The Volokh Conspiracy - Latest News and Information
The episode dissects a recent Florida defamation case where New Moon Reptiles sued a Nevada resident for allegedly false social‑media claims that the company’s reptiles died due to unsafe shipping. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for an ex parte temporary restraining order, emphasizing the lack of immediate irreparable harm, the three‑month delay in seeking relief, and concerns about prior restraint on speech and personal jurisdiction. The discussion highlights the legal standards for TROs, especially in online defamation contexts, and notes the quirky detail that the defendant’s attorney practices animal law under a dog‑themed domain. Overall, the hosts explain why the reptiles’ legal strategy fell short and what the ruling means for future internet‑based defamation suits.
In this episode, Professor Jack Goldsmith discusses the Supreme Court's recent tariff decision, focusing on how the justices applied the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD) to limit presidential authority over broad statutory delegations. He highlights the significance of three conservative justices...
The episode dissects Justice Kagan's concurrence in the Supreme Court's recent tariff decision, highlighting how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) lists nine verbs and eleven objects that combine into 99 distinct presidential powers, none of which include raising...
In Grow Universe Inc. v. Doe, Judge Gregory Woods denied a defendant’s request to proceed anonymously in a lawsuit alleging unauthorized access to a Google business account, misappropriation of trade secrets, and account deletion under the Computer Fraud and Abuse...
The episode examines a recent Maryland federal court decision rejecting PETA's claim that it has a First Amendment right to compel the government to provide a continuous audio‑visual live feed of macaques used in a mental‑health research lab. The judge...
In this episode, hosts Jane and the narrator dissect two recent First Amendment cases involving student speech at public universities: Damsky v. University of Florida, which upheld disciplinary action for speech containing violent references, and Christensen v. Ohio State University,...
The episode critiques the American Constitution Society (ACS) for lacking a coherent constitutional theory beyond opposing Trump and originalism, highlighting President Phil Brest’s admission that the organization has no affirmative interpretive framework. It references Jeffrey Toobin’s NYT column exposing the...
The episode examines recent federal and California court rulings on whether participation in California’s Safe at Home confidentiality program entitles litigants to retroactively redact or pseudonymize past federal filings. Judge Birotte’s decision in Smith v. Solomon underscores that federal courts...
The episode examines a recent judicial reprimand of attorney Michael Policchio for filing briefs with fabricated, AI‑hallucinated citations, highlighting a broader pattern of similar errors in other cases. Judge Mark Dinsmore emphasizes that while technology can aid legal work, attorneys...
