Credit: Screenshot from The Simpsons, Season 9, Episode 25, “Natural Born Kissers’' (17 May 1998). 20th Century Fox/Disney.

After feeling a lack of passion in their marriage, and realizing that fear is an aphrodisiac, Homer and Marge decide to spice things up by having sex in public places where there is a risk of getting caught.

Their passion tour includes a public area of a Bed and Breakfast and culminates in the windmill of a miniature golf course, much to the horror of Ned Flanders, who discovers the aftermath.

Ned: [Gasps] It was people! People soiled our green!

Maude: And now they’re out there somewhere, naked as the day God made them!

Chief Wiggum: Boy, I’ll tell ya. [Chuckles] They only come out at night. Or in this case, uh, the daytime.

Legal Question: Homer and Marge certainly found the spark they were looking for, but did they break the law in the process? Specifically, is it illegal to have sex in a semi-public area of a hotel or a miniature golf course, and what kind of penalties would they face in the real world?

Result: Homer and Marge violated indecent exposure and public nudity laws. Potentially face fine or jail time.

Legal Background: In most U.S. states, laws relating to sex and nudity in public generally fall under “exposure crimes.” It is important to distinguish between two common tiers of these offenses.

• Public Nudity / Lewdness (The Lesser Offense): This is essentially just being naked where you shouldn’t be. It usually involves exposing private parts in a public place intentionally, but without the specific desire to sexually gratify oneself or another person. Think of streaking at a baseball game.

• Indecent Exposure (The Serious Offense): This is what elevates mere nudity into a more serious sex crime. Most state laws boil indecent exposure down to fulfilling four factors simultaneously:

  • Exposing one’s private parts

  • Trying to sexually gratify oneself or another person (key difference from public nudity)

  • Intentionally

  • In a public place

Penalties and Enforcement: The punishment for basic public nudity is often a fine (usually capped around $1,000)1 or a short jail sentence (up to 6 months). Aggravating factors, such as being witnessed by a minor, can increase penalties.

However, because “Indecent Exposure” involves sexual intent, the stakes are much higher.

While enforcement varies wildly across the country, the real-world consequences for actual sex in public (as opposed to just skinny-dipping) can be severe. Florida, for example, is a known hotspot for enforcing these laws in places like gas stations and parking lots. The penalties there can be shocking: A man in Florida caught having sex on a beach was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison.

Perhaps most importantly, in many jurisdictions, a conviction for Indecent Exposure, because it involves sexual gratification, requires the defendant to register as a sex offender.

Application: So, did the Simpsons commit “Public Nudity” or “Indecent Exposure”?

If we look at the four typical legal factors for the more serious charge, Marge and Homer checked every box:

1. Did they expose their private parts? As Maude noted, they were “naked as the day God made them.” Yes.

2. Was it in a public place? A Bed & Breakfast common area and a mini-golf windmill are definitely places where the public has access and where one could reasonably expect to be seen. Yes.

3. Was it intentional? The entire plot of the episode was their specific intent to do this. Yes.

4. Were they attempting to sexually gratify one another? Undoubtedly. Yes.

So Homer and Marge absolutely violated indecent exposure laws. in the real world, they wouldn’t just be facing a fine, but could face potential jail time and might both have to register as sex offenders. Perhaps a bit more excitement than they bargained for!

Credit: Screenshot from The Simpsons, Season 4, Episode 8, “New Kid on the Block’' (12 November 1992). 20th Century Fox/Disney.

Prank calls are a common feature of the Simpsons. The most common perpetrator is Bart Simpson who does prank calling against barman Moe Szyslak.

(Moe answers the phone)

Moe: Moe’s Tavern, where the elite meet to drink.
Bart: Uh, hello. Is Mike there? Last name, Rotch.
Moe: Hold on, I’ll check. (calls) Mike Rotch! Mike Rotch! Hey, has anybody seen Mike Rotch lately? (barflies laugh)

Moe: Listen, you little puke. One of these days, I’m going to catch you, and I’m going to carve my name on your back with an ice pick.

Also, Homer Simpson in Deep Space Homer makes a number of calls to the government.

Homer: Hello, is this NASA? Yes. Good. Listen. I’m sick of your boring space launches. I’m just an ordinary, blue-collar slob, but I know what I likes on TV.

NASA Official: How did you get this number?

Homer: Shut up! And another thing, how come I can’t get no Tang around here?

[Homer on a different call without the other side being heard]

Homer: Hello, is this President Clinton? Good! I figured if anyone knew where to get some Tang, it’d be you. Shut up!

Legal Question: Is either kind of calling illegal that could carry any sort of criminal or monetary fine?

