Legale§e Bob Fiedler

Episode #56
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.

Show Notes Page "Sixth Circuit Smacks Down Civil Asset Forfeiture" - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/episode-56-sixth-circuit-smacks-down

Follow & Support
Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/
Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/
“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX

Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com

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


---

Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #55

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"


Follow & Support
Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter
Legalese Homepage
“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon

Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com

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


---

Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

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 - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/episode-54-fifth-circuit-short-circuits



Subscribe to the Legale§e Newsletter You will get notifications for all new content, whether it’s articles, podcasts or videos!

Visit the Legale§e Podcast homepage to learn more about the show, get updates, contact me, buy my book, find links to my social media & more!

Follow


Rumble
Odysee
YouTube
Twitter
Substack
Anchor⁠

Support


PayPal.me
Venmo
Locals

Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers Now Available on Amazon

Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in areas of law, politics & culture.Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.


Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, fifth circuit, supreme court, criminal libel, louisiana revised statute,§14.47, 42 USC §1983, rogers v smith, qualified immunity


---

Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

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:
https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/qualified-immunity-as-gun-control
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.

The original article by Krishnamurthi and Salib was largely written as a response to a notable case filed by the U.S. Fifth Circuit on Feb 02, 2023
~United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443, 448 (5th Cir. 2023). https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/21-11001/21-11001-2023-02-02.pdf?ts=1675384240
What makes U.S. v Rahimi so notable is that the Supreme Court has chosen to grant cert on this case, following a petition filed by the DOJ on the following question presented: "Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face."
This case has a high likelihood of ending up as a landmark 2A case in their upcoming term...

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Krishnamurthi, Guha and Salib, Peter, Qualified Immunity as Gun Control (July 5, 2023).
Notre Dame Law Review Reflection (forthcoming 2023),
https://ssrn.com/abstract=4500816

SHOW NOTES
For all other links and citations, as well as a full transcript of this podcast episode head over to episode show notes page - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/qi-as-gc

FOLLOW AND SUPPORT
Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/
Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/

Pick up a copy of my book - “Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers”
Now Available on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BN93R9QX

Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com

Legale§e is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law-- as well as current events in law, politics and culture.
Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.


---

Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

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 - https://legaleseshow.com/
Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/

Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com

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


---

Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support

Episode #51
Today on Legalese we have another video in my Supreme Court Wrap-Up. We discuss Haaland v Brackeen (2023). A landmark Indian Commerce Clause case that sought to challenge the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978.

Show Notes Page For This Episode - https://constitutionallaw.substack.com/p/haaland-v-brackeen-599-us-___-2023

Follow & Support
Subscribe To Legalese Newsletter - https://legaleseshow.com/
Legalese Homepage - https://www.legalesepodcast.com/

Contact Me - Bob@legaleseshow.com

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


---

Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/message
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/legaleseshow/support