Short Circuit

The Constitution separates “the judicial power” from “executive power.” Well, that’s the theory at least. A mixing of these powers led to some massive fines against a family farm. But Robert Fellner of IJ is happy to report that the Third Circuit recently ruled that’s a problem. In a case that IJ itself litigated, the court ruled that Article III of the Constitution guaranteed an independent judge when the federal government took the farm to court. The ruling is an application of a recent Supreme Court case and bodes well for separation of powers in the future. Then IJ’s Ben Field tells a very different story about a Russian woman who tried to arrange for an oligarch’s girlfriend to fly to the U.S. on a private jet in order to give birth. The problem was the U.S. government had sanctioned the oligarch and the woman working for him tried to evade that. Things didn’t work out and she didn’t show up for her court hearings in the U.S. The question the Second Circuit then looked at was is she a “fugitive”? She doesn’t live in the U.S. but she did used to visit the country a lot. The answer depends on a bit of a messy test about “fugitive disentitlement.” Sun Valley Orchards v. U.S. Dept. of Labor U.S. v. Bardakova The Rise and Rise of the Administrative State Episode with Scott Lincicome on tariffs

It’s Sixth Circuit week on Short Circuit with a couple Sixth Circuit lawyers who clerked on the Sixth Circuit and practice law in Michigan. (Which is where? That’s right, in the Sixth Circuit.) David Porter and Sean Dutton spin yarns about some recent Sixth Circuit opinions, including with a bit of an inside look on what the circuit’s judges think about dissenting from not going en banc. First we look at how “homely” a home needs to be to be a home. What even is a “home” for it to receive the protection of the Fourth Amendment, requiring a warrant and probable cause before government agents can search it? David discusses a recent case from the Sixth Circuit that opened the door on that question. Some warrantless inspectors barreled through the woods to then walk around a set of “mini-cabins.” Did that violate the Fourth Amendment, and if it did was it so clearly established that the inspectors can’t get qualified immunity? The court says yes and yes. We review how it got there and what it means going forward. Then Sean details a case about what rights someone has when they’re in prison and might have a path out of there. If the prison requires you to go through a program related to a sentence that the prisoner has already served, for another crime, in order to get parole, does that have due process implications? It comes down to what a “liberty interest” is. Sean also examines the writing style of the opinion, and we hold a colloquy about where legal opinions are well written and where they get a bit too glib. Finally, we have some fun with some sniping in a recent Sixth Circuit denial of en banc where the epic question is asked of when should a judge write—or not write—a dissental. Come to Short Circuit Live in Chicago on August 17! Short Circuit in YIMBYTown! (11am on Sept. 15) Mockeridge v. Harvey McClendon v. Washington Mitchell v. City of Benton Harbor Walden

Did you know the feds can send a subpoena to social media companies to find out stuff about your accounts and also order the same companies not to tell you? Turns out it happens all the time. But the law says that a court has to make an individualized assessment of each request. Some federal agents convinced a district court to just let them do all the paperwork and give a blanket gag order for a bunch of requests. Betsy Sanz of IJ joins us to explain why the DC Circuit said that’s just not good enough, although they avoided the Fourth Amendment issue. Then IJ’s Andrew Ward takes us to a meth deal gone bad and a “crazy high” speed chase. When the police arrest the driver, though, he’s pretty friendly—and probably high on marijuana. And he’s even acquitted of dealing meth—but not of being a drug user who owns a rifle he’s barely used that’s back at home in his closet. Is that a Second Amendment violation? It turns on a lot of history and tradition that kind of doesn’t make a lot of sense. Come to Short Circuit Live in Chicago on August 17! Short Circuit in YIMBYTown! (11am on Sept. 15) U.S. v. Perez In re: Sealed Case Short Circuit 325 Beyond the Brief episode “Cash Me if You Can”