Result: Bart’s calls are illegal, unclear if Homer’s are, but neither likely to face any consequences.

Legal Background: This is a pretty niche issue, but states have addressed prank calling through two avenues. First, there are specific laws focusing on harassment through electronic communication. As you could imagine, the federal government hasn’t spent times dealing specifically with the issue of prank calling, but some states have picked it up like New Hampshire and California. Features that are common across them are a prohibition of:

• Annoying or harassing someone

• Calling repeatedly

Possible consequences include a fine of around $1,000 or jail time. Second, there are general catch-all laws. If no specific laws are on the books, there are simply general catch all laws for disorderly conduct, harassment, or domestic violence.

However, even if these laws are on the books, it doesn’t seem like police departments actively go after these cases. Even in egregious cases, proving guilt is difficult. For example, David R. Stewart infamously called a McDonald’s in Kentucky in 2004 impersonating a police officer and asked the staff to harass and abuse 18-year old Louise Osgborn. Stewart was acquitted due to a lack of evidence as there were no witnesses and no recording of the phone call.

Result: Here, Bart is clearly making annoying calls and has made around 40 of them to Moe’s Tavern. Bart’s actions would be covered by the New Hampshire and California laws.

Homer’s calls to NASA and the White House aren’t to harass or annoy, but has, in his mind, serious grievances related to space launches and Tang. Homer also enjoys First Amendment protections for criticizing the government, so it’s different than Bart calling “Moe’s” a private business. However, even with free speech protections, repeatedly calling and being abusive could theoretically cross into disrupting government operations, though Homer’s couple of calls wouldn’t reach that threshold.

In either case, neither would likely face any meaningful consequences. Would be interesting to see an episode where Bart is on the other end of a prank phone call. Might be a better deterrent than any law.

For additional information on the topic, please see posts by Simrin Law Group and Howie Law Office.

Credit: Screenshot from The Simpsons, Season 7, Episode 15, “Bart the Fink’' (11 February 1996). 20th Century Fox/Disney.

In Season 7, Episode 15, “Bart the Fink,” Bart unintentionally leads Krusty to get arrested for tax evasion.

Bart: Hey! “Cayman lslands Offshore Holding Corporation”?

[Bart goes to bank]

Bart: Krusty was supposed to sign this. Take it back and make him sign it.

Bank Teller: Uh, no, no. Stamping the back of a check is perfectly legal, little boy. Many people do it to save time. You see, in this case, instead of writing out his name... Krusty has stamped the name of his Cayman lslands Holding Corporation on the- Hmm. Uh, excuse me a minute.

[Bank teller calls an affiliate in New York, who calls the Cayman Islands Offshore Holding Corporation]

Employee of Cayman Islands Offshore Holding Corporation: Oh, I’m sorry. I can’t divulge information about that customer’s secret, illegal account. [Hangs up].

Oh, crap. I shouldn’t have said he was a customer. [Pause]

Oh, crap! I shouldn’t have said it was a secret. [Pause]

Oh, crap! I certainly shouldn’t have said it was illegal. [Pause]

It’s too hot today.

The IRS proceeds to absolutely wreck Krusty’s life:

• Garnish 95% of Krusty’s wages until the debt is repaid

• Take control of Krusty’s show to make it more “cost-effective” through measures such as a budget Eastern-European Itchy and Scratchy called “Worker & Parasite show”

• Sell most of Krusty’s possessions including:

  • the leather suitcase carried by his family on arriving in Ellis island in 1902 for 40 cents (so, less than a cup of coffee)

  • 32 cartons of pornography for 12 cents, and

  • Krusty’s bed for 50 cents.

• Repossess his mansion (naturally)

• Bury a number of veterans in the family plot

Credit: Screenshot from The Simpsons, Season 7, Episode 15, “Bart the Fink’’ (11 February 1996). 20th Century Fox/Disney.

Legal Question: Does it count as tax evasion to keep money in an account in the Cayman Islands or in any other offshore location?

Result: Not automatically, but absolutely yes in Krusty’s case.

Legal Background: Let’s be clear: having an offshore account isn’t automatically illegal. Plenty of people have legitimate reasons for foreign bank accounts. They work abroad, have foreign investments, or just really like the Cayman Islands’ beautiful beaches and convenient lack of income tax for residents.

The crime isn’t WHERE your money is. The crime is LYING about it. To convict someone of tax evasion under federal law, federal prosecutors must prove three things:

1. An unpaid tax liability

2. An affirmative act to evade or attempt to evade the tax

3. Specific intent to evade a known legal duty to pay

What Krusty (probably) did wrong:

1. He didn’t report the income. Every U.S. taxpayer with foreign financial accounts exceeding $10,000 must file a Foreign Bank Account Report (FBAR). Krusty clearly didn’t do this, since the account was described as “secret.”

