer of IJ tells us all about this IJ case and the Ninth Circuit’s indignation. Then it’s off to the Second Circuit for a different kind of police misconduct, but misconduct nevertheless. IJ’s Katrin Marquez details a police officer’s attempts to silence someone simply because he told the cop to turn his headlights on. The case demonstrates how hard it can be to enforce the First Amendment and how necessary the courts of appeals can be. There’s also some ‘80s nostalgia for those into live TV syndicated specials. Snitko v. U.S. Rupp v. Buffalo Oral argument in Snitko v. U.S. When Geraldo Rivera Opened Al Capone’s Vault Buffalo News story on Rupp case New IJ report on Qualified Immunity

It’s a clerk reunion this week, at least for two former clerks of Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain of the Ninth Circuit. We welcome back David Lat of Original Jurisdiction who is joined by Daniel Sullivan, a New York litigator at Holwell, Shuster & Goldberg. Both clerked for Judge O’Scannlain at one time, giving them keen insights into clerking on the Ninth and what it’s like to be a judge in a jurisdiction where your colleagues often take a different point of view. However, we start things off not out west but in the southeast where David details Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ efforts to suspend an elected prosecutor, Andrew Warren, and Warren’s resulting First Amendment lawsuit. In an opinion chock-a-block with facts the Eleventh Circuit rebuffed the suspension. David also highlights a Judge Newsom concurrence (something we’re getting quite used to on Short Circuit) and some interesting state-law issues. Then Dan turns the gas stove on to cook up a story of preemption and evolving standards of statutory interpret

A more poetic Short Circuit this week. Coinciding with his birthday, January 25th, and with the phenomenon that it is these days, we pay homage to Scotland’s greatest poet, Robert Burns. What does this 18th century minstrel of haggis, lassies, and auld lang syne have to do with judicial engagement and the circuit courts of appeals? Well, if nothing else free spirited inquiry and the good cheer we try and support on the show. You’ll first hear what Burns might have thought of qualified immunity. Then Brian Morris of IJ joins us for his own reading of some bits of real Burns poems and then whisks us off to the Fifth Circuit where Texas tried to force publishers to rate their books. This attempt at compelled speech receives a heavy dose of judicial engagement, maybe one that would bring a smile to Burn’s face. Then it’s up to the Seventh Circuit where a lawyer just didn’t understand when to go home after his client had settled the case. And after the lawyer had been kicked out of the case for misbehavior. We fin

An “utterly bonkers” case this week. Jaba Tsitsuashvili, attorney at IJ and attorney for his client Erma Wilson, tells us about the Fifth Circuit’s recent ruling in her case. By day a prosecutor worked for the office that prosecuted her but then moonlighted with the judge in her case by night. That’s what we call in constitutional law “a problem.” But she only found out about this years later, long after she had served her time. Now that this double-dealing story has come to light can she go back and clean up her record? With a result the Fifth Circuit admits is unjust, but mandated by the Circuit’s precedent, it says she can’t. If she were still in prison, though, she could. Which is pretty nuts. But that’s not all this week. Keith Neely of IJ skates onto the podcast with a story of “Chanukah on Ice,” and why religious groups were prevented from advertising it and other religious messages on the sides of buses in Tampa, Florida. The Eleventh Circuit figures out what to do with this obviously unconstitutional

If a defendant lies on the stand, and also hasn’t turned over records that would have helped answer the same question, is that discovery abuse? We dig into trial tactics with IJ’s Will Aronin in a civil rights case from the Fourth Circuit where a police officer defendant may not have been entirely truthful about how many times he had been sued. Then IJ’s Jeff Rowes gives the full Reno 911 about a man whose prescription drug mill was nabbed through a warrantless search of a massive government database. Does the Fourth Amendment protect your medical records? We learn how the Ninth Circuit recently grappled with—or, rather, didn’t grapple with—that issue. Apply to work at IJ here! Morgan v. Tincher U.S. v. Motley Los Angeles v. Patel Folsom Prison Blues Friend of the Devil 

An old favorite on our first show of 2024, a search incident to arrest. Was it reasonable for the police to open a man’s backpack when he already lay handcuffed on the ground? Or should they have gotten a warrant first? IJ’s John Wrench analyzes this matter from the First Circuit where a case from the ‘70s about a bank robber suppresses a motion to suppress. Then IJ’s Betsy Sanz takes us out west to Los Angeles—but should it have been only as far as Nebraska? That’s the question the Ninth Circuit addresses where we encounter a lying congressman, the Vicinage Clause, and our friends at the FBI. U.S. v. Perez U.S. v. Fortenberry Riley v. California Blog post on an Illinois case and vicinage

If you ask someone on the street what’s the deal with the standard in employment discrimination cases they’ll likely exclaim “McDonnell Douglas!” And they’d be right. Except, the Eleventh Circuit just reminded us that that’s not the whole story. And Judge Newsom adds in that it shouldn’t be the story at all. IJ’s Joe Gay explains the ins and out of this opinion that’s got the whole employment law world talking. Then your host tells a story from the Fifth Circuit as it heavily indicates it’s ready to change precedent for certain Voting Rights Act claims. Along the way it makes a claim about what “the law” is. But is it? Tynes v. Florida Dept of Juvenile Justice Petteway v. Galveston County (panel decision) Petteway v. Galveston County (en banc grant of stay) Daniel 5:5-7

