With the new Supreme Court term underway, John Wrench welcomes Anya Bidwell and Anthony Sanders for a SCOTUS-themed romp—including which justice is the ideal dinner guest and the past case you’d most like to argue—followed by an extremely competitive lightning round of wide-ranging SCOTUS trivia. 



Empirical SCOTUS on oral arguments



Wilkie v. Robbins



Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer



Zbig biography



The Room Where It Happened



The Meaning of Everything



The Victorian Bar



Life, Law & Liberty



Between Two Fires

Constitution Day might have been September 17, but Diana, Patrick, and John are still celebrating. From the insight that rights come before—not from—the government, to the evergreen challenge of constraining power, the trio admire favorite features of the U.S. Constitution, propose amendments, and discuss the dangers of viewing rights through a partisan lens. 



Extreme Punishment



Alien Earth



Sputnik



Judicial Time



Discworld

Lots of hot takes on the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, and even as varied a subject as the Supreme Court. With sub-categories: whether the words “privileges or immunities” in Section 1983 mean anything at all, Harvard Forwards and Conservative Warrens, and class actions. Plus, what we’re reading and why ChatGPT is very sorry for the wrongs it has inflicted upon cite checkers.



Medina v. Planned Parenthood S.A.



Section 1983: A Strict Liability Tort



AI sanctions opinion



The Gun, the Ship, and the Pen



Chernow’s Mark Twain



The Tainted Cup



The Female Quixote

A new edition of everyone’s favorite legal grimoire has dropped, and John Wrench convenes Sam Gedge and Diana Simpson to ask the hard questions: Is the Bluebook a sacred scroll, or an eldritch horror that feeds on the souls of each new generation of lawyers? The party ponders the secrets revealed by a Bluebook insider, including the mysterious process behind some controversial changes in the newest edition. See, e.g., Bluebook at Rule B5.3 (discussing new “citation modified” parenthetical) (cleaned up). From there, they turn from one arcane text to another: Dictionaries are often treated as skeleton keys for unlocking original meaning, but it turns out they require careful handling lest they be misread or misused. The journey wraps with reflections on how—with the recent Skrmetti decision as a case study—public interest litigation often demands hard judgment calls about whether to press forward or hold back, how to weigh principle against timing, and what “victory” looks like.



Jack Metzler, Cleaning up Quotations



M. Burke Craighead, The Bluebook: An Insider's Perspective



Scalia & Garner, A Note on the Use of Dictionaries



New York times piece on Skrmetti



Jennifer Mascott, The Dictionary as a Specialized Corpus

Done with oral argument at SCOTUS in Martin v. United States, Patrick Jaicomo and Anya Bidwell rejoin the rotation to yell at clouds and, along with this month’s host, give their unpublished opinions about what it’s like to argue before the Supreme Court, the presumption of regularity, universal injunctions, the moment of threat doctrine, appointed amici arguing cases, too-long briefs, and much else!



Case page in Martin v. US



Oral argument in Martin



Oral argument in universal injunctions case



Barns v. Felix



Medical Marijuana v. Horn



Easha Anand on Short Circuit about Horn



Red Rooms



The Gatekeepers



Patrick’s and Dan's article



Jane Austen’s Bookshelf



Missing Molly

Spring hath finally shaken off the winter of Arlington’s discontent, and host John Wrench gathers IJ barristers Sam Gedge and Josh Windham for a scene that proves that all the law’s a stage. The trio ponders why powerful constitutional lines often go unspoken while villainous doctrines persist for decades. Next, they debate whether strategically timed law review articles are really amici in academic costume (“The play’s the thing/Wherein I’ll catch a citation”), and Sam wields his editorial dagger against footnotes that skulk in the wings of legal briefs. The conversation turns to oral argument preparation—from Josh being mistaken for an actor rehearsing lines, to circular outlines, to generative AI—and closes with a meditation on whether the ideal dissenting opinion is performance art, a righteous aria, or a whispered cue for future casts. Timbs v. IndianaOrin Kerr’s post on strategically timed scholarshipJosh’s argument in PA Open FieldsJudge Wilkinson’s opinion in the Abrego Garcia caseDouglas Murray’s Democracies and Death CultsSarah Maas’s A Court of Thorns and RosesNetflix’s Il Gattopardo (The Leopard)Vladimir Nabokov’s Pale Fire

A flurry of ideas about the state of the law, the universe, and, well, everything. Including, at least, the impeachment of judges, how lawyers educate each other through media, corpus linguistics and AI, removals and remands in our Brave New World of Royal Canin USA v. Wullschledger, and a good walk spoiled.



