The First Amendment protects your right to record the police. Yes, we already knew that, said the Tenth Circuit. Um, you did? Dan Alban presents a case where an officer blatantly tried to stop a vblogger from recording him by threatening to run him over, and where the court did a few interesting gymnastics in order to say what always should have been obvious. Quality immunity hijinks ensue, but with a happy ending. Then Jeff Rowes takes us to prison in the Fifth Circuit. Was a lawsuit there moot? Not this time, but concurring judge Jim Ho explains that courts say the M-word all too often.
Irizarry v. Yehia
Tucker v. Gaddis
Alexa Gervasi & Anya Bidwell oped
Sledge Hammer! intro

Short Circuit 229 | Recording the Police

The Supreme Court decides a few dozen cases every year; federal appellate courts decide thousands. So if you love constitutional law, the circuit courts are where it’s at. Join us as we break down some of the week’s most intriguing appellate decisions with a unique brand of insight, wit, and passion for judicial engagement and the rule of law.  http://ij.org/short-circuit

News

Government

News Commentary

It’s a Short Circuit Live, recorded at the Institute for Justice’s annual law student conference! Patrick Jaicomo is your host, and he brings along IJ’s Michael Bindas and Katrin Marquez to dig into two very different but thought-provoking decisions for the young legal minds in the “studio” audience (and yours too, of course, dear listener). First, Michael reports on a decision from the Eleventh Circuit that on its face is a standard insurance and indemnification case. But, Judge Newsom adds a concurrence that will take your mind to different—and artificial?—places. Should we be asking our new AI Overlords what the meaning of words are? The panel thinks it’s perhaps not insane to look into, as does the judge. Then, Katrin reports on another Eleventh Circuit case with a civil rights violation that was so obvious that the court denied qualified immunity even though there was no on-point precedent. Listener beware, though, as it involves the loss of a dog. It does portend, however, some Hope for the future.
Snell v. United Specialty Ins. Co.
Plowright v. Miami Dade County
Hope v. Pelzer

Short Circuit 328 | A Modest Proposal

Another episode of that podcast that’s not Short Circuit but features Institute for Justice attorneys talking about the law. Anya Bidwell rejoins the panel while she waits for the opinion in her Supreme Court case, Gonzalez v. Trevino. She says a few things about the Court’s recent ruling in NRA v. Vullo, a different First Amendment retaliation case. Multifactor tests are balanced as well. Then, Diana Simpson of IJ gives her thoughts on appeals in the middle of a case, and how often the rules concerning them are bent in favor of the government. The panel touches on ghostwritten briefs and whether there’s anything wrong with the practice. They close by figuring out what is a “spectacle” in the legal arena versus what’s just news.
NRA v. Vullo
Ghostwriters article
Diana’s Texas Mechanic case
In AI we trust

Unpublished Opinions 7 | Ignorant Bliss

If you’re a fan of our furry friends (actual animals, that is) then this is the episode for you. First, we start with what’s important: What horses to pick in this weeks’ Belmont Stakes, the last leg of the Triple Crown, which will run (or ran, if you listen to this episode later on) in two days. IJ’s Brian Morris lends his horse sense to this question. Then he goes back to his Kentucky roots for a case about the first leg of the Triple Crown. A few gamblers would have won a lot of cash if a horse in a past Kentucky Derby had been disqualified on race day. But because the disqualification didn’t happen for nine months they got nothing. The Sixth Circuit said their case wasn’t a winner. Then we head south to the Fifth Circuit for a dog sniff case that isn’t about drugs but human trafficking. IJ’s Mike Greenberg is skeptical of the reasoning. He also lends his opinion to which states are placed in which reporters for their published opinions. It’s time for conference realignment!
Mattera v. Baffert
U.S. v. Martinez
Short Circuit 209 (drug dogs and animal book)
Short Circuit 271 (Brian mentions the Kentucky Derby)
IJ amicus brief on legal marijuana and drug dogs

Short Circuit 327 | Conference Realignment

First of all: PARENTAL ADVISORY! If you have children nearby you might want to save part of this episode for later. It doesn’t happen until just after 32 minutes into the episode, but the naughty language the Seventh Circuit quotes in one of this week’s cases forces IJ’s Sam Gedge to choose between dishonest modesty and, as he puts it, revealing the un-expurgated truth. Like a gentlemen, he goes for the latter while discussing a qualified immunity case about a “kung fu cop” with “multiple blackbelts” who gets a little punchy with a man who had a few too many. After that things just get weird as Sam introduces us to the first case in the American (reported, at least) tradition to use a certain word on George Carlin’s famous list. We close with a conversation about Patrick O’Brian’s and Jane Austin’s editing styles. But before any of that IJ’s Jared McClain tells us how to successfully make a mandamus claim against the Capitol Police. Although it seems you can get close in the D.C. Circuit, the common law gauntlet is a tough one.
Leopold v. Manger
Brumitt v. Smith
Edgar v. McCutchen
Memoirs of the Countess of Cardigan
Quart of Blood Technique

Short Circuit 326 | Modesty of Our Lexicographers

How does history inform our interpretation of the Constitution? In all kinds of ways, it seems, and perhaps in too many of them. We once again look at how history and the Second Amendment are mixing together, in a case from the Eighth Circuit. The opinion lets us do a bit of digging into a less-well-known founding father, Benjamin Rush, and his enthusiastic embrace of putting people behind bars. But before that IJ’s Bobbi Taylor details some of the latest class-action shenanigans in the Seventh Circuit. For the first time we address “mootness fees,” settlements extracted in some disclosure litigation against public corporations. And we consider whether they’re “a racket” as the court suggests.
Alcarez v. Akorn, Inc.
U.S. v. Veasley
Ted Frank episode, SC 154
Szasz, The Manufacture of Madness

Short Circuit 229 | Recording the Police

Download our free app to listen on your phone