2. He actively concealed it. He wasn’t just failing to report; he was routing his income through a shell corporation specifically to hide it. That’s the “affirmative act” that turns a mistake into a crime.

3. He knew exactly what he was doing. The “secret, illegal account” phrasing tells us everything.

Why the Cayman Islands?

The Cayman Islands are a classic tax haven because:

• Zero income tax on individuals who are residents or corporations

• Strong banking secrecy laws

• Political stability (unlike hiding your money in a country that might nationalize your assets)

• Sophisticated financial infrastructure (although in the clip it does seem like it’s just a guy sitting in a chair fanning himself)

Real-World Tax Evaders

1. Alan Anderson (2005): The Department of Justice indicted telecommunications entrepreneur Alan Anderson for having evaded $200 million in federal and local taxes. He used offshore corporations to disguise his ownership in some other telecommunications companies, which led him to earn at least a whopping $450 million.

2. Robert Brockman (2020): CEO of an Ohio-based software company, indicted in what is considered “the largest tax evasion case against an individual in U.S. history.” He allegedly used a web of offshore entities in Bermuda and Nevis to hide $2 billion in income over 20 years.

3. Leona Helmsley (1989): Leona didn’t hide her assets in a tax haven, but famously said “only the little people pay taxes” before being convicted of tax evasion. She served 18 months in federal prison.

What Makes this Criminal vs. Just Owing Money?

Here’s the key distinction:

• Civil Tax Fraud (you’ll pay penalties and interest, but no jail): You made “mistakes” on your return, maybe claimed deductions you shouldn’t have, underreported income through “negligence.” Lots of people make unintentional mistakes.

• Criminal Tax Evasion: Here, you willfully attempted to evade taxes through affirmative acts of concealment. This includes fake invoices, hidden accounts, shell corporations, keeping two sets of books, or having your checks endorsed to a “secret, illegal account” in the Cayman Islands.

What Could Krusty Have Done Instead?

You know, legal things! Such as:

Legitimate tax reduction strategies:

• Max out retirement contributions (401(k), IRA, boring but effective)

• Claim business expenses (clown supplies, seltzer water, throwing pies, cigars for Mr. Teeny, fake snow to dump on Robert Frost…etc.)

• Charitable donations (for instance, his dad is a rabbi so he could have donated money to his dad’s synagogue)

• Hire a competent accountant (instead of a guy in the Cayman Islands who says “illegal account” on recorded phone lines)

• Voluntary Disclosure Program: Even if you’ve already screwed up and have unreported offshore accounts, the IRS has programs where you can come clean, pay penalties, and avoid criminal prosecution.

However, Krusty did not choose one of the paths above and instead decided to hide his money. Then, after the fallout, fake his own death and become a sailor. Shame. There was a much easier, boring way, but, understandably, you can’t make a fun cartoon about sensible tax planning.

Credit: Screenshot from The Simpsons, Season 5, Episode 9, “The Last Temptation of Homer’' (9 December 1993). 20th Century Fox/Disney.

Have you ever stolen something from a hotel? What even counts as stealing and what is a “souvenir”? This post tries to answer this question by looking at how the law would consider Homer taking things from hotels.

In Season 5, Episode 9, The Last Temptation of Homer, Homer becomes infatuated with his coworker Mindy, goes on a business trip with her and stays in a nice hotel. When walking into his hotel room, he yells “Free mouthwash! Free shampoo! Free shower curtain!” Later that season, in episode 20, The Boy who Knew too Much, Homer is sequestered in a hotel with other jurors and Principal Skinner as his roommate. Principal Skinner asks Homer: “You’re stealing a table?” and Homer responds “Homer: I’m not stealing it. Hotels expect you to take a few things. It’s a souvenir!”

At the end of this episode, Homer has taken many items from his hotel room including lamps, a television, at least two paintings, a table, towels, some cups, and a lamp fixture.

Legal Question: If either hotel reported Homer to the police for theft, would Homer be able to say he was not stealing but that there is a custom of taking things from hotel rooms? Could he face criminal charges and be sent to jail?

Result: Hotel is unlikely to prosecute Homer, but likely to win if it did. Homer could be sent to jail.

Legal Background: To answer this question, we need to understand how hotels actually handle these situations. Hotels in the United States are unlikely to prosecute individuals for stealing room items. Theft from hotel rooms is actually quite common, particularly in luxurious hotels. A guest at the Beverly Wilshire hotel in Los Angeles apparently chiseled out a marble fireplace and loaded the pieces into a truck. Some other bizarre items that have been removed from hotels include telephones, televisions, pianos, mattresses, room carpets, and bathroom fixtures.

