Advertise on podcast: Unpublished Opinions

John Wrench is joined by Kirby West and Josh Windham to discuss some of the major threats to liberty, including warrantless mass surveillance, the facial/as-applied distinction, and grade inflation. They begin with IJ’s recent victory—the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s unanimous rejection of the so-called “open fields doctrine”—while puzzling over the difference between facial and as-applied relief. Mass surveillance remains a theme as they comment on growing opposition to automated licensed plate readers (ALPRs), which has stimulated everything from litigation to proposed legislation to a recent instance of “self-help.” Finally, prompted by a recent change at Yale Law School, they consider The Curve, inflated grades, and what that all means for legal education.  Pennsylvania Open Fields case Pennsylvania Fish Cops case Chatrie v. U.S.

With guest host Patrick Jaicomo, he and IJ’s Anya Bidwell and Diana Simpson conspire on how best to keep the competition out of their guild. Or, rather, they contemplate how their guild—the legal profession—unfairly keeps the competition out and what recent changes to accreditation policies in Texas and Florida tell us about the value of the bar exam, law school, the American Bar Association, and other related institutions. Then the crew turn to the value of liberalism in these heady days. Story on Texas dropping the ABA Story on Florida dropping the ABA

John Wrench is joined by Sam Gedge and Kirby West for a session of hot takes, hard questions, and changed minds. The trio challenge received wisdom about notorious doctrines and cases, debate how much of public interest litigation is about permanent resolution versus holding the line, and provide positions they’ve revised over the course of their careers.  Docket in St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy Employment Division v. Smith

John Wrench is joined by Diana Simpson and Patrick Jaicomo for an episode that crosses between profound and provocative. The trio reacts to the Supreme Court’s late-breaking decision in Olivier v. City of Brandon, weighing in on what it says and doesn’t say about the Heck bar. Then the conversation takes a turn toward Adams County, Ohio, where Afroman (yes, that Afroman) has just won a defamation case brought by the sheriff’s deputies who raided his house, instilling the trio with a deep sense of civic pride. Finally, the group swings over to Judge VanDyke’s dissental in Olympic Spa v. Armstrong, the one everyone is talking about—and not because of the legal issues.  Oliver v. City of Brandon Lemon Pound Cake Olympic Spa v. Armstrong (en banc denial)

John Wrench welcomes Josh Windham and Kirby Thomas West for a gameshow episode that proves Schiller’s insight that one becomes fully human through play. A series of games takes the trio through the highs and lows of legal practice, two truths and a lie about their legal careers, and some of the most famous quotes from Supreme Court opinions. The full Josh argument The Years of Lyndon Johnson The Eras Tour

As the year’s shortest day draws near, John Wrench is joined by Patrick Jaicomo and Anya Bidwell to discuss taking the Founders’ legacies more seriously; what’s likely to change about constitutional law in the next couple of decades; the challenge of repairing complex constitutional problems in a case-by-case judicial process; and how reporters might do more justice to the Justices.  Plain, Honest Men The Santa Clause Regime Change Ghost on the Throne Maigret

Your IJ roundtable is back with hot takes and tepid reflection. John Wrench, joined by Sam Gedge and Josh Windham, share tips on how to do law, do life, and do European-on-European colonialism. Subjects include what has shaped the way they think about the law, what they wish they knew earlier in their legal careers, the status of text, history, and tradition, and, naturally, the Dodecanese Islands. Anti-Slavery Political Writings (ed. C. Bradley Thompson) Death by Lightning The Heroes Originalism and the Illusions of Objectivity Born Equal: Remaking America’s Constitution 1840-1920 My Thoughts Be Bloody

With the new Supreme Court term underway, John Wrench welcomes Anya Bidwell and Anthony Sanders for a SCOTUS-themed romp—including which justice is the ideal dinner guest and the past case you’d most like to argue—followed by an extremely competitive lightning round of wide-ranging SCOTUS trivia.  Empirical SCOTUS on oral arguments Wilkie v. Robbins Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer Zbig biography The Room Where It Happened The Meaning of Everything The Victorian Bar Life, Law & Liberty Between Two Fires

Constitution Day might have been September 17, but Diana, Patrick, and John are still celebrating. From the insight that rights come before—not from—the government, to the evergreen challenge of constraining power, the trio admire favorite features of the U.S. Constitution, propose amendments, and discuss the dangers of viewing rights through a partisan lens.  Extreme Punishment Alien Earth Sputnik Judicial Time Discworld

