Short Circuit

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. Foster (denial of en banc)

Furlow v. Belmar

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 double header this month. As for the second, on October 26th, you’re invited! Click to RSVP below.

RSVP for Short Circuit Live in NYC on 10/26 here!

Click here for transcript.

Tingley v. Ferguson

U.S. v. Chen

Courthouse News Service v. Gilmer

IJ’s Diet Speech Cert Petition

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 . . .

Click here for transcript.

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

Franklin v. U.S.

Register for Short Circuit Live in New York!