From all accounts, it seems that there is prosecution only in very rare cases globally and there is no evidence of any prosecutions in the United States—even when it is clear who is responsible for the theft and it is expensive items like oriental rugs. At least in the case of luxury hotels, they do not want the bad publicity related to reporting these crimes.

Some hotels outside of the United States actually do go after offenders. For instance, in Japan, a young couple stole items like bathrobes and an ashtray, and were arrested. A woman at a Hilton in Nigeria was arrested for stealing two towels and an iron, and was then ordered to either pay $20 or spend three months in jail. However, such stories are quite rare and, based on the above accounts, it seems that hotel staff will instead replace the items rather than bother going after the criminals.

Analysis: So what if the Springfield hotels reported Homer like the Japanese and Nigerian hotels, what would happen?

If the Springfield hotels wanted to press charges against Homer, he would most likely face a misdemeanor or possibly a felony under state law. There is always a lot of variation among state laws in the United States. However, for the sake of argument, let’s take Oregon’s laws as an example, since that is the state where the Simpsons are supposedly from. Under Title 16 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, thefts that are:

• Under $100 are a misdemeanor and carry a maximum prison sentence of 30 days;

• Between $100 and $1000 are a misdemeanor and carry a maximum prison sentence of a year; and

• Over $1000 are a felony and carry a maximum prison sentence of 5 years.

Given that the National City Hotel reporting Homer for a stolen shower curtain is quite unlikely, let’s just focus on the Springfield Palace Hotel where Homer stole most of the items in that room. In that case, Homer stole lamps, a television, at least two paintings, a table, towels, some cups, and a lamp fixture, which is more than $100, but likely under $1000. In theory, Homer could go to prison for up to a year.

Ultimately, stealing from hotels falls into the category of crimes like illegal downloading music/software, jaywalking, and going slightly over the speed limit. Even though these acts are formally illegal, it is usually not worth it for the state to expend resources to go after all of these different offenders. Free shower curtain indeed.

Credit: Screenshot from The Simpsons, Season 6, Episode 21, “The PTA Disbands ’' (16 April 1995). 20th Century Fox/Disney.

In The Simpsons Season 6, Episode 21, “The PTA Disbands,” students from Springfield Elementary on a field trip watch a reenactment sequence that involves a meeting between Springfield Union soldiers and Confederate soldiers. In the reenactment, the Springfield Union soldiers killed the Confederates who were surrendering and wanted shelter. The reenactment went like this:

Narrator: On May 21, 1864, the men of the 9th Bearded infantry...were sunning and fluffing their beards in the sun. Suddenly, enemy troops crested that hill over there.

Confederate Soldier 1: Fort Springfield, we surrender unconditionally!

Confederate Soldier 2: We’re sick! We need leeches... and hacksaws to saw off our gangrenous limbs.

Narrator: But the Springfield brigade was too brave to accept their surrender.

Union Soldier: Come on, boys! Those white flags are no match for our muskets! Charge!

[Union troops charge the surrendering Confederate Army]

Narrator: And the Springfielders heroically slaughtered their enemies...as they prayed for mercy.

Legal Question: Are such actions by the US Union army a violation of the laws of war?

Result: Most likely, yes.

Legal Background: I have spent a decent amount of time studying international criminal law and the law of war, so this case is particularly interesting to me. This situation in the Simpsons is particularly interesting for two reasons:

• Location: Had these killings occurred anywhere else in the world at that time, they likely wouldn’t have been considered a crime.

• Timing: Had they happened just two years earlier, they wouldn’t have been a crime either.

This is because of something called the Lieber Code, an order passed by Abraham Lincoln (also called General Order No. 100) in 1863. The Lieber Code is one of the best legacies of the United States to international law in that it was the first comprehensive code of military law. It is named after Francis Lieber, its main author. He’s a very interesting figure and I’d encourage you to read about him. He was quite personally invested in making the war humane, given that he had two sons fighting for the Union Army, and one son fighting for the Confederacy.

Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

The Lieber Code had a whole set of provisions such as how to treat prisoners of war, the protection of private property, and the protection of women and children, that are still relevant today.

Analysis: The relevant international criminal law principle in this case is the one of “not giving quarter.” Simply put, “not giving quarter” is a fundamental principle of international criminal law that when an enemy is trying to surrender to you, you have to accept their surrender. You can’t refuse their surrender and slaughter them.

Fortunately, the principle has been incorporated in many different places in international criminal law, such as in the Additional Protocols of the Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and most military manuals.

