Advisory Opinions: Vampire Rules and The Satanic Temple

Podcast: Advisory Opinions — The Dispatch
Episode Date: January 20, 2026
Hosts: Sarah Isgur (A), David French (B)

Episode Overview

In this lively edition, Sarah and David dive into the week’s legal headlines and major federal circuit cases with their signature blend of deep expertise and good humor. They preview Supreme Court arguments on “vampire rule” firearms laws and the Federal Reserve, discuss a coming geofence warrant case, and tackle notable circuit rulings on sex offender Halloween signage, machine guns and the Commerce Clause, true threats and campus antisemitism, right-to-counsel when a lawyer sleeps through trial, and a standing case involving The Satanic Temple. Throughout, they bring in memorable historical tidbits, hypotheticals, and plenty of inside-baseball on legal process and doctrine.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Supreme Court Previews: Emergency Tariffs & Federal Reserve Removal

Tariff Emergency & SCOTUS Timelines

• The hosts begin by commenting on the “emergency” used to trigger tariffs under IIPA, with David noting, “the avoidance of an emergency is an emergency,” and calling it “a little bootstrapping.” (03:19)
• Both agree the situation creates urgent national stakes, with the Court needing to rule decisively amidst rapidly evolving facts on the ground affecting the US and global economy.
• Sarah observes that “time is of the essence...if they’re going to keep doing more IIPA tariffs.” (04:03)

Lisa Cook Federal Reserve Case

• The technical SCOTUS question: Should the district court’s ruling (allowing Lisa Cook to remain in her job) be paused pending further litigation? The actual merits are about whether pre-appointment conduct can justify “for cause” removal of federal officers.
• Sarah critiques the district court’s view that pre-appointment conduct can’t count:

  “Of course pre-appointment conduct should be cause...the person bribed a senator to vote for their confirmation...certainly would fit any definition of for cause removal.” (11:15)

• They discuss whether a public position is a protected property interest (“bizarre argument”—Sarah), with David agreeing:

  “You may have a property interest in your salary...but to actually say you have a property interest in the position and power of that position, I continue to find [it] bizarre.” (12:49)

2. SCOTUS Oral Argument: Hawaii's "Vampire Rule" Gun Law

• Hawaii’s post-Bruen law flips the default: now, concealed carriers must have express permission or see clear signage to carry on private property open to the public (like grocery stores/shops).
• Why "vampire law?" Sarah reads:

  “The term alludes to fictional vampires [who] could enter a place only if first invited.” (15:10)

• David notes, as a concealed carrier, that “it’s the same burden” as other states with signage, but in Hawaii, the vast majority of businesses lack signage, effectively barring lawful carry.
• They contrast questions from the cert petition: SCOTUS will not consider whether historical analysis should use 1791 or post-Reconstruction law (18:42):

  “I’m super into this question of when text, history and tradition applies...pretty fundamental way to do text, history and tradition anyway.” (20:39)

3. Cert Grant: Geofence Warrants & the Fourth Amendment

• The case centers on whether law enforcement can use Google geofence warrants to obtain location data from a pool of users near a crime scene.
• Sarah highlights the voluntariness:

  “He gave this information to a third party...it looks a lot more like a real contract at that point.” (24:32)

• David is less intrigued by the case due to the opt-in:

  “If the court rules for him, it’d be much more consequential.” (25:43)

• Sarah’s practical legal humor:

  “Leave the cell phone at home...spend the extra money to get that burner phone.” (26:13)

• David:

  “Doesn’t everybody know that you have zero expectation of privacy in your phone at this point?” (26:13)

4. Circuit Roundup

True Threats (7th & 11th Circuit)

• Sarah reads a textbook violent threat posted online, noting its specificity:

  “I will not tolerate this anymore...I will proceed to slaughter and murder any doctor, patient or visitor I see in the area...this is not a joke...” (29:00)

• David:

  “Chef’s kiss true threat is the I’m not joking. Like, let anyone misunderstand me.” (30:25)

• They compare it to a University of Florida student’s antisemitic Twitter post. David notes:

  “He’s making a political point in a gross way rather than a true threat.” (33:00)

• Discussion of double standards and “heckler’s veto” on campus speech, both being sympathetic to critiques of uneven procedural protections for left vs. right speech (39:00–43:00).
• Sarah and David both take issue with applying K-12 “Tinker” precedent for disruptive speech to universities.

First Amendment: Sex Offender "No Candy" Halloween Signs (8th Circuit)

• Missouri required sex offenders to post signage on Halloween.
• Sarah:

  “I don’t think there’s any question this implicates the First Amendment...But this actually feels like it would satisfy strict scrutiny.” (45:00)

• David agrees only “with an asterisk”: The law is fatally underdefined (“a post-it note would qualify”). Both suggest the law could easily be fixed:

  “This isn't hard.” (47:06)

Machine Guns, Commerce Clause & the Fifth Circuit

• Judge Willett, bound by precedent, questions whether a federal machine gun ban truly fits Congress’s Commerce Clause power.
• Sarah:

  “Both [school zone gun law and machine gun ban] are criminal statutes that regulate purely intrastate possession.” (49:25)

• Judge Ho issues a “dubitante” concurrence; Sarah delights in explaining the obscure term (“doubtful, not sure it’s wrong”). (50:20–51:20)
• David touches on the “unusually dangerous weapons” logic that would likely uphold bans under Second Amendment doctrine rather than Commerce Clause.
• Sarah notes the academic implications for federalism, 50-state policy experiments, and externalities between states.

