We focus on a district court case that has appellate court explanatory power. As our special guest Professor Robert Steinbuch says, if you reside in Arkansas you must be living in a cave if you haven’t heard of the Malinowski matter. The lawsuit concerns the tragic death of a man who was shot by the police in a raid after he shot first. His widow alleges the man did not know the people breaking into their house were police as they did not properly announce themselves. Because the police were ATF members, or task force members who were working with the ATF, the ability of the widow to sue for damages is limited. For constitutional claims that means a Bivens claim. For non-constitution (or are they non-constitutional?) claims that means the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court threw out the first route but kept most of the second. Professor Steinbuch and IJ’s Anya Bidwell explain what the court said, what was right and what was questionable, and who these issues mean for the larger debate, including efforts in state legislatures to provide alternatives to Bivens.

Malinowski v. U.S. (FTCA claims)

Malinowski v. U.S. (Bivens claims)

Docket for Nielsen v. Watanabe

Professor Steinbuch’s column on Malinowski case

Bound By Oath episode on Bivens claims

Say a gaggle of police with military-grade toys fire a boatload of tear gas into a home and then run in and break a bunch of stuff, all the while looking for a fugitive with no connection to the family that lives there. Do the police have to pay for the damage? That’s an issue that’s at the Supreme Court’s doorstep in a couple of IJ cert petitions. And along with those IJ has just issued a report about how many claims are actually made against the police for the destruction of property, how many are paid, and how much the claims are. We hope you enjoy a report on the report from IJ’s Jeff Redfern, who has litigated many of IJ’s SWAT cases. (And you can download the report itself at the link below.) Then it’s on to a Sixth Circuit case out of Nashville where the city waited on a request to build an apartment building even though the zoning was fine. Nick DeBenedetto of IJ tells us this story, with a happy (intermediate) ending on bringing a takings claim. Then we finish off with more from Jeff, this time concerning a D.C. Circuit decision about a Project Veritas scheme involving fake names, hidden cameras, a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, the First Amendment, and a reminder to get that intern to actually sign a non-disclosure agreement.

RSVP for Short Circuit Live in Cambridge, Mass. on October 19!

The SWAT Report: Public Benefit, Private Burden

SW Nashville EB Owner v. Nashville

Democracy Partners v. O’Keefe

Time for The Big One. So many have so many takes on the Ninth Circuit that, as part of our #12Months12Circuits series, we at IJ had to add our own. It’s the mega-circuit that encompasses all of the West Coast, much of the Mountain West, Alaska, Hawaii, and even Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. IJ’s Paul Avelar, who lives in the circuit, and Ben Field, who clerked there, share some details and war stories about the circuit that’s just too darn big. After that they analyze a couple recent, very-Ninth-Circuit-y cases. Paul shares a sovereign immunity matter where a host of plaintiffs who like their gas stoves sued a group of Washington State officials. Unfortunately, the court said they sued the wrong folks. There’s much talk about picking the right defendants and how you sue the government and how you can’t. Then Ben brings us to California where the state requires gun shops—including a gun shop inside someone’s home—to record video and audio 24/7 and must turn it over to the government if asked. The majority of the panel thought this was all just fine from both a First Amendment and Fourth Amendment perspective. Ben and the dissent disagree.

Rivera v. Sami

Richards v. Newsom

The U.S. Court for China

Another circuit recognizes a there’s a First Amendment right to record the police. In this case, a “First Amendment auditor” stood on a public sidewalk and recorded the outside of a police station for six-and-a-half minutes. That’s protected, says the Second Circuit. So far, so good. But, explains IJ’s Jared McClain, the fact the right exists wasn’t exactly clear to the officers who asked the “auditor” for his ID. So it was OK for them to interrogated him and arrest him when he refused to produce the ID. There’s a Fourth Amendment ruling on that as well that also doesn’t seem to make sense. Then it’s Section 230 time! Bobbi Taylor of IJ reports on an appeal Facebook took from a preliminary loss on whether it had immunity from suit. (Note: Facebook settled this case after we recorded the episode. The rest of the case against other defendants seems to still be going forward.) The Ninth Circuit rejected the appeal, ruling that Facebook and other tech company defendants may have immunity from liability but not immunity from being sued. That doesn’t allow an appeal before a final judgment in the trial court. Is that right? Some commentators disagree, as Bobbi tells us. We contrast that ruling with the fact that government officers can appeal denials of qualified immunity, unlike Meta. Also, fun fact you’ll learn from the episode: Jared and Bobbi performed the exact act from the Second Circuit case, recording the outside of a police building at dusk (for an IJ video). Luckily, no one asked for their IDs.

RSVP for Short Circuit Live in Cambridge, Mass. on October 19!

