Short Circuit

Tragedy and comedy, from the Fifth Circuit and then from the Tenth. First, Patrick Jaicomo of IJ describes how the police in Laredo, Texas mistakenly shot an innocent man. The plaintiff, who was hit in the abdomen but lived, was escaping a house where the real suspect was terrorizing his family. He grabbed the suspect’s gun, ran out of the house, held the weapon above his head and screamed “I’m not the shooter!” However, a cop claimed he didn’t hear the man and shot anyway. Patrick explains the court’s analysis and why it concluded this was not a Fourth Amendment violation—and why he sees a lot wanting in that conclusion. Then comes the comedy. IJ’s Sophia Henderson details how a library in Lawrence, Kansas instituted a policy of no signs inside the building. A patron objected and did so by holding signs—a few signs, some mere pieces of paper but one being a flag. The library repeatedly called the police and the patron make a federal case out of it. The Tenth Circuit concluded that there was no First Amendment violation. Sophia tells us that perhaps that’s the right outcome but she and the others nevertheless have questions. Sophia also provides to our YouTube viewers pictures of the actual signs from the opinion. Finally, for fans of fonts and typesetting there’s a closing discussion on why Times New Roman is terrible.

Martinez v. Hinojosa

Spiehs v. Morgan

We often hear of the right to speak. But what about the right to listen? The Ninth Circuit just reaffirmed that listeners have First Amendment rights too and that, like speakers, they can challenge censorship in court. Justin Pearson of IJ reports on a case he himself is litigating on behalf of both a listener and a speaker against the federal government. The feds ban truthful information about healthy foods via its labeling laws. Justin’s clients either want to learn information about healthy foods or produce healthy foods and communicate information about them to their customers. They are challenging the ban but hit a standing roadblock along the way. Now that the Ninth Circuit said the case can go forward, however, they can finally proceed to the merits. Yet, things were a bit different in the Fifth Circuit for a pair of challenges to short-term rental bans. IJ’s Ari Bargil returns to update us on litigation that’s been running for a long time and he first discussed on this podcast four years ago. Unlike before when the results were mixed, in these recent rulings the court completely ruled for the government, allowing cities, including New Orleans, to regulate short-term rentals in highly restrictive ways, giving short shrift to property rights, property owners, and facts.

Przybocki v. USDA

Marfil v. New Braunfels

Bodin v. New Orleans

Short Circuit 235

Short Circuit 401

Bound By Oath on Penn Central

Article on Penn Central’s drafting

Florida, man. Always fun when we touch base with the latest culture war issues in the Sunshine State. Which usually means we’re talking about the Eleventh Circuit. Which is what IJ’s Keith Neely does concerning the “Stope Woke Act,” the state’s attempt to prohibit the endorsement of certain “woke” views in, as applied in this case, its public universities. The court ruled the law was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination when it comes to higher education. To get there, though, it had to weave its way through a confusing and somewhat contradictory set of cases about government speech, government employee speech, and academic freedom. After that we move to the Fourth Circuit where some Georgetown law students scored a victory for a Jamaican immigrant who tried to appeal an administrative decision but couldn’t because the court’s online docket system wouldn’t work and the clerk at the filing window wouldn’t take his papers. Ben Marsh of IJ, himself a Georgetown grad, details how the court ruled that such behavior isn’t on the due process up-and-up. And for fans of “where are they now,” we end with some updates on cases from Short Circuit’s past.

Burey v. Blanche

Pernell v. Comm. of the Fl. Bd. Ed.

Jouppi v. Alaska

Tim Sandefur joins us to discuss his latest (and tenth!) book “Proclaiming Liberty,” all about the Declaration of Independence, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and a whole lot more that is hard to fit into a subtitle. We discuss the “pre-history” of the Revolution from English constitutionalism and the Glorious Revolution of a century before, the role each man played in creating American constitutionalism, why the Declaration was written the way it was, and why it is “law.” Among many other issues.

Proclaiming Liberty: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the Declaration of Independence

Tyrants and Rogues

Nature’s God

If you like stories of co-workers showing up at your door at night and threatening you and your family then we have the episode for you. This happened to a federal employee in Virginia. Shaken by the experience, he and his family then sued. The thing is, because his co-workers were also federal employees, and the threats seemed to be work related, he had to use the Federal Tort Claims Act. As IJ’s John Korevec explains, that meant he had a lot of roadblocks. And while some of those roadblocks knocked out some of the claims in the lawsuit, according to the D.C. Circuit some of them survived. It’s another piece in the puzzle about how the FTCA does not allow for a lot of justice—but does let some through at times. Then Prashanta Augustine of IJ takes us out to the Tenth Circuit for a ruling on Presidential powers. Recent administrations have gone back and forth on expanding and retracting areas of federal land to be “national monuments” under the Antiquities Act. Can those decisions be challenged in court? The feds claimed sovereign immunity. But the Tenth Circuit, in a case involving the Grand Staircase and Bear’s Ears national monuments, found an exception for “ultra vires” acts. That raised all kinds of tricky (and interesting!) problems involving equitable relief, jurisdiction, and the Presidency. NOTE: After we recorded this episode the Trump Administration once again retracted the size of these monuments, mooting the Tenth Circuit matter as it currently exists but allowing for all kinds of exciting new litigation where the sides are flipped.

