Donald Trumps Big Beautiful Threat to the Constitution Legalese 2025-06-30 | Episode No. 102Today on Legalese, we will be discussing a provision of Donald Trump's so-called "Big Beautiful Bill" that is a violation of our constitutionally protected and fundamental individual rights.This proposed provision in the Senate Judiciary Committee's language of the reconciliation package (Subtitle B, Section 203 of H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) that, if enacted, would mandate that courts require security in order to issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against the federal government, effectively shutting down access to justice for most Americans.Show Notes Page For Episode No. 102 - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/donald-trumps-big-beautiful-threat• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com
Pavel Durov Arrest & Other Global Threats To Freedom Of Expression Legalese 2024-09-18 | Episode No. 101 Today on Legalese, we will be talking about the outrageous and politically motivated arrest of Pavel Durov by the French government, as well as discussing a growing trend towards disturbing threats to freedom of expression and digital privacy that are taking place in so-called "Free Nations" like France, Belgium, Brazil and the United States.What we find are such bold and unforgiving attacks from the family of "free nations" against privacy and free expression, that their naked Orwellian and authoritarian tactics would be enough to make the KGB or the East German Stasi blush.•Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/the-growing-threat-to-freedom-of• Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com
Treason Is The Reason For The Season Legalese 2024-07-05 | Independence Day Celebration Episode # 100• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com
Chevron Is Dead! Legalese 2024-07-01 | Episode #99 Today we are looking at the decisions in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce, two cases whose final outcome has finally entirely overruled Chevron v. NRDC (1984)... The damned case that created Chevron Deference and gave the administrative state broadly unconstitutional powers that would give Article II Executive Agencies powers granted under the Constitution to the legislature under Article I and the federal judiciary under Article III.Show Notes Page For Loper Bright Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/chevron-is-dead• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com
An Epic Victory For The Right To A Jury Trial Legalese 2024-06-29 | Episode #98 Today on Legalese, we will be wrapping up the Supreme Court case SEC v. Jarkesy. This has been one of the most anticipated of all cases for this term and it was well worth the wait!In a powerful and compelling opinion for the court written by Chief Justice John Roberts, this case has struck a devastating blow to the Administrative State, while also powerfully protecting our Fifth Amendment rights to due process of law and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases.Show Notes Page - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/an-epic-victory-for-your-right-to• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com
Supreme Court Supports Censorship By Proxy Legalese 2024-06-28 | Episode #97The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit seeking to limit the government’s ability to communicate with social media companies about their content moderation policies. By a vote of 6-3, the court ruled that that the plaintiffs did not have a legal right, known as standing, to bring their lawsuit.Show Notes Page - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/supreme-court-supports-censorship• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com
Moore Money, More Problems (Decision In Moore v. United States) Legalese 2024-06-24 | Episode #96 The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a provision of a 2017 corporate tax reform law, known as the mandatory repatriation tax, that taxes the undistributed profits from U.S. shares of foreign corporations in which Americans own a majority. An American couple had challenged the constitutionality of the one-time tax, which was imposed on earnings after 1986 and would increase the couple’s tax bill by approximately $15,000. But by a vote of 7-2, the court ruled that the tax does not violate the Constitution.• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com
Victory and Vindication in Gonzalez v. Trevino Decision Legalese 2024-06-22 | Episode #95Today on Legalese, we wrap up our in-depth coverage of the Supreme Court case of Gonzalez v. Trevino. The Court would issue a per curiam opinion that is a major victory for Sylvia Gonzalez, as her case will now be allowed to move forward in the Fifth Circuit, under instructions from the Supreme Court guiding the lower courts to adopt Sylvia Gonzalez's first amendment retaliation claim, utilizing the Nieves exception as argued by Sylvia Gonzalez.• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com
Supreme Court Smacks Down The Bump Stock Ban Legalese 2024-06-17 | Episode #94Today on Legalese, we are wrapping up the Supreme Court case of Garland v. Cargill. We have been following this case here on this channel for the past 2+ years as it wound its way through the lower courts.We now have a final resolution on the matter, as the Supreme Court, on Friday June 14, 2024 would issue their opinion on the case.The Supreme Court would hold that a bump stock does not meet the definition of a machine under 26 U.S.C. §5845(b). As such the Trump Administration's decision to reclassify bump stocks as a machinegun through the ATF's regulatory rulemaking power was an affront to the rule of law and separation of powers.The Court would hold that any regulation of bump stocks would have to come from Congressional legislation. As such, the ATF's attempt to ban these devices was unlawful and unconstitutional.Show Notes page for this episode: constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/supreme-court-smacks-down-bump-stock• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com
