Did you know that modern civil asset forfeiture laws originated from the seizure of 18th-century pirate ships?

Welcome back to Rightly Decided, the mostly originalist takes of the litigators of the Texas Public Policy Foundation! This week, Laura Beth Latimer and Chance Weldon break their usual rule against discussing policy to welcome a special guest: Dr. Derek Cohen, TPPF's Chief Policy and Research Officer.

If you want to know how Texas polices its judges, why the government can legally seize your property without a criminal conviction, and how think tanks turn ideas into law—this episode is for you!

0:00 - Intro & Harambe Lore: Welcoming Dr. Derek Cohen to the podcast (and clearing up some Cincinnati Zoo rumors).

2:40 - Judging the Judges: Dr. Cohen explains his role as Secretary of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Learn how Texas oversees its elected judges, handles judicial misconduct, and enforces strict rules on partisan campaigning.

11:10 - The Problem with Civil Asset Forfeiture: Breaking down how law enforcement can seize private property using a lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard, often without ever convicting the owner of a crime.

15:35 - The 8th Amendment & Timbs v. Indiana: How the Supreme Court is using the 14th Amendment's incorporation doctrine to protect citizens from excessive fines.

22:45 - Pirate Ships & Legal Fictions: Chance Weldon gives a fascinating originalist history lesson on how suing abandoned pirate ships evolved into modern civil forfeiture.

34:20 - Seizing a Plane for a 6-Pack of Beer? Discussing a pending Alaskan case where a bush pilot had his Cessna seized because a passenger brought beer into a dry municipality.

39:50 - How Policy Becomes Law: An inside look at TPPF's legislative strategy, the grueling internal "Policy Council" gauntlet, and why verifiable research dictates advocacy at the Texas Capitol.

TPPF's Laura Beth Latimer, Nathan Seltzer, Clayton Calvin, and Chance Weldon get fired up over property rights and home equity theft.

The team looks deep into the world of tax sales, breaking down how local governments have been seizing properties for minor tax debts and pocketing the excess equity. The discussion covers two major Supreme Court cases: the landmark 2023 case Tyler v. Hennepin County and the recent follow-up, Pung v. Isabella County. Along the way, they discuss originalism, the Magna Carta, William Blackstone, and why property rights deserve the exact same constitutional respect as the First and Second Amendments.

In this episode:

— Tyler v. Hennepin County: The court unanimously ruled against a Minnesota county that seized a 94-year-old woman's condo over $15,000 in taxes and fees, only to sell it for $40,000 and keep the $25,000 windfall.

— Pung v. Isabella County: A look at a 16-year legal nightmare where a Michigan family lost their home over a $2,200 tax bill that state administrative courts had repeatedly ruled they did not even owe.

— Just Compensation: The complicated Supreme Court debate over whether "just compensation" under the Fifth Amendment means pre-foreclosure fair market value (appraised at $194,000) or the depressed auction price ($76,000).

— Justice Thomas's Concurrence: A breakdown of Justice Thomas's argument, relying on founding-era history, that property is a natural, fundamental right and the government exists to protect it—not the other way around.

TPPF litigators Laura Beth Latimer, Chance Weldon, Nathan Seltzer, and Clayton Calvin are wrapping up some of the final Supreme Court drops of the session with an analysis of two major election cases.

First, the team wades into a fascinating statutory interpretation battle in Watson v. Republican National Committee. What does the word "elect" actually mean, and does Election Day end when a ballot is postmarked or when it is received by the government? Then, the crew battles a labyrinth of federal acronyms to break down NRSC v. FEC, a major First Amendment case that asks whether the government can limit how much a political party coordinates spending with its own candidates.

Grab your dictionaries and prepare for a passionate rant on why money actually is speech—it’s an alphabet soup of campaign finance, preemption, and "YOLO textualism"!

In this episode:

• Watson v. RNC (5-4): An unusual cross-ideological majority (Barrett, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson) decides whether federal law preempts a Mississippi statute allowing mail-in ballots to be counted up to five days after Election Day. We discuss the difference between casting and receiving a vote and whether pragmatism should ever override textualism.
• NRSC v. FEC (6-3): Do limits on a political party's coordinated campaign expenditures violate the First Amendment? We break down the realities of campaign finance, quid pro quo corruption vs. prophylactic rules, and why buying poster board for a picket sign proves that money is, in fact, speech.
• The "Tiers of Scrutiny" Drum: Chance beats his favorite drum against arbitrary balancing tests, explaining why "closely drawn review" is just a policy-based word salad that ignores the original meaning of the First Amendment.
• The Alphabet Soup of Federal Law: Why the NRSC, FEC, FECA, and UOCAVA prove that we desperately need to stop using acronyms in legal briefs.