In the case of the Lieber Code, it clearly set out the rules related to not giving quarter in Article 60. It reads:

It is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge, to give no quarter. No body of troops has the right to declare that it will not give, and therefore will not expect, quarter; but a commander is permitted to direct his troops to give no quarter, in great straits, when his own salvation makes it impossible to cumber himself with prisoners.

In case the language is unclear, it just means that a Union army has to accept a surrender, except when taking on prisoners of war would endanger the Union Army’s own safety.

Here, given that the Ninth Bearded Infantry was “sunning and fluffing their beards in the sun,” it did not appear that they were in “great straits” and that they were unable to take on prisoners. However, there is limited information. Perhaps the Ninth Bearded infantry had a perilous march the next day to attack Shelbyville and so could not take on prisoners. If these facts came to light, then perhaps the refusal to give quarter could be justified under the narrow ‘great straits’ exception.

As the facts are written, the Ninth Bearded Infantry did commit a war crime and would likely face punishment in a Union Army Court. The scene may be satire, but the rule it highlights, that even enemies deserve mercy when they surrender, remains a cornerstone of modern humanitarian law.

Credit: Screenshot from The Simpsons, Season 7, Episode 22, “Raging Abe Simpson and his Grumbling Grandson in ‘The Curse of the Flying Hellfish’’' (28 April 1996). 20th Century Fox/Disney.

In Season 7, Episode 22, Raging Abe Simpson and His Grumbling Grandson, a number of US soldiers with connection to Springfield take paintings from a German castle in the last few days before World War 2. They create an agreement where the last person who is alive will acquire the paintings.

Abe Simpsons (Narrating): It was the closing days of the war. We had just flushed some Germans out of an abandoned castle.

Barney (ancestor); Hey! Burnsie found some pictures.

Wiggum (ancestor): Wait a minute. We ain’t-a supposed to steal from civilians.

Abe Simpson: You want me to report you to Commander Flanders? Just leave them, Burnsie.

Burns: Leave them for whom? The Germans? The folks who shoot at us all day? Let’s just take them. We’ll all be rich- rich as Nazis.

…

Burns: Then it’s agreed. Of course, we can’t sell the paintings now. We’d be caught. How many of you are familiar with the concept of a tontine?

(Ox raises hand)

Burns: All right, Ox. Why don’t you take us through it.

Ox: Uhh, essentially, we all enter into a contract... whereby the last surviving participant... becomes the sole possessor of all them “perty” pictures.

Burns: Well put, Oxford.

After Abe Simpson recovers the painting in the present day from the bottom of the sea)

US Agent (to Abe Simpson and Bart): Freeze! U.S. State Department. We’ll take those. We’ve been helping the German government search for this stolen art for 50 years. To avoid an international incident, we’ll be returning it... to the descendant of its rightful owner.

US Agent (now addressing a German man): Baron Von Bertzenberger, on behalf of the American people, I apologize for-

Baron: Ja, ja, ja. Mach schnell mit the art things, huh?

Legal Question: In the end, Abe Simpson is forced to give back the paintings. However, after Abe Simpson recovered the paintings, does he have any legal claim that supersedes the claim of Baron Von Bertzenberger?

Result: No, Baron Von Bertzenberger wins.

Analysis: In the area of law concerned with property, there is a principle called having title, which means that there is a legal link between the property and the person. It is something that a person acquires when they purchase land, a car, a watch, or anything else. However, if someone does not acquire property in a legitimate way—for instance, from a purchase from the true owner or a gift from someone—then they do not have good title to the property.

An instructive case is the case of Kuntsammlungen Zu Weimar v. Elicofon (1981), where the East German government sued a man called Edward Elicofon, who purchased a set of stolen paintings by German artists Albrecht Duerer from an American servicemember in 1946. The paintings had disappeared from Schwarzburg Castle during the time when American troops were leaving the castle. Even though more than 35 years had passed since the theft, the New York district court ruled that Elicofon did not have good title and ordered the return of the paintings—even though he thought that the paintings were legitimate.

Credit: Hans Tucher by Albrecht Durer

In this case, Grandpa Simpson does not in any way have good title. He knew that the paintings were stolen. The fact that many years had passed did not change the fact that he did not have any legitimate ownership of the paintings.

Credit: Screenshot from The Simpsons, Season 14, Episode 15, “C.E.D’oh ’' (16 March 2003). 20th Century Fox/Disney.

In Season 14, Episode 15, “C.E.D’oh,” Homer overhears how Mr. Burns organized his power plant to avoid corporate responsibility for dumping nuclear waste by placing a canary as the head of the nuclear power plant.

Smithers: Sir, we could be in real trouble here. If the government found out... you dumped nuclear waste under Lego Land...

Mr. Burns: Oh, Smithers, the environmental effects won’t be visible for years.

