Podcast appearances and mentions of wesley hottot

Wesley Hottot—Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his most recent editorial at National Review, “Time to End the Fake Crime of Carrying Cash.” Hottot and his co-author Daryle James write, “[t]here's no law against carrying large amounts of bills. But in some cases, civil forfeiture makes it effectively illegal—and punishes the innocent.” You can read the article here: https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/03/time-to-end-the-fake-crime-of-carrying-cash/

On this episode of Our American Stories, Taylor Dooley shares the story of when she played the role of Lavagirl and how now 15 years later, she has returned to acting to play the same role in the Netflix Film We Can Be Heroes; Institute for Justice lawyer Wesley Hottot tells the story of Ash Patel's nearly six-year long legal battle stemming from the Texas Board of Cosmetology requiring his eyebrow threaders to go back to school to learn other people's jobs. Support the show (https://www.ouramericanstories.com/donate)   Time Codes:  00:00 - Lava Girl, Taylor Dooley 25:00 - The State of Texas Tried to Take Down a Man's Livelihood: He Fought Back See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of Our American Stories, Jarrod Roll shares the story of how Star Wars toys revolutionized movie merchandising, licensing, and even how kids play. Institute for Justice lawyer Wesley Hottot tells the story of Ash Patel's nearly six year long legal battle stemming from the Texas Board of Cosmetology requiring his eyebrow threaders to go back to school to learn other people's jobs. Support the show (https://www.ouramericanstories.com/donate)   Time Codes: 00:00 - The Star Wars Toy Empire Revolution 23:00 - The State of Texas tried to take down a man's Livelihood: He Fought Back See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ever wondered when the police can pull you over and what they can do once you stop? Then this episode brings news you can use through a couple recent traffic stop cases. Wesley Hottot reports on the Eighth Circuit's blessing of a stop supposedly brought on by some pretty smelly weed (although not everyone is convinced of the story). Then, your host Anthony Sanders tells us of a new development in Oregon where its high court has rejected the "automobile exception" to the requirement to get a warrant before a search. Also, please keep your nominations for the most beautiful federal circuit courtroom rolling in. Our listeners have demonstrated there's some architecturally fierce, yet lovely, competition out there. United States v. Shumaker, https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/12/203467P.pdf Oregon v. McCarthy, https://cdm17027.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17027coll3/id/9463/rec/2 Post on Oregon v. McCarthy, https://ij.org/cje-post/state-con-law-case-of-the-week-oregon-stops/ IJ's Project on the Fourth Amendment, https://ij.org/issues/ijs-project-on-the-4th-amendment/ Wesley Hottot, https://ij.org/staff/whottot/ Anthony Sanders, https://ij.org/staff/asanders/

How can the government encourage us to keep our trees? In all kinds of ways, but not through mandating the replanting of trees regardless of the landowner's mitigation efforts. At least that's what Wesley Hottot reports the Sixth Circuit said last week. There's also a little excessive fines talk, which is worth your time as Wesley is kind of “the excessive fines guy.” He's also a birdwatcher, which comes in handy in this tree case. Meanwhile, there's some trouble on the sidewalks of New York, especially as it relates to a federal statute protecting “places of worship.” Dan Rankin of IJ tells us the Second Circuit thinks that might be many locations, but not a sidewalk. There's also some Commerce Clause talk and what's a “substantial effect” on commerce these days. F.P. Development, LLC v. Charter Township of Canton, https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0240p-06.pdf Jingrong v. Chinese Anti-Cult World Alliance, Inc., https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e636d947-d9e2-44a4-9967-bbad7fe70ba6/1/doc/18-2626_complete_opn.pdf The Sidewalks of New York, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsx_uxISjM0 Kirtland's Warbler, https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Kirtlands_Warbler/id Hermit Thrush, https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Hermit_Thrush/id Wesley Hottot, https://ij.org/staff/whottot/ Daniel Rankin, https://ij.org/staff/daniel-rankin/ Anthony Sanders, https://ij.org/staff/asanders/ iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/podcast/1DFCqDbZTI7kIws11kEhed/overview Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice/short-circuit Google: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Iz26kyzdcpodkfm5cpz7rlvf76a Newsletter: ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org

