Short Circuit

In our #12Months12Circuits series a nation turns its lonely eyes to the heartland. The true middle of America. The Eighth Circuit. We’re joined by true Eighth Circuit expert Aaron Van Oort, who has argued twenty-five times before that court and been a part of many other appeals. Aaron, who is based in Minneapolis, offers his advice about what makes the circuit stand out and where it’s going. He’s joined in that endeavor by IJ’s Sam Gedge, who clerked on the Eighth. Then, after some fun Eighth Circuit Facts we turn to a couple of the court’s recent rulings. Aaron discusses a recent matter he argued about noncompete contracts and financial advisors. The ruling came down to what “irreparable harm” means. As he explains, it’s important to understand that “irreparable” does not necessarily mean “irrevocable.” He also briefly shifts focus to the Seventh Circuit and shares a bit about how his old boss Judge Posner used to write opinions. Then, Sam brings us back to the Eighth and a free speech lawsuit challenging an Iowa law barring residential contractors from talking to insurance companies. What is “speech,” what is “conduct,” and what scrutiny should a court apply in a case like this are all strictly on the table. Choreo v. Lors Shamrock Hills v. Iowa NIFLA v. Becerra

Tragedy and comedy, from the Fifth Circuit and then from the Tenth. First, Patrick Jaicomo of IJ describes how the police in Loredo, Texas mistakenly shot an innocent man. The plaintiff, who was hit in the abdomen but lived, was escaping a house where the real suspect was terrorizing his family. He grabbed the suspect’s gun, ran out of the house, held the weapon above his head and screamed “I’m not the shooter!” However, a cop claimed he didn’t hear the man and shot anyway. Patrick explains the court’s analysis and why it concluded this was not a Fourth Amendment violation—and why he sees a lot wanting in that conclusion. Then comes the comedy. IJ’s Sophia Henderson details how a library in Lawrence, Kansas instituted a policy of no signs inside the building. A patron objected and did so by holding signs—a few signs, some mere pieces of paper but one being a flag. The library repeatedly called the police and the patron make a federal case out of it. The Tenth Circuit concluded that there was no First Amendment violation. Sophia tells us that perhaps that’s the right outcome but she and the others nevertheless have questions. Sophia also provides to our YouTube viewers pictures of the actual signs from the opinion. Finally, for fans of fonts and typesetting there’s a closing discussion on why Times New Roman is terrible. Martinez v. Hinojosa Spiehs v. Morgan

We often hear of the right to speak. But what about the right to listen? The Ninth Circuit just reaffirmed that listeners have First Amendment rights too and that, like speakers, they can challenge censorship in court. Justin Pearson of IJ reports on a case he himself is litigating on behalf of both a listener and a speaker against the federal government. The feds ban truthful information about healthy foods via its labeling laws. Justin’s clients either want to learn information about healthy foods or produce healthy foods and communicate information about them to their customers. They are challenging the ban but hit a standing roadblock along the way. Now that the Ninth Circuit said the case can go forward, however, they can finally proceed to the merits. Yet, things were a bit different in the Fifth Circuit for a pair of challenges to short-term rental bans. IJ’s Ari Bargil returns to update us on litigation that’s been running for a long time and he first discussed on this podcast four years ago. Unlike before when the results were mixed, in these recent rulings the court completely ruled for the government, allowing cities, including New Orleans, to regulate short-term rentals in highly restrictive ways, giving short shrift to property rights, property owners, and facts. Przybocki v. USDA Marfil v. New Braunfels Bodin v. New Orleans Short Circuit 235 Short Circuit 401 Bound By Oath on Penn Central Article on Penn Central’s drafting

Florida, man. Always fun when we touch base with the latest culture war issues in the Sunshine State. Which usually means we’re talking about the Eleventh Circuit. Which is what IJ’s Keith Neely does concerning the “Stope Woke Act,” the state’s attempt to prohibit the endorsement of certain “woke” views in, as applied in this case, its public universities. The court ruled the law was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination when it comes to higher education. To get there, though, it had to weave its way through a confusing and somewhat contradictory set of cases about government speech, government employee speech, and academic freedom. After that we move to the Fourth Circuit where some Georgetown law students scored a victory for a Jamaican immigrant who tried to appeal an administrative decision but couldn’t because the court’s online docket system wouldn’t work and the clerk at the filing window wouldn’t take his papers. Ben Marsh of IJ, himself a Georgetown grad, details how the court ruled that such behavior isn’t on the due process up-and-up. And for fans of “where are they now,” we end with some updates on cases from Short Circuit’s past. Burey v. Blanche Pernell v. Comm. of the Fl. Bd. Ed. Jouppi v. Alaska

