Short Circuit

Our annual Supreme Court term preview, this year from Wake Forest Law and released today, First Monday, the first day of the Supreme Court’s new term. IJ’s Justin Pearson is joined by colleague Paul Avelar and Professor Wilson Parker of Wake Forest. After a bit of SCOTUS trivia they preview two cases—about fair trials and guns—and then two cert petitions—about electronic searches and guns. Along the way you’ll learn about a few other cases coming the Court’s way, letting all of us get our kicks for OT26. DOL v. Sun Valley Orchards Viramontes v. Cook County Thompson v. Wilson U.S. v. Squire (5th Cir. en ban grant)

We’ve all seen the ads for prediction markets, like Kalshi, and some of us have even placed bets with them. But are they actually “bets”? That is, are they gambling? The Ninth Circuit addressed this issue as it relates to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and said that at least on the land of a tribe that operated its own gaming, what Kalshi does is gambling and is not allowed. IJ’s Kirby Thomas West takes us into the wild world of predicting vs. gambling and the related issues of whether federal law preempts state law on predicting/betting. But before that, Paul Sherman of IJ brings us exciting news from Georgia where its state supreme court ruled that a legal hemp-growing operation had a valid takings claim against authorities who damaged its crop (and cows) with a helicopter. The case concerns whether there is a “police power” exemption from takings protections and how courts often have tried to avoid takings claims by saying takings clauses only apply to eminent domain. RSVP for Short Circuit Live in Cambridge, Mass. on October 19! Blue 42 Organics v. Georgia DPS Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi The Damagings Clauses

We focus on a district court case that has appellate court explanatory power. As our special guest Professor Robert Steinbuch says, if you reside in Arkansas you must be living in a cave if you haven’t heard of the Malinowski matter. The lawsuit concerns the tragic death of a man who was shot by the police in a raid after he shot first. His widow alleges the man did not know the people breaking into their house were police as they did not properly announce themselves. Because the police were ATF members, or task force members who were working with the ATF, the ability of the widow to sue for damages is limited. For constitutional claims that means a Bivens claim. For non-constitution (or are they non-constitutional?) claims that means the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court threw out the first route but kept most of the second. Professor Steinbuch and IJ’s Anya Bidwell explain what the court said, what was right and what was questionable, and who these issues mean for the larger debate, including efforts in state legislatures to provide alternatives to Bivens. Malinowski v. U.S. (FTCA claims) Malinowski v. U.S. (Bivens claims) Docket for Nielsen v. Watanabe Professor Steinbuch’s column on Malinowski case Bound By Oath episode on Bivens claims

Say a gaggle of police with military-grade toys fire a boatload of tear gas into a home and then run in and break a bunch of stuff, all the while looking for a fugitive with no connection to the family that lives there. Do the police have to pay for the damage? That’s an issue that’s at the Supreme Court’s doorstep in a couple of IJ cert petitions. And along with those IJ has just issued a report about how many claims are actually made against the police for the destruction of property, how many are paid, and how much the claims are. We hope you enjoy a report on the report from IJ’s Jeff Redfern, who has litigated many of IJ’s SWAT cases. (And you can download the report itself at the link below.) Then it’s on to a Sixth Circuit case out of Nashville where the city waited on a request to build an apartment building even though the zoning was fine. Nick DeBenedetto of IJ tells us this story, with a happy (intermediate) ending on bringing a takings claim. Then we finish off with more from Jeff, this time concerning a D.C. Circuit decision about a Project Veritas scheme involving fake names, hidden cameras, a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, the First Amendment, and a reminder to get that intern to actually sign a non-disclosure agreement. RSVP for Short Circuit Live in Cambridge, Mass. on October 19! The SWAT Report: Public Benefit, Private Burden SW Nashville EB Owner v. Nashville Democracy Partners v. O’Keefe

Time for The Big One. So many have so many takes on the Ninth Circuit that, as part of our #12Months12Circuits series, we at IJ had to add our own. It’s the mega-circuit that encompasses all of the West Coast, much of the Mountain West, Alaska, Hawaii, and even Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. IJ’s Paul Avelar, who lives in the circuit, and Ben Field, who clerked there, share some details and war stories about the circuit that’s just too darn big. After that they analyze a couple recent, very-Ninth-Circuit-y cases. Paul shares a sovereign immunity matter where a host of plaintiffs who like their gas stoves sued a group of Washington State officials. Unfortunately, the court said they sued the wrong folks. There’s much talk about picking the right defendants and how you sue the government and how you can’t. Then Ben brings us to California where the state requires gun shops—including a gun shop inside someone’s home—to record video and audio 24/7 and must turn it over to the government if asked. The majority of the panel thought this was all just fine from both a First Amendment and Fourth Amendment perspective. Ben and the dissent disagree. Rivera v. Sami Richards v. Newsom The U.S. Court for China