Supreme Court Delivers Decision In The Trump Too Small Case Legalese 2024-06-15 | Episode # 93Today on Legalese, we are discussing the Supreme Court's decision in Vidal v. Elster (Also known as the "Trump Too Small" case).This case arises from Steve Elster’s efforts to register the phrase “Trump Too Small” so that he could print and sell t-shirts bearing that phrase. The court on Thursday, June 13, 2024 unanimously rejected an attempt to force the Patent and Trademark Office to accept the registration “Trump too small” as a trademark for T-shirts mocking the former president.Show Notes page for this episode: constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/supreme-court-deliver-their-opinion• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com
Supreme Court Smacks Down Petty Tyrant With A Major First Amendment Victory Legalese 2024-05-31 | Episode # 92Today on Legalese we have a decision in the NRA v. Vullo case. It is a major victory for the First Amendment and gun rights.The Supreme Court on Thursday, May 30, 2024 reinstated a lawsuit by the National Rifle Association, alleging that a New York official violated the group’s First Amendment rights when she urged banks and insurance companies not to do business with them.In a unanimous decision by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the justices agreed that the NRA had made their case that Maria Vullo, then the head of New York’s Department of Financial Services, had gone too far in her efforts to get companies and banks to cut ties with the NRA, crossing over the line from efforts to persuade the companies and banks – which would be permitted – to attempts to coerce them, which are not.Show Notes Page For: NRA v. Vullo's Supreme Court Wrap-Up Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-nra-v-vullo-wrap-up• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com
Judge Says Second Amendment Doesnt Exist Legalese 2024-05-21 | Episode # 91Today on Legalese, we discuss the case of Dexter Taylor.New York has sentenced a 53-year-old black man with no criminal history to 10 years behind bars for the crime of exercising his constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights.Dexter Taylor, a software engineer from Brooklyn, was raided by police and arrested in 2022 after Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzales, the man who pledged to lead “the most progressive D.A.’s office in the country,” brought a 37-count indictment against him. The crime? Taylor was using his skills as a machinist to build his own firearms, specifically firearms that Democrats have nicknamed “ghost guns,” or guns built by nontraditional manufacturers. Taylor’s family has created a GiveSendGo to help with his legal fees as he prepares to fight his case, which could go as high as the Supreme Court.•Dexter Taylor Legal Defense Fund - givesendgo.com/dtaylor_2a_legal•Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-dexter-taylor-case• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com
The Beginning Of The End Of Civil Asset Forfeiture Legalese 2024-05-16 | Episode # 90Today on Legalese, we will be discussing the recent Supreme Court decision in the civil asset forfeiture case of Culley v. Marshall. This video will not be a comprehensive case breakdown, rather we will be focusing on the fact that even though this case is a prima facie loss for Due Process, the Constitution and Property Rights— When looking past the surface level, there is actually quite a lot about this case to get excited about.A majority of the Court seem ready and willing, given the proper case, to declare that any move by the government to seize assets would require a jury trial prior to that asset seizure. This would finally bring civil asset forfeiture fully into conformity with the Constitution’s 5th and 14th amendment’s due process clauses. This is what I want to talk about today. Because I truly believe victory may yet be snatched from the jaws of today's defeat.Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-the-beginning-of-the-end• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com
The Craziest Qualified Immunity Claim Ever! Legalese 2024-05-11 | Episode # 89Today on Legalese, we are going to be discussing the case of Hughes v. Few, A Qualified Immunity case that came before the Fifth Circuit earlier this month.Issue: Under a §1983 claim, can two police officers claim qualified immunity after arresting a Good Samaritan who effectuated a legitimate citizen’s arrest and was subsequently charged with Impersonating a Police Officer after the officers filed a patently false arrest affidavit?Though this case will likely be relevant only to those whose practice involves civil, §1983 qualified-immunity claims, if you’re looking for an interesting read, egregious facts, and a snarky opinion by a clearly offended judicial panel—this is it.Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-hughes-v-few-qualified• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com
Reefer Madness - Why Rescheduling Marijuana Solves Nothing Legalese 2024-05-05 | Episode # 87Today on Legalese we discuss the recent announcement by the Department of Justice that the DEA will be rescheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act from Schedule I to Schedule III.We discuss why this move is entirely worthless in that it accomplishes none of the goals the Biden Administration say they are passing it to accomplish. We also explore why such moves are meaningless by intent.Because all of these arguments and debates take place within an acceptable window of dissent to avoid ever having a conversation about the fact that it is immoral for the government to dictate which substances a person is permitted to consume, whether it is alcohol, tobacco, herbal remedies, saturated fat, marijuana, etc. These decisions belong to individual people, not the government.Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-why-rescheduling-marijuana• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com
