Short Circuit Podcast Por Institute for Justice arte de portada

Short Circuit

Short Circuit

De: Institute for Justice
Escúchala gratis

Acerca de esta escucha

 The Supreme Court decides a few dozen cases every year; federal appellate courts decide thousands. So if you love constitutional law, the circuit courts are where it’s at. Join us as we break down some of the week’s most intriguing appellate decisions with a unique brand of insight, wit, and passion for judicial engagement and the rule of law. http://ij.org/short-circuit© Institute for Justice Ciencia Política Política y Gobierno
Episodios
  • Short Circuit 384 | Metering Constitutional Rights

    Short Circuit 384 | Metering Constitutional Rights
    Jul 11 2025
    Can the government force you to only exercise a constitutional right once a month? Could it do that with speech? Or practicing religion? How about keeping and bearing arms? IJ’s Will Aronin asks that question when discussing a California law that restricted gun purchases to buying one gun a month. The Ninth Circuit recently found the law violated the Second Amendment. That’s something the Ninth Circuit doesn’t do very often, so we made sure to take a close look at this “unicorn” of a case. Plus, frequent users of Sudafed may enjoy the conversation. Then John Wrench, the Assistant Director of IJ’s Center for Judicial Engagement, explains a recent Sixth Circuit decision about the government taking the blood of babies. The court addressed a couple constitutional challenges to Michigan’s practice of taking blood from babies when they are born, without parental consent, and then hanging onto the blood samples for 100 years. It said this did not violate the Fourth Amendment or the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. But this seemed to contradict what the same court—but different judges—had said earlier in the same case. Can they do that? Apparently. Nguyen v. Bonta Kanuszewski v. Michigan HHS Bruen Rahimi
    Más Menos
    57 m
  • Short Circuit 383 | Rock ‘n’ Roll Yoga

    Short Circuit 383 | Rock ‘n’ Roll Yoga
    Jul 4 2025
    Is speaking to a yoga class speech? The Ninth Circuit recently proclaimed that the answer to that question is actually “yes.” But before you turn away from this episode because it simply parrots Captain Obvious, please know that it was not so obvious to the district court. Or the city of San Diego, which tried to define the teaching of yoga—but not the teaching of anything else—in public parks as conduct, not speech. Teaching all kinds of other things was fine, but teaching yoga to four or more people could land you in a twisted position. Paul Avelar of IJ gives some erudition on how the Ninth Circuit relied on a case that he litigated a few years ago to bring the First Amendment to the yoga instructors of California. Then IJ’s Marco Vasquez drives us to Arkansas where some hemp producers challenged the state’s ban on most hemp products. The challengers make a lot of hay out of the allowance for “continuously” transporting hemp through the state. Along the way the Eighth Circuit has to deal with a scrivener’s error. And what is one of those again? Hubbard v. San Diego Bio Gen v. Sanders IJ’s Brief in Chiles v. Salazar Bartleby, The Scrivener
    Más Menos
    40 m
  • Short Circuit 382 | Beard Law

    Short Circuit 382 | Beard Law
    Jun 27 2025
    Who doesn’t love a nice beard? It seems the firefighters in Atlantic City. One of their employees wants to wear a beard because of his religion. He doesn’t actually fight fires as part of his job, but there’s a possibility he’d be told he needs to and therefore he supposedly can’t have a beard because his special air mask wouldn’t fit. Does this violate the First Amendment’s protection of free exercise? Matt Liles of IJ reports on this case from the Third Circuit that digs into how “generally applicable” a law must be to not target someone’s religious practice. Then IJ’s Bob McNamara discusses a scary subject: statutes of limitations. Blowing one is every litigator’s nightmare. But which statute of limitations applies in a given case? For claims brought under Title IX, a federal ban on sex discrimination, that’s unclear. Bob breaks down a Fourth Circuit opinion that had to figure out what South Carolina law applies to Title IX claims in a case where a high schooler sued a school for not stopping sexual harassment. Is it a special state law on suing governmental entities? Or is it the most general state statute of limitations? Bob tells us the answer but also advises that this would all be a lot easier if Congress did its job and provided its own statute of limitations. Smith v. Atlantic City E.R. v. Beaufort County School Dist. Employment Division v. Smith Pogonologia
    Más Menos
    45 m
Todavía no hay opiniones