Short Circuit

Quite a bit to talk about today on Unpublished Opinions, the podcast where Institute for Justice attorneys muse on legal things other than the federal courts of appeals. Diana Simpson and Sam Gedge come on to give their takes on a whole list of topics: Supreme Court leaks, AI-writing briefs and plagiarism, sua sponte judges, footnotes, and not italicizing the “v” in a casename. It’s all there. It’s all Unpublished.

Supreme Court Style Guide

NTY piece relying on leaks

Essay on substantive due process and Dobbs

Short Circuit episode on sua sponte case

Justice Kavanaugh and his footnote

Short Circuit episode where we talk about the monkey

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.  

Click here for transcript.

Parents Defending v. Linn Mar Community School Dist.

Johnson v. Chesapeake Louisiana, LP

Event on Mere Natural Law

Short Circuit episode on Fourth Circuit standing case

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.

Click here for transcript.

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!

Click here for transcript.

National Press Photographers v. McCraw

U.S. v. McCall

Michigan Drone Surveillance case

Short Circuit 167 (1st MI Drones episode)

The Gambler

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.

Click here for transcript.

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

Click here for transcript.

It’s another edition of the podcast where we talk about things other than the federal courts of appeals. Patrick Jaicomo and Sam Gedge clamber in to pick apart the recent trend of calling Attorney Generals and Solicitor Generals “generals.” It’s a pretty new phenomenon, it turns out. But is it wrong? We sort through the pros and cons. There’s also discussion of judicial robes and ex-officials clinging to their titles. Then we move to history. Sure, everyone loves history, and the Supreme Court is into it these days. But do we have too much of it floating around the constitutional law world? Maybe constitutions (and other laws) are supposed to change history, not lock it in place?

Mark Twain’s Does the Race of Man Love a Lord?

Michael Herz: Washington, Patton, Schwartzkopf and . . . Ashcroft?

A pair of qualified-immunity-infused opinions that will light a fire and inspire parenting solidarity. First, IJ’s Tori Clark brings us to the Ninth Circuit where a suspect to an arson exercised his right to remain silent. But it wasn’t that right to remain silent. So does this other one, that the First Amendment protects, actually exist? The court has qualified doubts. Then Katrin Marquez transports us to the Eleventh Circuit where a mom is doing her best by letting her 17-year-old son pick his school and spend time at a park. And then she insults a school resource officer. Who has the mom arrested. Free range parenting rage ensues, plus a denial of qualified immunity.

Click here for transcript.

Moore v. Garnand

Butler v. Smith

Gonzalez v. Trevino case page

Cert petition for JTH v. Spring Cook

It’s our Halloween special! Spooky stories from the federal courts of appeals that will keep you up at night. Erica “Specter” Smith Ewing and Bert “The Ghoul” Gall, both IJ attorneys, tell a couple recent terrifying tales from the Tenth and Seventh Circuits. First, Erica lays out how a small Colorado town repeatedly stymied a property owner with new land use regulations when the owner dared to compete with a business connected to members of the city government. The opinion features ghosts of IJ’s past and the biggest monster of them all, the rational basis test. Then, Bert outlines a lawsuit involving cable companies and cities losing out on cable fees. But the case takes an unexpected—and haunting—twist at oral argument. The worst nightmare of many of a Seventh Circuit practitioner makes an appearance: Judge Easterbrook asking jurisdictional questions outside of what was briefed. Listener discretion (at least for appellate advocates) is advised!

Click here for transcript.

Van Sant & Co. v. Calhan

East St. Louis v. Netflix

Oral argument in Netflix case

Schoolhouse Rock – I’m Just a Bill

Powers v. Harris