Short Circuit

We are joined by Texas “teenylaw” lawyer Kristen Vander-Plas LaFreniere. We talk about what it’s like to run a very small practice and then dig into the latest from the circuits. Kristen presents a religious victory over the Marines in the D.C. Circuit and gives a bit of background about what that service thinks of the Navy. If you’ve made it through basic training this is the episode for you. Then, Erica Smith Ewing of IJ takes us out to the Ninth Circuit where there’s a rare win against a zoning ordinance. Singh v. Berger SoCal Recovery v. City of Costa Mesa

In honor of the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. we invited on three civil rights lawyers to talk about their latest, pathbreaking, cases and the challenges they face in bringing justice for all. Anya Bidwell of IJ welcomes her colleague Marie Miller, as well as Mark Silverstein, Legal Director of the ACLU-Colorado, and Sam Thypin-Bermeo a civil rights lawyer in Miami. Each discusses a recently filed case where law enforcement officers are alleged to have gone far beyond the bounds of the Constitution. Click here for transcript. Johnson v. Staab (complaint) Maple v. Stella (complaint) Rosales v. Alexandria PD 50 Shades of Government Immunity Constitutional GPA

Two tales of the criminal justice system this week, with the Excessive Fines Clause and the Fourth Amendment both playing a part. First, in the Second Circuit, Ari Bargil tells us how an ingenious scheme of selling marijuana over an app hits a snag when the funds have to go through the bank. Which is subject to all kinds of federal laws. What about the law forbidding excessive fines? For that it gets a little complicated. Then it's off to the Ninth Circuit where John Wrench details a traffic stop with an “inventory search.” Did the cops really make it just to ensure the defendant didn’t lose his stuff? Many of us our skeptical, but somehow the conviction stands. Click here for transcript. U.S. v. Patterson U.S. v. Anderson Blow – Courtroom Scene World of Trouble

Not many lawyers alive today can say they’ve litigated a Thirteenth Amendment case (yes, that amendment; the one about slavery). But we at IJ have one, and we’re asking the Supreme Court to take a look at it. What’s before the Court is whether prosecutors who—under political pressure—made a bogus case against a group of nurses are “absolutely immune” from the nurses’ civil rights lawsuit. IJ’s Ben Field explains the stakes in this case from the Second Circuit. Then, Jaba Tsitsuashvili of IJ tells us of a Minnesota police department that holds every person who wasn’t born in the U.S. until it hears back from I.C.E., whether they’re a citizen or not. Um, is that a problem? Jaba explains how the Eighth Circuit explained that, oh yes, it is. Click here for transcript. Cert petition in Anilao v. Spota Anilao v. Spota (3d Circuit) Parada v. Anoka County Bound By Oath Episode on Absolute Immunity

You got insurance is not just a question they ask at the doctor’s office. Most of the time when someone sues the government—especially a local government—there’s at least some insurance potentially available to pay for the government’s defense and to pay a claim. But insurance policies are famous for having exclusions. And it turns out that in bunch of lawsuits in the Sixth Circuit there are exclusions for property rights and taxes that are making things complicated for property-tax-collecting counties. These come in the wake of “equity theft” cases, and court rulings that these can constitute a taking. IJ’s Dan Knepper joins us for this intersection of insurance and civil rights law. Also, we go down to the Eleventh Circuit for a life insurance policy and a tragic story of “suicide-by-cop.” Turns out the standard exclusion in a policy for suicide can count even if that happens indirectly. Finally, if you haven’t heard our “12 Days of Short Circuit Christmas” on our separate bonus episode, stick around until

A very short episode for the Holidays. Sung by members of the Institute for Justice. Click to listen, but here are the words: On the 1st day of Short Circuit Christmas my federal reporter gave to me A thesaurus under Judge Selya's pine tree On the 2d day of Short Circuit Christmas my federal reporter gave to me Two Calabresi tort rules And a thesaurus under Judge Selya's pine tree. On the 3d day of Short Circuit Christmas my federal reporter gave to me Et al. [Yeah, you know how the song goes. Let’s skip to the 12th, i.e. D.C. Cir., verse & you can see all of them at once] Twelve vacaturs granted Eleven judges named Pryor Ten library courtrooms Nine en banc reversals Eight qualified immunities Seven Chicago professors Six Sutton Stanzas Five Judge Hos Four ex-prosecutors Three Jersey convictions Two Calabresi tort rules And a thesaurus under Judge Selya's pine tree.