The Runaway Convention Fallacy (Article V Myths) Legalese 2024-04-30 | Episode # 86Today on Legalese we have the latest installment in my series "Constitutional Myths and Misconceptions." Today we will be address myths surrounding Article V, which outlines the two methods of amending the Constitution.We will be addressing the "runaway convention" fallacy. This is the belief that such a convention would be unlimited and uncontrollable in its scope and process. Fortunately the deep dive into this topic that this episode takes will demonstrate conclusively there is no aspect of that scenario that is supported by our history or our laws.Show Notes For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-article-v-myths-and-misconceptions• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com
Supreme Court Delivers A Property Rights Hat Trick Legalese 2024-04-23 | Episode # 85Support The Institute For Justice - ij.org/support/give-now/devillierIn Devillier v. Texas, the Supreme Court delivers a property rights hat trick. Following the Supreme Court's rulings in Tyler v. Hennepin County and Sheetz v County Of El Dorado, Devillier v. Texas is now the third landmark takings clause precedent in a row to side with property rights over sovereign immunity and the "compelling government interest" argument.This is both notable and commendable— Especially considering this takings clause trifecta has consisted of three unanimous opinions, despite the fact that for decades, takings clause cases have traditionally split the Justices along the ideological right/left divide.On the other hand, this ruling would prove to be much more narrow in its scope than many people had hoped for and expected. The Court declined to address the question presented directly, which asked whether people can seek redress under the self-executing takings clause if the legislature has not provided them with an affirmative cause of action.The Court also failed to address the initial issue in this case, which was the Catch-22 the state of Texas employed to avoid their obligation to pay just compensation for the taking.Today on Legalese we will be going through the opinion of the court to break down precisely what the court’s unanimous decision does and does not accomplish. As well as exploring some fascinating tangential aspects of this opinion.Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-devillier-v-texas-wrap• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com
Supreme Court Finds Extortion Is Unconstitutional Legalese 2024-04-19 | Episode # 84Today on Legalese, we are discussing the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Sheetz v El Dorado County in which the Supreme Court would find that extortion is unconstitutional. Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-supreme-court-finds-extortion• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com
Freelance Is Dead, Long Live Freelance - Federal Agencies Attack Gig Workers Legalese 2024-04-16 | Episode # 83Today on Legalese we are discussing the the Biden Administration’s new agency rules put into effect by the Department of Labor, meant to be the first step to destroying the ‘gig economy’ on the national level. This reality is one that I have been warning about for the better part of five years, and it finally seems to be coming to fruition.This move is meant to "regulate" freelance workers and independent contractors, with the government insisting independent contractors are being exploited and must be saved from their own choices.Really this is nothing more than a move to force millions of people who enjoy the flexibility and freedom of working as an independent contractor to join labor unions as dues paying members.We will be covering what these new Department of Labor regulations say and do, as well as looking at the various pieces of legislation they are based on to try and understand the real-world effect these regulations will have.Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-freelance-is-dead-long• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com
SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments In First Amendment Retaliation Claim Legalese 2024-04-05 | Episode #82 In the case of Gonzalez v. Trevino, the core revolves around a First Amendment retaliation claim, presenting a pivotal examination of free speech rights and government response. The essence of such a claim lies in the allegation that an individual's speech, protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, was met with retaliatory actions by government officials or entities, hence infringing upon their rights to free speech. As the Supreme Court entertained oral arguments for this case, the justices were tasked with dissecting intricate legal precedents, the specifics of the retaliatory actions alleged, and the broader implications for free speech protections.Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-gonzalez-v-trevino-oral• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com• Substack - constitutionallaw.substack.com • Check out my new book Constitutional Sleight of Hand: amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXSupport The Show• PayPal: paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ • Venmo: venmo.com/LockeanLiberal• Locals: locals.com/legalese
First Amendment Retaliation Claim Reaches Supreme Court (Gonzalez v Trevino Primer) Legalese 2024-03-28 | Episode # 81Today on Legalese we will be discussing the case of Gonzalez v. Trevino. This case posits a novel claim of first amendment retaliation. The Court is being asked to decide what counts as "objective evidence" that someone was arrested in retaliation for constitutionally protected activity.Opening mini-documentary created and originally published by Institute For Justice here: youtu.be/bIu1s3srVWo?si=fegcTLGzVXT3TpaQShow Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-gonzalez-v-trevino-primerFollow• Legalese Home Page - legalesepodcast.com • Sign up for Legalese Newsletter! - legaleseshow.com• Substack - constitutionallaw.substack.com • Check out my new book Constitutional Sleight of Hand: amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXSupport• PayPal: paypal.com/paypalme/categoricalimperativ • Venmo: venmo.com/LockeanLiberal• Locals: locals.com/legalese►00:00 Institute For Justice Doc►05:33 Legalese Intro►05:59 Gonzalez v. Trevino Intro►11:45 Facts Of The Case►26:55 Procedural History►35:39 Fifth Circuit Appeals►39:51 Questions Presented►40:15 Conclusions