…

Smithers: For dumping that waste, you could go to jail. A handsome man like you, I’d hate to think what would happen.

Mr. Burns: Ha, ha, I wouldn’t go to jail. The legal owner of this plant would, Canary M. Burns.

[Shows the management structure of the power plant is under the control of a canary]

Mr. Burns: This entire plant is in his name. So when they come to put C.M. Burns in jail, it’s the canary that does the time.

Smithers: Sir, can you do that?

Mr. Burns: Oh, yes. Tycoons have been doing it for years. Why, Standard Oil was once owned by a half-eaten breakfast.

Legal Question: Is Mr. Burns’s claim in any way plausible? Could an animal own property like this?

Result: Mr. Burns cannot give Canary M. Burns legal ownership of the power plant.

Legal Background: In the 1990s, US states began enacting what are called “pet trusts” and by 2016 all 50 states had enacted legislation permitting a pet trust.

Before we get into pet trusts, a little background is needed to explain what a “trust” is. Trusts are often mocked on TV as funds that rich parents stuff money into to benefit their spoiled children. This is one use of a trust, but a trust has a more general application. In short, a trust just involves Person A giving Person B some kind of property, and Person B has to faithfully manage this property on behalf of Person C. This property that Person A gives can be any sort of property, including cash money, a flashy boat, ownership of farmland or Invidia stock certificates.

Pet trusts work in much the same way, but are slightly narrower. While you can put almost anything in a trust for a human, state legislatures have designed pet trust states primarily to help care for the animal. For example, in the Simpsons universe, this could involve Eleanor Abernathy (known also as “The Crazy Cat Lady”) putting money into a fund so an administrator can pay for someone to take care of and feed the cats if Eleanor passed away.

Credit: Screenshot from The Simpsons, Season 17, Episode 5, “The Last of the Red Hat Mamas ’’ (27 November 2005). 20th Century Fox/Disney.

Analysis: Here, Mr. Burns could have made an agreement that placed the ownership shares of the nuclear power plant “for the benefit of the canary”. However, based on how the pet trust statutes are drafted, a US judge would most likely rule that the pet trust law was designed to set up funding to allow a trust administrator to pay for food for the pet and for someone to take care of its daily needs.

It would be hard to argue that Mr. Burns giving Canary M. Burns ownership of the plant is related to caring for the canary, and was anything more than Mr. Burns trying to hide his assets. If Mr. Burns put a large amount of money in the pet trust, it would be different, but this likely wouldn’t work with the nuclear power plant. So here, it wouldn’t be the “canary” that does the time, but Mr. Burns.

Credit: Screenshot from The Simpsons, Season 6, Episode 5, “Sideshow Bob Roberts’' (4 October 1994). 20th Century Fox/Disney.

In season 6, episode 5, “Sideshow Bob Roberts” Sideshow Bob, the character who regularly tries to kill Bart in the show, becomes the mayor of Springfield. Naturally, one of his first actions in office is building the “Matlock Expressway”, which coincidentally goes through the Simpson’s property and requires bulldozing the Simpson's house.

In a conversation between Bob and the Simpsons, Bob says:

Bob: “So sorry, Mr. Simpson. Your house is blocking... construction of our new Matlock Expressway. Now, I am a fair man. You will have 72 hours to vacate. At that time, we will blow up your house and any remaining Simpsons.”

Legal Question: Putting aside the blowing up of any Simpsons still in the house and giving them 72 hours to vacate, can Sideshow Bob as Springfield Mayor destroy the Simpson’s house and take over their property in this way?

Result: Yes, the City of Springfield wins.

Legal Background: The Fifth Amendment of the United States constitution is best known for the line “Pleading the fifth” where people can refuse to incriminate themselves when asked whether they committed a crime. It is used by criminals who are arrested in compromising situations to teenagers in the US when asked by their parents why they did something.

However, among other rights, the fifth amendment also states that the government cannot take someone’s property without properly compensating them.

Relevant Excerpt of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution: “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Historically, the US Supreme Court has generally been quite deferential in allowing the federal, state, and local governments in taking private property as long as the government paid the owner a sufficient amount (i.e. “just compensation”) and the taking was benefiting the public in some way. This included a federal agency in Washington DC taking over a department store in DC to help “beautify” some of the city’s run down areas, the Hawaii state legislature distributing ownership of land from a few landowners to the people living on the land due to problems with concentration of land ownership, and a city called New London giving private land to private developers since it would promote local development and be for “public use”. The amount paid for a property is its fair market value.

The Court has in some cases that government regulations that indirectly affect a certain property can be unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court has supported governments when they want to take someone’s property outright.

