IJ’s Anya Bidwell interviews two civil rights lawyers for a wide-ranging conversation about what it’s like to litigate on behalf of people behind bars. She welcomes on Sam Weiss of Rights Behind Bars and Elizabeth Cruikshank of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) to hear stories of qualified immunity, prison conditions, prisoners making their way in the court system without lawyers, and many other topics. To begin with we hear the story of what it was like for Sam, with Elizabeth’s assistance, to start a new nonprofit and then the story of an early success for them, the Supreme Court’s decision in Taylor v. Riojas, which jump-started the “obviousness” exception to grants of qualified immunity. Then each report on a recent success from the federal courts of appeals, Elizabeth’s from the Fourth Circuit and Sam’s from the Third.



Apply to be a summer fellow at IJ here!



Taylor v. Riojas



Frazier v. Prince George’s County



Montanez v. Price

In the early days of the COVID pandemic, a county in Florida thought it was a good idea to keep people off of the beach. Even if they owned it. The beach owners were not able to access their beaches for weeks—although local police could. And did. The owners went to court and now, years later, the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that that was a taking under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. IJ’s An Altik takes us beachcombing. But first, Diana Simpson of IJ walks us through a fascinating concurrence from the Fifth Circuit about certification. That is the practice of lower federal courts asking state supreme courts what ambiguous state law actually “is.” One judge isn’t a fan and explains where the practice came from and why it’s now out of control. We get into the history of “general law” versus local law and what federal courts were originally designed to do.



Stanford v. Brandon Nursing & Rehab. Ctr.



Alford v. Walton County



Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid



Bound By Oath episode discussing Erie

Starting with a few lines from Shakespeare’s As You Like It, we are joined by two gentlemen of the stage, James Joseph, the first Assistant Director for IJ’s clinic at the University of Chicago, and Bob McNamara, IJ’s Deputy Director of Litigation. Both have theater backgrounds and both discuss how the skills you learn in theater play into being a good lawyer. It’s not just gesticulating to the jury, explains James, it’s also understanding how people act, how they respond to subtle clues, and most of all how to tell a story. Then we head off to the Third Circuit for two cases. James reports on a challenge to New Jersey’s restriction of assisted suicide to residents and how the law did when put up against the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Then Bob tells us of a wild story of extortion—or was it?—where federal prosecutors applied the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to someone who tried to help a friend get some ransom cash from a former employer.



Apply to be a summer fellow at IJ here!



Bryman v. Murphy



U.S. v. Eddings



Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach



Recent other episode on CFAA



As You Like It

The U.S. government seized over $600,000 from a business, tried to forfeit the money, never filed criminal charges against anyone, and then three years later said “nevermind!” and dismissed the case and gave the money back. At the same time, the business was trying to find out what was in the original warrant applications for the seizure. Is the case over, or can the business keep working to see what the secret documents say? Dan Alban of IJ gives us the scoop in this case from the Sixth Circuit. Then, IJ’s McCarley Maddock tells us about the latest NCAA antitrust drama. A college football player transferred around to a few different schools and along the way played a year at a junior college. The problem for him was that year counted against his eligibility. But is that rule an antitrust violation? The Third Circuit says that, like with the French Revolution, it’s too early to tell.



California Palms v. U.S.



Elad v. NCAA



Short Circuit on baseball and antitrust

What happens if you sue your employer and your boss’s boss is a federal judge? It’s kind of complicated. Aliza Shatzman of the Legal Accountability Project rejoins us to detail a recent Fourth Circuit case where an employee who worked in a federal public defender's office alleged she was sexually harassed and then sued about it. It’s the first case of its kind and gives a window into how employment complaints work within the Article III branch. Aliza also talks about her ongoing work at the Legal Accountability Project and their clerkship database. Then, IJ’s Katrin Marquez tells us a most unpleasant story about a woman who went through TSA screening. The woman then tried to use the Federal Tort Claims Act but the federal government claimed she couldn’t because TSA officers aren’t “law enforcement.” The Eleventh Circuit said “really?” and has now allowed the case to move forward.



Strickland v. U.S.



Koletas v. U.S.



