By John Ross
IJ’s Center for Judicial Engagement (CJE) seeks to convince judges, the broader legal community and the public of the need for a properly engaged judiciary. Judges have an obligation to carefully weigh the facts of each case before them and enforce constitutional limits on government power. Too often, however, they abdicate that responsibility, bending over backwards to justify intrusive government policies—trampling constitutional rights in the process.
To promote judicial engagement, last month CJE launched Short Circuit, a weekly email newsletter and podcast series covering action in the federal appellate courts.
Every Friday afternoon, newsletter subscribers will receive summaries of interesting decisions handed down that week. In the podcasts, CJE Director Clark Neily and Assistant Director Evan Bernick will discuss several of the cases in more detail, focusing on particularly noteworthy examples of engagement and abdication.
Why the federal circuits? The U.S. Courts of Appeals hear tens of thousands of cases each year, of which only a handful will go on to the Supreme Court for further review. That means most constitutional cases—and the weighty questions they often present—are ultimately decided by appeals courts. And wherever the constitutional action is, that’s where you can expect IJ to be.
John Ross is the editor of Short Circuit.