Royal Canin USA v. Wullschledger



Laurent Sacharoff, The Broken Fourth Amendment Oath



The Princess Bride



Luke Milligan, Open Fields and Right to be Secure



Joshua Windham, The Open Fields Doctrine is Wrong



Stephanie Barclay, Constitutional Rights as Protected Reasons



Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (BBC)

John Wrench of IJ returns as your host for some courthouse conversations with his colleagues Diana Simpson and Josh Windham. They spill out their opinions on what can be weird about state court legal practice, the pros and cons of stare decisis, what you should know about public interest law before you try and practice it, and why maybe you shouldn’t eat as many Oreos.



Cuddihy’s The Fourth Amendment



Twin Peaks



Siebert’s The Underground Railroad



Bad Monkey



Harvard Note on Legislative History



Diana’s 9th Cir. brief



Good Energy



Valhalore: Wayfinder

In our first episode of 2025 we “livecast” a Supreme Court opinion whose release happened to cross into our pre-scheduled recording slot—the ruling in the TikTok case. Our comments’ relevance and timeliness may vary. The crew starts off, though, with a dive into the courts and court technology. Issues such as electronic filing, how the public accesses documents, and how we all access opinions. We also review the recent oral argument at the Supreme Court on the Texas age-verification law and what’s up these days on free speech and tiers of scrutiny. Finally, there’s recommendations on what to watch and read, both legal and non-legal.



TikTok opinion



Jimerson v. Lewis case page



Oral argument in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton

John Wrench of IJ takes the reins and the show quickly descends into law review comedy hour with footnotes of puns dominating the discourse. If you have to drop a footnote, perhaps you shouldn’t make the pun in the first place? The panel then moves on to hear from Anya Bidell and . . . Justice Scalia? Yes! We play some of Nino’s greatest hits, or at least from the reading of his concurrence in NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014). Sam Gedge seems unmoved by the moving words about separation of powers and recess appointments but he is revved up about sua sponte decision making and whether it’s OK to quote from dead justices’ papers in briefs and oral arguments. (Probably not, it seems is the consensus.) Also, you’ll learn why you should care about Francesco Crispi.



A “License to Kale”



“Wake” case



Opinion readings in NLRB v. Noel Canning



Oral argument in Huffman v. Pursue (1974)



Francesco Crispi biography



Angela Merkel autobiography



A French Village



Dune: Prophesy



First Monday in October board game

Unpublished Opinions 9 | We Should Get a Cape



It’s time for our panel to wig out. For some. Others are not exactly excited about judges (or advocates) wearing wigs. Before that, though, your chatty gaggle of IJ attorneys—namely, Patrick Jaicomo (not Jacobin), Josh Windham, and Anthony Sanders—weigh the benefits of social media in promoting public interest law. This includes Josh disclosing the amazing fact that he was banned from a service for impersonating himself. Later on the panel parses specialized courts and interest group capture of them. Plus reading and watching recommendations and how actors mature.



Cato report on prosecutors becoming judges



Bad Monkey



I’m Afraid You’ve Got Dragons



Jane Austen set



Jeeves & Wooster (YouTube)



Wizards of Baking

It’s our first “breakout” episode where we have our own feed and webpage—plus our own logo. And that means its time to get into the legal weeds. Sam Gedge, John Wrench, and Anthony Sanders of the Institute for Justice muse about citation proprieties, pleading proprieties, causes of action, special masters at SCOTUS, riparian rights in space, dropping judges’ names, and withholding from that last Aubrey-Maturin book so you don’t commit a circumnavigation.



Van Staphorts v. Maryland



TransUnion v. Ramirez



Short Circuit episode with Ed Walters



The Terror



The English and Their History



African Founders

Another episode of that podcast that’s not Short Circuit but features Institute for Justice attorneys talking about the law. Anya Bidwell rejoins the panel while she waits for the opinion in her Supreme Court case, Gonzalez v. Trevino. She says a few things about the Court’s recent ruling in NRA v. Vullo, a different First Amendment retaliation case. Multifactor tests are balanced as well. Then, Diana Simpson of IJ gives her thoughts on appeals in the middle of a case, and how often the rules concerning them are bent in favor of the government. The panel touches on ghostwritten briefs and whether there’s anything wrong with the practice. They close by figuring out what is a “spectacle” in the legal arena versus what’s just news.