Lots of hot takes on the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, and even as varied a subject as the Supreme Court. With sub-categories: whether the words “privileges or immunities” in Section 1983 mean anything at all, Harvard Forwards and Conservative Warrens, and class actions. Plus, what we’re reading and why ChatGPT is very sorry for the wrongs it has inflicted upon cite checkers. Medina v. Planned Parenthood S.A. Section 1983: A Strict Liability Tort AI sanctions opinion The Gun, the Ship, and the Pen Chernow’s Mark Twain The Tainted Cup The Female Quixote

A new edition of everyone’s favorite legal grimoire has dropped, and John Wrench convenes Sam Gedge and Diana Simpson to ask the hard questions: Is the Bluebook a sacred scroll, or an eldritch horror that feeds on the souls of each new generation of lawyers? The party ponders the secrets revealed by a Bluebook insider, including the mysterious process behind some controversial changes in the newest edition. See, e.g., Bluebook at Rule B5.3 (discussing new “citation modified” parenthetical) (cleaned up). From there, they turn from one arcane text to another: Dictionaries are often treated as skeleton keys for unlocking original meaning, but it turns out they require careful handling lest they be misread or misused. The journey wraps with reflections on how—with the recent Skrmetti decision as a case study—public interest litigation often demands hard judgment calls about whether to press forward or hold back, how to weigh principle against timing, and what “victory” looks like. Jack Metzler, Cleaning up Quotations M. Burke Craighead, The Bluebook: An Insider’s Perspective Scalia & Garner, A Note on the Use of Dictionaries New York times piece on Skrmetti Jennifer Mascott, The Dictionary as a Specialized Corpus

Done with oral argument at SCOTUS in Martin v. United States, Patrick Jaicomo and Anya Bidwell rejoin the rotation to yell at clouds and, along with this month’s host, give their unpublished opinions about what it’s like to argue before the Supreme Court, the presumption of regularity, universal injunctions, the moment of threat doctrine, appointed amici arguing cases, too-long briefs, and much else! Case page in Martin v. US Oral argument in Martin Oral argument in universal injunctions case Barns v. Felix Medical Marijuana v. Horn Easha Anand on Short Circuit about Horn Red Rooms The Gatekeepers Patrick’s and Dan’s article Jane Austen’s Bookshelf Missing Molly

Spring hath finally shaken off the winter of Arlington’s discontent, and host John Wrench gathers IJ barristers Sam Gedge and Josh Windham for a scene that proves that all the law’s a stage. The trio ponders why powerful constitutional lines often go unspoken while villainous doctrines persist for decades. Next, they debate whether strategically timed law review articles are really amici in academic costume (“The play’s the thing/Wherein I’ll catch a citation”), and Sam wields his editorial dagger against footnotes that skulk in the wings of legal briefs. The conversation turns to oral argument preparation—from Josh being mistaken for an actor rehearsing lines, to circular outlines, to generative AI—and closes with a meditation on whether the ideal dissenting opinion is performance art, a righteous aria, or a whispered cue for future casts.  Timbs v. Indiana Orin Kerr’s post on strategically timed scholarship Josh’s argument in PA Open Fields Judge Wilkinson’s opinion in the Abrego Garcia case Douglas Murray’s Democracies and Death Cults Sarah Maas’s A Court of Thorns and Roses Netflix’s Il Gattopardo (The Leopard) Vladimir Nabokov’s Pale Fire

A flurry of ideas about the state of the law, the universe, and, well, everything. Including, at least, the impeachment of judges, how lawyers educate each other through media, corpus linguistics and AI, removals and remands in our Brave New World of Royal Canin USA v. Wullschledger, and a good walk spoiled. Royal Canin USA v. Wullschledger Laurent Sacharoff, The Broken Fourth Amendment Oath The Princess Bride Luke Milligan, Open Fields and Right to be Secure Joshua Windham, The Open Fields Doctrine is Wrong Stephanie Barclay, Constitutional Rights as Protected Reasons Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (BBC)

John Wrench of IJ returns as your host for some courthouse conversations with his colleagues Diana Simpson and Josh Windham. They spill out their opinions on what can be weird about state court legal practice, the pros and cons of stare decisis, what you should know about public interest law before you try and practice it, and why maybe you shouldn’t eat as many Oreos. Cuddihy’s The Fourth Amendment Twin Peaks Siebert’s The Underground Railroad Bad Monkey Harvard Note on Legislative History Diana’s 9th Cir. brief Good Energy Valhalore: Wayfinder