We welcome back Easha Anand of Stanford Law’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic for her third (or is it fourth?) appearance. Last time she was on she had not yet argued at the Supreme Court, but now she’s done it four times. She tells us if it gets easier (not so far) and then gives a report on a recent Third Circuit case where the court got qualified immunity all wrong. In ruling on a malicious prosecution claim the court helped the pernicious doctrine of QI grow from just being about rights to about causes of action. Then IJ’s Anya Bidwell takes us up to the First Circuit for a civil forfeiture matter concerning 30,000 drug prosecutions that were thrown out and whether the federal courts can help those wrongfully convicted get their property back (“no” is the answer). Also, at the end (after some discussion of biker gangs) there’s some joking about how the Supreme Court has relisted two IJ cases. What your host and guests didn’t know at the time, though, is that the Court would grant cert in one of them just an hour afterward! It’s Martin v. United States, and we’re sure you’ll hear more about it in future podcasts.

Click here for transcript.

RSVP for our 10th Anniversary Party and Show on April 3d in DC!

Rivera-Guadalupe v. City of Harrisburg

Cotto v. Campbell

Williams v. Aguirre

O’Connor v. Eubanks

How to Fix a Drug Scandal

Policing for Profit grade for Massachusetts

DOJ report on Springfield, Mass

IJ page on Martin v. U.S.

Tea-Cup Reading & Fortune-Telling By Tea Leaves