Short Circuit

Occupational liberty case in Chicago public school, campaign finance expertise, challenging government licensing and campaign finance laws, burdens of campaign finance on small organizations, discussion on panels and judge appointments.

In this episode, Professor Dan Epps discusses the Fourth Amendment and its relation to the general law. They argue that courts should base their decisions on whether government officials have broken the same laws as citizens. They explore the ongoing debate on the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' test and how it should be replaced. The conversation also touches upon property rights, common law, and the conception of law as a spontaneous order.

Ken White, a/k/a Popehat, joins the show to discuss the Fifth Circuit litigation about pressure from the Biden Administration on social media companies. They also delve into a case of judicial immunity and the copyright of 'the law'. Interesting topics include free speech, government influence on social media, and the impact of technical standards on industrial contracting.

Learn about the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic and its interesting cases. Explore the process of selecting and handling cases at the clinic. Examine the reasons why the government agrees to resolve issues in the US Supreme Court. Dive into the cases from the Court's last term and discuss the impact of a new justice. Delve into a potentially explosive case related to the Second Amendment. Explore a Supreme Court ruling on union strike and analysis of other court cases. Discover engaging speeches and police liability.

The podcast discusses the upcoming Supreme Court term with an overview of cases and trivia. They delve into Second and Fourth Amendment cases, a challenge against incomplete immigration hearing notices and a trademark case. The speakers also explore the constitutionality of civil forfeiture, challenges to the practice of chalking tires, and the implications of administrative searches.

Podcast discusses victories for property rights, including a ruling on Detroit's vehicle seizure program and Library of Congress's book-taking program. Legal issues, constitutional violations, and challenges faced by small publishers are explored. Also, appreciation for Chief Judge Shri Vassen's approach to complex property rights case

The podcast explores the nondelegation doctrine and police behavior in two cases from the Sixth Circuit, one involving OSHA's delegation of power and the other concerning unlawful entry and excessive force. The episodes highlight constitutional concerns, the dissenting opinion, qualified immunity, and the application of the Fourth Amendment.

The podcast discusses the unconstitutional mandate by the Nashville City Council to build sidewalks that lead to nowhere. It also covers ERISA preemption and a recent case that could reach the Supreme Court. The role of pharmacy benefit managers and state regulations to protect smaller pharmacies is explored. The legal implications of requiring sidewalks on private property and the distinction between a tax and a taking are analyzed. The episode also delves into property rights, the Nolan Dolan test, and the need for the Supreme Court to reaffirm property rights.

The podcast delves into standing law under Article III of the U.S. Constitution through two cases: challenging the FDA's drug approval process and a school district's gender transition policy. The court's expanded view of cognizable injury in the first case raises eyebrows, while the second case highlights courts excusing themselves on standing grounds. The podcast speculates on the future of standing law, reflecting on original meaning and its implications for civil rights. Additionally, the importance of parental rights, government surveillance, and education are explored within the context of standing in lawsuits.

This podcast explores the application of the Fourth Amendment to digital data searches. It also discusses a search related to the federal ban on felons possessing firearms and the legality of police commands. The episode provides insights into the complexities of these issues and highlights the varying perspectives among judges.