About this episode
The U.S. government seized over $600,000 from a business, tried to forfeit the money, never filed criminal charges against anyone, and then three years later said “nevermind!” and dismissed the case and gave the money back. At the same time, the business was trying to find out what was in the original warrant applications for the seizure. Is the case over, or can the business keep working to see what the secret documents say? Dan Alban of IJ gives us the scoop in this case from the Sixth Circuit. Then, IJ’s McCarley Maddock tells us about the latest NCAA antitrust drama. A college football player transferred around to a few different schools and along the way played a year at a junior college. The problem for him was that year counted against his eligibility. But is that rule an antitrust violation? The Third Circuit says that, like with the French Revolution, it’s too early to tell.
California Palms v. U.S.
Elad v. NCAA
Short Circuit on baseball and antitrust
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 427 | Michigander Administrations
Short Circuit
May 8, 202654:29pending
Short Circuit 426 | Vaccinated Home Distilling
Short Circuit
May 1, 20261:05:28pending
Short Circuit 425 | Live from Penn Law!
Short Circuit
Apr 24, 202655:13pending
Short Circuit 424 | Juries for Securities
Short Circuit
Apr 17, 202640:24pending