Legal Accountability Project



The FTCA and the Military

Can a city require you to get a permit if you’re having a few people over to pray? In an Ohio town it was a little unclear. As IJ’s Suranjan Sen explains, an Orthodox Jewish man wanted to have enough people over that he could hold a proper service for the Sabbath. There was no worry about traffic and parking because Orthodox Jews don’t drive on the Sabbath. But that didn’t prevent a neighbor from complaining anyway. Things got confusing at city hall, though, where some officials weren’t even sure the man needed a “house of worship” permit. Even so, he went to federal court, ended up in the Sixth Circuit, and got dismissed because the case as not ripe. Along the way there’s a lot of talk about facial vs. as-applied claims and how land use is weird. Then we go to Tate Cooper of IJ with a couple subjects we’ve specialized in on Short Circuit over the years: drones and free speech. This time they’re together in a bit of a new way. A company provides a service to hunters for drones to help them find their prey after an animal has been shot. Michigan law forbids this. Is that a restriction on “speech” and a First Amendment violation because the drone is sending information to the hunter and the law only applies to the drone if it is “speaking”? The Sixth Circuit says no via some unclear reasoning. A lot of that is because of unclear Supreme Court cases which (perhaps?) might be cleared up a bit sometime soon.



Grand v. University Heights



Yoder v. Bowen (3 judge panel)



Yoder v. Bowen (en banc denial)



Williamson County Planning v. Hamilton Bank



Sorrell v. IMS Health

In a special episode, IJ’s Anya Bidwell interviews Matteo Godi of USC Law about his new article “Section 1983: A Strict Liability Statutory Tort.” Professor Godi provocatively argues that the basis of most modern civil rights litigation—originally part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and today known as “Section 1983”—should be interpreted as a strict liability cause of action. Anya has him discuss how the Supreme Court has erroneously imposed state-of-mind requirements in civil rights litigation in sharp contrast to the original scheme that he contends the Reconstruction Congress designed. Qualified immunity is one, but only one, example stemming from this error. The interview also covers additional recent developments in scholarship about Section 1983 and how Professor Godi’s proposal would work as a practical matter.



Section 1983: A Strict Liability Statutory Tort



Villarreal en banc with Oldham concurrence

We’re joined by Reb Masel, a California lawyer who tries to keep the law fun while educating the public about how it works. She’s apparently pretty good at it as she has a zillion followers across various platforms. She drops in to share her thoughts about a Fifth Circuit case concerning a little bit of moonshine. And years of pretrial detention. Did that detention deny the defendant a speedy trial? The court agrees, but only after further years of litigation. Then IJ’s Bobbi Taylor describes a marijuana and cash heist that goes poorly. How poorly? One defendant didn’t even “obtain” any of the pot or money. So can he be subject to a forfeiture order? The Second Circuit rules in his favor—although he still has plenty of other legal problems.



Berryman v. Huffman



Elias v. Hytmiah



Georgia man in pretrial detention for 10+ years



Reb’s video on The Onion’s amicus brief



The Book They Throw at You



Reb’s TikTok

The balance between free speech, campus order, and fighting antisemitism has been a major flashpoint the last couple of years and it just hit the First Circuit in a lawsuit against the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The case concerns protests and encampments at MIT’s campus in the wake of Hamas’s attack on Israel. The legal questions concern MIT’s responsibilities in light of taking federal funds. Michael Peña of IJ details what the court considered and where it came out. Then, IJ’s Arif Panju bring us to New Orleans for a short vacation. The city tried to restrict short term rentals to only those owned by “natural persons,” not ordinary people who use LLCs or other corporate forms. This was in response to losing the first round of the same case a few years ago under a dormant Commerce Clause challenge. The Fifth Circuit, again, found the city’s efforts unconstitutional in some ways, but most interestingly here it found the natural person/LLC distinction failed the rational basis test. In doing so, it relied on an IJ victory, also in the Fifth Circuit.



Stand With Us Center for Legal Justice v. MIT



Hignell-Stark v. New Orleans



Short Circuit 235 (on earlier Fifth Circuit ruling)



IJ’s amicus brief in the New Braunfels case

If you think you’ve worked in a bad job you might want to first hear the first case we have this week, brought to you by IJ’s Michael Soyfer. It might give you a bit of cheerful perspective. An employee was out with Covid when suddenly her employer needed her password for an urgent task. She shared it with a coworker friend which then got the job done. Months later, though, the two workers left the company and sued for sexual harassment. In return, the employer sued them for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a law passed in 1986 in a simpler computing time. The end result, courtesy of the Third Circuit, is that the women did not commit a crime and their harassment claims could proceed. (If they had committed a crime then so might many of us.) Then Sam Gedge of IJ updates us on his Younger abstention quest. A group of physicians were disciplined for saying things about the Covid vaccine that Washington State officials did not like. So they sued those officials to vindicate their rights. But the Ninth Circuit said their claims could not go forward because, among other reasons, there were ongoing matters in a state agency and also because there were matters that weren’t in a state agency. Confused? Sam will try and unconfuse you.