On the heels of the trade deadline, Rob Johnson of IJ reports on some baseball news. But it doesn’t concern the latest in Major League Baseball. Instead, it’s about the business of baseball and how broad is the “business of baseball” exemption from the antitrust laws. There’s a baseball league in Puerto Rico that gave some pretty rough justice to an owner, who then took the league to court. Does the history and tradition of “baseball’s” exemption from antitrust laws apply to this league, or only to the American and National leagues back on the Mainland? Rob brings us the First Circuit’s answer and does so with the objective dispassion of a football fan. Then your host takes us out west for an unsolvable problem involving wild horses crisscrossing public and private lands in Wyoming. Are those horses actually “wild”? Doesn’t really matter to Congress, which mandates pretty impossible things that force the Tenth Circuit to send the government back through the administrative process. Then we close with some hot gossip: There’s no joy in Mudville. Come to Short Circuit Live in Chicago on August 17! Short Circuit in YIMBYTown! (11am on Sept. 15) Cangrejeros de Santurce Baseball Club v. Liga de Beisbol American Wild Horse Campaign v. Raby Flood v. Kuhn Federal Baseball Club v. National League Short Circuit 370 (on Wyoming crisscross property) Casey at the Bat readings at Librovox.org

Steve Lehto of Lehto’s Law rejoins Short Circuit—and for the first time on a YouTube episode—to spread the common sense he delivers daily on his own show. Steve shares a recent opinion from the Kansas Supreme Court about license plate covers. The police and lower courts had interpreted the law to make it a crime if a license plate cover blocked not just the actual license number but the name of the state. This basically turned a huge percentage of car owners into unknowing criminals. And gave the police a lot of discretion. But the court put a stop to that practice by saying it’s simply not how to read the statute. Further, Steve isn’t the only crossover guest on this episode. We also welcome Keith Neely of Beyond the Brief, another IJ podcast. Keith details an opinion from the Fourth Circuit upholding the federal ban on selling handguns to 18, 19, and 20 year olds. Is that OK under the Second Amendment? As with many constitutional issues these days, it depends on how you read the history. Click here for transcript. McCoy v. BATF Kansas v, Beck Bruen Blog post on New Jersey license plate case Lehto’s Law Beyond the Brief Mork Meets the Fonz and Lavern

We look into the gray area between a multi-level-marketing venture, like Amway, and a “pyramid scheme.” Appellate attorney Kyle Singhal joins us to discuss a matter of his from the Sixth Circuit where the court examined whether prosecutors in a mail-fraud case got over their skis by repeatedly calling what the defendants did a pyramid scheme. “Pyramid schemes” are bad, obvs., but they’re not actually a federal crime. So was it OK to use that term when speaking to the jury? Kyle explains what the court said in affirming the convictions. Then, Marie Miller of IJ gives us an update on a case she discussed last year in the Eighth Circuit. A police officer arrested a Missouri man for walking on the wrong side of the road. The court had said his First Amendment retaliation case was no good because there was probable cause for the (uncommonly silly) crime. But then the Supreme Court said give that another try. And the Eighth Circuit did and now has ruled the other way, allowing the case to go forward. Marie explains how the court changed its mind (a change in judges might have helped too). Click here for transcript. Come to Short Circuit Live in Chicago on August 17! US v. Maike Murphy v. Schmitt (2025) Murphy v. Schmitt (2023) Short Circuit 349 (episode on Murphy GVR)

Can the government force you to only exercise a constitutional right once a month? Could it do that with speech? Or practicing religion? How about keeping and bearing arms? IJ’s Will Aronin asks that question when discussing a California law that restricted gun purchases to buying one gun a month. The Ninth Circuit recently found the law violated the Second Amendment. That’s something the Ninth Circuit doesn’t do very often, so we made sure to take a close look at this “unicorn” of a case. Plus, frequent users of Sudafed may enjoy the conversation. Then John Wrench, the Assistant Director of IJ’s Center for Judicial Engagement, explains a recent Sixth Circuit decision about the government taking the blood of babies. The court addressed a couple constitutional challenges to Michigan’s practice of taking blood from babies when they are born, without parental consent, and then hanging onto the blood samples for 100 years. It said this did not violate the Fourth Amendment or the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. But this seemed to contradict what the same court—but different judges—had said earlier in the same case. Can they do that? Apparently.   Click here for transcript. Nguyen v. Bonta Kanuszewski v. Michigan HHS Bruen Rahimi