He v. Rubio

Garfield County v. Trump

Update on the national monuments since we recorded

An old friend rejoins the show, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020. It’s been trotting around the federal courts of appeals for a few years now, truing to outrun the private nondelegation doctrine. The latest showing was at the Fifth Circuit a few weeks ago. Rebecca Furdek of the Wisconsin Institute of Law and Liberty joins us to survey the field and provide the odds on what may end up being a photo finish at the Supreme Court. Then we shift from horses to zombies with IJ’s Marco Vasquez. He takes us to the Fourth Circuit where the Seventh Amendment’s jury trial right ran up against an old and increasingly disfavored Supreme Court precedent. But not disfavored enough to not control the outcome of the case. Is it “zombie precedent”? And will it remain undead for long? We address these questions before turning to the latest in our #12Months12Circuits series with another old friend of the show, the Seventh Circuit.

Click here for transcript.

The Horsemen v. Black

Sligo Creek Ctr v. DHHS

1st HISA episode

Seventh Circuit Judicial Conference episode

If you like the drama of local politics you’ll love this story, told by IJ’s Christian Lansinger, from the Sixth Circuit. A colorful and controversial elected official was accused of not living in the city she represented, leading to an effort to remove her. In response she did prove she “lived” there—although “barely”—and then separately sued for First Amendment retaliation. Part of her claim related back to some comments she made about going together “like cocaine and waffles” before a Confederate flag. She loses her retaliation lawsuit (quite unsurprisingly) but how the court got there could affect other, more sympathetic, retaliation cases in the future. Plus, Christian updates us on the latest on the plaintiff’s situation. Then An Altik of IJ tells us of another Sixth Circuit ruling, this one involving Ohio’s requirement that kids have permission from their parents to use social media. The three judges on the panel can’t agree on much of anything but in the end the law is upheld. The various opinions discuss standing, overbreadth doctrine, content-based restrictions on speech, and vagueness. Plus the (limited?) evidence about social media and its harms to minors.

Click here for transcript.

Amacher v. Tullahoma

NetChoice v. Yost

Happy America’s 250th! To celebrate, we’re doing things the IJ Way, tying in the events of 1776 to something that emerged a few years later and that we at IJ work with every day today: judicial review. Therefore, although we’re jumping on the bandwagon and doing an “America at 250” episode like everyone else, this one focuses on something most people aren’t talking about for the anniversary—and certainly weren’t discussing in 1776.

But one thing Americans were discussing that year, in addition to how best to fight the British and declare independence, was writing constitutions. That was a new thing at the time, a new way of forming a government. It also lay the seeds for judges declaring laws “unconstitutional,” something that didn’t happen in the Old Country. IJ just held a conference on this subject and as part of that held a mock argument/moot court on a constitutional challenge under Pennsylvania’s constitution from 1776. The question was, is this new thing called “judicial review” actually a thing? Sam Gedge of IJ was part of that “case” and joins us to reflect on what he learned digging into the first principles of judicial review and what Americans in the years just after 1776 may have been thinking as they tried to figure out their new constitutional reality. Then your host shares the outline of a draft article on how American courts have used the shadow of the British parliamentary system when justifying judicial review. They did it a lot for the first century or so of the country’s history but since then not so much. Why is this? And does it have something to do with America becoming “Top Nation” as the sun slowly set on the British Empire? Fans of the ’85 Bears may enjoy an analogy. As might Dan Moreno.

Click here for transcript.

Video of the Mock Argument on Pennsylvania’s 1776 Constitution

Other video from the same conference

Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance

Draft article “Parliament’s American Shadow”

1066 and all that

The Super Bowl Shuffle, aka The British Empire

If someone sues you for money you get to defend yourself in court. Right? Not really if you sign a confession of judgment, a contract where you waive defenses to a later collection action. A county in Iowa had a policy of making prisoners sign confessions of judgment when they were released if they owed money to the jail. That seems like it might have due process problems. Does it? Well, we don’t know yet but the Eighth Circuit recently ruled that the released prisoners have standing to move forward in their case. Michael Soyfer of IJ takes us through this dispute where IJ and a number of other groups filed an amicus brief. Then, McCarley Maddock of IJ reports on a bizarre set of facts in Madison, Wisconsin where a man may—or may not—have fired shots after an argument with his wife. The police then come to his house, with a Bearcat, and begin a standoff where he, it seems, was fast asleep inside. Things go bad for the man after that, resulting in an arrest and later a federal lawsuit. That then fails because of qualified immunity, according to the Seventh Circuit.

Click here for transcript.

Roberts v. Thompson

Jackson v. Madison

Bound By Oath

After an arrest, is the decision on whether a defendant can get out on bond while their prosecution proceeds a “critical stage’? In the Eighth Circuit it’s hard to know because the court threw out a case asking that question due to a lack of standing. IJ’s Jimmy Odell, a former public defender, details this challenge to an Arkansas court’s practice of not appointing public defenders until after the bond decision has been made. It raises highly important Sixth Amendment questions but also illustrates how constitutional issues sometimes are hard to squarely put before a judge. Then your host discusses a recent Fourth Circuit case where the right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment intersected with a West Virginia “public nuisance” lawsuit on the opioid crisis. You wouldn’t expect a lawsuit against a massive pharmaceutical-distribution company to rely on almost a thousand years of history yet the ancient distinction between the common law and equity is at the heart of the matter. Plus, it’s time for the Sixth Circuit in our #12Months12Circuits series.

Farella v. Benton County Dist. Ct.

In re Express Scripts

Bound By Oath podcast

Episode on the Sixth Circuit