Poison Pill in Your Pocket

Divided Argument

We follow up on feedback, puzzle over the Court's apparent continued lack of interest in Fourth Amendment cases, and then discuss two of the latest opinions—Culley v. Marshall (civil forfeiture) and Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy (copyright).

And yes, we know Dan's audio sounds terrible due to a technical snafu, sorry!

2024-05-16 76 min Transcript

Available Results

Generated results are saved to the knowledge database for reuse and search.

No generated results are available for this episode yet.

Extract Knowledge

Pick what you want extracted first. Model, scope, and chapter options appear after a template is selected.

Generated results for public episodes are saved to the knowledge database so they can be reused and searched later.

Transcript

Will: Sure. So, I don't know. I remember Orin Kerr makes this a constant observation, so I do think it's been going on for a while. Of course, the court is just taking fewer cases generally. But I think there's something about the thing that the doctrine of the Fourth Amendment cases are about that I think is out of step with the thing that the majority of the court feels constitutional law should be like. Fourth Amendment cases have a very common law feel. I mean, to the point that you can say, the question is Gant for luggage, does the rule for cars [unintelligible , it's this common law, if you're a certain kind of formalist, can feel a little rootless.

Chapters

No chapters available.