Is speaking to a yoga class speech? The Ninth Circuit recently proclaimed that the answer to that question is actually “yes.” But before you turn away from this episode because it simply parrots Captain Obvious, please know that it was not so obvious to the district court. Or the city of San Diego, which tried to define the teaching of yoga—but not the teaching of anything else—in public parks as conduct, not speech. Teaching all kinds of other things was fine, but teaching yoga to four or more people could land you in a twisted position. Paul Avelar of IJ gives some erudition on how the Ninth Circuit relied on a case that he litigated a few years ago to bring the First Amendment to the yoga instructors of California. Then IJ’s Marco Vasquez drives us to Arkansas where some hemp producers challenged the state’s ban on most hemp products. The challengers make a lot of hay out of the allowance for “continuously” transporting hemp through the state. Along the way the Eighth Circuit has to deal with a scrivener’s error. And what is one of those again? Click here for transcript. Hubbard v. San Diego Bio Gen v. Sanders IJ’s Brief in Chiles v. Salazar Bartleby, The Scrivener

Who doesn’t love a nice beard? It seems the firefighters in Atlantic City. One of their employees wants to wear a beard because of his religion. He doesn’t actually fight fires as part of his job, but there’s a possibility he’d be told he needs to and therefore he supposedly can’t have a beard because his special air mask wouldn’t fit. Does this violate the First Amendment’s protection of free exercise? Matt Liles of IJ reports on this case from the Third Circuit that digs into how “generally applicable” a law must be to not target someone’s religious practice. Then IJ’s Bob McNamara discusses a scary subject: statutes of limitations. Blowing one is every litigator’s nightmare. But which statute of limitations applies in a given case? For claims brought under Title IX, a federal ban on sex discrimination, that’s unclear. Bob breaks down a Fourth Circuit opinion that had to figure out what South Carolina law applies to Title IX claims in a case where a high schooler sued a school for not stopping sexual harassment. Is it a special state law on suing governmental entities? Or is it the most general state statute of limitations? Bob tells us the answer but also advises that this would all be a lot easier if Congress did its job and provided its own statute of limitations. Click here for transcript. Smith v. Atlantic City E.R. v. Beaufort County School Dist. Employment Division v. Smith Pogonologia

We at the Institute for Justice are increasingly involved with combatting retaliation against free speech. Which is why we were highly interested to hear from Daniel Cragg and his recent win at the Eighth Circuit. Dan is a Minneapolis attorney who regularly sues the government for all kinds of things. This particular case was about a doctor who made a few remarks that weren’t very politically popular at her place of work—a public hospital—at the height of the pandemic and cultural ferment in 2020. She lost her discrimination and retaliation claims at summary judgment but the Eight Circuit sent the retaliation claim back for trial. It also called her other claims “interlocutory.” We discuss the free speech issues at the heart of the matter but in addition your panel perplexes about how the court could think the other claims were interlocutory, considering the appeal was from a final judgment. Then Michael Bindas of IJ discusses a recent Ninth Circuit en banc opinion about a police shooting. The interesting thing to Michael’s eyes is how a concurrence treated a pair of substantive due process claims invoking the case Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which just celebrated its 100th anniversary. The panel dig into what the right recognized in Pierce has to do with a child’s claim for losing a parent, and what Plato’s Republic has to do with it all. Click here for transcript. Gustilo v. Hennepin Healthcare System Estate of Hernandez v. L.A. Pierce v. Society of Sisters Cato’s event on Pierce, including panel with Michael Meyer v. Nebraska at 100 Plato’s Republic (Book V)