Avsnitt
-
Bad news for our AI listeners this week. The D.C. Circuit ruled that you cannot be the “author” of a copyrighted work. Only humans get that perk. Dan Knepper of IJ comes by to explain this latest victory in humanity’s war against the machines. Dan also lays out how the court actually kind of dodged some of the trickier issues when it comes to artificial intelligence and copyright law, but notes that those may be coming soon. IJ’s Dan Nelson (no relation) then steps up and takes us on a trek to Wyoming where some hunters engaged in “corner crossing” to get to public land, which an adjoining private landowner did not appreciate. The owner sued the hunters for nine million big ones because they briefly were in private airspace while jumping between parcels. Was that jumping OK? You’ll learn why the Tenth Circuit said it was, and also hear some history about why the West was turned into a checkerboard.
Daniel Nelson and Patrick Jaicomo’s Section 1983 article
Thaler v. Perlmutter
Iron Bar Holdings v. Cape
John Connor's speech -
Most weeks we summarize two, sometimes three, cases from the federal courts of appeals. This week we provide to you free of charge (as always) one, single, case. But, hang on, it has four opinions! It’s also 169 pages, which is way way more than our guests usually read for all an episode’s cases put together. We did, however, so you don't have to. The matter is about a Florida public school that didn’t abide by the wishes of a child’s parents when it comes to what pronouns to use for the child. Much more broadly, though, it’s about the ins-and-outs of how the due process clauses of the Constitution substantively protect rights. And how rights are protected is different not only based on whether the right is “fundamental” or not, but also whether the government is acting legislatively or executively. Our team goes through each opinion, details where the three Eleventh Circuit judges disagreed with each other, evaluates the litigation tactics, and points out where the judges—and the Supreme Court precedent they’re relying on—go astray.
Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County
Sacramento v. Lewis
Judge Newsom’s article on incorporation
The One and Only Substantive Due Process Clause -
Saknas det avsnitt?
-
Is stretching out one’s middle finger at the police protected by the First Amendment? And whether it is or not, can the police trump up charges and assault someone who flips that bird? We dig into those deep constitutional issues with Jaba Tsitsuashvili of IJ when he discusses an Eighth Circuit case about a man stopped in Des Moines, Iowa. The police claim it was because he drove dangerously. The courts bought that—until the man got a hold of the video. It showed that the police may not have been entirely accurate, which led to his acquittal and the current civil rights lawsuit. Then we move to the Sixth Circuit and hear from IJ’s Robert Fellner about another retaliation case, this time involving Wayne County, Michigan. A man had his pension cut off in response to him criticizing the county’s policies. But he seems to have not actually qualified for the pension at that time anyway. What’s that mean for retaliation and the First Amendment? The court upheld a jury award for the man and he won on appeal. Our panel discuss how the issue can get complicated.
Fugenschuh v. Minnehan
Seals v. Wayne County
Whren v. U.S. -
Often in old constitutional cases you see judges of yonder years invoking this mysterious substance called “the police power.” It’s something that has fallen out of a lot of our constitutional conversations, and unfortunately when it’s remembered today it’s often taken to mean “the government can do whatever it wants.” We take an episode to try and set things straight. Joining us is Professor Daniel B. Rodriguez of Northwestern, who has written a book to explain what the police power is, where it comes from, and why it—for better or for worse—allows our state and local governments to do a good many things, but not all things. The book is Good Governing: The Police Power in the American States. Dan points out that the police power, the states’ power to regulate for public health, safety, welfare (and perhaps morals), was traditionally not thought of as simply letting the government do whatever it wants minus constitutional rights. Instead, what the government did could exceed the police power without even getting to the question of rights. Over the years the police power has expanded in ways many of us can reasonably disagree about, Dan taking a more expansive view than many fans of IJ might. But whatever one’s thoughts on where the edges are, Dan persuasively argues we need to reassess where the police power has gone and where it’s going. On the podcast we particularly focus on zoning and occupational licensing as a couple areas needing rethinking, and cover much other ground. It you’ve ever wondered what’s the difference is between the police power and due process or where the states get their authority to regulate in the first place this is the wide-ranging episode—and book—for you.
Good Governing (free download!)