Opening Salvo: Oral Arguments in NRA v. Vullo Summary & Update Legalese 2024-03-26 | Episode #80Today on Legalese we will be discussing the case National Rifle Association v. Vullo. This is a case from my Supreme Court Roundup that we last discussed back in November 2023 when the Supreme Court would grant cert on this case.Last Monday March 18th, 2024, the Court would hear oral arguments in this case. In today's episode we will be reviewing the facts of the case and the procedural history in the lower courts, then take a deep dive into the merits of the case coming before the court and I provide a breakdown of the oral arguments, including clips of key moment during the hearing, as well as my analysis of the arguments made and the potential outcomes in this case, along with my prediction of the final outcome when the Court hands down their opinion this summer.Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-national-rifle-assoc-vFollow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
Justice Courts Controversy: Oral Arguments In Murthy v. Missouri Legalese 2024-03-24 | Episode # 79Today on Legalese we have my second official video on the social media mass censorship case Murthy v. Missouri. On Monday, March 18th, 2024 this case went before the Supreme Court for oral arguments and they were an exhilarating and controversial session indeed. Though not for any of the actually upsetting and controversial aspects of this case. Rather it was controversial because of a comment posed by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, that to me, seemed to be the most sensible, relevant, least controversial comment of the entire Court session....But I have already discussed that in my last episode "Conservatives Say The Darndest Things".Today we will be doing a deep dive into the full session of oral arguments, which were fascinating, but lead us to some very disturbing updates on the potential future of this case.Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-murthy-v-missouri-oralFollow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
Conservatives Say The Darndest Things (A Conservative Defense of Justice Jackson) Legalese 2024-03-21 | Episode # 78Today on Legalese we are taking on a viral criticism of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson that happened following the Court's oral arguments a few days ago in the Murthy v Missouri case. Now the only problem with the criticisms these conservatives raised is everything. They got everything wrong. This was a willful slander of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson by a number of prominent conservatives, especially Jim Jordan who intentionally misrepresented Justice Jackson and attacked her for saying something she never actually said.This episode takes a look at what this criticism was, why the conservative were not just wrong, but acted with malicious mal-intent and a discussion of a number of profound lessons that can be learned from this shit show that really cast worrisome gaze on the so-called "culture war" that is poisoning pretty much every facet of American politics.Follow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
Unpacking Government Speech On Social Media Legalese 2024-03-18 | Episode # 77Today we are discussing the first two case wrap-ups in my annual Supreme Court Roundup. On Friday, the Supreme Court handed down two decisions that deal with the extent to which a government employee is engaging in state action when posting on social media.These cases are Lindke v Freed and O'Conner-Ratcliff v Garnier.The government would create a new legal test that is to be applied to determine whether a government official is acting in their official capacity on social media, and therefor looking at when and how a decision to delete a comment or block a user from their social media page constitutes a first amendment violation.Follow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
A Truly Disturbing Case Of Social Media Censorship Legalese 2024-03-16 | Episode # 76Today on Legalese we are going to be covering the upcoming Supreme Court case Murthy v Missouri. This video will be covering the case background, the facts of the case and its procedural history up to and including the preliminary injunction issued by the District Court in this case last year on July 04, 2023 when this case was named "Missouri v Biden"...The Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments this coming Monday, March 18th. This case, which deals with the government censoring social media through jawboning, the practice of doing indirectly things they are not allowed to do directly by leaning on intermediaries to do their dirty work for them.In this case, the government has been using threats, coercion and intimidation of social media companies to censor the speech of millions of Americans.This will be the the first of two videos about this case covering the necessary information for you to be able to follow and understand the case for yourself when it comes before the Court next week.Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-murthy-v-missouriFollow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
Is The Supreme Court About To Make Machine Guns Legal Legalese 2024-03-10 | Episode # 75Today on legalese, we will be discussing the recent round of oral arguments that were brought before the Supreme Court last Wednesday in Garland v Cargill. This is the Bump Stock case that will decide whether or not a bump stock is a machine gun under federal law.Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-garland-v-cargill-oralFollow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
A Unanimous Supreme Court Keeps Trump On The Ballot Legalese 2024-03-07 | Episode # 74Today on Legalese we are breaking down the decision in Trump v Anderson, in which a unanimous Supreme Court would hold that Donald Trump may not be removed from State ballots in either the primary or general election on grounds that he is an insurrectionist for the purposes of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.Follow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
