About this episode
Notable—and quotable—Chicago lawyer Patrick Eckler joins us for a crash-course in Seventh Circuit paranoia (if you’re paranoid about jurisdictional questions at oral argument—which you really should be). A co-host of the Podium and Panel Podcast, Patrick gives a primer on how federal appellate judges look at things The Chicago Way and then explains how a recent oral argument went off the rails quite quickly. The resulting opinion about the Federal Arbitration Act and how it relates to Amtrak was pretty short, mostly because the lawyers seem to have forgotten they work for a railroad. Then Christie Hebert of IJ takes us on an up-and-down ride in the Eighth Circuit with a takings case (and a bit of Contract Clause thrown in) that despite its hopeful beginnings on appeal two years ago ends in a meaningless one-page opinion. Along the way she shares what she learned at the Supreme Court earlier this year in IJ’s property rights case, DeVillier. And, for those who can’t find such content anywhere else, there’s a spirited defense of Rule 12(c) motions.
Heights Apartments v. Walz (2022)
Heights Apartments v. Walz (D. Ct. 2023)
Heights Apartments v. Walz (2024)
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