Bound By Oath by IJ-logo

Bound By Oath by IJ

News & Politics Podcasts

Bound by Oath is a new podcast series by IJ’s Center for Judicial Engagement where the Constitution’s past catches up with the present. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution requires every judge to be “bound by Oath” to uphold “this Constitution.” But to understand if judges are following that oath, it’s important to ask, “What is in ‘this Constitution’?” In this upcoming podcast series, Short Circuit takes a deep dive into specific parts of the Constitution, starting with the 14th Amendment, which turned 150 in 2018. “Bound by Oath” features interviews with historians, legal scholars, and the real people involved in historic and contemporary cases.

Bound by Oath is a new podcast series by IJ’s Center for Judicial Engagement where the Constitution’s past catches up with the present. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution requires every judge to be “bound by Oath” to uphold “this Constitution.” But to understand if judges are following that oath, it’s important to ask, “What is in ‘this Constitution’?” In this upcoming podcast series, Short Circuit takes a deep dive into specific parts of the Constitution, starting with the 14th Amendment, which turned 150 in 2018. “Bound by Oath” features interviews with historians, legal scholars, and the real people involved in historic and contemporary cases.

Location:

United States

Description:

Bound by Oath is a new podcast series by IJ’s Center for Judicial Engagement where the Constitution’s past catches up with the present. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution requires every judge to be “bound by Oath” to uphold “this Constitution.” But to understand if judges are following that oath, it’s important to ask, “What is in ‘this Constitution’?” In this upcoming podcast series, Short Circuit takes a deep dive into specific parts of the Constitution, starting with the 14th Amendment, which turned 150 in 2018. “Bound by Oath” features interviews with historians, legal scholars, and the real people involved in historic and contemporary cases.

Language:

English

Contact:

7036829320


Episodes

State Remedies | SEASON 2, EP. 11

3/16/2022
With the doors to federal court closing on civil rights claims, this final episode of Season 2 heads to new terrain: state court. Click here for transcript. Click here for Episode 1.

Duration:01:32:03

Prosecutors, Perjurers, and Other Non-Persons — Part 2 | Season 2, Ep. 10

11/10/2021
In 1983, in the case of Briscoe v. LaHue, the Supreme Court ruled that government employees who commit perjury at trial are absolutely immune from civil liability. On Part 2 of Episode 10, we dig into the Court’s reasoning and the backstory behind Briscoe. We also discuss a special category of officials whom the Supreme Court has said are not entitled to absolute immunity, but to whom lower courts have granted immunity anyway. Click here for transcript. Click here for Episode 1. Click for...

Duration:00:46:00

Prosecutors, Perjurers, and Other Non-Persons — Part 1 | Season 2, Ep. 10

11/5/2021
In 2005, Charles Rehberg annoyed some politically powerful people in his community of Albany, Georgia, and found himself facing serious criminal charges—charges that were completely made up by a rogue prosecutor and could only be sustained because an investigator committed perjury. In Episode 10, we explore the case of Rehberg v. Paulk, which reached the Supreme Court in 2012. On Part 1 of Episode 10: the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity, where it came from, and why the Supreme...

Duration:00:59:01

Closing the Courthouse Doors | Season 2, Ep. 9

9/1/2021
On this episode, we take stock of developments in the courts and in Congress since this season began. There's an update on the first case we talked about this season, Brownback v. King. We talk about exciting new cases that the Supreme Court is being asked to take up. Plus, some recent decisions in the lower courts that mean that federal officials are functionally—if not by name—entitled to absolute immunity from constitutional claims in D.C., Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas,...

Duration:00:56:51

Persons Who Are Not “Persons” | Season 2, Ep. 8

8/13/2021
Section 1983 says that "every person" acting under color of state law shall be liable for violating the Constitution. But in 1951, the Supreme Court began to rule that some officials weren't "persons" within the meaning of Section 1983 and that those officials thus enjoy absolute immunity—no matter how malicious, corrupt, or unconstitutional their conduct may be. On Episode 8, we examine absolute immunity for legislators and judges. Click here for transcript. Click here for Episode 1....

Duration:01:02:25

The Shooting of Bobby Moore — Part 2 | Season 2, Ep. 7

6/21/2021
In 1978, the Supreme Court held that individuals can sue local governments for constitutional violations in federal court. Indeed, the Court held that Congress had always intended for such suits to be available — ever since it passed the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. However, the standard that the Court says plaintiffs must meet to get their municipal liability claims before a jury is exceedingly high, and getting higher. On Part 2 of our episode on municipal liability under Section 1983, we...

Duration:01:01:33

The Shooting of Bobby Moore — Part 1 | Season 2, Ep. 7

6/18/2021
In 2012, Little Rock police officer Josh Hastings shot and killed 15-year-old Bobby Moore and lied about how it happened. Hastings had a long history of untruthfulness and so did many of the officers who trained him and supervised him. And the Little Rock Police Department had a history of turning a blind eye to excessive force by its officers. So when Bobby's mother sued over his death, she didn't just sue Josh Hastings. She also sued the City of Little Rock. But could she? On this episode,...

Duration:00:44:36

Pierson to Pearson | Season 2, Ep. 6

4/5/2021
In 1967, the Supreme Court invented qualified immunity. And in 1982, the Court transformed the doctrine into the one we have today. On this episode, we trace the development of the doctrine, and push back against the idea that immunities for executive branch officials, like the police, are deeply rooted in this country's legal tradition. Click here for transcript. Available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, TuneIn, and Stitcher.

