Coale Mind

In this episode, I examine a debate between gun rights and property rights, in the specific context of the decision by the State Fair of Texas to ban firearms.--and the announcement of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton that he intends to challenge that decision. This isn’t just about rights under the Constitution and Texas statute; it’s also about the freedom to make agreements and finding the right balance between safety and individual freedoms. In this episode, I break down how these legal ideas fit together and what they mean for everyone involved.

In this episode, I interview my old friend Ben Voth, a professor of rhetoric and the director of debate at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. In 2019, Ben wrote a book called James Farmer Jr.: The Great Debater, which discusses how the strategies of civil-rights icon James Farmer were shaped by his debate training (the subject of Denzel Washington's The Great Debaters). I hope that Mr. Farmer's thoughtful eloquence can provide us with some guidance for the difficult discussions of our times. 

With apologies for the pun, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals faces an “unprecedented” situation. Unlike the other intermediate courts of appeal in Texas, the newly created Fifteenth Court of Appeals has no immediate predecessor.  The Legislature gave it statewide jurisdiction over specific kinds of cases, as opposed to general jurisdiction over cases from a particular geographic area. As a result, that court does not start with an “inherited” body of precedent. The Fifteenth Court thus faces a novel—and fundamental—question: what is its precedent?  This episode examines five sources of insight for answering that question: (1) English common law (as defined by a Texas statute dating back to the Republic); (2) “vertical” precedent, as described by a 2022 supreme court case; (3) federal practice about the Erie doctrine; (4) generally recognized conflicts-of-laws principles; and (5) historical examples from the 1840s, when the Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas confronted a similar problem with a lack of precedent. 

About a year ago, in a popular episode I had ChatGPT as my guest, and we discussed several issues of the day.  To start this year off right, I invited ChatGPT back—now updated to version 4.0—and asked it to prepare a short story for listeners to enjoy.Specifically, I asked it to prepare a “noir” story, in the style of Raymond Chandler and his immortal private eye Philip Marlowe, but set in a courtroom and involving lawyers. Here it is. The characters and plot—such as they are—are entirely of ChatGPT’s making. I gave ChatGPT the initial prompt to get it started and then had it rewrite several paragraphs for additional detail and continuity. I did only minimal style editing. Again, I think that the resulting product shows some things that ChatGPT does very well—and some others, that at least for now, it does not do well at all. 

In mid-December of 2023, the Texas Supreme Court resolved a high-profile abortion case in which a woman sought an emergency injunction to immunize her health-care providers from liability under Texas's strong anti-abortion laws. During the brief time that the matter was before that Court, it issued an “administrative stay” against further enforcement of the relevant court order. This episode considers the history of the “administrative stay” concept in federal court, where it originated and is reasonably well-developed, and then examines how well that federal-court concept transfers into the Texas state system. It concludes by urging cautious use of this tool, in order to properly balance the power of central and local courts as envisioned by Texas's highly decentralized constitution of 1876.

While the furor over recent Congressional testimony by three prominent university presidents has died down somwhat (after the president of the University of Pennsylvania resigned), there are still important lessons to be learned from what went so badly wrong. In this episode, I consider how the presidents (and their litigation counsel) could have used Aristotle's three principles for successful communication (the balancing of ethos, pathos, and logos) to craft a more persuasive message ... and at least, avoid a public-relations disaster. 

Favorite guest Jason Bloom, one of the country's most respected jury consultants, returns to offer his insights on jury selection for 2024 (and with them, insight on how our modern society makes decisions). Topics include the (overwhelming) effect of social media, the legacy of the pandemic and the concern it left jurors with about corporate "accountability" -- and his new book! I think you'll find this to be our most informative and practically useful conversation yet. 

I recently watched the second televised debate among Republican candidates for President and was disappointed by the conduct of those proceedings—they were hard to follow and offered little useful information. In today’s episode, I draw on my experiences in competitive debate and business litigation to offer two ideas for improvement: (1) requiring some portion to be recorded in advance, and (2) empowering moderators to have a realistic ability to flip a kill switch and turn off a participant’s microphone. 

Back during the pandemic, I got a copy of "Dallam's Decisions." It’s a one-volume work with all the opinions of the short-lived Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas (1840-45, give or take).   It’s fascinating stuff, some of that court’s work is terrible, and some is really insightful. I wrote down some notes about the three cases from that court dealing with slavery, and recently got around to spinning those notes out into a short article.That article just came out in the “Journal of the Texas Supreme Court Historical Society,” a link is here, starting on page 75.  It looks at three cases, I think those cases offer some good insights about our world as well as the 1840s. 

In a recent article in Slate, I note that the Texas medication-abortion case highlights the distinction between "political" and "judicial" conservatism. The district court's ruling reached a desirable result from a "politically" conservative perspective (reduced abortion access). But it rests on a standing argument that is not "judicially" conservative (the plaintiffs rely on a chain of possibilities to establish their claimed injury). The Fifth Circuit will confront that distinction in the May 17 arguments in this case. This episode examines this choice, adding new developments from the last few weeks to the analysis in my Slate article.