Good Governing (physical copy for purchase)
Dan’s NYU Journal of Law & Liberty article -
What’s the difference between a campaign contribution and a bribe? More than the Sixth Circuit seemed to think. Or so argues Paul Sherman of IJ about a recent appeal of a bribery prosecution of a Cincinnati city councilmember. The councilmember was speaking to a developer and asking for a contribution. Unknown to him, the developer was working with the FBI and wearing a wire. They had some conversations about contributions and approving projects that were very confusing and also raised important First Amendment concerns. The court split 2-1 on whether his conviction was OK with three interesting opinions. Then we move on from bribery to iPhone use. By cops. Who use an iPhone to look into a car’s window. Was that a search? IJ’s Bobbi Taylor discusses a Second Circuit case that said it was not and neither was the touching of the car a seizure. It’s an interesting Fourth Amendment case where the court applies a famous case of Justice Scalia’s about searches and modern technology. The “reasonable expectation of privacy” test comes up as does the complete mess that the Fourth Amendment finds itself in these days.
Click here for transcript.
U.S. v. Sittenfeld
U.S. v. Poller
Kyllo v. U.S.
Herculaneum scrolls
Plunkitt of Tammany Hall -
A long-time friend of the Institute for Justice, Robert Thomas, joins us this week. For years he’s litigated property rights cases across the country, lately for the Pacific Legal Foundation, and also blogged his adventures—and a whole bunch of other property rights news—at inversecondemnation.com. With some years since his last visit to Short Circuit, he comes back to discuss a recent North Carolina case where the legislature revived some claims after a statute of limitations had lapsed. Was that the taking of a “vested right”? The court is unanimous in saying it wasn’t, but how the two opinions got there in different ways is the most interesting part. Then, IJ’s Justin Pearson brings us to the fields—and feed lots—of Minnesota for a retaliation case where a farmer petitioned the state legislature. That leads into a discussion of “old property” versus “new property” and how we should think about their protections. Plus, law students interested in SCOTUS previews being held at their school should reach out to Justin. Those looking for a little “where are they now” can skip to the end. And fans of Thomas Hardy can enjoy the opening.
Register for the Tavern Debate on March 28, 2025 in Westlake Village, California!
RSVP for our 10th Anniversary Party and Show on April 3d in DC!
Click here for transcript.
Wagner v. Scheirer
McKinney v. Goins
inversecondemnation.com
Bound By Oath episode on Pennsylvania Coal
SC episode on the British Constitution
Tess of the d'Urbervilles -
Everyone agrees we need to build more homes. But what if those homes are going to be in your backyard? For some reason that possibility often leads to discoveries of endangered species. Ben Field of IJ joins us to report on an environmental case from the Fourth Circuit where the dispute came down to whether new homes would hurt a species of bat. The problem is no one had seen a bat. So are they really endangered? And what does this have to do with the famous snail darter “species” from a 1970s Supreme Court Case? Ben explains all. Then your host lays out how a case is “removed” from state to federal court and “remanded” back again. This issue came up in some opioid crisis litigation, also from the Fourth Circuit. Follow along as all the mysteries of the federalist system are revealed.
Click here for transcript.
S.C. Coastal Conservation League v. Corps of Engineers
City of Martinsville v. Express Scripts
TVA v. Hill
Adam’s Legal Newsletter post on the snail darter
Short Circuit episode on Mark Meadows case
Short Circuit episode on PBMs
Dracula
Corleone, Sicily -
You probably know that all-too-many jobs require a license to work. But how is that license administered, who enforces its rules, and who makes the decision on whether to take the license away? Almost always it’s a board composed of people with the same license. Rebecca Haw Allensworth joins us to discuss her new book The Licensing Racket: How We Decide Who Is Allowed to Work, and Why It Goes Wrong. Unlike other studies on licensing it digs deep into how licensing boards operate, what their incentives are, and how they are hard on outsiders who haven’t hurt anyone but all-too-easy on insiders who are truly bad actors. She tells stories of what makes boards act this way, how it relates to antitrust law, and what has and could be done to reform how we regulate professions. Also, did you know Tennessee used to have a “beauty pageant operator license”? Listen in to hear that story and much more.
Click here for transcript.
The Licensing Racket
N.C. Board v. FTC ("The Case That Shall Not Be Named")
Licensed to Work (3d ed.)
Bona Law -
Two cases, from the Fourth and Sixth Circuits, came out within just a few days of each other, and each was about a city tearing a house down. And whether that was OK. They came to different conclusions, partly because one seemed to have been litigated a bit better, but also for other reasons we discuss. First, IJ’s Christian Lansinger describes a Virginia property that wasn’t in great shape, but also where the officials didn’t act quite right before they tore it down for being a nuisance. Unfortunately, the owner sued too late for the court to address most of his claims. In Kentucky, on the other hand, the owner sued in time after being told he couldn’t appeal to the city’s property review board because although it’s mentioned in the city code, city officials told him it didn’t exist. The court was not impressed by this and allowed the case to move forward. Joe Gay of IJ brings this matter to our attention, along with an interesting concurrence about how our property rights have suffered from a slow boil.
