For the fourth year in a row, the Institute for Justice has teamed up with the University of North Carolina Federalist Society Chapter to preview cases for the Supreme Court’s upcoming term. IJ’s Justin Pearson and Erica Smith join with UNC Professor Andy Hessick to share their wisdom on what’s interesting, and what may get even more interesting, in the months to come.
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/shor…uit/id309062019
Spotify: podcasters.spotify.com/podcast/1DFCq…Ehed/overview
Stitcher: www.stitcher.com/podcast/institut…ce/short-circuit
Google: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLnNvdW5kY2xvdWQuY29tL3VzZXJzL3NvdW5kY2xvdWQ6dXNlcnM6ODQ0OTMyNDcvc291bmRzLnJzcw?sa=X&ved;=2ahUKEwjTsdf7z5bsAhXbhXIEHWCfCZwQ9sEGegQIARAM
Newsletter: ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/
Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org
Transcript: https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/short-circuit-149.pdf
Justin Pearson, https://ij.org/staff/justin-pearson/
Erica Smith, https://ij.org/staff/esmith/
Andy Hessick, https://law.unc.edu/people/andrew-hessick/
Brownback v. King, https://ij.org/case/brownback-v-king/

Short Circuit 149 | Supreme Court Preview for Tar Heels

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

Two wild stories this week, one biblical and one of a more secular nature—but still wild. Jeff Redfern of IJ tells of a Texan judicial shootout in a fight between credit card companies and the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. The companies got tired of waiting for the trial court to rule on an emergency motion so they appealed it—but around the same time the trial court transferred the case to a court in Washington, D.C. Was that wrong? Can anything be done about it? Opinions differ. Then Keith Neely of IJ takes us underwater to the Sixth Circuit for perhaps our first case involving baptism. An officer was ready to charge a driver with marijuana possession, but then offers to give her a lesser charge . . . if she lets him baptize her in a lake that night. Which, after she grabs some towels, goes forward. And in the ensuing lawsuit qualified immunity is denied because, well, this is pretty obviously unconstitutional. Right? Also, Keith gives a preview of IJ’s new show Beyond the Brief. Check it out!



Beyond the Brief



In re Fort Worth Chamber



White v. Hamilton County



Mark i:6-8

Short Circuit 319 | Baptism By Venue

An all Seventh Circuit, all Chicago episode. IJ attorney Andrew Ward drops in to tell a tale of online support for terrorists. Or at least FBI agents posing as terrorists. This recent case does not weigh in on, but raises the issue, of whether computer code is speech. Then we turn to the nitty gritty of unions, small employers, pension plans, and legalized cartels. Things are a bit topsy turvy in this area—and often sound pretty unfair. Your host gives a bit of a lay of the land as it’s been expressed by Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit over the years.



IJ conference on the Open Fields Doctrine (May 10)



Cato conference on the right to earn a living (April 18)



U.S. v. Osadzinski



Bulk Transport Corp. v. Teamsters No. 142 Pension Fund



Central States v. Gerber Truck

Short Circuit 318 | Is Coding Speech?

The Short Circuit roadshow comes to UVA in Charlottesville, Virginia, where we finally focus on the Fourth Circuit. Fresh off her Supreme Court argument last week in Gonzales v. Trevino, Anya Bidwell turns back to the federal courts of appeals with some local guests. They are Professors Rachel Bayefsky and Lawrence Solum of UVA and Greg Cui of MacArthur Justice (and UVA). They discuss recent Fourth Circuit cases about cruel and unusual punishment in prison, a non-immune judge on a search, and the rational basis test turned up to 12 (that is, Rule 12(b)(6)) in a land use dispute.



Jones v. Solomon



Gibson v. Goldston



SAS Associates 1 v. Chesapeake



Video from Gibson case



Legal Theory Blog



Bayefsky on Judicial Institutionalism



Bayefsky on Public-Law Litigation



Solum on Legal Personhood for AI

Short Circuit 317 | Live at the University of Virginia!

Is qualified immunity a narrow doctrine focused on protecting the police when they make “split second decisions”? If you listen to its defenders you would get that impression. The reality is far, far different. And IJ now has the stats to back that up. In this special episode, we welcome on IJ’s Bob McNamara and data scientist Jason Tiezzi to discuss a new report Unaccountable: How Qualified Immunity Shields a Wide Range of Government Abuses, Arbitrarily Thwarts Civil Rights, and Fails to Fulfill Its Promises. It presents an analysis of over 7,000 federal appellate decisions over an eleven-year period and tells us a lot about how qualified immunity actually works in practice. We dig into many of its findings, such as that only 27% of appeals where qualified immunity was at issue involved excessive force. And that almost one in five qualified immunity appeals involved First Amendment claims. Listen in to hear the details, including about how this massive study was put together. And click below in the show notes to read the report itself.











Unaccountable



Unaccountable finds qualified immunity hobbles victims of government abuses like these and fails to accomplish the goals supporters claim it’s needed to achieve, strengthening the case for ending the doctrine.




read report

Short Circuit 316 | Unaccountable

A bit of a free speech derby this week, one opinion about free speech itself and another about how to just get to the First Amendment in the first place. We start in Florida with something that’s becoming a theme on the show: The Eleventh Circuit ruling that a law championed by the state’s governor and passed by the state legislature violates the First Amendment. The opinion concerns part of the “Stop WOKE Act” (acronym alert) and how the court pretty easily found that the law regulates speech, doesn't pass scrutiny, and therefore is unconstitutional. But IJ’s Paul Avelar cautions that although the result may have seemed obvious it actually wasn’t that obvious because of some prior inconsistent cases. Then we hop over to California where IJ’s Christian Lansinger tells us of a horse that dare not speak its name. At least if it wants to race. But putting aside the right to give a horse a name that makes fun of someone else (in this case, the name is “Malpractice Meuser”), the Ninth Circuit focused on procedural hurdles (fences?) that stood in the way of the horse’s owner vindicating that right. It’s time to giddy up!



Honeyfund.com v. Florida



Jamgotchian v. Ferraro



Short Circuit episode on horse racing and nondelegation



Locke v. Shore (interior designer speech case)

Short Circuit 149 | Supreme Court Preview for Tar Heels

Download our free app to listen on your phone