Federal Court Short Circuits Officer’s Qualified Immunity Defense

Episode #54
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 –

Qualified Immunity As Gun Control…. Really?

Episode #53

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.

Supreme Court Solves Racism

Episode #52

Today 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 & Support
Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter –
Legalese Homepage –

Contact Me –

Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.

Old Lady Makes Minnesota Take It Good & Hard – Court Delivers Big Win For Property Rights

Episode #48
Today on Legalese we return to a case I discussed last January about Home Equity Theft and the Supreme Court case challenging its constitutionality.
Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion that struck down Home Equity Theft.
The case I’m talking about is Tyler v Hennepin County.
we cover the why and the how of this Supreme Court opinion in favor of the Plaintiff, Geraldine Tyler and what some of the likely ramifications of this decision will be when it comes to the government and Takings Clause liabilities.

Supreme Court Wrap Up: Opinion Of The Court On Big Tech & Big Terror

This is the first video in my annual Supreme Court Wrap Up. Today we will be revisiting a pair of cases from my Supreme Court Roundup last fall. These cases are
“Twitter v Taamneh” and
“Gonzalez v Google.”

The Supreme Court handed down two unanimous opinions on May 18th 2023 for both cases stating that the claims against Twitter & Google in regards to the Anti-Terrorism Act §2333 and the Communications and Decency Act §230 do not amount to “aiding and abetting” in a manner that would make these platforms liable for damages following a terrorist attack.

Justice Gorsuch On the Importance of Civil Liberties & the Dangers of Emergency Powers

Today on Legalese, we are going to be looking at a statement put out by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch as part of the Court’s procedural decision in the recent case of Arizona v Mayorkas. This decision dealt with the abuse of civil liberties under emergency powers, specifically through the usurpation of the so-called “Title 42 Emergency Orders” that were issued to help prevent the spread of Covid-19, that were usurped by several different state governments and federal administrative agencies for their own designs. Trying to keep these emergency powers in place indefinitely because of a new imagined crisis that they were never meant to apply to.

Do The Supreme Court’s Actions Constitute An Attack On Democracy?

Today On Legalese we have the second video in my series about the Supreme Court’s upcoming case that will reconsider chevron deference. Do their actions constitute some kind of usurpation of power and are they an attack on democracy itself? We discuss this while debunking an article from Vox that claims both of those things are correct. We also look at the real history of administrative law in regards to Chevron Deference

Verified by MonsterInsights