NRA Group v. Durenleau



Stockton v. Brown



Short Circuit Younger 50th Anniversary episode



Orin Kerr amicus on the CFAA



IJ’s case for psychologist John Rosemond



IJ’s “caveman blogger” case

It’s Short Circuit Live from Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University with a D.C. Circuit special! We review opinions from a court that “many people are saying” is the second-most-important in the land.  With a full state of very special guests: GMU’s own Todd Zywicki, Casey Norman of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, and IJ’s own Bob Belden. Professor Zywicki discusses a pair of recent D.C. Circuit rulings on attempted firings at the FTC and the Federal Reverse that revolve around the fate of Humphrey’s Executor. Then, Casey shares a saga of the reporter’s privilege under the First Amendment and how it can conflict with the Privacy Act. Finally, Bob asks who wants to be a millionaire? (If you do, turns out a good path is narcing on a Wall Street firm for underpayment of taxes while filing the correct IRS form.)



Slaughter v. Trump (D.C. Circuit denial of stay)



Cook v. Trump (D.C. Circuit denial of stay)



Trump v. Slaughter (SCOTUS grant of stay)



Chen v. FBI



In re: Sealed Case



Short Circuit 214 (D.C. Circuit special)

“Religion” and “fact checks” don’t normally go together. But an employer did so when some employees tried to obtain a religious accommodation from a COVID vaccine requirement. Matt Liles of IJ explains that the employer didn’t exactly “fact check” religion itself, but tried to point out that other religious leaders were OK with the vaccine and so should the employees. This all ends up in federal court under Title VII where the Sixth Circuit has to fix some errors in the district court and straighten out how Title VII works. The court also hints that the way to deal with religious accommodations isn’t to use “fact checks.” Then IJ’s Christian Lansinger brings us to the Eight Circuit where 3M—famous for Scotch tape and Post-its—was fighting with the IRS over how much money it owed via its Brazilian subsidiary. The fight revolved around an IRS regulation and how much deference to give the agency in interpreting a Congressional statute. That all changed last year at the Supreme Court with the overturning of the Chevron doctrine. How does the IRS do in this brave new world? Not well, it turns out.



Bilyeu v. UT-Battelle



3M v. Commissioner



Loper Bright Enters. V. Raimondo



IJ’s IRS and tax preparers case

Dropping on First Monday, the Supreme Court’s first day of the October 2025 term, it’s our annual Supreme Court preview, recorded live at the University of North Carolina. Re-joining us after a very long hiatus is Sheldon Gilbert, the original host of the very first preview and very first Short Circuit Live, way back when he was the Director of the Center for Judicial Engagement. That is, back when he was a Younger Sheldon. These days he has the fancy-pants job of CEO and President of the Federalist Society. But he’s returned for old times’ sake and also to follow what seems to be the occupation of his calling—a game show host. Sheldon welcomes Justin Pearson of IJ and Interim Dean Andy Hessick of UNC Law for a bit of SCOTUS trivia and a review of some of the term’s biggest cases. Get ready for substance v. procedure, the Heck bar, civil forfeiture, and unconstitutional conditions. Plus, things you never knew—or never even fathomed you never knew—about Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. This is the way we Leeroy Jenkins at Short Circuit.



Berk v. Choy



Oliver v. City of Brandon



Jouppi v. Alaska



La Anyane v. Georgia



The Ballad of Harry Tompkins



The Very First Short Circuit Live (with Younger Sheldon and Younger Justin)



Leeroy Jenkins!

Two opinions that dig into history, one on voting rights the other on gun rights, and both from the Fourth Circuit. First, Dan Nelson of IJ tells us of a challenge to a North Carolina law that criminalizes voting by felons, even when the voter legitimately thinks they are eligible to vote. The statute was passed back during Reconstruction for racist reasons and hasn’t materially changed since. Does that still matter all these many years later? It turns out it does, and the court ruled it unconstitutional. IJ’s Dylan Moore then tells us a tale of a man who bought a gun in Arizona and brought it to Maryland. Unfortunately, he was under a felony indictment back home. That fact plus traveling with the gun violated federal law. But does that law violate his Second Amendment rights? The court doesn’t think so but it has to do a few historical twists and turns before arriving at that cross-country destination.



N.C. A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Board of Elections



U.S. v. Jackson



Bruen

It’s a Short Circuit Live from YIMBYTown! We travel to the Yes-In-My-Back-Yard conference, held this year in New Haven, Connecticut. Our guests discuss recent cases and controversies related to efforts to build more homes and also, unfortunately, do the opposite. First up is David Schleicher, aka “Professor YIMBY,” of Yale Law School. David updates everyone on a case we’ve talked about before, a lawsuit in Montana to try and throw out the state’s “miracle” housing reforms passed a couple years ago. The case is now before the state supreme court after a rocky initial ride. David focuses on the issue of private covenants and how that might affect reforms elsewhere in the future. Then Andrew Fine of Open New York tells the sad tale of a long battle to build low-income housing on a lot—the “Elizabeth Street Garden”—in the middle of New York City. Led by Hollywood celebrities, the effort to prevent the project for “environmental” reasons dragged on for over a decade. Although that act of NIMBYism ultimately lost at the state’s highest court, continuing attempts to stop the project took so long that the city recently just pulled the plug. We end on a cheerier note, though, with Ari Bargil of IJ. He relates the news of a win in trial court in Georgia for our client’s efforts to build “tiny homes.” Does this presage other victories elsewhere? The panel think that through.