Duration:00:59:43

Under Color of Law | Season 2, Ep. 5

3/1/2021
In Chicago in 1958, over a dozen police officers barged into the home of a sleeping family with guns drawn. They didn't have a warrant, and it turned out they didn't have the right man. When the family's civil rights claim reached the Supreme Court, it resulted in the landmark case of of Monroe v. Pape, which finally — 90 years after Congress authorized such suits — opened the doors of federal courthouses to victims of unconstitutional misconduct by state and local officials. On this...

Duration:01:09:56

Outrage Legislation | Season 2, Ep. 4

1/28/2021
Section 1983 is one of the most important civil rights laws on the books; tens of thousands of plaintiffs file Section 1983 cases each year seeking to hold state and local officials to account for unconstitutional conduct ranging from excessive force and false arrest, to violations of free speech rights and much else. But where does the law come from? In this episode, we explore the origins of Section 1983, or, as it was originally called, Section One of the Ku Klux Klan Act 1871. Click here...

Duration:01:03:38

The Bubble | Season 2, Ep. 3

12/28/2020
By any measure, the conditions that Lee Saunders endured in the psych unit at the Brevard County jail in Florida were shockingly inhumane. But when he sued over the overcrowding, abusive treatment, and denial of basic sanitation, the courts ruled that the officer in charge was immune from suit. On this episode, we explore the state of qualified immunity doctrine today and whether the Supreme Court’s justifications for its policy of shielding officials from suit—even when they have violated...

Duration:01:09:08

Death By a Thousand Cuts | Season 2, Ep. 2

12/14/2020
For victims of government misconduct, whether you can sue the officials who violated your constitutional rights often depends on whether the officials are federal, state, or local government employees. On Episode 2, we look at federal officials. We'll head out to Wyoming where a rancher subjected to a 12-year campaign of harassment found out the hard way that all too often the Constitution simply isn't enforceable against federal officials. Click here for transcript. Click for Apple...

Duration:01:05:00

They’re Going to Kill This Man | Season 2, Ep. 1

11/25/2020
In 2014, two members of a joint state-federal fugitive task force beat up an innocent college student, James King, after mistaking him for a suspect who looked nothing like him. The officers had James prosecuted for resisting arrest, which a jury quickly threw out. Then, in 2015, he sued the officers for violating his rights. In 2020, James' suit reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where the question the Court faced was a narrow one: Can he even sue the officers in the first place? On Season 2...

Duration:00:38:01

Trailer: Season 2

11/23/2020
Why is it so hard to sue officials who violate the Constitution? Season 2 of Bound By Oath is coming soon. Click here for transcript. Click for Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, TuneIn, and Stitcher.

Duration:00:38:01

Episode 9 – Excessive Fines

2/20/2020
Prohibitions on excessive fines date back at least as far as Magna Carta in 1215, and the U.S. Constitution has barred excessive fines since 1791. But the Supreme Court has only recently begun to interpret what the Excessive Fines Clause means, and it wasn't until 2019 that the Court said the Clause applies to the states. On this episode: the story of how the Supreme Court finally began to incorporate the Bill of Rights rights against the states and the history of excessive fines. Click here...

Duration:01:03:02

Ep 9 - Excessive Fines

2/20/2020
Prohibitions on excessive fines date back at least as far as Magna Carta in 1215, and the U.S. Constitution has barred excessive fines since 1791. But the Supreme Court has only recently begun to interpret what the Excessive Fines Clause means, and it wasn't until 2019 that the Court said the Clause applies to the states. On this episode: the story of how the Supreme Court finally began to incorporate the Bill of Rights rights against the states and the history of excessive fines.

Duration:01:03:02

Special Episode: Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue

1/16/2020
On January 22, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in an IJ case, Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue. At issue is a Montana school choice program that allowed families to send their children to private schools, including religious ones. The Montana Supreme Court said the program violated the state’s Blaine Amendment, a relic of 19th-century anti-Catholic hysteria that lives on today in 37 states constitutions, and struck the program down in 2018. The U.S. Supreme Court,...

Duration:00:46:01

Special Episode - Espinoza v. Montana

1/16/2020
On January 22, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in an IJ case, Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue. At issue is a Montana school choice program that allowed families to send their children to private schools, including religious ones. The Montana Supreme Court said the program violated the state’s Blaine Amendment, a relic of 19th-century anti-Catholic hysteria that lives on today in 37 states constitutions, and struck the program down in 2018. The U.S. Supreme Court,...

Duration:00:46:01

Substantive Due Process | Episode 8

11/15/2019
If the government is going to take away life, liberty, or property, the due process of law requires it to follow fair procedures. But, according to the Supreme Court, that’s not all that due process requires. The government also must have a good reason to take life, liberty, or property. On this episode, we head to Akron, Ohio where city officials have shut down a privately run homeless community—without a good reason. Click here for transcript. Click here for Episode 1. Click for iTunes,...

Duration:01:04:41

Ep 8 - Substantive Due Process

11/15/2019
If the government is going to take away life, liberty, or property, the due process of law requires it to follow fair procedures. But, according to the Supreme Court, that’s not all that due process requires. The government also must have a good reason to take life, liberty, or property. On this episode, we head to Akron, Ohio where city officials have shut down a privately run homeless community—without a good reason.

Duration:01:04:41