Short Circuit

The podcast discusses the legal battle between PredictIt and the CFTC over betting on elections. It explores prediction markets and administrative law, and the misbehavior of the CFTC. The podcast also explores the legal implications of a recent court decision involving international investors and the political situation in Venezuela.

The podcast discusses the constitutional implications of unsolicited text messages, common law causes of action, and Article III of the Constitution. There is also a discussion on the state-created danger doctrine and its potential consideration by the Supreme Court. Some specific cases mentioned are Drazen v. Godaddy.com and Murguia v. Langdon. The hosts express their confusion over the concept of standing in lawsuits and its implications for constitutional work. The podcast also explores the complexity of class actions and settlement agreements. The chapter titled 'Confusion Surrounding Standing and Lawsuits' mentions the skeptical claim of a $35 cash reward and personal experiences claiming rewards. The discussion on the state-created danger exception focuses on government accountability in cases involving child abuse.

This podcast explores a court case involving the arrest of Michelle Santo Pietro for violating a local ordinance, discussing whether her arrest violated the First Amendment. It also delves into an amended opinion and the right to freely associate, the complexities of a legal case, the tactics used by officers to catch street performers without licenses, and the application of career offender enhancement in plea bargains.

Learn about the remarkable women who fought against an unnecessary occupational licensing law for breastfeeding consultants in Georgia. Discover the five-year legal battle they went through, the implications for economic liberty, and the unanimous victory at the Georgia Supreme Court. Explore the licensing situation for lactation care providers and the impact on the profession. Hear about the challenging experience in front of the court and the surprising support they received.

Legal experts discuss recent rulings on constitutional violations by federal officials, including the dismissal of claims against Trump for clearing protesters, limitations of the Bivens Doctrine, and a separate case where a claim against federal narcotics agents could proceed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

A podcast discusses a case where a judge can be sued, the distinction between non-judicial and judicial acts, and the minimal consequences faced by prosecutors and judges. The history of courts in England and the controversial community caretaking doctrine are also explored.

Legal experts Wesley Hottot and Anna Goodman discuss qualified immunity. Hottot shares a positive qualified immunity opinion in the Sixth Circuit, while Goodman talks about an attorney suing government agencies for unlawful phone searches at the border. They examine elevator inspections, prior notice violations, and the impact of qualified immunity on civil rights cases.

Sean Marotta, a 'Founding Father' of #AppellateTwitter, discusses its origins. The podcast delves into a discovery abuse case in the Eleventh Circuit involving the Consumer Finance and Protection Bureau. The Second Amendment and felons' gun rights are explored, highlighting a circuit split. An intriguing dissent in the Eighth Circuit is discussed, with possible connections to biblical apocrypha.

This week, the podcast discusses the concentration of powers and the dependence on legislatures to protect constitutional rights. The hosts delve into recent cases in Iowa and Louisiana that highlight the challenges of safeguarding constitutional rights. They also explore the difficulties of using alternative remedies for constitutional violations and compare the stability of federal courts to state courts. Additionally, they examine the history of implied causes of action for legislative acts and the need for legislative action in ensuring remedies for violations of statutes.

Guests include IJ attorneys Paul Avelar, Arif Panju, and Ari Bargil. Topics cover recent IJ appellate victories, challenges in the environmental court, police abuse and excessive force, criticism of Harris County law enforcement, 'clearly established' in constitutional law, and interlocutory appeals and qualified immunity.