Beyond the Brief

Before he was IJ’s president, Scott Bullock spent 25 years as an IJ attorney. In this episode, he recounts his years in the trenches as a litigator, from the first case he litigated on behalf of African hairbraiders in Washington, D.C., to arguing at the 5th Circuit that Benedictine monks should be able to earn an honest living selling hand-crafted wooden caskets. Scott also discusses what went into launching IJ’s civil forfeiture initiative and the way that IJ client Russ Caswell helped set the standard for forfeiture cases.

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.

IJ Senior Attorneys Robert McNamara and Paul Sherman discuss amicus briefs: what they are, where they came from, and how IJ—and others—use them for maximum impact.

Big technology companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook have come under scrutiny for the ways they are—and are not—controlling speech on their platforms. In today’s show, we talk with two IJ senior attorneys about some of the most common concerns people have about these companies, from free speech considerations to the ways they supposedly act as monopolies. We consider where the law is now on these issues, weigh some of the options that have been proposed to address them, and discuss ways to look at these questions as they evolve in the coming months and beyond.

What should have been a routine dental appointment at his local VA took a frightening turn for 70-year-old Jose Oliva when security guards tackled him and threw him to the ground, injuring and humiliating him. When he sought to hold them accountable for their outrageous behavior, he found that the law protected those who abused their power—not him. In this episode, we dig into his story and what it means for millions of Americans.

In 2015, New Mexico abolished a controversial practice known as civil forfeiture. Critics of the reform claimed it would be a gift to criminals, increasing crime and making it harder for police to do their jobs. In this episode, we talk about what things look like in New Mexico now, five years post-reform. We also dig into the broader findings of new research that presents the largest-ever collection of state and federal forfeiture data.

Over the past several months, a national spotlight has been on the doctrine of qualified immunity. Although much of the recent focus has been on police misconduct, immunity shields all governmental workers: from city council members to code inspectors to IRS agents to cops on the beat. That’s more than 20 million people employed by local, state, and federal governments. In this episode, we talk about what the term means and how it came to be, as well as what it looks like in practice and why changes to immunity doctrines are essential to protecting individual rights. (Episode originally aired on 03/06/20.) *Fun fact: Scott was not quoting Phil Collins. He was referring to Thunderclap Newman’s “Something In The Air.”

The Catherine H. Barber Memorial Homeless Shelter is the only option for people experiencing temporary homelessness in all of Wilkes County, North Carolina. It’s been serving the community there for more than 30 years, and its record is exemplary. But when the shelter tried to apply for a permit for a new building in an ideal location (near businesses and public transit but far from residential areas) their application was rejected, even though the shelter met all the town’s requirements. In this episode we discuss the situation, and how—and whether—the Constitution applies to local zoning boards issuing permits.

With new lockdowns happening all over the country and internationally, we want to revisit the government’s use of police power. Just what does your state have the power to do to protect public health and safety—and when and how can it exercise that power? (Episode originally aired on 04/03/20.)

Special investigators, trumped up charges, and a night in jail. What happened to Sylvia Gonzalez is truly outrageous—and the local government’s reaction to her efforts to hold them accountable is even worse. In this episode, hear Sylvia’s story and the latest in her fight to ensure what happened to her doesn’t happen to anyone else.

In 2020, debates about veggie burgers and almond milk may sound like small potatoes. But controversies about how the government can regulate the way that companies talk about these foods and other products actually have important implications for free speech. In this episode of Deep Dive, we talk about what the debate is, and why it matters.

Most people think they know what “precedent” means in the law, but the concept is actually more complicated than most realize! Precedent is ancient, but when senators are grilling judicial nominees about precedent, are they actually using the concept in a much more modern way? In today’s episode, we discuss the kinds of cases that set precedent, how it works, and just how expansive—or limited—precedent can be.

Wildfires are raging across the West, and California is grappling with a record-breaking season. Why, then, does the state tell qualified firefighters that they can’t earn a living fighting fires? The state’s irrational law barring people like IJ’s client Dario Gurrola from working isn’t the only one of its kind on the books. Learn more about this and other collateral consequences laws in this episode of Deep Dive.

Law enforcement agencies routinely seize currency from travelers at airports using civil forfeiture—a legal process that allows agencies to take and keep property without ever charging owners with a crime, let alone securing a conviction. In this episode, we discuss the real stories of victims of this abusive practice, the new IJ report—"Jetway Robbery?”—that shows just how widespread it is, and what travelers need to know to protect their property.