Analysis: Here, the City of Springfield would end up winning. There is a clear public use for the Matlock expressway, much more so than for instance the city of New London giving private property to be redeveloped. The City of Springfield would need to provide fair compensation to the Simpsons, but, if Sideshow Bob had stayed in power, 742 Evergreen Terrace would have been leveled to the ground to make way for the Matlock Expressway.

This is just a brief note to thank all of the people who have subscribed to my substack! I just launched this substack a few weeks ago, so thank you for your early support.

The initial drafts I made in law school lingered a bit too long on my computer and started gathering digital dust. If no one had read what I had written or subscribed, that would have been a bummer, so thanks for giving a vote of confidence to what I’m doing! It means a lot. I’m glad that people still care enough about this beloved show that they’re willing to read about it from a different perspective.

Requests

Also, I’d like to use this post to see if anyone has any requests. Is there some legal situation in the Simpsons that you were curious about?

I can’t guarantee that I’ll be able to write about it, but if it’s something you’re interested in, just drop your thoughts in the comments below and I’ll do my best.

Thanks again,

-Zarko

Credit: Screenshot from The Simpsons, Season 6, Episode 25, “Who shot Mr. Burns? Part One’' (21 May 1995). 20th Century Fox/Disney.

In Season 6, Episode 25, Springfield Elementary discovers an oil well under the school grounds while the school’s janitor is giving a proper burial to “Superdude”, the deceased hamster of a school classroom. Flush with cash from the oil, Principal Skinner decides to rubber stamp the different requests made by students and staff including a crystal bucket for Groundskeeper Willy, a new cafeteria staff to replace the ones complaining about mice, a Tito Puente jazz class, chocolate microscopes, double guitars requested by Otto, and, naturally, more rubber stamps.

However, Mr. Burns shatters the school’s dreams by claiming the oil for himself by setting up “Burns Slant-Drilling Co.” Unlike Springfield Elementary which was planning to drill for the oil right below its property, Burns’s well accesses the oil well by drilling diagonally.

Also, Mr. Burns ends up beating Springfield Elementary to the pumping of the oil and is the first one to have a fully operational oil pump. After Mr. Burns pumps the oil, Principal Skinner briefs the school department:

Principal Skinner: “I’m afraid We’ve got no legal recourse against Mr. Burns and his slant-drilling operation. The oil belongs to whoever pumped it first.”

Legal Question: Does the oil really belong to whatever company pumped the oil first?

Result: Springfield Elementary wins.

Legal Background: Although Skinner thinks that Springfield Elementary would lose the case since Mr. Burns pumped the oil first, this is definitely not the case. This is a good example of how the law represented on TV isn’t always accurate.

In the United States, there is a general principle in property law that people, to a certain extent, have ownership of the territory above their land and below their land. This idea has been carried over generally into the area of mineral exploration. If a driller attempts to tap the minerals like oil that is located below someone else’s land (like Burns Slant Drilling Co. did), they may be liable for what is called a “subsurface trespass.”

A subsurface trespass occurs even though someone owns the land on which their oil well is located, but uses what is called directional drilling to access the mineral rights below someone’s else’s land. If someone is found guilty of subsurface trespass for extracting oil, they owe the amount of the oil’s worth that is extracted from the ground.

Here, Mr. Burns’s operation is a comically flagrant instance of sub-surface trespass. In the clip that is present, Burns’s hole is slanted in a way that he is drilling very far from the location of the well. As a result, Springfield Elementary would almost certainly win and would thankfully be able to afford the different items they so dearly need, such as chocolate microscopes and the musical stylings of Tito Puente.

Credit: Screenshot from The Simpsons, Season 6, Episode 25, “Who shot Mr. Burns? Part One’' (21 May 1995). 20th Century Fox/Disney.

Credit: Screenshot from The Simpsons, Season 9, Episode 12, “Bart Carny’' (11 January 1998). 20th Century Fox/Disney.

In Season 9, Episode 12, “Bart Carny,” Bart causes trouble once again by crashing Hitler’s limousine at the local fair. As a result, rather than paying off the damage by taking out a loan, Bart and Homer do the most logical thing and become carnies in the fair. While tending to the booth of Cooder and Spud—a father and son carny team—Bart and Homer do not give Police Chief Wiggum a bribe and unfortunately cause Cooder and Spud’s booth to be confiscated.

Homer, feeling guilty, out of a gesture of goodwill invites the two carnies to stay with the Simpsons until they can get back on their feet. However, after drawing out the Simpsons by giving them tickets to a glass-bottom boat ride, the Cooders change the locks of the Simpsons’ residence and the Simpson family cannot enter 742 Evergreen Terrace. The following exchange ensues:

Homer: That's weird. The key doesn't fit.

