Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.
Friends, come join us at Georgetown Law this Tuesday, March 7, for a symposium on Shielded: How the Police Became Untouchable, a timely new book by Joanna Schwartz. Click here for the details and to RSVP.
- In 1972, Congress proposed the Equal Rights Amendment and sent it to the states with a seven-year deadline for ratification, later extended to 10 years. Only 35 of the required 38 states ratified the amendment before the deadline, and several passed votes purporting to withdraw their ratification. Fast forward to 2018, when Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia became the 36th, 37th, and 38th states to ratify the supposedly defunct amendment and then file a mandamus action seeking to compel the national Archivist to record the amendment as part of the Constitution. D.C. Circuit: Mandamus is only to be used when the right to relief is “clear and indisputable,” which, it’s fair to say, ain’t the case here.
- Garner’s Modern American Usage shows no mercy to federal judges who confuse “flaunt” with “flout.” A mouth-breathing “Stage 3” error, says Garner! Which doubtless is why the First Circuit wasted no time issuing this sua sponte blockbuster errata clarifying that a district court’s discovery orders were in fact “flaunted.” Wait, no. “Flouted.” “Flaunted”? “Flounted.” Definitely flounted.
- Plaintiff: New York law forbids employers from taking adverse action against employees who procure abortions, but we are crisis pregnancy centers. Taking adverse action against abortion is kind of our whole thing. Second Circuit: And you may well have a First Amendment right to only employ people who agree with that. Case undismissed!
- What should you do when the police confiscate your handmade sign warning motorists of a nearby “traffic-enforcement operation”? Make another sign, of course! It’ll absolutely get you arrested, but it’ll also make you a starring character in an opinion like this one from the Second Circuit.
- Two dudes go walking down the sidewalk of a Richmond, Va. housing complex. Cops see them, recognize them, and accuse them of trespassing based partly upon a trespassing arrest from eight years ago. Cops ask the dudes to lift their shirts. One does, one kind of does. The kind-of one is also wearing skinny jeans, and there was a sketchy tip he sold drugs. Officers threaten him with trespassing charges and then detain and pat him down, finding a gun. Permissible Terry stop? District court: That’s totally fine. Fourth Circuit (over a dissent): A sketchy tip, eight-year-old arrest, and skinny jeans? Grant the motion to suppress.
- Allegation: Inmate at Rush City, Minn. correctional facility is attacked with a shank when he declines to pay off his cellmate’s drug debt. He (and his family) repeatedly ask for a transfer to another facility, but officials decline (in part because the assailant attests “the issue [is] dead.”) The assailant attacks again the first chance he gets, causing serious injuries. Eighth Circuit: Prison sucks, man. What do you want us to do about it?
- Driver of utility-terrain vehicle declines to stop for Bureau of Land Management officer in Berdoo Canyon, Calif., passing within arm’s reach of the officer. The officer fires his weapon, striking the p
Article from Reason.com
