Beyond the Brief Institue for Justice

We like to think of America as a land of opportunity and second chances. But what happens when a web of government restrictions prevents someone from earning an honest living due to past mistakes?  Today we’re talking with IJ Attorney Andrew Ward, and Rudy Carey, a substance abuse counselor and former IJ client.  We discuss so-called “permanent punishment” laws, the millions of people they affect, and how IJ is helping Americans get the fresh starts they deserve.  









https://youtu.be/yfApc87-eSg

















Related Case Videos













https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiHMg2xBQUk















https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVi1beANBBQ

If a federal official violates your rights, is it impossible to hold them accountable?  In this episode, we talk with IJ senior attorneys Anya Bidwell and Patrick Jaicomo, leaders of IJ’s Project on Immunity and Accountability.  We discuss some outrageous cases of abuse by federal officials, why it’s so hard to sue the Feds, and what IJ is doing to clear a path to justice.

















https://youtu.be/teOXBgd3yCo?si=QBFZD6mrk-pAd2C-

Your home is supposed to be your castle. But what about the land your castle sits on?  We discuss why it is that most private land in America gets no protection from warrantless government surveillance. We are joined by IJ attorney and co-director of IJ’s Project on the Fourth Amendment, Josh Windham.









https://youtu.be/jN-VEE7fAEs













related report























Good Fences? Good Luck







Released in the Cato Institute’s Regulation magazine, IJ’s study “Good Fences? Good Luck” is the first study to put a number on the amount of private property vulnerable to warrantless searches by federal agents thanks to a legal precedent known as the “open fields doctrine.” It finds that nearly 96% of all private land in the country—about 1.2 billion acres—is essentially open to federal government trespass. 









read report

What can Americans do if the government retaliates against them for speaking out? Today we're going to discuss real world examples of governments retaliating against citizens for speech they don’t approve of. We are joined by IJ Attorneys Kirby Thomas West and Ben Field.









https://youtu.be/Yhji-Uyn23Y

Does qualified immunity actually accomplish what the Supreme Court intended? Kim Norberg and co-host Keith Neely discuss qualified immunity and how it plays out in the real world. IJ Senior Attorney Bob McNamara and data scientist Jason Tiezzi join to discuss Unaccountable, IJ’s new report that examines qualified immunity by the numbers.







The report uses the largest ever collection of federal appellate cases, covering the 11-year period from 2010 through 2020. It is also the first to use cutting-edge automated techniques to parse thousands of federal circuit court opinions and answer key questions about cases where government defendants claim qualified immunity—what kinds of officials and conduct it protects, its impact on civil rights cases, and whether the doctrine is achieving its aims.









https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag6SLAnfKtw

























Unaccountable







When people hear “qualified immunity,” they tend to think “police misconduct.” But IJ’s qualified immunity cases frequently involve other types of officials and allegations. Now a new IJ study of more than 5,500 federal qualified immunity appeals shows those cases aren’t outliers. Unaccountable finds only 23% of appeals involved police accused of excessive force. Police often claimed qualified immunity, of course, but so did social workers, college deans, mayors, and many other government officials. And the violations victims alleged were similarly diverse, with almost 20% of appeals featuring First Amendment claims, usually premeditated retaliation for disfavored speech or other protected activity. Unaccountable finds qualified immunity hobbles victims of government abuses like these and fails to accomplish the goals supporters claim it’s needed to achieve, strengthening the case for ending the doctrine.









Read Report

Unbeknownst to parents, a portion of their baby’s blood remained unused after a standard screening was complete. And New Jersey had unilaterally decided that it could keep that blood for 23 years. Even worse, New Jersey, along with other states, believed it could use that blood however it saw fit, whether that be selling it to third parties, giving it to law enforcement, or even turning it over to the Pentagon.







On today’s episode of Beyond the Brief, hosts Kim Norberg and Keith Neely talk to IJ Attorneys Rob Frommer and Brian Morris about New Jersey’s creepy baby blood collection scheme.









https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ypXPwkNoFI









Case Page:  https://ij.org/case/new-jersey-genetic-privacy/







News Article: https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/11/14/civil-rights-concerns-grow-over-baby-blood-tests-as-state-mulls-genomic-sequencing/