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.

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