login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Short Circuit: An inexhaustive weekly compendium of rulings from the federal courts of appeal
The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
About The Volokh Conspiracy Editorial Independence Who we are Books Volokh Daily Email Archives Search DMCA RSS
Politics
Short Circuit: An inexhaustive weekly compendium of rulings from the federal courts of appeal
Phony checks, a twinkling of an eye, and sparkling sports gambling.
John Ross | 4.10.2026 3:30 PM
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.
New cert petition! In 2022, a SWAT team blew up IJ client Carlos Pena's print shop in Los Angeles while trying to apprehend a fugitive—and the city stuck Carlos with the tab. But the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation when the gov't intentionally damages or destroys an innocent person's property, so we're asking the Supreme Court to take up the case and remind lower courts that that's been the law for a long time. (Click here for a lovingly crafted podcast on the history.)
This week on the Short Circuit podcast: We dive into the Byzantine flowchart that is civil forfeiture, as detailed in IJ's new report Policing for Profit 4.
Third Circuit (over a dissent): It's only an events contract if it's regulated in the CFTC region of D.C.; otherwise it's just sparkling sports gambling. It's not George Costanza but rather the Fourth Circuit reminding us: "We live in a society." And here that means having to follow West Virginia's compulsory schoolchildren vaccination law, even though it lacks religious exemptions. Dissent: Seems like the Free Exercise Clause should require a religious exemption for a student in a virtual public school when the state exempts homeschoolers. Fourth Circuit (unpublished): Forcing an elderly widow to choose between agreeing to waive all of her claims against a city whose sewer system just flooded her home and being homeless for want of funds (on account of the aforementioned sewage) just might maybe be "undue influence" that voids the contract. To a jury with you! Dissent: A contract where one party had more bargaining power than the other isn't "undue influence." It's just a contract. College football players sue the NCAA so they can hit the gridiron for the 2025-26 season. Under the NCAA's "JUCO" rule, their time playing in junior college ate up their eligibility to play at traditional........© Reason.com
visit website