Tim Sandefur joins us to discuss his latest (and tenth!) book “Proclaiming Liberty,” all about the Declaration of Independence, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and a whole lot more that is hard to fit into a subtitle. We discuss the “pre-history” of the Revolution from English constitutionalism and the Glorious Revolution of a century before, the role each man played in creating American constitutionalism, why the Declaration was written the way it was, and why it is “law.” Among many other issues. Proclaiming Liberty: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the Declaration of Independence Tyrants and Rogues Nature’s God

If you like stories of co-workers showing up at your door at night and threatening you and your family then we have the episode for you. This happened to a federal employee in Virginia. Shaken by the experience, he and his family then sued. The thing is, because his co-workers were also federal employees, and the threats seemed to be work related, he had to use the Federal Tort Claims Act. As IJ’s John Korevec explains, that meant he had a lot of roadblocks. And while some of those roadblocks knocked out some of the claims in the lawsuit, according to the D.C. Circuit some of them survived. It’s another piece in the puzzle about how the FTCA does not allow for a lot of justice—but does let some through at times. Then Prashanta Augustine of IJ takes us out to the Tenth Circuit for a ruling on Presidential powers. Recent administrations have gone back and forth on expanding and retracting areas of federal land to be “national monuments” under the Antiquities Act. Can those decisions be challenged in court? The feds claimed sovereign immunity. But the Tenth Circuit, in a case involving the Grand Staircase and Bear’s Ears national monuments, found an exception for “ultra vires” acts. That raised all kinds of tricky (and interesting!) problems involving equitable relief, jurisdiction, and the Presidency. NOTE: After we recorded this episode the Trump Administration once again retracted the size of these monuments, mooting the Tenth Circuit matter as it currently exists but allowing for all kinds of exciting new litigation where the sides are flipped. He v. Rubio Garfield County v. Trump Update on the national monuments since we recorded

An old friend rejoins the show, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020. It’s been trotting around the federal courts of appeals for a few years now, truing to outrun the private nondelegation doctrine. The latest showing was at the Fifth Circuit a few weeks ago. Rebecca Furdek of the Wisconsin Institute of Law and Liberty joins us to survey the field and provide the odds on what may end up being a photo finish at the Supreme Court. Then we shift from horses to zombies with IJ’s Marco Vasquez. He takes us to the Fourth Circuit where the Seventh Amendment’s jury trial right ran up against an old and increasingly disfavored Supreme Court precedent. But not disfavored enough to not control the outcome of the case. Is it “zombie precedent”? And will it remain undead for long? We address these questions before turning to the latest in our #12Months12Circuits series with another old friend of the show, the Seventh Circuit. Click here for transcript. The Horsemen v. Black Sligo Creek Ctr v. DHHS 1st HISA episode Seventh Circuit Judicial Conference episode

If you like the drama of local politics you’ll love this story, told by IJ’s Christian Lansinger, from the Sixth Circuit. A colorful and controversial elected official was accused of not living in the city she represented, leading to an effort to remove her. In response she did prove she “lived” there—although “barely”—and then separately sued for First Amendment retaliation. Part of her claim related back to some comments she made about going together “like cocaine and waffles” before a Confederate flag. She loses her retaliation lawsuit (quite unsurprisingly) but how the court got there could affect other, more sympathetic, retaliation cases in the future. Plus, Christian updates us on the latest on the plaintiff’s situation. Then An Altik of IJ tells us of another Sixth Circuit ruling, this one involving Ohio’s requirement that kids have permission from their parents to use social media. The three judges on the panel can’t agree on much of anything but in the end the law is upheld. The various opinions discuss standing, overbreadth doctrine, content-based restrictions on speech, and vagueness. Plus the (limited?) evidence about social media and its harms to minors. Amacher v. Tullahoma NetChoice v. Yost