Deplatformed: Supreme Court Hears Social Media Cases Legalese 2024-03-03 | Episode #73Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, cases challenging Florida and Texas state laws barring major social media firms from using most types of content moderation, thereby requiring them to host content they disapprove of. The oral arguments suggest a clear majority of the justices believe these laws violate the First Amendment rights of social media providers. They seemed especially skeptical of the government’s desire to force traditional social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to change their moderation practices and disseminate speech they want to exclude.Today we will be taking a deep dive into the oral arguments that the court heard earlier this week. I’ve pulled together a comprehensive picture of the four hours of oral arguments. As always, I present the most important information and the key moments during the trial that you need to understand this case— and it is presented in a way that is equally useful for lawyers and non-lawyers alike.I conclude with a summary of the possible outcomes as well as my professional opinion of the most likely outcome in a case that, regardless how it’s decided, will be a landmark in first amendment jurisprudence.Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-netchoice-cases-everythingFollow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
First Amendment Fundamentals Legalese 2024-02-27 | Episode # 72Today on Legalese, I have a different sort of video than usual, born out a recent request from a subscriber who asked me if I could put something together that will explore the meaning of the terms "Forums" and "Reasonable" specifically as those terms relate to first amendment jurisprudence. So that is exactly what this is.Enjoy!Follow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
The First Amendment On Trial Legalese 2024-02-26 | Episode # 71On Monday February 26th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two landmark cases dealing with the First Amendment and social media. These cases challenge the constitutionality of two laws passed in Texas and Florida that seek to control how social media sites may moderate their own content. These laws are obvious affronts to the first amendment.The cases in question are Moody v Netchoice and Netchoice v Paxton. We briefly covered these cases back in October in my preliminary Supreme Court Roundup video. These are the second set (of three total sets) of cases that will have major consequences for the relationship between social media companies and the first amendment moving forward.In this video we go over the facts of the case as well as their procedural history so that when they are argued before the court you will have the kind of comprehensive background knowledge of these laws and the cases challenging their constitutionality to understand them and follow their further development.Follow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
Texas Border Crisis: What Democrats Get Wrong Legalese 2024-02-19 | Episode # 70There are few issues more partisan and controversial than the immigration issue. And where you find controversial issues, you find all manner of bullshit, half-truths, politically biased reporting and false narratives.While I am not interested in, nor do I intend to discuss the immigration issue as a policy matter, there is one sense in which I do want to discuss it. That is as a legal matter. Because there is a pending immigration case right now you have probably heard of — Department Of Homeland Security v Texas. As is to be expected, there is no shortage of false narratives and melodramatics surrounding this case on all sides of the issue. So I am going to be taking on some outrageously biased legal arguments regarding this case and it’s subject matter. Breaking through the hard outer shell of lies, to get to the ripe, juicy truth at the center. This is the second and final installment of this series. In the first video we focused on Republican disinformation regarding the meaning of the Constitution and the powers they claim it grants them in dealing with illegal immigration. Today's video will be examining the Democrat's response to Texas actions and claims and it is apparent that twisting the meaning of the law and of the Constitution to suit a partisan political argument is not a trat Republican have a monopoly on. We find renowned journalist and distinguished legal scholars telling obvious and blatant lies about Governor Greg Abbot and the State of Texas, regarding a recent Supreme Court order relating to the pending case Department of Homeland Security v Texas that's currently being adjudicated in the Fifth Circuit.Show Notes Page For Those Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-texas-border-crisis-what-7c8Follow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
Texas Border Crisis: What Republicans Gets Wrong Legalese 2024-02-16 | Episode # 69There are few issues more partisan and controversial than the immigration issue. And where you find controversial issues, you find all manner of bullshit, half-truths, politically biased reporting and false narratives.While I am not interested in, nor do I intend to discuss the immigration issue as a policy matter, there is one sense in which I do want to discuss it. That is as a legal matter. Because there is a pending immigration case right now you have probably heard of — Department Of Homeland Security v Texas. As is to be expected, there is no shortage of false narratives and melodramatics surrounding this case on all sides of the issue. So I am going to be taking on some outrageously biased legal arguments regarding this case and it’s subject matter. Breaking through the hard outer shell of lies, to get to the ripe, juicy truth at the center. Along the way we discuss tips and tricks that you can employ to help you spot biased political arguments disguised as legal arguments. We also show how politicians and attorney’s often misuse Supreme Court precedent and twist case law to give you the impression a particular case supports their arguments when nothing could be further from the truth!Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-texas-border-crisis-whatFollow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