Right to Counsel: Sleeping Lawyer at Death Penalty Trial (5th Circuit)

• Defendant's claim: his family-hired lawyer fell asleep during trial—does that violate Sixth Amendment right to counsel?
• Sarah: “If all you have is a first year associate because the other guy is unconscious, then that probably falls below a standard of professionally reasonable conduct.” (61:06)
• Both agree with the 5th Circuit majority: as long as a competent, awake lawyer is present at all times, no constitutional violation.

Standing: Satanic Temple v. Indiana (7th Circuit)

• Satanic Temple claims standing based on statistical likelihood one of 11,300 Indiana members is/will be injured by abortion law.
• David:

  “That is a weak standing case. Oh, my goodness.” (65:00)

• David also addresses the oft-raised “religious liberty right” to abortion, explaining why under Dobbs, such claims would not succeed:

  “My religious liberty rights end where your rights begin...there’s no circumstance where the First Amendment would give me the right to do that.” (66:35)

• Sarah:

  “There are 11,300 people in Indiana who have signed up for the Satanic temple. That just feels high to me...” (67:09)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Federal Reserve and for-cause removal:
  Sarah (11:15): “The district court’s finding that pre-appointment conduct can’t be enough for for-cause removal is bizarre. Of course pre-appointment conduct should be cause...”
  David (12:49): “You may have a property interest in your salary…but to actually say you have a property interest in the position and power of that position, I continue to find [it] bizarre.”

• On the “Vampire Law”:
  Sarah (15:10): “The term alludes to fictional vampires [who] could enter a place only if first invited.”

• On geofence warrants:
  Sarah (24:32): “He gave this information to a third party…Meaning like you knew you were giving this information to a third party.”
  David (25:43): “If the court rules for him, it makes it much more interesting. That would be much more consequential.”

• On circuit court True Threat case:
  Sarah (30:19): reads explicit Facebook post for “maybe the best example ever of the quintessential true threat.” David (30:25): “Chef’s kiss true threat is the ‘I’m not joking.’ Like, let anyone misunderstand me.”

• On college speech double standards:
  David (40:39): “At some point, you just have to have contempt for these arguments that are like, don’t pay attention to the actual words of 'Defund the police'...Or abolish whiteness. No, we don’t mean actually abolish whiteness. Just say words that have a common meaning.”

• On “dubitante” (51:02):
  Sarah: “It means that you are concurring but you’re doubtful that this is right. But you’re not like sure it’s wrong. So you’re just, you’re doubtful, you’re dubitante.”

• On advice to would-be criminals
  Sarah (26:13): "Leave the cell phone at home or ... spend the extra money to get that burner phone. Just like advice from Sarah.”
  David (26:24): “Doesn’t everybody know that you have zero expectation of privacy in your phone at this point?”

• On strictly defined signage laws
  Sarah (47:06): “This isn’t hard.”

• On dubitante and The Satanic Temple
  Sarah (67:28): “Dubitante Satanic temple, dubitante.”

• On podcasting style corrections (Physics Principle Mix-up)
  Sarah (69:32): “I got all that wrong. So as much as I want to stand on my Heisenberg high horse, I’m backing off the whole thing.”

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:01–05:17] Supreme Court’s tariff “emergency,” urgency for ruling, Cook Federal Reserve case introduction
• [10:20] For-cause removal, property interest in government office debate
• [14:11–16:33] Hawaii “Vampire Law” firearms case origins, Dracula connection
• [18:42–20:39] Cert petition on Bruen/test, Supreme Court’s historical window for tradition
• [21:00–26:34] Geofence warrant/Google Fourth Amendment preview
• [29:00–32:21] 7th Circuit “true threat” social media post
• [33:00–41:00] 11th Circuit antisemitism speech case, campus double standards, heckler’s veto
• [45:00–47:08] Sex offender Halloween sign First Amendment case
• [49:25–55:11] Machine gun ban, Commerce Clause, dubitante, relation to Lopez & Morrison
• [58:40–63:38] Sleeping lawyer during death penalty trial and right-to-counsel analysis
• [65:00–67:28] Satanic Temple v. Indiana, standing arguments, and religious liberty abortion claims
• [69:32–71:44] Physics reference correction, listener feedback, DOJ correction

Tone & Language

The episode maintains the Advisory Opinions’ well-loved mix: nerdy, deeply informed, conversational, and occasionally irreverent. Both hosts riff on legal jargon (“dubitante!”), share practical advice, and are quick to celebrate or mock oddities of legal doctrine or legal process. The tone switches easily between sober analysis of constitutional law and biting humor about the foibles of courts, criminals, and even themselves.

Conclusion

This episode is a quintessential example of Advisory Opinions’ utility for law students, clerks, and anyone interested in how legal theory (from vampires to the Commerce Clause) plays out in the courts—while never losing its human (and humorous) touch.