Short Circuit

It’s a Short Circuit Live, recorded at the Institute for Justice’s annual law student conference! Patrick Jaicomo is your host, and he brings along IJ’s Michael Bindas and Katrin Marquez to dig into two very different but thought-provoking decisions for the young legal minds in the “studio” audience (and yours too, of course, dear listener). First, Michael reports on a decision from the Eleventh Circuit that on its face is a standard insurance and indemnification case. But, Judge Newsom adds a concurrence that will take your mind to different—and artificial?—places. Should we be asking our new AI Overlords what the meaning of words are? The panel thinks it’s perhaps not insane to look into, as does the judge. Then, Katrin reports on another Eleventh Circuit case with a civil rights violation that was so obvious that the court denied qualified immunity even though there was no on-point precedent. Listener beware, though, as it involves the loss of a dog. It does portend, however, some Hope for the future. Snell v. United Specialty Ins. Co. Plowright v. Miami Dade County Hope v. Pelzer

If you’re a fan of our furry friends (actual animals, that is) then this is the episode for you. First, we start with what’s important: What horses to pick in this weeks’ Belmont Stakes, the last leg of the Triple Crown, which will run (or ran, if you listen to this episode later on) in two days. IJ’s Brian Morris lends his horse sense to this question. Then he goes back to his Kentucky roots for a case about the first leg of the Triple Crown. A few gamblers would have won a lot of cash if a horse in a past Kentucky Derby had been disqualified on race day. But because the disqualification didn’t happen for nine months they got nothing. The Sixth Circuit said their case wasn’t a winner. Then we head south to the Fifth Circuit for a dog sniff case that isn’t about drugs but human trafficking. IJ’s Mike Greenberg is skeptical of the reasoning. He also lends his opinion to which states are placed in which reporters for their published opinions. It’s time for conference realignment! Mattera v. Baffert U.S. v. Martinez Short Circuit 209 (drug dogs and animal book) Short Circuit 271 (Brian mentions the Kentucky Derby) IJ amicus brief on legal marijuana and drug dogs

First of all: PARENTAL ADVISORY! If you have children nearby you might want to save part of this episode for later. It doesn’t happen until just after 32 minutes into the episode, but the naughty language the Seventh Circuit quotes in one of this week’s cases forces IJ’s Sam Gedge to choose between dishonest modesty and, as he puts it, revealing the un-expurgated truth. Like a gentlemen, he goes for the latter while discussing a qualified immunity case about a “kung fu cop” with “multiple blackbelts” who gets a little punchy with a man who had a few too many. After that things just get weird as Sam introduces us to the first case in the American (reported, at least) tradition to use a certain word on George Carlin’s famous list. We close with a conversation about Patrick O’Brian’s and Jane Austen’s editing styles. But before any of that IJ’s Jared McClain tells us how to successfully make a mandamus claim against the Capitol Police. Although it seems you can get close in the D.C. Circuit, the common law gauntlet is a tough one. Leopold v. Manger Brumitt v. Smith Edgar v. McCutchen Memoirs of the Countess of Cardigan Quart of Blood Technique

How does history inform our interpretation of the Constitution? In all kinds of ways, it seems, and perhaps in too many of them. We once again look at how history and the Second Amendment are mixing together, in a case from the Eighth Circuit. The opinion lets us do a bit of digging into a less-well-known founding father, Benjamin Rush, and his enthusiastic embrace of putting people behind bars. But before that IJ’s Bobbi Taylor details some of the latest class-action shenanigans in the Seventh Circuit. For the first time we address “mootness fees,” settlements extracted in some disclosure litigation against public corporations. And we consider whether they’re “a racket” as the court suggests. Alcarez v. Akorn, Inc. U.S. v. Veasley Ted Frank episode, SC 154 Szasz, The Manufacture of Madness

We take a break from the federal courts of appeals and look into a brave new world—or is it an Orwellian one? Our thoughts—our inner mental processes—are the one aspect of our lives that is completely private. Right? Well, emerging technology is making that not so true anymore. IJ’s Anya Bidwell welcomes Professor Nita Farahany of Duke University to Short Circuit to discuss her recent book The Battle for Your Brain: Defending the Right to Think Freely in the Age of Neurotechnology. They talk about how neurotechnology works and how it has many potentially transformative implications, including many good ones. But in the wrong hands—especially the hands of the State—those implications can be quite unsettling. And there are so many gray areas in-between. People in China and other countries are already dealing with some of these implications and the legal and constitutional system in the United States is not yet ready for them if we are to keep the mental privacy we all value. Get ready for a conversation about what is private, what is human, and how liberal values and the Constitution can address the good and the bad of a future that is already here. And how to write a book via the Pomodoro method. The Battle for Your Brain Searching Secrets Incriminating Thoughts Pomodoro Technique

