Get every episode summarized
Each time Short Circuit publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
About this episode
We wade into a hotly contested subject this week: standing law under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The cases by which we address that subject are about more mundane issues—abortion drugs and transgender transitioning in public schools—so we mostly ignore them. First, IJ’s Andrew Ward takes us to the rough-and-tumble Fifth Circuit where a group of doctors are challenging the FDA’s approval of a drug, resulting in a somewhat eyebrow-raising opinion (in more ways than one, but we focus on standing) where the bounds of a cognizable injury seem more expanded than normal. Then IJ’s Kirby Thomas West brings us to the Fourth Circuit where a group of parents challenge a school district’s gender transition policy. That leads to a result civil rights lawyers are more used to—a court excusing itself on standing grounds. What does this portent for the future of standing law? We have no idea, but we speculate about original meaning.
Click here for episode transcript
Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA
John and Jane Parents v. Montgomery County Board of Education
Get every episode summarized
Each time Short Circuit publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
Hosts & guests
No transcript yet
This episode has not been transcribed. Request it and it moves to the front of the queue.
More episodes
More from Short Circuit
Short Circuit 445 | Crazytown
Short Circuit
Short Circuit 444 | Recording the Police with Facebook Immunity
Short Circuit
Short Circuit 443 | Irreparable Speech Harms
Short Circuit
Short Circuit 442 | Free Speech Died Here, Ask Me How
Short Circuit