Happy America’s 250th! To celebrate, we’re doing things the IJ Way, tying in the events of 1776 to something that emerged a few years later and that we at IJ work with every day today: judicial review. Therefore, although we’re jumping on the bandwagon and doing an “America at 250” episode like everyone else, this one focuses on something most people aren’t talking about for the anniversary—and certainly weren’t discussing in 1776. But one thing Americans were discussing that year, in addition to how best to fight the British and declare independence, was writing constitutions. That was a new thing at the time, a new way of forming a government. It also lay the seeds for judges declaring laws “unconstitutional,” something that didn’t happen in the Old Country. IJ just held a conference on this subject and as part of that held a mock argument/moot court on a constitutional challenge under Pennsylvania’s constitution from 1776. The question was, is this new thing called “judicial review” actually a thing? Sam Gedge of IJ was part of that “case” and joins us to reflect on what he learned digging into the first principles of judicial review and what Americans in the years just after 1776 may have been thinking as they tried to figure out their new constitutional reality. Then your host shares the outline of a draft article on how American courts have used the shadow of the British parliamentary system when justifying judicial review. They did it a lot for the first century or so of the country’s history but since then not so much. Why is this? And does it have something to do with America becoming “Top Nation” as the sun slowly set on the British Empire? Fans of the ’85 Bears may enjoy an analogy. As might Dan Moreno. Video of the Mock Argument on Pennsylvania’s 1776 Constitution Other video from the same conference Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance Draft article “Parliament’s American Shadow” 1066 and all that The Super Bowl Shuffle, aka The British Empire

If someone sues you for money you get to defend yourself in court. Right? Not really if you sign a confession of judgment, a contract where you waive defenses to a later collection action. A county in Iowa had a policy of making prisoners sign confessions of judgment when they were released if they owed money to the jail. That seems like it might have due process problems. Does it? Well, we don’t know yet but the Eighth Circuit recently ruled that the released prisoners have standing to move forward in their case. Michael Soyfer of IJ takes us through this dispute where IJ and a number of other groups filed an amicus brief. Then, McCarley Maddock of IJ reports on a bizarre set of facts in Madison, Wisconsin where a man may—or may not—have fired shots after an argument with his wife. The police then come to his house, with a Bearcat, and begin a standoff where he, it seems, was fast asleep inside. Things go bad for the man after that, resulting in an arrest and later a federal lawsuit. That then fails because of qualified immunity, according to the Seventh Circuit. Click here for transcript. Roberts v. Thompson Jackson v. Madison Bound By Oath

After an arrest, is the decision on whether a defendant can get out on bond while their prosecution proceeds a “critical stage’? In the Eighth Circuit it’s hard to know because the court threw out a case asking that question due to a lack of standing. IJ’s Jimmy Odell, a former public defender, details this challenge to an Arkansas court’s practice of not appointing public defenders until after the bond decision has been made. It raises highly important Sixth Amendment questions but also illustrates how constitutional issues sometimes are hard to squarely put before a judge. Then your host discusses a recent Fourth Circuit case where the right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment intersected with a West Virginia “public nuisance” lawsuit on the opioid crisis. You wouldn’t expect a lawsuit against a massive pharmaceutical-distribution company to rely on almost a thousand years of history yet the ancient distinction between the common law and equity is at the heart of the matter. Plus, it’s time for the Sixth Circuit in our #12Months12Circuits series. Farella v. Benton County Dist. Ct. In re Express Scripts Bound By Oath podcast Episode on the Sixth Circuit

A wild, and tragic, story from the Fifth Circuit with a bit of good (yet confusing) news at the end. IJ’s Diana Simpson tells us of a woman who feared her ex-boyfriend was going to harm her, so she called his probation officer. The officer assured the woman that they’d arrest him but then didn’t bother to do so. That resulted in a brutal assault. Does she have a claim against the federal government under those facts? Turns out she does, which we learn after bobbing and weaving around the various exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Then, Tate Cooper of IJ brings us a sighting of “zombie precedent”—or is it “moth-eaten precedent”?—from the Fourth Circuit where a college student who wanted to study to be a preacher couldn’t get a scholarship. The court looks at three recent big religious liberty cases at the Supreme Court, including two IJ cases, and concludes that despite them an older precedent still controls. Click here for transcript. Morris v. U.S. Hall v. Fleming Bound By Oath episode on the FTCA Locke v. Davey

We welcome back a treasured many-times guest, the first time since he’s left IJ. Brian Morris served in our merry band of libertarian litigators for many years before recently moving to Chicago. He rejoins us to detail a recent Fourth Circuit decision that his now-colleagues litigated about making right a pair of wrongful convictions where two brothers spent almost 20 years behind bars. The case involves hearsay and how the testimony of a long-dead witness can be used in a later civil rights lawsuit. But before all that Brian does what he’s done on Short Circuit many times before: Pick the winners at the racetrack. And that’s not all the drama for one show. IJ’s Anya Bidwell tells us the latest bad news about suing federal officials, where someone who claimed the IRS unconstitutionally audited them was left out in the cold by the D.C. Circuit. Boris Pasternak readers may feel a connection. McPherson v. Patton Ray v. Priver Link for Chicago FTCA conference

