Greetings Everybody This Thursday November 16th I will be joining Jim Grapek and Charles Frohman for their Freedom Hub Working Group. We will be discussing the Implied Powers Doctrine… …As well as discussing my book “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand – An Explicit History Of Implied Powers” Available on Amazon or through My Shop at …
Surprising Importance Of Ketanji Brown Jackson [Original Source: What The Hell Is Progressive Originalism? episode of Legalese Podcast] Should Constitutional Originalists welcome the presence of the Junior Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on the Court? Many people will probably be left shaking their heads as I answer the question with …
Sedition: An American Virtue Originally Published On Substack July 30th, 2021 There is a word that has become increasingly popular ever since Trump was elected in 2016. Sedition. And since the January 6th storming of the Capitol sedition seems to be a word dripping from everyone’s lips. To give some …
Today 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.
Today 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” – https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/episode-55-first-amendment-beats
A 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. §1983
I 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 – https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/episode-54-fifth-circuit-short-circuits
Today 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:
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.