One of our oldest friends (well, not really a “friend”) is back, the rational basis test. Turns out the government can justify refusing to give someone a license on the grounds that it’s extra work for the government itself to have to issue the license. That sounds kinda weird, right? IJ attorney Josh House agrees, as he discusses a new case from the Fifth Circuit. But it’s not all bad news this week. In the Sixth Circuit the police can’t receive qualified immunity when they lie on a police report. Turns out that’s an “obvious” constitutional violation. Yeah, who knew? Jared McClain of IJ explains pretty much everyone did. Click here for transcript. Newell-Davis v. Phillips Caskey v. Fenton St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille Taylor v. Riojas

For millions of lower-income Americans, state licensing laws make finding work or opening a small business harder and more expensive—if not outright impossible. So claims the third edition of Licensed to Work, a report of the Institute for Justice. We talk to Lisa Knepper, a co-author of the report, to hear why occupational licensing is such a big deal—and such a big barrier to so many—and what has changed in the five years since the last edition. There’s good news! Yet, so many challenges remain. And as Short Circuit listeners know one way to address those challenges is through judicial engagement. Thus, Josh Windham of IJ also joins us to discuss a recent decision in Pennsylvania where a court found a licensing requirement to be unconstitutional, clearing the way for entrepreneurs like Josh’s client. We hope you enjoy a little policy along with a little law, and we promise there will be no (well, not much) math. Click here for transcript. Licensed to Work 3 Ladd v. Real Estate Commission (2022 deci

Money makes the world go round. And sometimes the Constitution and our civil rights laws help money out with that. We examine a couple recent cases where bankruptcy and attorney fees awards intersected with constitutional law. First, IJ’s Rob Peccola describes how the Second Circuit followed the Supreme Court’s recent instructions to take Constitution’s use of the word “uniform” seriously. Then, IJ’s Bert Gall joins us for the first time to walk through what the Sixth Circuit had to say on who a “prevailing party” is and what “enduring” means. A whole lot of cash can turn on the answer. Plus, if you like Shel Silverstein, this might be the episode for you. Click here for transcript. In re Clinton Nurseries, Inc. Tennessee NAACP v. Hargett Siegel v. Fitzgerald Smart, read by Shel Silverstein

Just in time for Thanksgiving we have two extremely juicy opinions (from a judicial engagement standpoint), one about the right to earn a living and one on the nondelegation doctrine. First, it’s our old friend Jeff Rowes of IJ who discusses how the Fifth Circuit ruled against a tanning salon that didn’t want to be shut down during the pandemic, but where the court really didn’t seem to want to. And then there’s a concurring opinion that’s all about how the right to earn a living is “deeply rooted.” Then, Trace Mitchell of IJ grabs the reins and takes us for a ride around nondelegation jurisprudence. It’s a case considering Congress’s decision to give governmental power to a private group as a method of regulating the horse racing industry. Giddy up! Click here for transcript. Golden Glow Tanning Salon v. City of Columbus Nat. Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Assoc. v. Black Short Circuit Episode on Kentucky right to earn a living case IJ Nondelegation doctrine case

We’re joined by two friends from the MacArthur Justice Center, Emily Washington and Eric Foley, to tell us all about a blood-boiling case of prosecutorial misconduct, concocted evidence, and lying to put a man on death row. They are fighting an epic battle in the Fifth Circuit against many things in their case, but this week we focus on one especially: absolute immunity, a special benefit prosecutors often—but not always—enjoy. Did the prosecutor enjoy it in their lawsuit? Listen to find out. There’s not just one, but two concurrences by Judge Jim Ho of the Fifth Circuit (who news reports say festively sends out Christmas cards, along with his family, using the slogan “Ho, Ho, Ho”). And then IJ’s own Anya Bidwell tells us about “Wanteds.” They’re not warrants, but they’re nevertheless often used. Were they a thing at common law, and are they “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment? There’s another concurrence that makes the case. Click here for transcript. Wearry v. Foster (3 judge panel) Wearry v. F

Everything’s big in Texas. Including that famous English conjunction “and.” For the first time on Short Circuit we have two IJ attorneys based in the Lone Star State on the same episode, Arif Panju and Christie Hebert. They introduce us to two Texan cases from the Texas-dominated Fifth Circuit. First, Arif explains why some voting rights groups didn’t have standing to challenge a few changes to the state’s voting laws even though the new rules seem to have problems. Then, Christie tells the story of “and” under the First Step Act and how two Fifth Circuit Texan judges can disagree so strongly. Further, William Travis—and the em dash—make appearances. Click here for transcript. Texas State LULAC v. Elfant U.S. v. Palomares Letter to the People of Texas and All Americans in the World

When Americans vote it usually means one other thing. Americans suing. And this year is no different. Diana Simpson of IJ joins us, as she did on the eve of the 2020 election, to help summarize and scrutinize hot-off-the-press opinions on ballot access and voting rules for the election on November 8, 2022. We discuss cases in federal and state court involving laws in Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Nevada, Alaska, Georgia, and the town of Mason, Tennessee. Plus, we’re excited to announce the first appearance of Richard Nixon on the podcast. Click here for transcript. Ball v. Chapman (Pa. Supreme Court) Migliori v. Lehigh County Bd. of Elections (3d Circuit) Eggers v. Evnen (8th Circuit) ACLU v. County of Nye (Nevada Supreme Court) Curling v. Raffensperger (11th Circuit) Burrell v. Tipton County Elec. Comm’n (6th Circuit) Nixon’s “last press conference” Carhenge

We recorded an episode live before an audience in New York City! NYC is home to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and it’s an all Second Circuit special. Join IJ’s Patrick Jaicomo as he talks with three former Second Circuit clerks: Maaren Shah, Bruce Green, and Alex Reinert. They dive into three recent Second Circuit cases—a certain defamation action against former President Trump, a case combining qualified immunity and a dog bite, and an attack on the irrationality of how the feds classify marijuana. There’s also reminiscing about our guests' time working for the court. Click here for transcript. McKinney v. City of Middletown Carroll v. Trump United States v. Green