Chevron Is Dead, Long Live Chevron Legalese 2024-02-08 | Episode #68 Today on Legalese we are talking about the death of the Chevron Doctrine. On January 17th, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Relentless Inc. v Department Of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo.These two cases are asking whether or not the Court should overrule the Chevron Doctrine, which holds a court should defer to the judgement of an administrative agency in their interpretation of a statute if the statute is ambiguous or if Congress has been silent on the propriety of a particular policy decision.We discuss the key points and most insightful sections of these oral arguments to provide a comprehensive understanding of the information that will be crucial to know for anyone who wants to truly understand these cases. We also briefly discuss some of the most likely potential outcomes in this case.Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-chevron-is-dead-long-liveFollow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
Devillier v Texas Points To A Major Victory For Property Rights Legalese 2024-01-31 | Episode #67 Today on Legalese, we are returning to a case that I have been covering from this Supreme Court Term as part of my annual Supreme Court Roundup. Devillier v Texas is a Takings Clause case in which petitioner (Devillier) is seeking compensation after his ranch which was destroyed by the State of Texas when a highway construction project flooded his property. On January 16th, oral arguments were made before the Court in this case and there is a lot to be learned from this round of arguments. Most importantly is that Devillier is shaping up to be a major and unequivocal victory for property rights!Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-devillier-v-texas-pointsFollow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
How The Administrative State Is Disputing Your Right To A Jury Trial Legalese 2023-12-28 | Episode # 66Today on Legalese we are doing a deep dive into the pending Supreme Court Case SEC v Jarkesy. This case was one included in my Supreme Court Roundup video from October 2023, which included a very brief summary of the case and reviewed the Question Presented.Today we will be giving this case the comprehensive attention it deserves as what I believe may be the most interesting and important Supreme Court case in my annual case roundup. The Court is being asked to either reaffirm or vacate a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals that found an internal SEC case brought against George Jarkesy as unconstitutional on three separate grounds.First, it deprived Jarkesy of his Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury.Second, it violated the Non-Delegation Doctrine.Third, it violates the "Take Care" clause of Article II because the President is powerless to remove an Administrative Law Judge, such as the judge that ruled against Jarkesy.Today we take a deep dive into the administrative state, the Fifth Circuit decision, we review the oral arguments from this case before the Supreme Court and I debunk the scare-mongering untruths that are spreading by way of the corporate media and the Washington DC political class.Show Notes Page: How The Administrative State Is Disputing Your Right To A Jury Trial - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-how-the-administrativeFollow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
Moore Money, Moore Problems Legalese 2023-12-19 | Episode # 65Today on Legalese, we are discussing the case Moore v United States. This case, which was part of my 2023 Supreme Court Roundup was argued before the Court on December 5th, 2023.There is a lot of new information that can be gleaned about this case from those arguments and so this video will be a summary of those arguments. Looking at the key issues raised and making some fairly certain predictions about the outcome of this case.Show Notes Page for This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/moore-money-moore-problems-4f0Go Read my Article about Moore v United States that I mention at the top of my video: constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/moore-money-moore-problems-183Follow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
History Of Qualified Immunity Legalese 2023-11-30 | Episode # 64Today on Legalese we are talking about the history of the qualified immunity doctrine.We do a deep dive into constitutional law and common law to show just how ahistorical this doctrine is, having been invented out of nothing by the Supreme Court in the 1980’s.Show Notes Page For "History Of Qualified Immunity" - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-history-of-qualified-immunityFollow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
Qualified Immunity Turns Against Police (Blue On Blue Violence) Legalese 2023-11-26 | Episode # 63Today on Legalese we will be discussing two truly outrageous cases in which cops were granted qualified immunity.The first is a unique example of what I call "Blue on blue violence"; a term I coined to describe incidents in which police officers are both preparator and victim.The second is a shocking example of a citizen who did, quite literally, nothing wrong and yet found himself being followed home by a truly deranged sociopath who not only followed him all the way home, where he would proceed to assault this man right in his driveway... Only to find out this deranged sociopath turned out to be an off-duty police officer who would also be granted qualified immunity.Show Notes Page For # 63 "Qualified Immunity Turns On Police"Follow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
SCOTUS Roundup 2023 - Gun Rights & The Second Amendment Legalese 2023-11-15 | Episode #62Today on Legalese we will be discussing three cases going before the Supreme Court this term that are centered on gun rights and the second amendment. Two are new cases that the Court just recently granted cert on last week. Garland v Cargill and National Rife Association v Vullo. The third case is revisiting a case we already discussed in my first roundup video on October 2nd 2023. This is United States v Rahimi. The Court heard oral arguments in the case on November 7th. I have a hell of a lot to say about it and we can make a fairly confident prediction about the outcome of this case.Join me Thursday November 16th 2023Thursday Freedom Hub Group - Homepage - your-mp.comSubscription Page for Zoom Webinar - your-mp.com/subscribeShow Notes for SCOTUS Roundup Gun Rights & 2A - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-scotus-roundup-gun-rightsFollow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