In the wild days of June 2020 you may remember how a group of protestors took over a few city blocks in Seattle, and how the police simply abandoned the area for a few weeks. That meant some businesses in that area suffered property damage and a massive loss of revenue. Now, years later, the businesses’ claims for damages were just ruled on at the Ninth Circuit. How did they do? Not well. As IJ’s Robert Fellner explains, there is no duty for the police to protect you from the crimes of others. We explore whether that really describes what happened in the CHOP zone. And before that, Daniel Nelson of IJ details a Fourth Circuit ruling about a Native American tribe’s attempt to recover the remains of two boys who died over a century ago. The boys were forcibly taken from their families and put in a “reeducation” school in Pennsylvania that then led to their deaths. Today, their remains are on U.S. Army property. What responsibility does the federal government have to the tribe to return the remains under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act? The majority says in this case the tribe wins but the larger issue remains quite complicated.   Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska v. US Army 3PAK, LLC v. Seattle DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty.

In our #12Months12Circuits series it’s time to drink an entire Fifth. Now, regular listeners will be very familiar with the Fifth Circuit’s waters and may hesitate from such an undertaking. But true fans of the federal courts of appeals should be pleased, as we take an even closer look than we have before at the ins-and-outs of the federal circuit for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. To help us we welcome on Jessica Underwood, a former Fifth Circuit clerk and now an attorney in Austin, Texas. She reports on a recent Fifth Circuit case on the False Claims Act, explains what the FCA does, and how it accounts for billions of dollars in litigation. In addition to discussing the court’s analysis of what makes for a proper FCA claim, Jessica digs into a concurrence that argues the FCA might be unconstitutional. Then, IJ’s Christie Hebert tells us of another recent Fifth Circuit opinion, this one about a guy who made a living transmitting public data about criminal defendants to potential defense attorneys. That worked well until the court started making some of the information private. Did he have a claim? No, it turns out. But the discussion gets into how the First Amendment might apply—sometimes—to information in the hands of the government. Click here for transcript. Montcrief v. Peripheral Vascular Assocs. Martin v. Burgess IJ’s Private Enforcement case in Colorado Episode with Tom Metzloff on the split of the Fifth

You may remember Roy Moore’s 2017 campaign in Alabama for the U.S. Senate in which a controversy arose as to his behavior at the Gadsden Mall several decades before. And, further, that there were allegations that he was banned from the mall because of his friendliness with teenage girls. Include one who at one point was “Santa’s little helper.” After losing that race, Moore brought a defamation suit against the purveyors of a political ad that mentioned these mall/teenage girl allegations in a certain, perhaps misleading, order. And he won. Except, the Eleventh Circuit has now reviewed the matter and ruled that under the First Amendment’s protective standard for speech concerning public figures, Moore actually lost. Suranjan Sen of IJ details the wacky story and the mysteries of “actual malice” and defamation by implication. Then, IJ’s Prashanta Augustine details an en banc denial in the Fifth Circuit where the judges decided not to take up a challenge to the federal ban on machine guns. Even though the full court dodges the issue some judges indicate they think there would be meritorious Second Amendment challenges to the law in the future. And one even suggests there could be a Commerce Clause challenge as well. Moore v. Cecil U.S. v. Wilson (en banc denial) U.S. v. Wilson (3 judge panel) 2003 Ninth Circuit machine guns opinion

Live from the University of Michigan we bring you the latest in administrative law with some of the top scholars and practitioners in the field. It’s Short Circuit’s first time at the home of the Wolverines and the first time we focus the law of administration—and all the constitutional angles that go along with it. We hear from Professors Nicholas Bagley and Christopher Walker of Michigan Law and from Zachary Larsen, a Michigan attorney who specializes in administrative law. The cases include rulings from the Second, Sixth, and D.C. Circuits over immigration, occupational licensing, and labor relations. Plus, we actually answer the question “what is administrative law, anyway?” Mullin v. Doe Paul v. FAA Brown-Forman v. NLRB Chenery II