The Institute for Justice has asked the Supreme Court to take a case challenging Kentucky’s Certificate of Need law (aka a “CON law”—very much a double entendre). Two attorneys in the case, Andrew Ward and Bob Belden, discuss how their clients simply want to provide home health care to their own immigrant community, why the law that prevents that violates the Constitution, and how the Sixth Circuit disagreed. There’s a lot of discussion about how the rational basis test turns out to not be so rational. Then the panel moves on to a property rights case, also in the Sixth Circuit, challenging “equity theft.” You’ll learn a few things about law versus equity and why theft by the government is still theft. Click here for transcript. RSVP for Short Circuit Live in NYC on 10/26 here! Tiwari v. Friedlander (Sixth Circuit) Tiwari v. Friedlander (cert petition) Hall v. Meisner Short Circuit 175

The Supreme Court has said that once the police find a reason to pull you over, they can pull you over—even if that’s not at all why they actually want to pull you over. Patrick Jaicomo joins us to discuss a tragic story from the Fifth Circuit where the court denied qualified immunity to an officer, but also questioned why the police should be allowed to conduct pretextual stops in the first place. We also police tactics that seem designed to turn the temperature up, not down. Then it’s off to the First Circuit where Anna Goodman tells us about standing and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Be sure to keep your standing from your merits while listening. Also, we close with a little bit about “cleaned up.” RSVP for Short Circuit Live in NYC on 10/26 here! Click here for transcript. Crane v. City of Arlington Laufer v. Acheson Hotels, LLC Novak v. City of Parma cert petition The Onion’s amicus brief in Novak “Cleaning Up Quotations” by Jack Metzler

Enjoy some intra-Ivy League ribbing with two Yale grads talking law and clerkships from deep inside New York’s oldest university. Short Circuit welcomes David Lat of Original Jurisdiction (f/k/a Article III Groupie) and Michael Yaeger of Carlton Fields and Empirical Justice. After some throat clearing about their alma mater being in the news quite a bit lately—and how for that reason maybe it’s a good thing David and Michael already got their clerkships in—we discuss their experiences working on the Ninth and Third Circuits. We then dive into some cases: David outlines a speech-and-licensing decision where IJ filed an amicus brief, Michael guides us through the weeds of a sentencing case applying the First Step Act, and your host lays out a sovereign immunity opinion involving state court staff where (unlike a certain recent case involving Texas courts) the government doesn’t win (plus—for interested listener(s)—there’s even some Younger abstention!). It’s the first half of a New York Short Circuit Live do

What’s new in OT22? Quite a bit, it turns out. This is our sixth annual Short Circuit Live Supreme Court Preview from the University of North Carolina School of Law. Once again, the student Federalist Society chapter graciously asked us to visit and preview the upcoming term of the United States Supreme Court, with some lighthearted trivia, a deep dive into a couple cases already being heard by the Court, and a couple more that it might. As in past years, it’s Justin Pearson of IJ vs. Professor Andrew Hessick of UNC. One note for you listeners is that there’s questions from the crowd at the end (which were great!) but you can’t hear them on the podcast. However, don’t worry as our panelists helpfully repeat them for you. By the way, one of those questions comes from a mystery guest . . . National Pork Producers Council v. Ross Moore v. Harper Kokesch v. Florida Dept. of Health Moses v. United States Book by the Mystery Guest (that you should read!)

If a doctor says a prisoner needs to take his medication, and you’re a prison guard, you should give the prisoner his medication. A number of prison officials in Utah seem to have failed to do this for someone in detox, leading to his death. Does that violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments? Yes, said the Tenth Circuit, and the right is clearly established too, defeating qualified immunity. Tori Clark brings us this sobering case where, at least this time, the drunken logic of qualified immunity didn’t rear its ugly head. Also, we discuss what happens when you don’t pay your taxes and then sue about them. Turns out you can’t do that. You also might have your passport taken away. Which raises the question of whether you have a right to do that thing the passport is for—international travel. We pontificate about a Fifth Circuit case concerning taxes and a passport where there’s also a couple elephants in the room. Click here for transcript. Paugh v. Uintah County Fra

It’s the first Big Sky Short Circuit! Recorded in front of students at the University of Montana School of Law, we examine three cases from the Montana Supreme Court (or heading quickly toward it) from three eminent Montana attorneys. There’s cases on government immunity, racial balance on juries, and voting rights, intersecting with state law and the Montana Constitution. We also explore practicing in Big Sky Country and reforms the state supreme court might want to consider. The podcast was recorded in conjunction with a symposium of the Montana Law Review’s celebration of the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Montana Constitution. Whether you’re interested in Montana itself, or just in state law principles and how state constitutions interact with the rest of our legal system, we hope you’ll enjoy this broad exploration of those topics. Click here for transcript. L.B. v. United States State v. Wellknown Montana Youth Action v. Jacobsen