RSVP for our 10th Anniversary Party and Show on April 3d in DC!
Listen to Bound By Oath!
Click here for transcript.
D.A. Realestate Investment v. City of Norfolk
McIntosh v. City of Madisonville
Robert Thomas’ blog post
IJ’s Brody case
The Wrong House by A.A. Milne -
We welcome back Easha Anand of Stanford Law’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic for her third (or is it fourth?) appearance. Last time she was on she had not yet argued at the Supreme Court, but now she’s done it four times. She tells us if it gets easier (not so far) and then gives a report on a recent Third Circuit case where the court got qualified immunity all wrong. In ruling on a malicious prosecution claim the court helped the pernicious doctrine of QI grow from just being about rights to about causes of action. Then IJ’s Anya Bidwell takes us up to the First Circuit for a civil forfeiture matter concerning 30,000 drug prosecutions that were thrown out and whether the federal courts can help those wrongfully convicted get their property back (“no” is the answer). Also, at the end (after some discussion of biker gangs) there’s some joking about how the Supreme Court has relisted two IJ cases. What your host and guests didn’t know at the time, though, is that the Court would grant cert in one of them just an hour afterward! It’s Martin v. United States, and we’re sure you’ll hear more about it in future podcasts.
Click here for transcript.
RSVP for our 10th Anniversary Party and Show on April 3d in DC!
Rivera-Guadalupe v. City of Harrisburg
Cotto v. Campbell
Williams v. Aguirre
O’Connor v. Eubanks
How to Fix a Drug Scandal
Policing for Profit grade for Massachusetts
DOJ report on Springfield, Mass
IJ page on Martin v. U.S.
Tea-Cup Reading & Fortune-Telling By Tea Leaves -
If you have a greenhouse, and a government agent sees it on Google Maps, is that fact probable cause to charge you with growing illegal cannabis, fine you $10,000 a day, and not give you a hearing for years? Humboldt County, California thought it was and threatened ruinous fines against innocent property owners for years in an abusive enforcement scheme. IJ represents innocent property owners in the county who had to take their case to the Ninth Circuit to move forward with their constitutional claims. The lead attorney, Jared McClain, joins us to detail the lawsuit and what the court said about the Excessive Fines Clause plus several other parts of the Constitution. Then, Andrew Ward of IJ takes us to the Fourth Circuit for a challenge to racial preference policies of the Small Business Administration. The case didn’t get to the merits because the court thought the plaintiff wouldn’t be eligible for benefits even without any racial preferences. In light of that there’s some discussion of how best to plead one’s case.
Come to our 10th anniversary show and party in DC on April 3d!
Click here for transcript.
Thomas v. Humboldt (excessive fines)
Thomas v. Humboldt (other claims)
Hierholzer v. Guzman
United States v. Bajakajian -
A lot going on this week, including a lot of Short Circuit news. On the law side we talk about two recent opinions, one from the Fourth Circuit and one from the Sixth. Jeff Rowes of IJ explains the latest on abstention—Pullman abstention in this instance—where federal courts don’t do their job because state law is complicated. The Fourth Circuit said it wasn’t complicated enough, though, and allowed a religious liberties lawsuit to go forward. Then, IJ’s Brian Morris explains the latest news on net neutrality rules and why the FCC doesn’t get to decide them anymore. The Sixth Circuit won the lottery—literally—on where challenges to the latest rules would go. And once the challenges got there the panel of judges were not very impressed. There’s some discussion of the new post-Chevron world of Loper Bright, plus some discussion of how the internet worked in 1996, when Congress last spoke on this issue. Finally, we close with a reprise of a show we did a year ago about the Scottish poet Robert Burns! A real Scotswoman joins us to recite Burns’s “A Man’s a Man for A’ That.”
But the biggest news this week is our 10th Anniversary! Join us to celebrate ten years of Short Circuit on Thursday, April 3, 2025 in Washington, D.C. The show (and party) will feature a slew of folks from IJ plus retired judges Diane Wood (Seventh Circuit) and Kent Jordan (Third Circuit), Adam Liptak of the New York Times, Professor Eugene Volokh, Dean of #AppellateTwitter Raffi Melkonian, and our old friend Clark Neily, now at the Cato Institute. We have a lot of seats, but they may go fast. Register here today!
