Podcast appearances and mentions of jay schweikert

In Counterman v. Colorado, the Supreme Court clarified what should be treated as a "true threat" going forward. Jay Schweikert discusses the court's opinion. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A likely bad conviction, a sloppily written law, and the Supreme Court have come together to provide a strange and troubling outcome in Jones v. Hendrix. Cato's Jay Schweikert details what happened. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jay Schweikert ( research fellow with the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice) joins Ron Steslow to discuss the qualified immunity doctrine, its origins, and how it stands in the way of protecting civil rights (03:05) What qualified immunity is and how it developed (04:21) How does it stop people from holding law enforcement accountable (11:05) How courts determine that a “clearly established right” has been violated (23:44) The importance of qualified immunity reform in any policing reform discussion (31:19) The arguments against ending qualified immunity (40:05) How qualified immunity applies to public employees beyond law enforcement (44:39) The goals of civil rights lawsuits  (46:00) Potential avenues for qualified immunity reform Follow Ron and Jay on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RonSteslow https://twitter.com/jay_schweikert Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's a heavy lift to create a culture of accountability within policing that could reduce police killings. Jay Schweikert discusses the brutal police killing of Tyre Nichols and why the case was both exceptional and alarming. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How did the Supreme Court's latest term stack up for criminal justice? Jay Schweikert and Clark Neily comment. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

I originally invited Clark Neily to join me to discuss his essay on what libertarians should think about the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Of course, it's nearly impossible to make everyone happy with a discussion of such a controversial issue. And yet Clark and his co-essayist Jay Schweikert do an excellent job threading the needle on what they call “the hard problem of abortion.” They write:Libertarianism tolerates a wide range of views on the policy question of abortion accessBut the policy question is only the beginning. The Constitutional question is what was taken up recently by the Supreme Court, and while the outcome may be disappointing to those who support abortion as a policy matter, Clark and Schweikert note that “there are still many valid grounds to criticize how the Court has constitutionalized abortion rights in particular.”What makes abortion different from other “unenumerated rights” discovered by the court in the modern era, like contraception, parental rights over their child's education, or the right to privacy in the bedroom? The *Dobbs* decision reconsiders *Roes* classification of abortion among these rights, and holds that question of individual liberty is not so straightforward where unborn life is concerned.To be sure, we got to these delicate questions, but we also talked about an area where the Court has refused to reconsider a prior decision that appears to be in error.The doctrine of qualified immunity, which the Cato Institute characterizes as an “Unlawful Shield,” protects prosecutors, police officers and other government officials from civil liability.While pundits endlessly argue about the legal reasoning *Roe*, Clark and I will be talking about the 1982 case of *Harlow v. Fitzgerald*, in which the Supreme Court made it harder to prosecute violations of individual rights perpetrated by members of the protected class known as government employees.Although I covered the topic in 2020, and Clark has been continuing the fight to “#AbolishQI,” it still doesn't get nearly enough attention.

What does it take to move a malicious prosecution claim forward? The Supreme Court tackled that question last week. Jay Schweikert explains what they decided. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Senate will now consider what it knows and has heard about the record of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson before a vote on her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Tommy Berry and Jay Schweikert discuss the most important parts of the hearings. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Supreme Court stayed busy this week despite oral arguments, issuing a pair of rulings on Monday that granted qualified immunity to law enforcement officers involved in alleged violations of civil rights. On this week's episode, we welcome guest Jay Schweikert, an attorney and research fellow with the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice, to discuss what the rulings mean for the future of the controversial doctrine. Also this week, an update on the latest round of briefs filed at the high court over Texas' 6-week abortion ban and a deeper dive into why President Joe Biden's bipartisan commission is at loggerheads over a draft report condemning court-packing proposals.

The sticking point over policing reform in Congress is qualified immunity, the court-invented doctrine that regularly lets cops off the hook when they violate Americans' rights. Cato's Clark Neily and Jay Schweikert discuss the negotiations. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

A case of university led prior restraint spurred Clarence Thomas to urge his fellow justices to take up a case regarding qualified immunity. Jay Schweikert details the case. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

1) Introduction: Caleb O. Brown 2) Clark Neily, Jay Schweikert, and Ben Cohen on his new book, Above the Law 3) New Mexico House Speaker Brian Egolf on ending qualified immunity in his state 4) Stuart Buck on collecting better criminal justice data 5) Erin Partin on cannabis legalization efforts 6) Mustafa Akyol on blasphemy laws See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Qualified immunity is an insult to Americans whose rights have been violated by public officials. Ben Cohen tells some of those stories in Above the Law: How 'Qualified Immunity' Protects Violent Police. We were joined by Cato’s Jay Schweikert and Clark Neily. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Jay Schweikert on Qualified Immunity