We’re gonna read you the Riot Act. Again. An old friend of Short Circuit returns, the Anti-Riot Act. Perhaps (?) named in homage to its 18th century predecessor, the Congressional statute received a facial test at the Seventh Circuit, and IJ’s Kirby Thomas West tells us how it fared in the face of a guy who requested that everyone bring their family and a brick to a “riot.” He did not do so well in court, but perhaps the Anti-Riot Act has problems anyway? Then we go for a drive down a Houston freeway where Sam Gedge makes a citizen’s arrest of a qualified immunity claim while drinking at a local flea market at 2am. The Fifth Circuit served up a wild ride of a case that is too good to pass up but also holds bigger lessons for how judges perceive “split-second decisions” and premeditated lies. U.S. v. Betts Hughes v. Garcia The Riot Act Short Circuit 146 (4th Cir. Anti-Riot Act case)

Stories we hope our listeners can relate to this week: borrowing cars and lousy neighbors. First, from the Sixth Circuit, IJ’s Rob Frommer details how a man sitting in the passenger seat of a running car somehow lost his Fourth Amendment standing. And went to prison. And then in the Second Circuit your host explores what can be done when your neighbor is an embassy. It’s an all-too-familiar tale of a building project gone awry but with a twist of sovereign immunity.   Click here for transcript. Register for the May 10 open fields conference! U.S. v. Rogers Harvey v. Sierra Leone Neighbors 1980’s opening song Fawlty Towers—The Builders

We can neither confirm nor deny the existence of this podcast. But if we could we’d tell you all about the CIA’s involvement in a prison at Guantanamo Bay. At least that’s what some Freedom of Information Act litigation is trying to figure out in a case at the D.C. Circuit. Michel Paradis, a national security lawyer and expert on much else, joins us to share his impressions of a recent oral argument in this case and the underlying relationship between FOIA and agencies like the CIA. There’s also a story about Howard Hughes and a submarine. Then IJ’s Ben Field takes us to the Fifth Circuit for a challenge to how a Texas prison treats a Muslim inmate. It’s a provisional win for religious liberty which includes an interesting concurrence about the kind of scrutiny courts should apply when it comes to prisoners practicing their religious freedoms while behind bars. Register for the May 10 open fields conference! Click here for transcript. Connell v. CIA Lozano v. Collier Audio Arguendo (Michel’s oral arguments podcast)

We revisit an issue that’s really coming into focus: cameras on poles and how they stand up to the Fourth Amendment. Mike Greenberg of IJ comes by to tell the story of a veteran who received disability benefits when, it seems, he wasn’t exactly disabled. Things get interesting when the feds put a camera on a pole (on a school) and point it at his house 24/7 for months. Is that a search? The Tenth Circuit says it isn’t and uphold his felony conviction. But, as Mike explains, other courts have disagreed. Then your host brings us some zoning plus standing plus the Establishment Clause in the suburbs of New York City. There, some residents don’t like how their village has let their Jewish neighbors open more houses of worship and claim it will “radically transmorgrify” things. Do they have an “injury”? The Second Circuit doesn’t think so. Register for the May 10 open fields conference! US v. Hay Citizens United to Protect Our Neighborhoods v. Chestnut Ridge Episode on 7th Cir pole camera case Episode on 1st Cir pole camera case End of The Usual Suspects (SPOILER ALERT!)

Two wild stories this week, one biblical and one of a more secular nature—but still wild. Jeff Redfern of IJ tells of a Texan judicial shootout in a fight between credit card companies and the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. The companies got tired of waiting for the trial court to rule on an emergency motion so they appealed it—but around the same time the trial court transferred the case to a court in Washington, D.C. Was that wrong? Can anything be done about it? Opinions differ. Then Keith Neely of IJ takes us underwater to the Sixth Circuit for perhaps our first case involving baptism. An officer was ready to charge a driver with marijuana possession, but then offers to give her a lesser charge . . . if she lets him baptize her in a lake that night. Which, after she grabs some towels, goes forward. And in the ensuing lawsuit qualified immunity is denied because, well, this is pretty obviously unconstitutional. Right? Also, Keith gives a preview of IJ’s new show Beyond the Brief. Check it out! Click here for transcript. Beyond the Brief In re Fort Worth Chamber White v. Hamilton County Mark i:6-8