When it handed down Espinoza v. MT Dept. of Revenue this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court added one more facet to a year that has already upended the status quo when it comes to education. In this episode, we discuss where the Espinoza case came from, what the ruling means, and what it really does to the separation of church and state.

With an increasing number of parents desperately seeking educational alternatives for the upcoming school year, teachers’ unions and school districts are doubling down on the status quo. Worse, in many places they are moving to take away options that had been available to parents for years. It has never been more clear that the time has come to move past old ways of thinking about education and put families in control. IJ senior attorney Tim Keller and a special guest, Corey DeAngelis of the Reason Foundation, discuss what a more decentralized, student-centered system would look like, as well as current barriers to change.

Decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court created the so-called Open Fields Doctrine. The result was an exception to 4th Amendment restrictions on the government’s ability to snoop on Americans. With a new case in Tennessee, IJ is pushing forward a strategy to restore those limits and protect basic property rights. Learn more about the state of the law—and where we go from here—in today’s episode.

After a tree fell on her house, IJ client Sarah Hohenberg’s journey through Memphis’ Environmental Court left her bankrupt, homeless, stripped of her possessions, and a fugitive from the law. We discuss how this happened—and how IJ’s new lawsuit aims to end this kind of abuse.

This term the U.S. Supreme Court closely considered eight different petitions dealing with the controversial doctrine of qualified immunity. Ultimately, it denied them all. In this episode, we talk about what the Court’s decision means for IJ’s fight for police and government accountability—and where we go from here.

With more Americans out of work than any time in recorded history, whether or not they will be able to earn a living is top of mind for many people. All too often, however, courts turn a blind eye to laws and rules that arbitrarily and unnecessarily shut people out of work. Recent state supreme court decisions indicate that’s starting to change—and the revolution can’t come fast enough. We discuss what’s happening—and why it matters—in today’s episode.

We’ve all been watching the unprecedented situation with COVID-19 play out. At IJ, we have a particular interest in what’s happening in the law. This episode discusses the kinds of constitutional litigation we’re seeing, as well as legal avenues that can help make life better now and those that lend themselves to longer term strategic litigation.

As we all deal with the many changes in day to day life brought about by the coronavirus pandemic, have you ever wondered just what the government has the power to do to protect public health and safety—and when and how can it exercise that power? In today’s episode, we discuss government police power and the many circumstances in which it is deployed.

Listeners of the podcast who have also listened to IJ’s Short Circuit podcast are probably familiar with the concept of “qualified immunity.” In this episode, we talk about what the term means and how it came to be, as well as what it looks like in practice and why changes to immunity doctrines are essential to protecting individual rights. *Fun fact: Scott was not quoting Phil Collins. He was referring to Thunderclap Newman’s “Something In The Air.”

Before he was IJ’s president, Scott Bullock spent 25 years as an IJ attorney. In this episode, he recounts his years in the trenches as a litigator, and the ways his cases and clients helped make him and IJ what they are today.

We talk with the director of IJ’s Center for Judicial Engagement about a few of the issues the legal community is buzzing about at the moment.

This discussion is a continuation of our foray into law for non-lawyers. Many people are familiar with the concepts of “due process” and “equal protection,” but where are they found in the Constitution, and what do they look like in practice?

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.

Never heard the term “Blaine Amendments” before? The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear IJ’s educational choice case Ezpinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue is likely to change that. In today’s Deep Dive IJ Senior Attorney Tim Keller and IJ Attorney Erica Smith describe what Blaine Amendments are, why they matter to parents who simply want to direct their own children’s education, and whether these controversial state constitutional provisions can be squared with the protections enshrined in the federal Constitution.

When IJ Associate Director of Activism Brooke Fallon started talking to entrepreneurs in Washington, D.C., about their experience doing business in the District, she got an earful about the burdens and challenges they face just trying to get off the ground. The result of those conversations was District Works, an IJ-led project and coalition of small business owners, nonprofits, and community members striving to make it cheaper, faster, and simpler to start a business in D.C. Brooke and Activism Researcher Alex Montgomery talk in this episode about what they learned from entrepreneurs, and how things can change for the better.

IJ Senior Attorneys Robert McNamara and Paul Sherman discuss amicus briefs: what they are, where they came from, and how IJ—and others—use them for maximum impact.