John Wrench of IJ takes the reins and the show quickly descends into law review comedy hour with footnotes of puns dominating the discourse. If you have to drop a footnote, perhaps you shouldn’t make the pun in the first place? The panel then moves on to hear from Anya Bidell and . . . Justice Scalia? Yes! We play some of Nino’s greatest hits, or at least from the reading of his concurrence in NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014). Sam Gedge seems unmoved by the moving words about separation of powers and recess appointments but he is revved up about sua sponte decision making and whether it’s OK to quote from dead justices’ papers in briefs and oral arguments. (Probably not, it seems is the consensus.) Also, you’ll learn why you should care about Francesco Crispi.

A “License to Kale”

“Wake” case

Opinion readings in NLRB v. Noel Canning

Oral argument in Huffman v. Pursue (1974)

Francesco Crispi biography

Angela Merkel autobiography

A French Village

Dune: Prophesy

First Monday in October board game

Unpublished Opinions 9 | We Should Get a Cape

It’s time for our panel to wig out. For some. Others are not exactly excited about judges (or advocates) wearing wigs. Before that, though, your chatty gaggle of IJ attorneys—namely, Patrick Jaicomo (not Jacobin), Josh Windham, and Anthony Sanders—weigh the benefits of social media in promoting public interest law. This includes Josh disclosing the amazing fact that he was banned from a service for impersonating himself. Later on the panel parses specialized courts and interest group capture of them. Plus reading and watching recommendations and how actors mature.

Cato report on prosecutors becoming judges

Bad Monkey

I’m Afraid You’ve Got Dragons

Jane Austen set

Jeeves & Wooster (YouTube)

Wizards of Baking

It’s our first “breakout” episode where we have our own feed and webpage—plus our own logo. And that means its time to get into the legal weeds. Sam Gedge, John Wrench, and Anthony Sanders of the Institute for Justice muse about citation proprieties, pleading proprieties, causes of action, special masters at SCOTUS, riparian rights in space, dropping judges’ names, and withholding from that last Aubrey-Maturin book so you don’t commit a circumnavigation.

Van Staphorts v. Maryland

TransUnion v. Ramirez

Short Circuit episode with Ed Walters

The Terror

The English and Their History

African Founders

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

It’s been a while but we’re back with an episode of Unpublished Opinions. Herein IJ attorneys Anya Bidwell, Patrick Jaicomo, and your host talk about . . . Anya’s recent Supreme Court oral argument, how SCOTUS is surprisingly a friendlier place to argue than many other courts, the recent FTC rule about non-competes, why we still have a “Lawyers’ Edition” for SCOTUS cases, how perhaps lawyers can learn from magazine covers . . . and more!

Judge Posner liquidated damages case

Rob Johnson’s Tweet on FTC’s & non-competes

Anya’s SCOTUS argument

No Fly List case

It’s the latest episode of Unpublished Opinions, a Short Circuit podcast (but not actually Short Circuit). This is the podcast where Institute for Justice attorneys talk about the legal world beyond the federal courts of appeals. Diana Simpson and Josh Windham drop in to dialogue and diatribe about quite a few subjects you may—or may not—have your own opinions about. These include legal fictions, stare decisis, the vintage of the incorporation doctrine, and the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Acheson Hotels v. Laufer (that’s the Americans with Disabilities Act case about mootness and standing–or should it be standing and mootness?).

Acheson Hotels v. Laufer

Richard Dietz, Factories of Generic Constitutionalism

Mazzone & Tecimer, Interconstitutionalism

General Law and the Fourteenth Amendment

Quite a bit to talk about today on Unpublished Opinions, the podcast where Institute for Justice attorneys muse on legal things other than the federal courts of appeals. Diana Simpson and Sam Gedge come on to give their takes on a whole list of topics: Supreme Court leaks, AI-writing briefs and plagiarism, sua sponte judges, footnotes, and not italicizing the “v” in a casename. It’s all there. It’s all Unpublished.

Supreme Court Style Guide

NTY piece relying on leaks

Essay on substantive due process and Dobbs

Short Circuit episode on sua sponte case

Justice Kavanaugh and his footnote

Short Circuit episode where we talk about the monkey

It’s another edition of the podcast where we talk about things other than the federal courts of appeals. Patrick Jaicomo and Sam Gedge clamber in to pick apart the recent trend of calling Attorney Generals and Solicitor Generals “generals.” It’s a pretty new phenomenon, it turns out. But is it wrong? We sort through the pros and cons. There’s also discussion of judicial robes and ex-officials clinging to their titles. Then we move to history. Sure, everyone loves history, and the Supreme Court is into it these days. But do we have too much of it floating around the constitutional law world? Maybe constitutions (and other laws) are supposed to change history, not lock it in place?

Mark Twain’s Does the Race of Man Love a Lord?

Michael Herz: Washington, Patton, Schwartzkopf and . . . Ashcroft?

It’s the second episode of Unpublished Opinions, a Short Circuit podcast. This time we’re once again joined by Institute for Justice attorney Anya Bidwell, but also welcome along her colleague Josh Windham. We start things rolling and see where their legal minds go. And that begins with cameras in the courtroom, something that divides the panel quite sharply. Would the Supreme Court change if cameras were introduced? Would it change for the better? Then we shift to judges and their busy schedules. What’s up with judges not reading briefs before an argument? Is it really all that bad? How prepared must a judge be to be a “prepared judge”? After this we move along to legal writing and judges writing to be too “hip.” Josh has some thoughts on this, which the rest of the panel are . . . somewhat skeptical of. But we end on a compromise everyone can, hopefully, agree on.

Short Circuit episode on “cool judges” with Raffi Melkonian

Article on Judicial Opinions by Nina Varsava

Welcome to Short Circuit’s new podcast! In this free ranging side of the Center for Justice Engagement we welcome two Institute for Justice attorneys, Anya Bidwell and Patrick Jaicomo, to discuss what’s on their legal minds. Although we won’t be doing this every podcast, given its name we can’t help but begin by ranting about unpublished opinions. Why are they “unpublished” again? And perhaps that made sense at one point but in the age of the Internet, is that really true anymore? The gang chew the fat on this topic but also how it relates to qualified immunity and the relatively new dispute over whether “precedent” is the same thing as “clearly established.” Then we muse on the new Supreme Court, under the old adage that whenever the Court’s membership changes there’s a whole new “court.” There’s a focus on the dynamics of oral argument and how there’s a lot more talking at 1 First Street these days. We also throw a football down the field for Justice Byron White.

Case where Judge Oldman talks about precedent

Draft en banc article