Unpublished Opinions

Lots of hot takes on the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, and even as varied a subject as the Supreme Court. With sub-categories: whether the words “privileges or immunities” in Section 1983 mean anything at all, Harvard Forwards and Conservative Warrens, and class actions. Plus, what we’re reading and why ChatGPT is very sorry for the wrongs it has inflicted upon cite checkers.

Medina v. Planned Parenthood S.A.

Section 1983: A Strict Liability Tort

AI sanctions opinion

The Gun, the Ship, and the Pen

Chernow’s Mark Twain

The Tainted Cup

The Female Quixote

A new edition of everyone’s favorite legal grimoire has dropped, and John Wrench convenes Sam Gedge and Diana Simpson to ask the hard questions: Is the Bluebook a sacred scroll, or an eldritch horror that feeds on the souls of each new generation of lawyers? The party ponders the secrets revealed by a Bluebook insider, including the mysterious process behind some controversial changes in the newest edition. See, e.g., Bluebook at Rule B5.3 (discussing new “citation modified” parenthetical) (cleaned up). From there, they turn from one arcane text to another: Dictionaries are often treated as skeleton keys for unlocking original meaning, but it turns out they require careful handling lest they be misread or misused. The journey wraps with reflections on how—with the recent Skrmetti decision as a case study—public interest litigation often demands hard judgment calls about whether to press forward or hold back, how to weigh principle against timing, and what “victory” looks like.

Jack Metzler, Cleaning up Quotations

M. Burke Craighead, The Bluebook: An Insider’s Perspective

Scalia & Garner, A Note on the Use of Dictionaries

New York times piece on Skrmetti

Jennifer Mascott, The Dictionary as a Specialized Corpus

Done with oral argument at SCOTUS in Martin v. United States, Patrick Jaicomo and Anya Bidwell rejoin the rotation to yell at clouds and, along with this month’s host, give their unpublished opinions about what it’s like to argue before the Supreme Court, the presumption of regularity, universal injunctions, the moment of threat doctrine, appointed amici arguing cases, too-long briefs, and much else!

Case page in Martin v. US

Oral argument in Martin

Oral argument in universal injunctions case

Barns v. Felix

Medical Marijuana v. Horn

Easha Anand on Short Circuit about Horn

Red Rooms

The Gatekeepers

Patrick’s and Dan’s article

Jane Austen’s Bookshelf

Missing Molly

Spring hath finally shaken off the winter of Arlington’s discontent, and host John Wrench gathers IJ barristers Sam Gedge and Josh Windham for a scene that proves that all the law’s a stage. The trio ponders why powerful constitutional lines often go unspoken while villainous doctrines persist for decades. Next, they debate whether strategically timed law review articles are really amici in academic costume (“The play’s the thing/Wherein I’ll catch a citation”), and Sam wields his editorial dagger against footnotes that skulk in the wings of legal briefs. The conversation turns to oral argument preparation—from Josh being mistaken for an actor rehearsing lines, to circular outlines, to generative AI—and closes with a meditation on whether the ideal dissenting opinion is performance art, a righteous aria, or a whispered cue for future casts. 

Timbs v. Indiana
Orin Kerr’s post on strategically timed scholarship
Josh’s argument in PA Open Fields
Judge Wilkinson’s opinion in the Abrego Garcia case
Douglas Murray’s Democracies and Death Cults
Sarah Maas’s A Court of Thorns and Roses
Netflix’s Il Gattopardo (The Leopard)
Vladimir Nabokov’s Pale Fire

A flurry of ideas about the state of the law, the universe, and, well, everything. Including, at least, the impeachment of judges, how lawyers educate each other through media, corpus linguistics and AI, removals and remands in our Brave New World of Royal Canin USA v. Wullschledger, and a good walk spoiled.

Royal Canin USA v. Wullschledger

Laurent Sacharoff, The Broken Fourth Amendment Oath

The Princess Bride

Luke Milligan, Open Fields and Right to be Secure

Joshua Windham, The Open Fields Doctrine is Wrong

Stephanie Barclay, Constitutional Rights as Protected Reasons

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (BBC)

John Wrench of IJ returns as your host for some courthouse conversations with his colleagues Diana Simpson and Josh Windham. They spill out their opinions on what can be weird about state court legal practice, the pros and cons of stare decisis, what you should know about public interest law before you try and practice it, and why maybe you shouldn’t eat as many Oreos.

Cuddihy’s The Fourth Amendment

Twin Peaks

Siebert’s The Underground Railroad

Bad Monkey

Harvard Note on Legislative History

Diana’s 9th Cir. brief

Good Energy

Valhalore: Wayfinder

In our first episode of 2025 we “livecast” a Supreme Court opinion whose release happened to cross into our pre-scheduled recording slot—the ruling in the TikTok case. Our comments’ relevance and timeliness may vary. The crew starts off, though, with a dive into the courts and court technology. Issues such as electronic filing, how the public accesses documents, and how we all access opinions. We also review the recent oral argument at the Supreme Court on the Texas age-verification law and what’s up these days on free speech and tiers of scrutiny. Finally, there’s recommendations on what to watch and read, both legal and non-legal.

TikTok opinion

Jimerson v. Lewis case page

Oral argument in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton

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