Elizabeth Warren, a sitting senator, is discussed in a Ninth Circuit case involving a letter she wrote about actions against Amazon. The podcast also explores a Fifth Circuit case about a man's abandoned jacket at his mother's house.
The majority opinion in the Ninth Circuit case involving Elizabeth Warren and Amazon raised concerns about the impartiality of the ruling due to the judge's former government lawyer background.
The Fifth Circuit case of United States v. Ramirez established an important precedent for the protection of property rights and the reasonable expectation of privacy.
Deep dives
Dismissive Majority Opinion on First Amendment Coercion
The podcast episode discusses a case from the Ninth Circuit involving Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Senator Elizabeth Warren. In reaction to a book written by fellow COVID conspiracy theorists, Senator Warren sent a letter to Amazon, expressing concerns about the book and its potential unlawfulness. The majority opinion in the Ninth Circuit panel was dismissive of the claim of coercion and denied the First Amendment challenge. However, the judge who wrote the opinion had a former government lawyer background, which raised concerns about the impartiality of the ruling. While the majority's conclusion may have been correct based on the precedent, the dismissive tone and blind spots in the opinion were troubling.
The Stash-it-at-Your-Mom's House Case
The podcast delves into a case from the Fifth Circuit, United States v. Ramirez, involving a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The case revolves around a search and seizure issue. The defendant, Ramirez, tossed his jacket over a fence onto his mother's property during a police stop. The police retrieved the jacket and found a gun inside. The majority opinion concludes that the search of the jacket violated the Fourth Amendment and the evidence of the gun should have been excluded. The majority analyzes the case under both the reasonable expectation of privacy and property rights frameworks, ultimately ruling that Ramirez did not abandon the jacket and therefore had a protected property interest in it. The dissenting judge believed Ramirez had abandoned the jacket, citing the jacket's landing on a trash bin and the accessible location of his mother's property. The outcome sets an important precedent for the protection of property rights and the reasonable expectation of privacy.
If a sitting senator threatened you with censorship, would it matter what jacket she’s wearing? Although not an issue we discuss this week, it’s related to both of our cases. First, Justin Pearson tells us of a Ninth Circuit case considering whether a letter from Senator Elizabeth Warren crossed the constitutional line by discussing actions that could be taken against Amazon for selling a certain book. Then, Christie Hebert brings us to the Fifth Circuit and whether a man abandoned his jacket at his mother’s house. Does it matter that it was on top of the trash can?