Scott talks to Jay Schweikert about the promising developments in New Mexico, where a new state-wide law has been enacted that repeals qualified immunity as a legal defense for any public official. This is a similar move, says Schweikert, to legislation adopted recently in Colorado and New York City, but whereas in those places the new measures apply only to police officers, the New Mexico law covers all government employees. Scott and Schweikert consider this a great first step in eliminating the unjust privileges that protect public figures from being held accountable for their actions. Discussed on the show: “New Mexico Enacts Landmark Qualified Immunity Reform Legislation for All Public Officials” (Cato Institute) Jay Schweikert is a policy analyst with the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice. Follow him on Twitter @jay_schweikert. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: The War State, by Mike Swanson; Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; Photo IQ; Green Mill Supercritical; Zippix Toothpicks; and Listen and Think Audio. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjYu5tZiG.

Scott talks to Jay Schweikert about the promising developments in New Mexico, where a new state-wide law has been enacted that repeals qualified immunity as a legal defense for any public official. This is a similar move, says Schweikert, to legislation adopted recently in Colorado and New York City, but whereas in those places the new measures apply only to police officers, the New Mexico law covers all government employees. Scott and Schweikert consider this a great first step in eliminating the unjust privileges that protect public figures from being held accountable for their actions. Discussed on the show: “New Mexico Enacts Landmark Qualified Immunity Reform Legislation for All Public Officials” (Cato Institute) Jay Schweikert is a policy analyst with the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice. Follow him on Twitter @jay_schweikert. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: The War State, by Mike Swanson; Tom Woods’ Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; Photo IQ; Green Mill Supercritical; Zippix Toothpicks; and Listen and Think Audio. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjYu5tZiG.

The Supreme Court created and has long supported a tortured reading federal law that helps public officials escape accountability for violating your rights. That may be changing in a small way. Still, Clark Neily and Jay Schweikert argue that qualified immunity will continue to protect malicious public officials until lawmakers step in to fix it. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield are the icons better known for Ben and Jerry's ice cream. Now they're focusing their notoriety on ending qualified immunity. Ben, Jerry, and Cato's Jay Schweikert comment on the campaign to end the powerful, court-invented doctrine that shields public officials from accountability. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Qualified immunity, the court invented doctrine that protects public officials from civil liability even in cases of egregious conduct, took a small hit at the Supreme Court recently. Jay Schweikert explains what it might mean long term. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The judicial doctrine known as qualified immunity is being misrepresented by law enforcement advocates. The only remaining question is whether those advocates understand the doctrine at all. Jay Schweikert details the errors. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

How will Amy Coney Barrett shake things up on the bench if she is confirmed by the Senate before November 3? “Amy Coney Barrett will not be as revolutionary as the left fears or the right wishes,” Sarah argues, “Because no justice really is, because it’s one vote.” On today’s episode, David and Sarah address the hysteria surrounding her upcoming Senate confirmation battle while breaking down what a 6-3 conservative majority would mean for the future of Supreme Court jurisprudence. Sarah and David are also joined by Ilya Shapiro—director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute and publisher of the Cato Supreme Court Review—for a conversation about the politics and history of Supreme Court nominations. To a certain degree, politics has always played a role in Supreme Court nominations. What makes this era unique? “What’s different is that you have divergent interpretive theories mapping onto partisan preference at a time when the parties are more ideologically sorted than they’ve been since at least the Civil War,” Shapiro argues. When it comes to divergent legal theories, “every decade provides a new escalation.” Tune in for a conversation about the future of First and Second Amendment jurisprudence, the left’s misconceptions surrounding Roe v. Wade, and the problems associated with public hearings for judicial nominations. Show Notes: -30 day free trial at The Dispatch, CBS post-debate poll, “Why Amy Coney Barrett Should Not Be On The Supreme Court” by Nathan Robinson in Current Affairs, Chevron doctrine, “Qualified and Absolute Immunity at Common Law” by Scott Keller and Jay Schweikert’s response in Cato. -Ilya Shapiro’s new book: Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America’s Highest Court and Ted Kennedy tirade against Judge Robert Bork

