Short Circuit

Litigating under seal, flags as gov’t speech, and dangerous cell phones.

Use iTunes? https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019

Epstein redactions: https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/18-2868_16-3945_complete_opn.pdf

Before the government can take away your life, liberty, or property, it must first give you due process: fair and meaningful procedure. On this episode, we trace the history of due process from 1215 to today. And we head to Harris County, Texas, which operates the the third-largest jail in the country, to see why federal courts say its system of money bail violated that ancient guarantee.

Cursing at the police, suspending drivers’ licenses over unpaid court debt, and eight months of warrantless home surveillance.

Use iTunes? https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019

Cursing at the police: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/19/06/173419P.pdf

A Seventh Circuit extravaganza featuring Tacy Flint, Will Baude, and Jim Pfander. The episode was recorded before a live student audience at the University of Chicago Law School at the invitation of UChicago chapter of the Federalist Society.

Use iTunes? https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019

Pretrial detention: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D01-23/C:17-1510:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2282458:S:0

After the Civil War, what many Americans needed most was protection from violence. That’s what the Equal Protection Clause was meant to guarantee, but today the Clause does entirely different work. On this episode: a tour of the history and meaning of the Clause and how African-style hair braiders use it today to protect their right to earn an honest living.

For more resources: https://ij.org/sc_long_podcast/episode-5-tangled-the-equal-protection-clause/

Police theft, forfeiture pleading standards, and fetal tissue transfers.

Use iTunes? https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019

Police theft: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/03/20/17-16756.pdf

In 1873, the Supreme Court said that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects a right to “use the navigable waters of the United States”—and not much else. But in the nearly 150 years since, the Court has never examined what the right to use the navigable waters means in practice. On this episode: a pair of brothers from Stehekin, Washington, try to change that.

Facebooking jurors, an unpopular church, a very bad cop, and a tire-tapping trespass.

Use iTunes? https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019

Facebooking jurors: http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/19a0015p-06.pdf

The Privileges or Immunities Clause was meant to be one of the key liberty-protecting provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Clause says: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” That sounds like a big deal, right? It’s not. The Clause has been virtually read out of the Constitution, and for people trying to vindicate their civil rights in court, it’s been of little practical use. That story—the near redaction of the Clause—begins with the Slaughterhouse Cases, which the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1873.

On Episode Three of Bound By Oath: What rights were the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment seeking to protect through the Privileges or Immunities Clause? And what happened to the Clause?

More resources here: https://ij.org/sc_long_podcast/all-but-redacted-the-privileges-or-immunities-clause/

No Fly List games and no sovereign immunity over Flint’s water crisis or Ferguson’s fines and fees.

Use iTunes? https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019

No Fly List games: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/01/02/14-16161.pdf