What The Hell Is Progressive Originalism? Legalese 2023-11-08 | Episode #61 Today on Legalese we will be discussing the judicial philosophy of Progressive Originalism. What is it, what isn't it, how does it work and to what ends? Plus how does it compare with the other more common forms of Originalist judicial interpretation such as original public meaning or textualism?Also we will be talking about the first Progressive Originalist on the Supreme Court. That is of course the Junior Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. I will be discussing some likely surprising reasons Ketanji Brown Jackson has the potential to become one of the most influential justices on the high court and why that's not necessarily a bad thing!Follow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
Myths Of Federal Supremacy Legalese 2023-10-22 | Episode #60Today on Legalese we will be taking on several constitutional myths and misconceptions related to Congress, criminal law, state and federal jurisdiction and the great myth of federal supremacy.Show Notes Page for Episode #60 - The Myth Of Federal Supremacy: constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/show-notes-episode-60Follow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
Major Supreme Court Update Legalese 2023-10-14 | Episode #59Today on Legalese we will be discussing a major update to the Supreme Court's 2023 term. Earlier today the Court chose to grant cert on two big cases that offer a serious challenge to the doctrines of Chevron Deference and Qualified Immunity.In Relentless Inc. v Chamber Of Commerce we have a nearly identical case to the Loper Bright case the Court agreed to review back in May. Just like Loper, this case directly asks the Court to overturn Chevron Deference and revolves around a provision in the Magnuson-Stevens Act that supposedly coerces fishing vessels to not only to carry two federal officers onboard their boat AND pay those bureaucrats salary.One major difference is that, unlike Loper Bright, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will not be recusing herself from the case, allowing the full court to weigh in on this challenge to Chevron Deference.In Gonzalez v. Trevino, the justices agreed to decide what kinds of evidence will meet the exception outlined in 2019’s Nieves v Bartlett. In Nieves v. Bartlett, this Court held that probable cause does not bar a retaliatory arrest claim against a “police officer” when a plaintiff shows “that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been.”The question before the Court is whether the Nieves probable cause exception can be satisfied by objective evidence other than specific examples of arrests that never happened.On This episode we will discuss the backgrounds and facts of these two cases.Show Notes Page For This Episode - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/episode-59-major-supreme-court-updateFollow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
Supreme Court Roundup 2023 Legalese 2023-10-02 | Episode #58Today I Legalese I will be discussing the cases that I will be covering in depth during the coming Supreme Court term for 2023-2024Show Note Page for "Supreme Court Roundup 2023-2024 Term" - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/episode-58-supreme-court-roundupFollow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.►00:00 Introduction►05:00 Dominance of First Amendment Cases►05:36 Social Media & State Law►06:30 Moody v Netchoice LLC►08:55 Netchoice LLC v Paxton►10:40 Social Media, State Action & The First Amendment►12:55 O'Conner-Ratcliff v Garnier►14:15 Lindke v Freed►14:42 Vidal v Elster►16:05 Devillier v Texas►17:45 Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo►24:10 SEC v Jarkesy►30:42 Moore v United States►33:55 United States v Rahimi►36:55 Conclusion
Ultimate Constitutional Law Guide To Unprotected Speech Legalese 2023-09-15 | Episode #57 Today On Legalese we are going to be discussing the 7 categories of speech that are not protected under the first amendment:IntroIncitementTrue ThreatsFighting WordsDefamationObscenityFraud and PerjurySpeech Integral To Criminal ConductShow Notes Page For This EpisodeThis episode was created to be the ultimate guide to unprotected speech within our modern legal framework according to the First Amendment's protections of speech, expression and conduct.There are a great deal of misconceptions and misinterpretations of what classes or categories of speech fall outside the bounds of first amendment protection. In order to minimize, if not wholly eliminate the common causes of such misunderstandings and misinterpretations, I have done my best to excise any discussion that relies on contested claims or personal opinions, including my own.We look specifically and comprehensively at those categories of unprotected speech in constitutional law which the courts have concluded to be well-established exceptions. We look at the landmark cases that have established these categories and derive definitions, principles, doctrines and legal tests through a textual analysis of the controlling opinions of the court to provide everyone the information they would need to successfully defend their individual rights of free speech, expression and conduct within our existing legal and constitutional framework.Follow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.00:00 Intro11:42 Incitement14:57 True Threats21:08 Fighting Words35:05 Obscenity36:34 Defamation37:51 Fraud and Perjury38:55 Speech Integral To Criminal Conduct39:29 What of Hate Speech?45:57 Outro46:18 Closing Announcement/Question