W.V. Parents for Religious Freedom v. Waldron
In re: MCP No. 185
Railroad Comm. v. Pullman
Loper Bright Enter. v. Raimondo
Short Circuit 308: Burns Night
A Man’s a Man for A’ That -
Can state officers simply come on your land and take samples of your dirt (and water) without a warrant? Well, it’s hard to know when the court abstains from telling you. That’s what happened in the Sixth Circuit where a property owner went to federal court to stop an investigation but couldn’t because there was already a state court proceeding. Regular listeners will recognize an old familiar: Younger abstention. Mike Greenberg of IJ joins us to explain this convoluted story and how a case he litigated at the Michigan Supreme Court about drones plays a part in it. Then IJ’s Nick DeBenedetto discusses an en banc Fifth Circuit opinion about the SEC. The agency has to approve certain rules in private stock markets, but are there limits on what those rules can be about? Turns out hot-button diversity issues are a little too far afield. The Major Questions Doctrine makes an appearance, although in a new and perhaps unjustified way. And what does this whole system mean when private entities are beholden to the government approving their own rules?
Click here for transcript.
Satkowiak v. McClain
Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment v. SEC (en banc)
Bound By Oath episode with Professor Bob Williams
Trading Places stock market speech -
City council meetings are usually sparsely attended, low key, unwatched affairs. Except when they’re not. This week we have two cases where those in power were so offended by what members of the public had to say at a meeting that they were later arrested, in violation of their right to free speech under the First Amendment. Or that’s what the plaintiffs claim, anyway. First, Katrin Marquez of IJ tells us of a meeting in Texas of a “court” that wasn’t exactly a court but really a county board. However, that didn’t stop the “judge” who led the meeting from trying to find an audience member in contempt. Sovereign, judicial, and qualified immunities all raise their heads in the subsequent Fifth Circuit lawsuit, as does the First Amendment retaliation claim. Then, IJ’s Michael Peña brings us to the Sixth Circuit where a local citizen called for the termination of a city manager and later found himself under arrest. Was there a connection between the two? The court seems to think so, or at least enough that it lets the case move forward. Plus, with the close of 2024 we begin with a few words of remembrance of William “Chip” Mellor, IJ’s co-founder and longtime President who we lost recently.
Register for the Tavern Debate on January 24, 2025 in Westlake Village, California!
IJ’s statement on Chip Mellor passing away
Diaz v. Cantu
Blackwell v. Nocerini
Bound By Oath on Monroe v. Pape
IJ’s Iowa city council retaliation case
IJ’s Alabama city council “no” vote retaliation case
IJ’s Texas citizen journalist case -
Seasons greetings from Short Circuit! While you’re enjoying your holiday week at the end of 2024 we’re giving you the content you need: Christmas sweaters. Don’t worry, there’s still plenty of legal stuff, but we start things off by delving into the mystery of where the Christmas sweater phenomenon came from. (Your host suspects it has something to do with Bridget Jones’s Diary the movie—but not, interestingly, the book.) If you’re on a non-YouTube platform, to give the episode full justice you might want to check out how the episode actually looks by peaking over at Short Circuit’s YouTube channel where you can see the panel’s fashion choices. As to the law, Bert Gall of IJ tell us of a Fourth Circuit case where some plaintiffs are trying to assert their voting rights by invoking Congress’s act readmitting Virginia to the Union after the Civil War. But that’s just in the background at this point as for now the court is just trying to figure out whether sovereign immunity prohibits the lawsuit. It turns out it does not. Then IJ’s Dan Knepper takes us into a mic-dropping DC Circuit case where the court declared void a slew of environmental regulations despite no party asking it to. Can judges do that? Reactions are mixed.
King v. Youngkin
Marin Audubon Society v. FAA
The untold story of Mr. Darcy’s sweater
Sweater scene from Bridget Jones's (movie)
Sweater description from Bridge Jones's (book) -
IJ’s Anya Bidwell guest hosts this special episode to ask what states and local governments can do to better protect their citizens’ rights, particularly when it comes to achieving justice in the courts. Professor Joanna Schwartz of UCLA and Kasia Symborski Wolfkot of the Brennan Center join Anya to dig into how a variety of laws and practices outside of Washington, D.C affect our rights. They discuss state legislative reform of causes of action and qualified immunity, the changing nature of state supreme courts, the limited involvement the Department of Justice has with local police departments, and other subjects. Plus, there’s information on how citizens themselves can make a difference, including the often-forgotten opportunity to serve on a jury.