There’s this mysterious word in English that courts love to talk about, the Notorious A-N-D. Does it, in fact, mean “and?” Or does it mean “or?” The correction interpretation of the First Step Act—and a lot of years in prison for a lot of people—ride on the answer. Wesley Hottot explains how the Ninth Circuit and the Eleventh Circuit recently disagreed on this fundamental question. And can you sue over an unsolicited text message? Alexa Gervasi tells us what the Fifth Circuit said about this question, including how it relates to a public nuisance. United States v. Garcon, https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201914650.pdf United States v. Lopez, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/21/19-50305.pdf Cranor v. 5 Star Nutrition, LLC, https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-51173-CV0.pdf Justice Paul Thissen, When Rules Get in the Way of Reason: One judge’s view of legislative interpretation, https://cdn.ymaws.com/mcaa-mn.org/resource/resmgr/files/mcaa_news/J_Thissen_article_in_Bench_a.pdf Alexa Gervasi, https://ij.org/staff/alexa-gervasi/ Wesley Hottot, https://ij.org/staff/whottot/ Anthony Sanders, https://ij.org/staff/asanders/ iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/podcast/1DFCqDbZTI7kIws11kEhed/overview Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice/short-circuit Google: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Iz26kyzdcpodkfm5cpz7rlvf76a Newsletter: ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org

Can a city hold on to your car for three years for no reason? Unfortunately, the Sixth Circuit seems to think the answer is “yes,” although over a fiery dissent. This week Wesley Hottot presents Nichols v. Wayne County and the team muses about the application of a case from 1978 and whether it even applies in Detroit anymore. Also, Paul Sherman takes us into campaign season with a campaign through campaign finance (and administrative) law with CREW v. FEC. After the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. FEC, nonprofits that are not generally required to disclose their donors began running political ads. A watchdog group sued the Federal Election Commission, alleging that federal law requires disclosure of donors to any group spending more than $250 on such ads and that the FEC is failing to enforce this requirement. And it won. Paul presents the case, but discusses whether it’s really a good idea to require disclosures of relatively small contributions in the “Google Age.” iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/shor…uit/id309062019 Spotify: podcasters.spotify.com/podcast/1DFCq…Ehed/overview Stitcher: www.stitcher.com/podcast/institut…ce/short-circuit Google: play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#…odkfm5cpz7rlvf76a Newsletter: ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org Nichols v. Wayne County https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/20a0486n-06.pdf CREW v. FEC https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DCEFA4F3D6438109852585CB005860AC/$file/18-5261-1857631.pdf Monell v. Department of Social Services https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/436/658/ Buckley v. Valeo, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/1/

Back in 2013, Tyson Timbs’ $40,000 Land Rover was seized by police after he was arrested and charged with selling $400 worth of heroin. After Timbs and his attorney filed suit, his case went from Indiana state court all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. In a unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Timbs v. Indiana, this ruling now requires cities and states, not just the Federal Government, to abide by the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause, preventing law enforcement from imposing excessive fines in seizure cases, setting up a historical precedent. On Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Wesley Hottot, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice and Tony Mauro, Supreme Court correspondent for The National Law Journal and Law.com, as they take a look at the unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Timbs v. Indiana, discuss the case, the path to the Supreme Court, and the impact on future cases. Wesley Hottot is a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice. Tony Mauro is the Supreme Court correspondent for The National Law Journal and Law.com. Special thanks to our sponsors, Clio.

In this episode, Wesley Hottot, a Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice, discusses the pending Supreme Court case Timbs v. Indiana, in which he represented the petitioner, Tyson Timbs. Hottot describes the background of the case and explains the constitutional issue at stake: Whether the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the states. He discusses the process of briefing the case and preparing for the oral argument, and reflects on the experience of arguing before the court. More information about Tyson Timbs and his case against Indiana is available on the Institute for Justice website here. Hottot is on Twitter at @thehottot. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

LaDona Harvey fills in for Simon | LaDona interviews Wesley Hottot and Fred Tecce