Federal Court Smacks Down Civil Asset Forfeiture Legalese 2023-09-07 | Episode #56Today on Legalese we will be discussing a recent case out of the Sixth Circuit - 'Ingram v Wayne County' in which the Court held that when a car is seized under civil asset forfeiture, the owner has a constitutional right to a hearing within two weeks of the seizure.On top of that encouraging majority opinion, we also discuss the concurring opinion filed in this case by prominent conservative jurist Judge Amul Thapar that takes an even more striking and encouraging position.Show Notes Page "Sixth Circuit Smacks Down Civil Asset Forfeiture" - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/episode-56-sixth-circuit-smacks-downFollow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
First Amendment Beats Police Defendants Legalese 2023-09-02 | Episode #55Today on Legalese we look at two recent cases that pit private citizens and the First Amendment against qualified immunity and police officers who believe themselves to be above the law.In Jordan v Adam's County Sheriff's Office a man was arrested for criticizing two shitty cops who got very upset when their inflated sense of authority was questioned. In Bailey v Iles we find a man whose only "crime" was to post a joke on Facebook. Which was considered enough of a crime by the Rapides Parish Police Department in Louisiana to send a SWAT team to arrest him and charge him with violating a state anti-terrorism law.In both cases the Tenth Circuit and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals (respectively) would find in favor of these two citizens while holding the actions of these police to be so unreasonable these officers would not be allowed to cower behind claims of qualified immunity.Show Notes Page for "First Amendment Beats Police Defendants" - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/episode-55-first-amendment-beatsFollow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
Federal Court Short Circuits Officers Qualified Immunity Defense Legalese 2023-08-20 | Episode #54A big win coming out of the Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals in the case of Rogers v. Smith. The Court affirmed that a police officer who deprived a citizen of their first and fourth amendment rights when they arrested that citizen for criminal libel, despite the police's prior awareness the criminal libel law in question, Louisiana Revised Statutes §14.47 had been ruled unconstitutional by both the Louisiana and United States Supreme Courts.For these reason the police officers being sued in this case were DENIED qualified immunity and held to have deprived the plaintiff of his civil rights under color of law in accordance with 42 U.S.C. §1983I also use this case to discuss one of the most common and problematic myths in constitutional law. The writ-of-erasure fallacy. This deals with the crucial distinction between a law that has been ruled unconstitutional by the Courts and the actual repeal of that law by the legislature. The confusion over this legal doctrine frequently has major real world consequences and we discuss what they are.Show Notes Page for Federal Court Short Circuits Officer's Qualified Immunity Defense - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/episode-54-fifth-circuit-short-circuitsFollow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.com“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
Qualified Immunity As Gun Control.... Really? Legalese 2023-07-31 | Episode #53Today on Legalese we are going to be discussing a new article that will be released in an upcoming volume of the Notre Dame Law Review entitled "Qualified Immunity As Gun Control". Law professors Guha Krishnamurthi & Peter N. Salib make one of the most evil and admittedly most brilliant calls ever to further a gun control agenda by using the doctrine of qualified immunity. This video is based on my article of the same name, recently published to Substack: constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/qualified-immunity-as-gun-control Even if you have read the article this video may well be worth a watch anyway, as I have elaborated on certain topics first discussed in the article, such as judicial scrutiny. The original article by Krishnamurthi and Salib was largely written as a response to a notable case filed by the U.S. Fifth Circuit on Feb 02, 2023 ~United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443, 448 (5th Cir. 2023). cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/21-11001/21-11001-2023-02-02.pdf?ts=1675384240 What makes U.S. v Rahimi so notable is that the Supreme Court has chosen to grant cert on this case, following a petition filed by the DOJ on the following question presented: "Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face."This case has a high likelihood of ending up as a landmark 2A case in their upcoming term...ORIGINAL ARTICLEKrishnamurthi, Guha and Salib, Peter, Qualified Immunity as Gun Control (July 5, 2023). Notre Dame Law Review Reflection (forthcoming 2023), ssrn.com/abstract=4500816SHOW NOTESFor all other links and citations, as well as a full transcript of this podcast episode head over to episode show notes page - constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/qi-as-gcFOLLOW AND SUPPORTSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.comPick up a copy of my book - “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QXContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegale§e is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law-- as well as current events in law, politics and culture. Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Supreme Court Solves Racisms In Affirmative Action Case Legalese 2023-07-02 | Episode #52Today on Legalese we will be discussing the Supreme Court's landmark equal protection clause case dealing with the constitutionality of racially biased admissions discrimination policies on both public and private universities. The case: Students For Fair Admission v Harvard effectively puts an end to affirmative action in college admissions in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in it's opinion that the affirmative action policies fail the strict scrutiny standard in every regard.Follow & SupportSubscribe To Legalese Newsletter - legaleseshow.comLegalese Homepage - legalesepodcast.comContact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.comLegalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
