This episode is a First Amendment 2-4-1. We begin with James Dickey of the Upper Midwest Law Center (and former golf pro). James tells us about a recent case he argued at the Eighth Circuit concerning the “government speech” doctrine. If a public school lets some people—but not others with a different viewpoint—come in and hang posters is that just fine because it’s the “government” speaking? In keeping with some recent Supreme Court rulings, the court said no, letting the case go forward. Then IJ’s campaign finance guru Paul Sherman steps forward to tease out a confusing opinion of the Second Circuit about a New York law that allows big contributions to big political parties but much smaller contributions to much smaller groups. It seems the reasoning is that major parties are above suspicion. Can that be right? Paul doesn’t think so.

Cajune v. Ind. Sch. Dist. 194

Upstate Jobs Party v. Kosinski

Huizenga v. Ind. Sch. Dist. 11

Recent Episodes

Short Circuit 354 | Grounds Increasingly Dubious

We start with a case that ticks a lot of Short Circuit boxes: eliminating governmental immunities, state constitutions, preliminary injunctions, conniving public officials, mootness, and […]

Listen Now

Short Circuit 353 | Jurisdictional Mavens

Notable—and quotable—Chicago lawyer Patrick Eckler joins us for a crash-course in Seventh Circuit paranoia (if you’re paranoid about jurisdictional questions at oral argument—which you really […]

Listen Now

Short Circuit 352 | Misinformation

We go online for some First Amendment content this week. First, IJ’s Jeff Redfern explains how the Eleventh Circuit concluded that CNN might be liable […]

Listen Now

Short Circuit 351 | State Court Shenanigans

A couple friends drop by this week who have overstayed their welcome: Rooker and Feldman. Together they make up the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a weed that […]

Listen Now