Short Circuit

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 pan

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 gett

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 p

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

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. 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 Circu

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. The Licensing Racket N.C. Board v. FTC ("The Case That Shall Not Be Named") Licensed to Work (3d ed.) Bona

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.

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

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 on

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 Scot

Short Circuit 358 | Motte-and-Bailey Game 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

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 let

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 i

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

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 s

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. 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 befo

Can the U.S. government use civil forfeiture in a U.S. court to take property in another country? One of IJ’s directors of our National Initiative to End Forfeiture Abuse, Dan Alban, reports on a rare forfeiture loss for the federal government when it tried to forfeit money in a bank account in the principality of Liechtenstein. The Ninth Circuit thought that was a bridge too far, although the various judges disagreed with each other on why. Then IJ’s Matt Liles updates us on the latest on Second Amendment challenges to the District of Columbia’s gun laws. If your jam is gunpowder storage, nineteenth century trap guns, Bowie knives on the frontier, and diagrams of centuries-old guns that belong in Terminator movies, we’ve got you covered. U.S. v. Nasri Hanson v. D.C. End Forfeiture The Parent’s Assistant

Did you know that you can be arrested for walking on the wrong side of the road? Neither did a Missouri police officer. Until he needed an excuse to put someone in handcuffs. Marie Miller of IJ details her recent victory at the Supreme Court—in a relatively terse, 20-word opinion—on behalf of her road-walking client after he lost at the Eighth Circuit, and how the First-Amendment-retaliation victory depended on an IJ case from last term, Gonzalez v. Trevino. Then IJ’s Anya Bidwell—who had something to do with that last-term victory—outlines a trilogy of recent opinions in the Eleventh Circuit where former federal officials have tried to remove their state criminal prosecutions to federal court. It may well be that one of the cases—involving former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows—has been taken by the Supreme Court by the time you listen. Also, in the podcast Anya says she’ll make a handy chart to help all of you navigate through the story. Well, afterward she actually did! Click on the link below to s