Beyond the Brief

Though Susette Kelo’s fight to save her home from her city’s efforts to take it for a private developer ended in 2005, the fight against eminent domain abuse has continued. In today’s show, we revisit that landmark decision and talk about the aftermath and where the biggest eminent domain battles are happening now, from pretextual takings to “common carrier” seizures. We also discuss Eychaner v. Chicago and other signals that the Supreme Court is ready to correct its Kelo errors.

In March 2021, FBI agents broke into private safe deposit boxes at the Southern California business U.S. Private Vaults and—though no individual box owner was suspected of wrongdoing—rifled through and cataloged owners’ belongings, then seized the contents. Property owners are fighting back, and in today’s episode, we talk about what happened, all the reasons that the government’s behavior was illegal and unconstitutional, and why protecting financial privacy is so crucially important for all Americans.

In Episode 30 of Deep Dive, we talked about how fines for harmless property code violations could snowball into six-figure debt. All too often, municipalities set up these “taxation by citation” schemes to bolster city budgets—not protect public health and safety. Schemes like this are rife with due process problems, and in today’s episode, we discuss the way Kafka-esqe code enforcement systems in many cities make it very easy to incur ever increasing amounts of fines and fees—while erecting barriers that make it very difficult to challenge them. We’ll also talk about what the Constitution means when it guarantees due process and IJ’s legal strategy for tackling abusive fines and fees regimes.

This term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Caniglia v. Strom, a case about the “community caretaking” exception to the general principle that police need a warrant before entering a home. In today’s episode, we talk about what the government and the property owner argued in that case and what the Court ruled. We also dig into the history of the community caretaker doctrine and the biggest current threats to Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure.

After Sandy Martinez got a ticket from Lantana, Florida, for parking her car with its wheels slightly outside her driveway and on the grass in her yard, she didn’t know that she was being fined a whopping $250 per day by the town. Weeks later, when she learned about the fines, the bill had accrued to an eye-watering $101,750, and she realized that a harmless code violation had brought her to the brink of financial ruin. In today’s episode, we talk about how and why cities rely on fines and fees for revenue, the ways these systems are deeply problematic, and what courts can do to enforce constitutional protections for all Americans. Download the transcript here.  This transcript was originally generated via AI, but lightly edited by an IJer. Please excuse the occasional typo.

When IJ client Abdallah Batayneh tried to open a resort shuttle service in rural Colorado, his application was denied by a state regulatory agency at the same time it assured him that he was “operationally, managerially, and financially fit” to run his company. In today’s episode, we discuss how Abdallah became the victim of an outrageous legal regime that many states erected to protect existing businesses at the expense of new start-ups and customers—and how and why these laws should be eliminated nationwide.

What does it mean when courts apply “strict scrutiny” in their review of a law? Why do property, economic, and other vital liberties get only “rational basis” review? And why do these things matter to a constitutional litigator? Learn all this and more in today’s Deep Dive with the Institute for Justice.  This episode originally aired October 29, 2019.

Although Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are hitting the mainstream, the way the law will treat them is still undeveloped. In this episode, we talk about how and whether the First and Fourth Amendments might apply to cryptocurrency, what kind of protection they offer, and ways to make sure the law develops in a way that protects innovation and opportunity.

When the Institute for Justice filed suit against the so-called predictive policing program in Pasco County, Florida, the Sheriff’s Office issued a statement saying that their program is not “in any way, shape or form the ideals or implementations projected in the film ‘Minority Report.'" But in this episode of Deep Dive, we discuss the chilling reality of a program that targets residents for possible future crimes based on a crude algorithm, as well as the program’s myriad constitutional violations and IJ’s lawsuit to end it. Tampa Bay Times Exposé of the Predictive Policing Program: https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2020/investigations/police-pasco-sheriff-targeted/intelligence-led-policing/ Show Notes Tampa Bay Times Story Announcing IJ’s Case: https://www.tampabay.com/investigations/2021/03/11/lawsuit-pasco-intelligence-program-violated-citizens-rights/ Press Conference Where IJ Clients Targeted by the Program Tell Their Stories: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBLR4IL2VHg&t=452s Click here for more Deep Dive episodes. Download this episode as an MP3.

Elizabeth Brokamp is a professional counselor who just wants to help people at a time when many Americans need it more than ever. But if the Virginia resident tries to talk with clients just miles away in D.C., she will cited and fined for making a Zoom call. In today’s show, we talk about what she’s doing to fight back, and why her case is a crucial part of the fight to protect free speech.