John Wrench of IJ details the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that the federal ban on home distilling is unconstitutional. At least as the case was argued, which included the taxing power and the Necessary and Proper Clause, but not the Commerce Clause. Then, IJ’s Joe Gay discusses a Fourth Circuit case where the parents of a West Virginia student who attended a virtual school challenged the program’s vaccine mandate. The case raises interesting religious liberty and rational basis issues. And stay until the end for some “where are they now” updates. But before you listen: MEGA UPDATE! Between the recording of this episode (April 20, 2026) and its release (May 1) the Sixth Circuit dropped its opinion on the same issue as the Fifth Circuit. In contrast to the Fifth, the Sixth concluded Congress’s taxing power does allow it to ban home distilling. (On this episode we speculate about what the Sixth Circuit was going to do. Feel free to laugh at our predictions.) The circuits are split! Or, one might even say, shorted. McNutt v. US DOJ Perry v. Marteney Ream v. US DOJ (6th Cir. ruling)

Short Circuit traveled to the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia where the student Federalist Society chapter graciously hosted us and allowed us to present a live recording before their fellow law students. On the panel we were joined by professors Matthew Wiener and Mitchell Berman and Philadelphia lawyer Michael McGinley. On the podcast we give an overview of the Third Circuit as part of our #12Months12Circuits series and then dig into three recent Third Circuit cases. These include a reverse discrimination matter with an interesting state-law twist, a search of a suspect’s text messages that turns into the question of whether a constitutional rule is merely “prophylactic,” and an AI-assisted brief that divided the court on what sanctions to impose. Massey v. Bergenfield U.S. v. Curry McCarthy v. DEA

Getting a jury is one of the most venerated constitutional rights Americans have. But if you’re before the Securities and Exchange Commission there’s been no veneration. Until now, as a recent Supreme Court case Jarkesy v. SEC has knocked the SEC back on its heels. So you’d think that other people before the SEC would be able to get their jury trials too. Unfortunately, though, to enforce that right you need to properly raise it—at least raise it in a way that’s good enough for the court you happen to be before. Which was not true at the Sixth Circuit, as IJ’s Will Aronin informs us. The court told a defendant that he didn’t argue the SEC was unconstitutionally denying him a jury early enough in the process. This seems weird because at that point Jarkesy hadn’t come out yet. Too bad so sad says the court, although it goes on to also say the defendant nevertheless raised some really good points. Then Andrew Ward of IJ discusses a qualified immunity case about a tragic shooting where a police officer seems to have far too easily used deadly force. The Tenth Circuit says there’s no qualified immunity for the officer on a Fourth Amendment claim even though there’s no case exactly like the one before it. Smith v. SEC Manning v. Tulsa Jarkesy v. SEC

The Institute for Justice is once again taking a close look at civil forfeiture. One of IJ’s leaders in our civil forfeiture work, Dan Alban, joins us to outline our new report Policing for Profit 4. Some listeners may be familiar with previous editions but, as Dan explains, in this one there’s a lot of new information and analysis, especially how civil forfeiture works procedurally and how those procedures fail the Supreme Court’s mandate that they be “timely.” Dan also discusses a recent Sixth Circuit case involving Bitcoin and civil forfeiture and how innocent owners of crypto are sometimes caught up in the forfeiture process. Then Marie Miller of IJ discusses a recent Seventh Circuit case about another government abuse near and dear to our hearts: qualified immunity. Some officers raided a rural Wisconsin property where they tackled a suspect and then “accidentally” (that’s disputed) hit him in the head with the butt of an M16. The court says with the facts being in dispute to a jury the case should go. Policing for Profit 4 U.S. v. 0.40401694 Bitcoin Steinhoff v. Malovrh Culley v. Marshall Indiana parcel forfeiture case BBO episode Pierson to Pearson

When the police ask you for an I.D., when do you have to hand it over? That depends on a lot of facts and a lot of law, including whether a state has a statute allowing an officer to make you hand the I.D. over. Mike Greenberg of IJ reports on a ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court where a cop demanded a man watering flowers tell him who he was. The man said he was “Pastor Jennings” and lived across the street. That wasn’t good enough for the cop and after some escalation Paster Jennings (who really did live across the street) was arrested. After a long march through the Eleventh Circuit the matter was certified to state court on the scope of the underlying statute. Along with that statute come Fourth Amendment issues. And whether the Erie doctrine is hogwash. Then IJ’s Betsy Sanz discusses a recent Sixth Circuit appeal involving a man serially suing his city. His claims, and their frivolity, are one matter but the more interesting part of the story is his lawyers’ use of AI in writing the briefs. The court is not happy with this, nor with the lawyers’ response to its attempt to investigate two dozen fake citations. Register for “The Other Declarations of 1776” conference on April 10! Jennings v. Smith Whiting v. Athens (merits) Whiting v. Athens (AI sanctions) Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court

