Prohibitions on excessive fines date back at least as far as Magna Carta in 1215, and the U.S. Constitution has barred excessive fines since 1791. But the Supreme Court has only recently begun to interpret what the Excessive Fines Clause means, and it wasn't until 2019 that the Court said the Clause applies to the states.

On this episode: the story of how the Supreme Court finally began to incorporate the Bill of Rights rights against the states and the history of excessive fines.

Ep 9 - Excessive Fines

Bound by Oath is a podcast series from the Center for Judicial Engagement at the Institute for Justice. It’s where the Constitution’s past catches up with the present. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution requires every judge to be “bound by Oath” to uphold “this Constitution.” But to understand if judges are following that oath, it’s important to ask, “What is in ‘this Constitution’?” Your host John Ross takes a deep dive into the Constitution’s text, history, and characters, and interviews historians, legal scholars, and the real people involved in historic and contemporary cases.

Government

On this episode, we take a break from case law and go way back to the beginning to examine the origins and justifications of private property.   



Click here for episode transcript.



Tyler v. Hennepin County

This is Mine | Season 3, Ep. 6

On this episode we return to the subject of zoning. With the doors to federal courthouses barred shut, advocates for reforming zoning have turned to state courts and state constitutions. Most famously, in 1975, the New Jersey Supreme Court took a look at a zoning ordinance that made it illegal to build low- and moderate-income housing in the township of Mount Laurel and said in no uncertain terms: enough. But the story of the Mount Laurel doctrine, which calls for municipalities to do their fair share to meet the regional demand for affordable housing, is not all milk and honey. Additionally, we take a look at some current efforts in other states to protect property rights under state constitutions.



Click here for Open Fields Conference



Click here for episode transcript.



Mount Laurel I (1975) and Mount Laurel II (1983)



Warth v. Seldin



Belle Terre v. Boraas

The Blessings of Quiet Seclusion | Season 3, Ep. 5

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 notes to read the report itself.



Unaccountable, the IJ report



Bound By Oath episode on qualified immunity

Short Circuit 316 | Unaccountable

In 1926, in the case of Euclid v. Ambler, the Supreme Court upheld zoning, giving elected officials and city planners vast, new, and largely unchecked power to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own private property. On this episode: the story of the lawsuit that changed everything for American property rights plus the personalities who made it happen.



Click here for episode transcript.



Euclid v. Ambler (Supreme Court opinion)



Ambler v. Euclid (district court opinion)



Nectow v. Cambridge

A Pig in a Parlor | Season 3, Ep. 4

On Episode 3, we journey back to a lost world: the world before zoning. And we take a look at a trio of historic property rights cases. In In re Lee Sing, San Francisco officials tried to wipe Chinatown off the map. In Buchanan v. Warley, Louisville, Ky. officials mapped out where in the city residents were allowed to live based on their race. And in Hadacheck v. Sebastian, a Los Angeles city councilman sought to use the police power to protect his real estate investments. 



Click here for transcript.

Ep 9 - Excessive Fines

Download our free app to listen on your phone