Civil Rights Ecosystems
Lessons From New Mexico
New Mexico Law Review Symposium
State Court Report -
We start with a case that ticks a lot of Short Circuit boxes: eliminating governmental immunities, state constitutions, preliminary injunctions, conniving public officials, mootness, and en banc news. So what happened there? Nothing. At least for now. Beyond the Brief’s (and IJ’s) Keith Neely details a long journey a group is having to take to get a state constitutional amendment on Ohio’s ballot. Ohio’s Attorney General has had a lot of problems with their paperwork. So many problems that, as Keith explains, “at some point you run out of stupid.” The case concerns the First Amendment but at bottom it’s about bureaucratic bad faith. Then we hear from IJ’s Josh Fox about a Second Circuit opinion with a default judgment and a prisoner. Unusually, it’s not a default judgment against a prisoner but one a prisoner won against a prison guard. This story from Fishkill, New York deals with what happens when a plaintiff loses their claim against some defendants but wins the same claim against another defendant through default. Is that OK? The district court thought it was and awarded the prisoner $50,000. But things weren’t so great on appeal. This leads to your host describing himself as a default judgment lawyer. Also, Josh answers the perennial question: What’s up with the Court of Federal Claims?
Brown v. Yost
Moore v. Booth
Beyond the Brief’s YouTube channel
Unpublished Opinions, Episode 9
Vogons -
Notable—and quotable—Chicago lawyer Patrick Eckler joins us for a crash-course in Seventh Circuit paranoia (if you’re paranoid about jurisdictional questions at oral argument—which you really should be). A co-host of the Podium and Panel Podcast, Patrick gives a primer on how federal appellate judges look at things The Chicago Way and then explains how a recent oral argument went off the rails quite quickly. The resulting opinion about the Federal Arbitration Act and how it relates to Amtrak was pretty short, mostly because the lawyers seem to have forgotten they work for a railroad. Then Christie Hebert of IJ takes us on an up-and-down ride in the Eighth Circuit with a takings case (and a bit of Contract Clause thrown in) that despite its hopeful beginnings on appeal two years ago ends in a meaningless one-page opinion. Along the way she shares what she learned at the Supreme Court earlier this year in IJ’s property rights case, DeVillier. And, for those who can’t find such content anywhere else, there’s a spirited defense of Rule 12(c) motions.
Montoya v. Amtrak
Oral argument in Montoya
Heights Apartments v. Walz (2022)
Heights Apartments v. Walz (D. Ct. 2023)
Heights Apartments v. Walz (2024)
Podium and Panel Podcast (Apple)
Patrick on LinkedIn
The Railway Children
Latest episode of Unpublished Opinions -
We go online for some First Amendment content this week. First, IJ’s Jeff Redfern explains how the Eleventh Circuit concluded that CNN might be liable for defamation after one of its commentators said Project Veritas had been suspended from Twitter for “misinformation” when it had, in fact, very truthfully doxxed someone. That seems to pass the high bar of “actual malice” under the First Amendment’s free speech protections. Then Tahmineh Dehbozorgi of IJ brings us up to the Third Circuit where Section 230 immunity runs into a TikTok algorithm. Breaking with other circuits, the court says TikTok loses this one because the algorithm makes the content first-party speech, not third-party. It’s a ruling that could mean this issue is finally going up to the Supreme Court. What’s a “publisher” under the First Amendment vs. Section 230 vs. whatever? People are confused, the courts especially.
Click here for transcript.
Project Veritas v. CNN
Anderson v. TikTok
Techdirt article
Still William, Chapter II -
A couple friends drop by this week who have overstayed their welcome: Rooker and Feldman. Together they make up the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a weed that has grown to crowd out justiciable federal claims in the federal courts. But the good news is that they aren’t the only friends on this week. We also have Wisconsin appellate attorney Joseph Diedrich who shares the story of his massive Seventh Circuit case which went en banc and Rooker-Feldman and now might go to the Supreme Court. Joe details the ins and outs of how a doctrine that is supposed to simply prevent appeals from state court to the lower federal courts has become a catch-all to get rid of deserving cases, including his case where his client is suing child welfare agents for violating her custody rights. Joe also shares some knowledge about how state courts work in Wisconsin, including a rule about dicta that it shares with the Ninth Circuit. Then IJ’s Arif Panju relocates us to the Fifth Circuit where the press was excluded from bail hearings before Texas state magistrate judges. This violates the First Amendment, it turns out. You’ll also learn a bit about where to find the best brisket.
Click here for transcript.
Gilbank v. Wood County Dept of Human Services (en banc)
Texas Tribune v. Caldwell County
Short Circuit episode on Sixth Circuit case
Gilbank Cert Petition
Stats on Wisconsin Supreme Court cases - Visa fler