Kamala Harris, now a candidate for Vice President, did some things as a prosecutor that should make people question her fidelity to the law, but that doesn't place her outside the mainstream of prosecutors. Jay Schweikert comments on Harris's background.Related:“Kamala Harris and the Authoritarian Impulse” featuring Elizabeth Nolan Brown and Caleb O. Brown (June 3, 2019)"The Kamala Harris Plan to Address the Gender Pay Gap” featuring Ryan Bourne and Caleb O. Brown (June 1, 2019) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Introduction: Caleb O. Brown Clark Neily and Jay Schweikert on kicking Qualified Immunity down the road Walter Olson on the reality of militarized cops (2014) Fabio Rojas on protest movements that get things done Mustafa Akyol on lessons from Gezi Park protests for Americans Matthew Feeney explains “What is Section 230?” Emily Chamlee-Wright on what Fall 2020 should look like on college campuses See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Jay Schweikert, policy analyst from the CATO Institute discusses qualified immunity for the police and whether the Supreme Court will change it. Source: SCOTUS Blog CATO article by Clark Neily “George Floyd’s Death Must Be a Catalyst for Accountability” Notes... commentary and noting how 10 cases are up for review at SCOTUS and how qualified immunity is a case law. CATO article by Jay Schweikert “Supreme Court Will Soon Decide Whether To Reconsider Qualified Immunity” Notes... commentary on how qualified immunity is case law, about SCOTUS review, and the 13 cases now being considered before the Supreme Court. All but Kelsay v. Ernst and Jessop v City of Fresno (theft) are still being distributed for conference. I didn’t see Cooper v. Flaig, Clarkston v. White, and Davis v. Ermold at SCOTUS Blog Unlawful Shield website from CATO California Law Review (UC-Berkeley) by Professor William Baude “Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?” Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute... 42 U.S. Code §1983. Civil Action for deprivation of rights

Jay Schweikert, policy analyst from the CATO Institute discusses qualified immunity for the police and whether the Supreme Court will change it. Source: SCOTUS Blog CATO article by Clark Neily “George Floyd’s Death Must Be a Catalyst for Accountability” Notes... commentary and noting how 10 cases are up for review at SCOTUS and how qualified immunity is a case law. CATO article by Jay Schweikert “Supreme Court Will Soon Decide Whether To Reconsider Qualified Immunity” Notes... commentary on how qualified immunity is case law, about SCOTUS review, and the 13 cases now being considered before the Supreme Court. All but Kelsay v. Ernst and Jessop v City of Fresno (theft) are still being distributed for conference. I didn’t see Cooper v. Flaig, Clarkston v. White, and Davis v. Ermold at SCOTUS Blog Unlawful Shield website from CATO California Law Review (UC-Berkeley) by Professor William Baude “Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?” Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute... 42 U.S. Code §1983. Civil Action for deprivation of rights

The Supreme Court has again delayed the possibility of accepting a case challenging qualified immunity, a doctrine invented by the High Court that practically protects cops from the consequences of abuse. Clark Neily and Jay Schweikert comment. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

1.Introduction: Caleb O. Brown2. Clark Neily and Jay Schweikert with Caleb O. Brown on qualified immunity at the Supreme Court 3. Terence Kealey with Caleb O. Brown on the role of science in a pandemic 4. Jeffrey A. Singer with Caleb O. Brown on the right to test for COVID-19 5. Christopher A. Preble with Caleb O. Brown on threat perception post-pandemic 6. Jonathan H. Adler on Marijuana Federalism 7. John Cochrane on the economics of pandemic lockdowns See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Jay Schweikert (Cato Institute) on Qualified Immunity * George Brauchler responds re Qualified Immunity

The Supreme Court this week will examine cases involving qualified immunity for a possible oral argument. Reuters recently examined more than 500 appellate decisions involving qualified immunity and found courts favoring the government more regularly in recent years. Clark Neily and Jay Schweikert believe it is likely the court will take one or more of the thirteen cases they'll consider this week. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

1.Introduction2. Jay Schweikert with Caleb O. Brown on Michigan v. Wood3. Surgeon General Jerome M. Adams on syringe programs and addiction stigma4. Terence Kealy on Scientocracy5. Ted Galen Carpenter on NATO: The Dangerous Dinosaur6. Michael Tanner on the Project on Poverty and Inequality in California See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

As National School Choice Week approaches, it’s a good time to highlight the growth of parental school choice in North Carolina. Terry Stoops, John Locke Foundation vice president for research and director of education studies, sifts through the data. Stoops explains why more and more parents are opting for alternatives to traditional district schools. The libertarian Cato Institute has taken an interest in North Carolina’s campaign to reform the state’s criminal laws. Jay Schweikert, policy analyst with Cato’s Project on Criminal Justice, explains why his group focuses its attention on reform. Cato and the John Locke Foundation hosted a recent summit highlighting reform efforts. The nation’s longest-running U.S. District Court vacancy has been filled after 14 years. As U.S. senators voted to confirm Richard Myers as the newest judge for North Carolina’s Eastern District, Senior N.C. Sen. Richard Burr praised Myers as he explained his “yes” vote. One of the University of North Carolina System’s most vocal internal critics turned his attention recently to “social justice” on campus. UNC-Wilmington criminology Professor Mike Adams shared personal anecdotes and highlighted the larger negative impact of social justice on the academic pursuit of truth. As the 2020 N.C. election season begins, a “Locker Room Talk” segment focuses on two important election-related developments. First, a federal judge has blocked the state from implementing its new voter ID law. Second, the State Board of Elections has ruled against the state Republican Party and allowed candidates William Weld and Joe Walsh to challenge Donald Trump on the GOP presidential primary ballot.