With a baker’s dozen of circuits it’s hard to pick a favorite. Or is it? We sit down with three lawyers and scholars to ask what their favorite circuit is and why. Ben Field of IJ gives us his choice and we also bring on professors Tom Metzloff of Duke and Dawn Chutkow of Cornell. You’ll hear their impressions on how the courts work, what makes them special, and some behind-the-scenes stories (and even a conspiracy theory). But before all that we have Ben dig into a recent Ninth Circuit case concerning a Seattle ordinance that mandates policies and disclosures for app-based delivery companies. Are those policies “speech” and if so what does the First Amendment have to say about sending them to drivers? Plus, at the very beginning we give a shocking update to our #12Months12Circuits segment on the Fourth Circuit from last week. It seems there’s some trouble in the paradise of western North Carolina—or more properly put, a lack of trouble. At oral argument. And despite the statute that everyone will now be talking about: 28 U.S.C. § 48(a). Uber v. Seattle 28 U.S.C. § 48 Zauderer v. Office of Disc. Counsel

Evan Lisull of IJ tells us of a guy on probation who seems to have been pretty clever with his living arrangements. The police often don’t need a warrant to search the residence of a person on probation. In this case from the Fourth Circuit, the guy owned two properties, one of which he seemed to have lived at and the other of which he allowed his girlfriend to live in. But the girlfriend didn’t just hang out there, she had a lease with him. That lease, it turned out, was key to the court ruling the government should have got a warrant before it searched her apartment and seized thousands of dollars in cash. It’s a rare loss in a civil forfeiture case for the government. Then we go to the Eleventh Circuit where IJ’s John Korevec explains the ins-and-outs of the Federal Tort Claims Act. We explore new wrinkles on how to sue the federal government and the exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions when doing so. Finally, we finish with a review of the Fourth Circuit as part of our #12Months12Circuits series. Register for “The Other Declarations of 1776” conference on April 10! U.S. v. Perez Doe v. U.S. Bound By Oath episode on the FTCA

We welcome on Sam MacRoberts of the Kansas Justice Institute for an inspection of the Fourth Amendment. Sam is the General Counsel and Litigation Director of KJI where he does things like sue the government. So he’s a perfect fit for Short Circuit. Sam tells us of a case he recently litigated about how his state’s inspection laws went to the dogs. Specifically, clients of his who ran a very small dog training business at their home and had to deal with abrupt, last-minute inspections where the state said it did not need to get a warrant. But Sam thought the Fourth Amendment seems to indicate it did. So the case went to the Tenth Circuit, which ruled Sam was right. The opinion digs into a judge-created exception to the warrant requirement concerning “closely regulated” businesses. What’s a “closely regulated business”? Sam tries to help us answer. As does Daniel Woislaw of IJ, who discusses our second case, a recent one from the Sixth Circuit, about what happens when the closely regulated exception is used in a criminal investigation. An employee of a bar in Michigan drank on the job and later was arrested for a DUI. The police investigated the bar itself and tried conducting a search as a part of the criminal investigation under the cover of a regulatory inspection. The court said you can’t use the easy search when you’re actually trying to do the hard one. Both cases and both guests give us a hard look into this frustratingly complicated area of constitutional law. Plus, at the end, we play a little “where are they now” and learn what’s happened to some cases of Short Circuits past. Johnson v. Smith Generis Entertainment v. Donley Kansas Justice Institute

[Note: This episode was down for a couple days but has been reposted. It originally dropped on March 6, 2026.] If you’ve ever wondered if a sniff is a search, IJ’s Rob Frommer has you covered on this week’s episode. Well, he has you covered in explaining how the law is all over the place on the subject. Rob tells the story of a couple who were sleeping in their car in a Mississippi parking lot when a cop saw they had an empty bottle of Fireball whisky in the back. This quickly led to a K-9 dog sniff and a full search of the car which then led to a civil rights lawsuit. After that, Jaba Tsitsuashvili of IJ brings us another Fourth Amendment story, this one involving the ICE detentions and habeas petitions rolling across the country. A federal district judge in West Virginia had enough of the federal government’s unconstitutional tactics and wrote a fiery opinion lambasting ongoing violations of both the Constitution and immigration law. It was in the context of a specific detainee who was pulled over for having a plastic cover on his license plate. Jaba takes us through the opinion and the wider world of contemporary ICE tactics. Register for “The Other Declarations of 1776” conference on April 10! Wogan v. Rose Urquilla-Ramos v. Trump Florida v. Harris

