Does the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983) still protect individuals from egregious constitutional violations—or has it been gutted by the doctrine of qualified immunity?

In this episode of Rightly Decided, we take a close look at Villareal v. Alaniz, a case the Supreme Court declined to hear, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s sharp dissent from that denial.

Our discussion unpacks qualified immunity from soup to nuts. We then turn to the Fifth Circuit’s application of qualified immunity and to Justice Sotomayor’s broader critique of how the doctrine operates in practice. We examine her argument that qualified immunity increasingly functions as a near-absolute bar to relief, even where constitutional violations are plausibly alleged, and consider what this means for civil rights enforcement, police accountability, and the rule of law.

Along the way, we place Villareal in the Court’s larger qualified immunity jurisprudence, assess whether Sotomayor’s concerns are borne out in lower-court doctrine, and explore the implications of the Court’s continued reluctance to revisit or clarify the defense.

Tune in for a rigorous, grounded conversation at the intersection of constitutional theory, civil procedure, and real-world effects.

The Supreme Court just reminded the government of a basic rule it keeps forgetting: the First Amendment doesn’t disappear just because the speaker has a professional license.

In a massive 8-1 victory for the First Amendment, the Supreme Court just ruled in Chiles v. Salazar that "talk therapy" is protected speech—full stop.

Colorado tried to claim they were just regulating a "medical procedure," but the Court saw right through the smoke. Today, we’re breaking down how Justice Gorsuch and the majority sent a clear message: the state cannot ban a counselor’s viewpoint just because they don't like the message. This isn't just a win for counselors; it’s a firewall for every American professional who refuses to be a mouthpiece for the state.

In this episode, we’re diving into:

🥊 The 8-1 Knockout: Why even the liberal wing couldn't ignore this blatant viewpoint discrimination.

🗣️ Conduct vs. Speech: How the Court dismantled the “professional speech” argument.

🎉 Victory for the First Amendment: Why Chiles v. Salazar is the most important free speech win of the session.

Tune in as we dissect the legal victory that illustrates once and for all: the Constitution means what it says. The government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

Join the litigators for a full-blown First Amendment joyride. We’re bouncing from the marble steps of the Supreme Court to the delightfully chaotic music videos of rap icon Afroman. And yes, there will be lemon pound cake.

We dive into the unanimous SCOTUS ruling in Olivier v. City of Brandon, which revitalizes your right to sue the government even with a prior conviction. Then, we pivot to the $4 million "Afroman" trial, where an Ohio jury protected the sacred American tradition of poking fun at public officials (using their own body cam footage, no less).

What we cover in this episode:

🏛️ The Death of Heck? Why the Supreme Court ruled that a past conviction cannot block citizens from challenging unconstitutional laws in federal court.

⚖️ The "Afroman" Verdict: A jury’s March 18, 2026 ruling that political satire—and yes, meme-worthy music videos—isn’t an “invasion of privacy.”

📜 Satire vs. The State: A look at how these two victories prove that the First Amendment is still alive and well in American jurisprudence – and in our hearts.

Join the litigators of TPPF's Center for the American Future as we dive deep into the roots of law enforcement’s ability to enter a home without a warrant. We break down the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Case v. Montana, which allows police to cross your threshold without a warrant—or even probable cause—during a welfare check. Is this a necessary safety net, or has the Court created a massive loophole for warrantless searches?

We also take a quick detour into Sixth Amendment fallout in Burnett v. United States, the possibility of sentences beyond statutory maximums, and the effects of appellate waivers.

What we cover in this episode:

• The Death of Probable Cause? Why the Court in Case v. Montana decided an "objectively reasonable basis" is enough to breach the home when life is on the line.
• Justice Gorsuch’s Concurrence: Exploring his theory that the Fourth Amendment is rooted in criminal trespass and why he warns that these entries must be tightly tied to common-law property rules, not just “reasonable expectations of privacy.”
• The Trap of the Waiver: A look at Burnett v. United States and how a defendant's plea to extended supervised release can result in a sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum.

What happens when California school policies, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Supreme Court’s mysterious "Shadow Docket" collide? TPPF's Vice President of Policy, Andrew Brown, joins us to unpack the procedural rollercoaster of Mirabelli v. Bonta.

We dig into a California rule that requires teachers to hide a child’s social transition from parents, and why the Supreme Court hit pause on the rule instead of waiting on the Ninth Circuit to weigh in.

What We’re Unpacking:

· Demystifying the "Shadow Docket": What exactly is the emergency docket, and how do courts use it to decide the status quo before a case is even fully argued?

· Conservative Concerns: Discover why the phrase "Substantive Due Process" makes some textualist judges break out in a cold sweat.

· Parental Rights 101: Learn how John Locke, natural law, and the fundamental right to raise your kids predate the government itself.

· Irreparable Harm: Why the state keeping secrets from parents creates a rift and inflicts damage that a court ruling simply can't undo later.

This week, we’re dissecting the 2026 Supreme Court’s obsession with 1798. If you think Calder v. Bull was just a dusty 1L memory about a probate dispute, think again. If Justice Thomas is reading the tea leaves, revisiting ancient history may be the future of the bench.

From the basics of ex post facto to the allegedly modern right to actually speak in your own defense, we’re tracing the line from the Founders to the October 2025 term.

This episode covers two cases:

• Ellingburg v. United States: Can you be fined for something that wasn’t illegal when you did it? Does it matter if it’s just a civil penalty? We discuss why Justice Thomas is basically ghostwriting for Justice Samuel Chase and how maybe, just maybe, natural law is suddenly the most relevant doctrine in a 2026 appellate brief.
• Villarreal v. Texas: What happens when a "fundamental" right is younger than the Justices on the bench? We tackle the 6th Amendment conflict of this year: the right to testify vs. the overnight gag order.

Dust off your copy of the Constitution and settle in. We're serving up heavy Originalism with a side of Natural Rights. Whether you’re a FedSoc regular or a Living Constitutionalist, you can’t afford to miss this jurisdictional vibe shift.

Join the litigators of the Texas Public Policy Foundation for the premiere of Rightly Decided as we dissect why the Supreme Court ruled that the president cannot use the IEEPA to unilaterally impose tariffs. We explore the use of the major questions doctrine and discuss the different approaches each justice on the Court takes—all while acknowledging the Nondelegation Doctrine lurking in the shadows…

Is the president a babysitter with a credit card? Is there a “major questions” exception to the major questions doctrine? How clear does Congress have to be when it delegates its enumerated powers to the president?

What we cover in this episode:
🏛️ The 6–3 SCOTUS ruling: Why the IEEPA doesn't authorize global tariffs
⚖️ The "Major Questions" plurality and the limits of emergency authority
🔮 The future of the major questions doctrine and nondelegation of congressional authority