full 0:02:33 Jay Schweikert

On May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court decided McCoy v. Louisiana, a case considering whether defense counsel may--against the defendant’s express wishes--concede his client’s guilt in an effort to avoid the death penalty.In 2008, Robert McCoy was indicted on three counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of the mother, stepfather, and son of his estranged wife. McCoy pleaded not guilty, maintaining that he was out of state at the time of the murder. In 2010, his relationship with the court-appointed public defender broke down, and in March 2010 Larry English became McCoy’s defense attorney. English concluded that the evidence against McCoy was overwhelming and told McCoy that he would concede McCoy’s guilt in an effort to avoid the death penalty; McCoy adamantly opposed English’s strategy. At trial, English nevertheless indicated repeatedly to the jury that McCoy had caused the victims’ deaths and pleaded for mercy. McCoy protested unsuccessfully to the trial judge and was permitted to testify to his innocence, but was ultimately convicted and sentenced to death. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that defense counsel had authority to concede guilt over McCoy’s objection as a strategy to avoid a death sentence. In light of a division of opinion among state courts of last resort on whether it is unconstitutional to allow defense counsel to concede guilt over the defendant’s intransigent and unambiguous objection, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. By a vote of 6-3, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Louisiana Supreme Court and remanded the case for a new trial. In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to choose the fundamental objective of his defense and insist that counsel refrain from admitting guilt, even when counsel’s experience-based view is that confessing guilt offers the defendant the best chance to avoid the death penalty. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, which was joined by the Chief Justice, and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. To discuss the case, we have Jay Schweikert, Policy Analyst with the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice.

On May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court decided McCoy v. Louisiana, a case considering whether defense counsel may--against the defendant’s express wishes--concede his client’s guilt in an effort to avoid the death penalty.In 2008, Robert McCoy was indicted on three counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of the mother, stepfather, and son of his estranged wife. McCoy pleaded not guilty, maintaining that he was out of state at the time of the murder. In 2010, his relationship with the court-appointed public defender broke down, and in March 2010 Larry English became McCoy’s defense attorney. English concluded that the evidence against McCoy was overwhelming and told McCoy that he would concede McCoy’s guilt in an effort to avoid the death penalty; McCoy adamantly opposed English’s strategy. At trial, English nevertheless indicated repeatedly to the jury that McCoy had caused the victims’ deaths and pleaded for mercy. McCoy protested unsuccessfully to the trial judge and was permitted to testify to his innocence, but was ultimately convicted and sentenced to death. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that defense counsel had authority to concede guilt over McCoy’s objection as a strategy to avoid a death sentence. In light of a division of opinion among state courts of last resort on whether it is unconstitutional to allow defense counsel to concede guilt over the defendant’s intransigent and unambiguous objection, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. By a vote of 6-3, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Louisiana Supreme Court and remanded the case for a new trial. In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to choose the fundamental objective of his defense and insist that counsel refrain from admitting guilt, even when counsel’s experience-based view is that confessing guilt offers the defendant the best chance to avoid the death penalty. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, which was joined by the Chief Justice, and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. To discuss the case, we have Jay Schweikert, Policy Analyst with the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice.

Jay Schweikert and Clark Neily join us for a conversation on law enforcement and accountability. We also discuss qualified immunity and how technology is helping to combat police misconduct.The Problem of Police Misconduct - Free Thoughts Podcast Thin Blue Lies: How Pretextual Stops Undermine Police LegitimacyClark NeilyJay Schweikert See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

"Qualified immunity" is a doctrine that protects police from misconduct that would send someone without a badge to jail. Clark Neily and Jay Schweikert discuss the controversy. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Is it unconstitutional for defense counsel to concede the defendant's guilt over that defendant's express objection? In McCoy v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to affirm that a competent defendant may play an important role in his own defense strategy. Jay Schweikert comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We’re inside the chamber for the high-profile case involving a death row inmate from Louisiana who’s asking for a new trial after his lawyer told the jury his client was guilty, despite the client’s insistence that he was innocent. Jay Schweikert, a policy analyst with the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice and co-author of an amicus brief filed in this case, joins Dahlia Lithwick to sift through the arguments and legal principles at play. Veteran Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse talks about shifting positions from the solicitor General’s office, tees up a key case at the intersection of abortion and free speech that will be heard by the high court this term, and gives her take on the status of the truth in the courts and the country in the age of Trump. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members several days after each episode posts. To learn more about Slate Plus, go to slate.com/amicusplus. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Sara Burningham. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Collins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to reaffirm that your home is truly your castle. Jay Schweikert discusses the Cato Institute’s brief in the case. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.