Litigation is a risky business. Borrowing tens of millions of dollars to win a lawsuit is even more risky. And it turns out makes settling a case especially difficult. Patrick Eckler, Chicago attorney and co-host of the Podium and Panel Podcast, rejoins us to detail a wild Seventh Circuit story about an antitrust chicken (and pork and beef) lawsuit that got a bit spicy. Anyone who has tried to settle a case will want to give a listen—and then to do exactly not what happened. Patrick also explains what litigation financing is and why it’s something to handle with extreme caution. Then IJ’s Bert Gall takes us down the aisles of your local Trader Joe’s. A store had an employee it wasn’t happy with. Turns out that she wasn’t happy with them either and went to the National Labor Relations Board. She won a couple rounds of unfair labor practice litigation and then the matter went to the Fifth Circuit. The panel’s majority sided with her by deferring to the NLRB’s legal and factual findings but the dissent had a lot of problems with how that went, including in light of the fall of Chevron deference. Fans of labor law, administrative law, and spicy tortilla chips (but not Two-Buck Chuck) might find joy in this pop down to the shops. Register for “The Other Declarations of 1776” conference on April 10! Carina Ventures v. Pilgrim’s Pride Trader Joe’s v. NLRB Podium and Panel Podcast

In Colorado marijuana is legal under state law. In Kansas it is not. This had led Kansan police officers to stop a lot of cars with out-of-state plates. And after they stop the cars they come up with tactics to prolong the stops to buy time to look for weed. One of these tactics is the “Kansas Two-Step.” A lawsuit, on behalf of innocent people caught up in these stops, challenged the whole scheme, leading to a big-time injunction against the police. But, as IJ’s Jared McClain explains, on appeal the Tenth Circuit thought the injunction was just too big—even though the court recognized there were a lot of constitutional violations. Then we move to the Ninth Circuit where switchblade owners challenged California’s knife restrictions. Nick DeBenedetto tells us how the court upheld the law in a Second Amendment challenge and what Bowie knives (and various other weapons you may not be familiar with) have to do with it. Finally, we bring you the latest in our #12Months12Circuits series with a look at the Second Circuit, the circuit of the Big Apple. Click here for transcript. Shaw v. Smith Knife Rights v. Bonta Rodriguez v. U.S. Nunchucks case Our Second Circuit episode

An all-star conversation among Stanford professors, recorded live before Stanford students, about originalism and how it interacts with recent cases from the federal courts of appeals. Anya Bidwell hosts Jud Campbell, Jonathan Gienapp, and Orin Kerr on topics such as what originalism is, how to think about the Fourth Amendment when making originalist arguments, what levels of generality have to do with how courts are approaching history, what is the state of play after Bruen, and how everything went wrong after Erie. Click here for transcript. NRA v. Bondi (en banc) Texas v. Bondi (panel) U.S. v. Wilson

If you own rights to movies or shows and would prefer them to not end up on YouTube for free this is an episode for you. Dan Knepper of IJ explains how the owner of some classic Mexican films tried to deal with the problem of the films ending up on YouTube. A recent Eleventh Circuit opinion tackled the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and how YouTube tries to deal with the problem of users putting copyrighted material on its site when they don’t have permission. As you might imagine it is a complicated process. If you want YouTube’s help in tracking what goes up on the site then you have to agree not to sue YouTube. Otherwise you can try and track things yourself and retain the right to sue but it turns out that’s quite difficult. Some of this has to do with the “red flag” test. Dan explains how this messy world works and how the court broke with the top legal treatise in the area. Then, IJ’s Sophia Henderson takes us to the beach and, unfortunately, a monopoly. The city of North Myrtle Beach, S.C., gave a monopoly to itself to set up beach equipment for beach patrons. A competitor who was boxed out of the industry sued and instead of making a constitutional case of it argued that the city was violating federal antitrust law. The question then became was the city immune because it is a state actor. In the end, the Fourth Circuit tells us that monopoly wins. Click here for transcript. Athos Overseas v. YouTube Cherry Grove Beach Gear v. North Myrtle Beach

