In this week’s episode, we begin with Justice Clarence Thomas’s recent address at the University of Texas, where he offered a glimpse into his judicial philosophy and the interaction between natural law and the Constitution. We take a little journey into the influence of progressivism and legal positivism, and discuss what’s on the horizon for the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.

Also, we pull back the curtain on the "Shadow Docket." While often criticized by the mainstream media as a "secret" tool, we explain the legal necessity of the emergency docket, how it actually functions, and why it remains a vital component of the Court’s ability to provide timely relief in urgent cases.

In This Episode:

— The Lion of the Court: Key takeaways from Justice Thomas’s UT speech and his "unyielding" approach to the Constitution.

— A Breach of Tradition: Analyzing the legal and ethical implications of the recent SCOTUS leak.

— Demystifying the Shadow Docket: The difference between the merits docket and the emergency docket, why the "shadow" moniker is a misnomer for standard procedural stays, and the impact of emergency rulings on national policy.

— The Future of Judicial Integrity: How the conservative legal movement should respond to increasing pressure on the judiciary.

It's Rightly Decided live from the 2026 Texas Policy Summit! The Texas Public Policy Foundation is on the front lines of the legal war over the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act (Texas House Bill 2127), better known as the "Death Star" Bill. Designed to eliminate the confusing patchwork of local regulations across Texas, the law has sparked intense opposition from major cities—and now, historic lawsuits from citizens themselves.

We are joined by two key figures in this unfolding legal drama:

— Haley Kyles: A Dallas resident and lead plaintiff in the first major citizen-led enforcement lawsuit under HB 2127. Haley discusses why she stepped forward as a client in the Death Star litigation to challenge dozens of Dallas ordinances that she argues are unconstitutionally preempted by state law.

— Ben Crockett: A Policy Scholar at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and expert on local government issues. Ben breaks down the policy intent behind the bill, how it aims to protect small businesses, and the mechanics of its implementation.

In this episode, we discuss:

— How the law allows private citizens—not just the state—to sue their local governments for failing to repeal preempted rules.

— What "Death Star" implementation looks like on the ground for taxpayers and property owners.

— The future of local control in Texas and the legal precedents these lawsuits will set for the entire state.

Does the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983) still protect individuals from egregious constitutional violations—or has it been gutted by the doctrine of qualified immunity?

In this episode of Rightly Decided, we take a close look at Villareal v. Alaniz, a case the Supreme Court declined to hear, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s sharp dissent from that denial.

Our discussion unpacks qualified immunity from soup to nuts. We then turn to the Fifth Circuit’s application of qualified immunity and to Justice Sotomayor’s broader critique of how the doctrine operates in practice. We examine her argument that qualified immunity increasingly functions as a near-absolute bar to relief, even where constitutional violations are plausibly alleged, and consider what this means for civil rights enforcement, police accountability, and the rule of law.

Along the way, we place Villareal in the Court’s larger qualified immunity jurisprudence, assess whether Sotomayor’s concerns are borne out in lower-court doctrine, and explore the implications of the Court’s continued reluctance to revisit or clarify the defense.

Tune in for a rigorous, grounded conversation at the intersection of constitutional theory, civil procedure, and real-world effects.