Motions to suppress evidence of illegal firearms possession seem to be all the rage these days, or at least on this episode. IJ’s Christie Hebert starts things off in the Tenth Circuit where an altercation between former high school classmates (one of whom is a cop) leads to the discovery of an M-16 in the back of a tow truck. Was that a Fourth Amendment violation or a permissible inventory search? The court thinks the former and suppresses the evidence. The same is true in the Eighth Circuit, where IJ’s Evan Lisull tells us the police can’t get a warrant to search someone’s home just because the guy who lives there is a shady character. Evan also explains what it’s like to live on a nine-acre lot in rural Iowa and how “city mice” might not understand. U.S. v. Ramos U.S. v. Ralston 12 Days of Short Circuit Christmas

Two holiday delights this week: The right of a former president to say “Deranged prosecutor Jack Smith” and the proper standard when officials recklessly fail to keep a suicide watch. First it’s Paul Sherman with the D.C. Circuit’s analysis of how former President Trump’s speech can be curtailed while he’s being prosecuted in Washington, D.C. The First Amendment interest is high, but is it high enough? Even though the court applies strict scrutiny the answer is mostly no. Paul explains how it seems like a good precedent when it is applied to less exceptional cases in the future. Then Patrick Jaicomo brings us to the Fourth Circuit where a woman tragically killed herself while in a jail—and while the jail’s staff knew she had already tried to. To get there, though, the court needed to clean up some of its caselaw and square it with what the Supreme Court has said. Click here for transcript. U.S. v. Trump Short v. Hartman IJ page for Taylor v. LeBlanc

We’re joined by Braden Boucek, Director of Litigation at the Southeastern Legal Foundation, and IJ’s Arif Panju. Braden takes us to the Eighth Circuit where the court dismisses some claims as moot in a challenge to a school district’s transgender policy. But it finds the rest of the case live—and the policy vague. Braden makes the point that some other judges have seemed to think lawsuits are either not ripe or moot, but never actually justiciable. Along the way there’s some unenumerated rights talk. Then Arif uses his language skills to take us into a tale of French heritage and . . . oil and gas. It’s a bit of a wild issue in the Fifth Circuit about extraction, property rights, and the interplay of ancient French doctrine and modern American statutes. Also, what’s really going on with the court’s certification to the Louisiana Supreme Court? It’s a Cajun conundrum.   Parents Defending v. Linn Mar Community School Dist. Johnson v. Chesapeake Louisiana, LP Event on Mere Natural Law Short Circuit e

It’s all about rights and voting this week. With a cause of action twist. We dig into the right to sue to enforce voting rights and the right to sue to keep others from voting for someone else. Confused? It seems so are the courts. First, Anya Bidwell breaks from SCOTUS prep to lay out what the Eighth Circuit said about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. She explains why courts are so stingy about suing to enforce rights these days but also why this particular question might be much ado about not that much. Then IJ’s Dylan Moore joins us for the first time and details one of the latest attempts to keep former President Trump off the ballot. Someone running against Trump (who you’ve probably never heard of) apparently didn’t run enough. Or much at all. Plus it’s our 300th episode! But we’re saving the Spartans for later. Arkansas NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment Castro v. Scanlan Episode on courts creating causes of action Episode 200 & Short Circuit’s origins

Short Circuit 299 | The Gambler We’re joined by Mike Greenberg of IJ, who flies in via drone. Or, rather, two drone cases. First Mike tells us of his recent argument at the Michigan Supreme Court in a Fourth Amendment matter that we first talked about on Short Circuit way back on Episode 167. Then he relates a recent Fifth Circuit ruling about a Texas law allegedly protecting Texans’ privacy. Maybe it does, maybe it does, but the our panel isn’t entirely impressed with how the Fifth Circuit's panel dismissed a First Amendment challenge. Then a man walks in and puts his chips on the table. Actually, that’s IJ’s Jared McClain who antes-up with a story about a gambler who didn’t follow Kenny Roger’s advice. And then had his iCloud account seized by the cops. Was it a constitutional violation? For him it turns out it doesn’t matter as the dealin's done. Give to the Institute for Justice at this link! National Press Photographers v. McCraw U.S. v. McCall Michigan Drone Surveillance case Short Cir

You ever notice those warning labels saying the State of California has carcinogenic concerns about whatever the product is you are buying? Ever also notice that those labels seem to be on a lot of products? Well, you’re not the only one. It seems the state has been saying it “knows” things cause cancer when pretty much no one else does. This week IJ’s Ben Field tells us all about a Ninth Circuit case where the state’s over-inclusiveness ran into the First Amendment. Then it’s off to Texas where its governor asserts some plaintiffs have the wrong man. IJ’s Bob Belden rides into the Fifth Circuit’s investigation over who they should sue. As he explains, in cases like this one there’s often no exact answer. Plus, Bound By Oath Season 3 is coming! As we discuss, get your podcast subscriptions ready. National Assoc. of Wheat Growers v. Bonta U.S. v. Abbott Ex parte Young Denis Leary's No Cure for Cancer (NSFW)

It’s the old and the new economy this week. First, IJ’s Dan Alban grabs his shovel and hardhat and heads deep down into the tunnels of administrative law to dig out a preamble that made a difference. In fact, it turns out preambles often make a difference in admin law cases, including those involving benefits for black lung disease. The Sixth Circuit seems kind of uncomfortable with this, as does our panel. Then we open up the TikTok app. The company wasn’t happy to be in federal court in Texas and tried to move to California with a writ of mandamus. IJ’s Suranjan Sen dances his way (in a bit more than 15 seconds) to why the Fifth Circuit issued the writ. It seems something was either lost in translation or lost in a file. Wilgar Land Co v. Director In re TikTok Working in the Coal Mine Wacko from Waco