IJ’s John Wrench journeys to New Orleans to chat with some legal scholars on their recent work on all kinds of IJ-adjacent questions, especially as they relate to the American Founding. This includes economic liberty at the Founding, legal interpretation at the Founding, and “history and tradition” and constitutional rights. Between sessions at the Association of American Law Schools conference John reconnoiters with Kenneth Rosen of the University of Alabama and separately with Jonathan Green of Arizona State and Ryan Snyder of the University of Missouri. These conversations will give you a snapshot of cutting edge work about some of the Constitution’s perennial issues. Click here for transcript. Historical Practice at the Founding Some Traditional Questions About “History and Tradition”

Lovers of municipal crime and corruption—and internal affairs departments not doing their jobs—may enjoy the stories this week from Detroit and Baltimore. First, Kirby Thomas West of IJ reports on a Sixth Circuit case where a towing company was a little too good at finding cars to tow after they had been stolen. It turns out the towing company was in contact with a ring of car thieves, who would give it a head’s up after a theft, allowing it to then cash in on towing fees from the city. The company had its license pulled and then sued, claiming a due process violation. And it won! A dollar. Otherwise, the court concluded that the city’s pulling of its license for working with car thieves was incredibly justified. There’s also an internal investigation in the city that found nothing wrong, and which the court was not happy about. Then IJ’s Carl Wu details a Fourth Circuit case that started with a punch up at a bachelorette party that then got really complicated. Fans of HBO’s The Wire will find many familiar facts and practices concerning Baltimore’s finest. A fight at the party leads to an off-duty police officer being disciplined and fired. She then brings a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination and a First Amendment violation. There’s all kinds of bad behavior of other cops that becomes relevant, including failures to fire cops who have done much worse. The court allows the case to go forward despite an internal investigation that pinned the blame on the officer, and which perhaps was not the most thorough. Finally, we begin a series for 2026: #12Months12Circuits. We’re giving a little background on each circuit, once a month, starting with, which else, the First. It’s a “little baby circuit” in New England. Click here for transcript. Nationwide v. Detroit Johnson v. Baltimore IJ’s Detroit forfeiture case

When you pay your bail money it’s a good practice to get a receipt. A woman in Mississippi found that out the hard way when she was arrested on pretty shaky grounds and then told she had to pay up or stay in jail. Her sister paid the $1,300+ the next day and then a long time later was never told to come back to court. She then sued for civil rights violations. But then the government claimed she had been found “guilty” and that money she paid had in fact been payment of the resulting fine. What? Marco Vasquez of IJ details this Fifth Circuit case and why the court didn’t address the merits because it had been prematurely appealed. Then IJ’s Riley Grace Borden updates us on a religious liberty matter in the Ninth Circuit concerning how expansive the First Amendment’s protection of church autonomy is. The doctrine applies to how houses of worship hire their ministers and similar officials but also extends to other church employees. How much? The court is careful to say it goes further but is careful to limit how much it says too. All that plus a “where are they now?” update of past cases we’ve discussed on the podcast that now have met their end with cert denials. That leads to some reflections on a recent denial of a cert petition of IJ’s and why filing cert petitions can be a bit like following your local sports team. Click here for transcript. Jew v. Dobbins Union Gospel Mission v. Brown Cert Petition in McKinnon v. Hernandez The Other Declarations of 1776

What does qualified immunity have to do with Joan of Arc? Released on the anniversary of the start of her trial, this episode examines that question—from “the French perspective”—with two tales of qualified immunity. First, IJ’s Tahmineh Dehbozorgi presents a case from the Sixth Circuit where a police officer punched a mental hospital patient into a wall. The court concludes the punch violated the Constitution—but was it “clearly established”?  The court says no, leaving the victim with no remedy. Ben Marsh of IJ then details an Eighth Circuit case about a protest in Omaha, Nebraska during the tumult of 2020. A SWAT officer fired pepper balls into the crowd which unfortunately hit a member of the public in the eye. Was that an unreasonable seizure? And did it violate the First Amendment? It doesn’t matter, because under qualified immunity both claims fail anyway.   Click here for transcript. Guptill v. Chattanooga Keup v. Sarpy County Henry VI, Part 1 St. Joan by Shaw

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. Click here for transcript. 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. Click here for transcript. 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. Click here for transcript. 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. Click here for transcript. 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. Click here for transcript. 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. Click here for transcript. 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. Click here for transcript. 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.) Click here for transcript. 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. Click here for transcript. 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. Click here for transcript. 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. Click here for transcript. 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. Click here for transcript. 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. Click here for transcript. Richwine v. Matuszak Garcia v. County of Alameda Upsolve v. James