NRA v. Vullo



Ghostwriters article



Diana’s Texas Mechanic case



In AI we trust

It’s been a while but we’re back with an episode of Unpublished Opinions. Herein IJ attorneys Anya Bidwell, Patrick Jaicomo, and your host talk about . . . Anya’s recent Supreme Court oral argument, how SCOTUS is surprisingly a friendlier place to argue than many other courts, the recent FTC rule about non-competes, why we still have a “Lawyers’ Edition” for SCOTUS cases, how perhaps lawyers can learn from magazine covers . . . and more!



Judge Posner liquidated damages case



Rob Johnson’s Tweet on FTC’s & non-competes



Anya’s SCOTUS argument



No Fly List case

It’s the latest episode of Unpublished Opinions, a Short Circuit podcast (but not actually Short Circuit). This is the podcast where Institute for Justice attorneys talk about the legal world beyond the federal courts of appeals. Diana Simpson and Josh Windham drop in to dialogue and diatribe about quite a few subjects you may—or may not—have your own opinions about. These include legal fictions, stare decisis, the vintage of the incorporation doctrine, and the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Acheson Hotels v. Laufer (that’s the Americans with Disabilities Act case about mootness and standing--or should it be standing and mootness?).



Acheson Hotels v. Laufer



Richard Dietz, Factories of Generic Constitutionalism



Mazzone & Tecimer, Interconstitutionalism



General Law and the Fourteenth Amendment

Quite a bit to talk about today on Unpublished Opinions, the podcast where Institute for Justice attorneys muse on legal things other than the federal courts of appeals. Diana Simpson and Sam Gedge come on to give their takes on a whole list of topics: Supreme Court leaks, AI-writing briefs and plagiarism, sua sponte judges, footnotes, and not italicizing the “v” in a casename. It’s all there. It’s all Unpublished.



Supreme Court Style Guide



NTY piece relying on leaks



Essay on substantive due process and Dobbs



Short Circuit episode on sua sponte case



Justice Kavanaugh and his footnote



Short Circuit episode where we talk about the monkey

It’s another edition of the podcast where we talk about things other than the federal courts of appeals. Patrick Jaicomo and Sam Gedge clamber in to pick apart the recent trend of calling Attorney Generals and Solicitor Generals “generals.” It’s a pretty new phenomenon, it turns out. But is it wrong? We sort through the pros and cons. There’s also discussion of judicial robes and ex-officials clinging to their titles. Then we move to history. Sure, everyone loves history, and the Supreme Court is into it these days. But do we have too much of it floating around the constitutional law world? Maybe constitutions (and other laws) are supposed to change history, not lock it in place?



Mark Twain’s Does the Race of Man Love a Lord?



Michael Herz: Washington, Patton, Schwartzkopf and . . . Ashcroft?

It’s the second episode of Unpublished Opinions, a Short Circuit podcast. This time we’re once again joined by Institute for Justice attorney Anya Bidwell, but also welcome along her colleague Josh Windham. We start things rolling and see where their legal minds go. And that begins with cameras in the courtroom, something that divides the panel quite sharply. Would the Supreme Court change if cameras were introduced? Would it change for the better? Then we shift to judges and their busy schedules. What’s up with judges not reading briefs before an argument? Is it really all that bad? How prepared must a judge be to be a “prepared judge”? After this we move along to legal writing and judges writing to be too “hip.” Josh has some thoughts on this, which the rest of the panel are . . . somewhat skeptical of. But we end on a compromise everyone can, hopefully, agree on.



Short Circuit episode on “cool judges” with Raffi Melkonian



Article on Judicial Opinions by Nina Varsava

Welcome to Short Circuit’s new podcast! In this free ranging side of the Center for Justice Engagement we welcome two Institute for Justice attorneys, Anya Bidwell and Patrick Jaicomo, to discuss what’s on their legal minds. Although we won’t be doing this every podcast, given its name we can’t help but begin by ranting about unpublished opinions. Why are they “unpublished” again? And perhaps that made sense at one point but in the age of the Internet, is that really true anymore? The gang chew the fat on this topic but also how it relates to qualified immunity and the relatively new dispute over whether “precedent” is the same thing as “clearly established.” Then we muse on the new Supreme Court, under the old adage that whenever the Court’s membership changes there’s a whole new “court.” There's a focus on the dynamics of oral argument and how there’s a lot more talking at 1 First Street these days. We also throw a football down the field for Justice Byron White.



Case where Judge Oldman talks about precedent



Draft en banc article