New York Court of Appeals ruling in Elizabeth Street Garden case



MAID v. Montana update



Georgia Tiny Homes case



David’s piece on NIMBY judges

It’s a free speech episode with two rulings for the First Amendment. Paul Sherman of IJ details a victory that the Institute for Justice litigated at the Seventh Circuit. IJ represents a “death doula,” someone who helps people deal with many things that come up when a loved on passes away. Indiana said that she needed a funeral director’s license to do that. But she obtained a preliminary injunction against that law as applied to her, and the court upheld the injunction on appeal. Then IJ’s Joe Gay tells a wild story about “sideshows,” where cars race around intersections late at night and people involved do various other, mostly illegal, things. One California county was fed up with the sideshows and passed a law making it illegal to simply watch them. A citizen journalist challenged the law and the Ninth Circuit ruled that, yes, the sideshows themselves are a problem, but the answer is not to prevent journalists from watching them.



Richwine v. Matuszak



Garcia v. County of Alameda



Upsolve v. James

Your right to remain silent just got a little stronger in the Pine Tree State. We welcome on Carol Garvan of the Maine ACLU to discuss a recent ruling from the state’s highest court. Under police questioning a suspect asked about an attorney being present and whether he had to answer questions, but did so a bit ambiguously. Was that enough to invoke his rights under the Maine Constitution? Carol argued the case as an amicus to explain the high level of protection those rights receive in the state compared to what the U.S. Supreme Court has said about similar language in the U.S. Constitution. And the court agreed with her and her colleagues. She explains to us how the court came to its conclusion and what this means for other Mainers. Then IJ’s Daniel Woislaw tells us of another police encounter, this time at a parked car with heavily tinted windows in the District of Columbia. Could the police force the driver and passengers to roll their windows down? The judges say yes but disagree about why. It’s another example of the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test twisting and turning at the side of the road.



State v. McLain



U.S. v. Williams



IJ’s new Maine Backyard Chickens case

Arbitration may not sound like the most exciting subject, but it recently made for an exciting story at the Second Circuit. Former Miami Dolphins coach Brian Flores sued several teams and the NFL itself. In response, the NFL said the case had to go to arbitration. Which was pretty convenient because the NFL’s arbitration clause gives the job of arbitration to the NFL’s commissioner. It’s kind of like suing your employer and your old boss serving as the judge. Mike Greenberg of IJ drops by to explain why this meant the arbitration clause wasn’t enforceable under federal law. Then Jeff Redfern tells us of a case out in the Ninth Circuit where some attorneys got into hot water. They sued to try and change Arizona voting procedures with some aggressive allegations and rhetoric. But was it so aggressive that they should be sanctioned for filing the complaint? IJ’s Jeff Redfern  explains what the Ninth Circuit said about the matter, both at the panel stage and when the attorneys tried to go en banc. Some dissenting judges said whatever line there is between aggressive and frivolous it wasn’t crossed in this particular case. The team looks at how these issues especially come up in public interest litigation where “today’s crazy theory becomes tomorrow’s settled law.”



Flores v. N.Y. Football Giants



Lake v. Gates (panel)



Lake v. Gates (en banc denial)

Short Circuit traveled to Chicago for a live recording on the eve of the Seventh Circuit’s biannual Judicial Conference. In front of a crowd of Seventh Circuit enthusiasts your host spoke with some experts about some of the court’s recent opinions and how the circuit works. That included Sarah Konsky of the University of Chicago, appellate specialist Chris Keleher, and IJ’s own John Wrench. “Collective” (not class) actions, prisoner appeals and summary judgment, and Fourth Amendment overnight-guests all make an appearance as does the life and times of Judge William Bauer.  



STOP PRESS: On the eve of this episode dropping IJ won one of its pending cases before the Seventh Circuit! Richwine v. Matuszac, concerning Indiana's licensing of death doulas. So IJ's score in the Seventh is now 3-2, not 2-2 as John then-accurately reported.



Richards v. Eli Lilly



Whitaker v. Dempsey



U.S. v. Walker



Oral argument with Judge Bauer & timesheets

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