What do Institute for Justice attorneys think about the law? Listen into their roundtable conversations where they give their unrehearsed and “unpublished” opinions on matters beyond the federal courts of appeals. From the latest Supreme Court cases to legal history to trial tactics, IJ attorneys have much to share and (politely, but spiritedly) disagree with each other about.
All content for Unpublished Opinions is the property of Institute for Justice and is served directly from their servers
with no modification, redirects, or rehosting. The podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by Podjoint in any way.
What do Institute for Justice attorneys think about the law? Listen into their roundtable conversations where they give their unrehearsed and “unpublished” opinions on matters beyond the federal courts of appeals. From the latest Supreme Court cases to legal history to trial tactics, IJ attorneys have much to share and (politely, but spiritedly) disagree with each other about.
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
Unpublished Opinions
What do Institute for Justice attorneys think about the law? Listen into their roundtable conversations where they give their unrehearsed and “unpublished” opinions on matters beyond the federal courts of appeals. From the latest Supreme Court cases to legal history to trial tactics, IJ attorneys have much to share and (politely, but spiritedly) disagree with each other about.