Massimino v. Benoit

California v. Meta

Techdirt piece on the Meta ruling

Episode on Section 230 with Mike Masnick

IJ video including a Broward County Sherif building

In our #12Months12Circuits series a nation turns its lonely eyes to the heartland. The true middle of America. The Eighth Circuit. We’re joined by true Eighth Circuit expert Aaron Van Oort, who has argued twenty-five times before that court and been a part of many other appeals. Aaron, who is based in Minneapolis, offers his advice about what makes the circuit stand out and where it’s going. He’s joined in that endeavor by IJ’s Sam Gedge, who clerked on the Eighth. Then, after some fun Eighth Circuit Facts we turn to a couple of the court’s recent rulings. Aaron discusses a recent matter he argued about noncompete contracts and financial advisors. The ruling came down to what “irreparable harm” means. As he explains, it’s important to understand that “irreparable” does not necessarily mean “irrevocable.” He also briefly shifts focus to the Seventh Circuit and shares a bit about how his old boss Judge Posner used to write opinions. Then, Sam brings us back to the Eighth and a free speech lawsuit challenging an Iowa law barring residential contractors from talking to insurance companies. What is “speech,” what is “conduct,” and what scrutiny should a court apply in a case like this are all strictly on the table.

Choreo v. Lors

Shamrock Hills v. Iowa

NIFLA v. Becerra

Tragedy and comedy, from the Fifth Circuit and then from the Tenth. First, Patrick Jaicomo of IJ describes how the police in Laredo, Texas mistakenly shot an innocent man. The plaintiff, who was hit in the abdomen but lived, was escaping a house where the real suspect was terrorizing his family. He grabbed the suspect’s gun, ran out of the house, held the weapon above his head and screamed “I’m not the shooter!” However, a cop claimed he didn’t hear the man and shot anyway. Patrick explains the court’s analysis and why it concluded this was not a Fourth Amendment violation—and why he sees a lot wanting in that conclusion. Then comes the comedy. IJ’s Sophia Henderson details how a library in Lawrence, Kansas instituted a policy of no signs inside the building. A patron objected and did so by holding signs—a few signs, some mere pieces of paper but one being a flag. The library repeatedly called the police and the patron make a federal case out of it. The Tenth Circuit concluded that there was no First Amendment violation. Sophia tells us that perhaps that’s the right outcome but she and the others nevertheless have questions. Sophia also provides to our YouTube viewers pictures of the actual signs from the opinion. Finally, for fans of fonts and typesetting there’s a closing discussion on why Times New Roman is terrible.

Martinez v. Hinojosa

Spiehs v. Morgan

We often hear of the right to speak. But what about the right to listen? The Ninth Circuit just reaffirmed that listeners have First Amendment rights too and that, like speakers, they can challenge censorship in court. Justin Pearson of IJ reports on a case he himself is litigating on behalf of both a listener and a speaker against the federal government. The feds ban truthful information about healthy foods via its labeling laws. Justin’s clients either want to learn information about healthy foods or produce healthy foods and communicate information about them to their customers. They are challenging the ban but hit a standing roadblock along the way. Now that the Ninth Circuit said the case can go forward, however, they can finally proceed to the merits. Yet, things were a bit different in the Fifth Circuit for a pair of challenges to short-term rental bans. IJ’s Ari Bargil returns to update us on litigation that’s been running for a long time and he first discussed on this podcast four years ago. Unlike before when the results were mixed, in these recent rulings the court completely ruled for the government, allowing cities, including New Orleans, to regulate short-term rentals in highly restrictive ways, giving short shrift to property rights, property owners, and facts.

Przybocki v. USDA

Marfil v. New Braunfels

Bodin v. New Orleans

Short Circuit 235

Short Circuit 401

Bound By Oath on Penn Central

Article on Penn Central’s drafting

Florida, man. Always fun when we touch base with the latest culture war issues in the Sunshine State. Which usually means we’re talking about the Eleventh Circuit. Which is what IJ’s Keith Neely does concerning the “Stope Woke Act,” the state’s attempt to prohibit the endorsement of certain “woke” views in, as applied in this case, its public universities. The court ruled the law was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination when it comes to higher education. To get there, though, it had to weave its way through a confusing and somewhat contradictory set of cases about government speech, government employee speech, and academic freedom. After that we move to the Fourth Circuit where some Georgetown law students scored a victory for a Jamaican immigrant who tried to appeal an administrative decision but couldn’t because the court’s online docket system wouldn’t work and the clerk at the filing window wouldn’t take his papers. Ben Marsh of IJ, himself a Georgetown grad, details how the court ruled that such behavior isn’t on the due process up-and-up. And for fans of “where are they now,” we end with some updates on cases from Short Circuit’s past.

Burey v. Blanche

Pernell v. Comm. of the Fl. Bd. Ed.

Jouppi v. Alaska