Marge: Hey, someone's boarded up our windows.

Bart: Check this out!

[Bart points to fact that The Cooders have crossed out the name The Simpsons on the mailbox and written “The Cooders.”1]

Marge: What's going on?

Homer: Cooder! What have you done to our house?

[Cooder looks at the Simpsons through the mail slot and responds to them]

Cooder: It's ours now. Tell us where the extra sheets are and get off our property.

[Gasps] Lisa: They're squatting in our house.

Homer: You can't do this to me. What about the carny code?

[Cooder, Spud Laughing]

Police Chief Wiggum does not want to help the Simpsons since Homer earlier did not give the police chief a bribe, so the Simpsons are forced to live in their treehouse.

[Homer and Lisa are at the police station where Homer is speaking to Chief Wiggum]

Homer: Carnies took over our house. You've gotta help us!

Chief Wiggum: Well, well, look who's here. Mr. No-Bribe. Sure, we'll help you. Just sit down and wait for Detective Like-l-Give-A-Damn.

After spending one night in a tree house, all of the Simpsons except Marge are considering using fire to get the Cooders out of the house.

Marge: We can't just give up our home. There's gotta be a way to get those guys out of there.

Bart: I say we set fire to the house. Kill 'em that way.

Marge: We don't wanna kill them, Bart. We just want our home back.

Lisa: Well, if we did set fire to the house-

Marge: No fires!

Legal Question: What can the Simpsons legally do to get their house back? Can they use force?

Result: The Simpsons can use non-deadly force to get the Cooders out.

Legal Background: US Courts generally don’t look kindly on the concept of people taking matters into their own hands (referred to as “self-help”) to protect their property, whether this involves real estate or personal property. The main goal of the US courts is to balance allowing people to protect their property and avoiding violence as much as they can. The following table summarizes the four approaches courts take in terms of the kind of self-help they permit for people protecting their property:

i) Real Estate (Tenant-Potentially violent criminal) If a criminal enters your house and you are clutching a baseball bat fearing for your life, US courts allow you to swing the bat or shoot at the intruder to protect yourself. The rationale being that, if you’re in your house and the other person shouldn’t be there, the person in the house is most likely a criminal, you can’t really run away and should be given the freedom to fight back. Also, you might not have the time to call the police or a court, so using violence here is acceptable. For example, in season 5 episode 10 “$pringfield (Or, how I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Legalized Gambling),” Homer gets scared that there is a bogeyman or bogeymen in the house2, so he and the kids barricade themselves with a shotgun in the bedroom. If there were in fact a bogeyman/bogeymen in the house, Homer would have been able to legally shoot ‘em dead.

Credit: Screenshot from The Simpsons, Season 5, Episode 10, “$pringfield’' (16 December 1993). 20th Century Fox/Disney.

ii) Real Estate (Temporary occupier): If the situation involves real estate, but the person is a temporary occupier, the courts allow some self-help, but this is limited. If someone is renting a room at a hotel and they do not make payments, then courts will not allow hotel managers to excitedly rush for their shotguns and shoot the non-paying lodger off their premises. However, they will allow a hotel manager who rented their room to change the locks on a lodger who is not making payments. The rationale of the court in this case was that since the person was a temporary lodger, they are less likely to engage in violence since the hotel was not the lodger’s permanent home.

iii) Personal property: Similarly, courts allow some self-help if the question involves personal property. Personal property is, for example, a car, a vase, or a pineapple, rather than something fixed like real estate.

The most typical example for self-help in the United States for personal property self-help involves cases where repo companies took away the cars of people who did not make necessary payments. Unless the person strongly objected, the repo people could haul off a car without involving the police. Also, on a more low-level scale, if someone grabs your purse, you are allowed to grab it back from them without involving the police. You cannot shoot the purse snatcher. Similarly, the repo people cannot haul back a car while shooting at the person behind on their payments. However, some self help is allowed.

iv) Real Estate (Landlord-tenant): Cases where generally courts strongly frown upon any sort of self-help is cases where there is a landlord who has a formal rental agreement with a tenant. In these cases, no matter if the tenant failed to make payments for many months or is violating any terms of the lease, the landlord is not allowed to use self-help. They have to go through the courts. The argument being that, particularly if the house is someone’s home or their business giving them a livelihood, they are likely to react with violence if the landlord changes the locks on them or makes them leave in some other way. In the case of landlords and tenants, courts always prefer that landlords do not handle the dispute themselves, but wait until courts resolve the matter. For example, in Season 3, episode 22, “The Otto Show,” it was most likely illegal for Otto’s landlord to change the locks on him to evict him.

Credit: Screenshot from The Simpsons, Season 3, Episode 22, “$pringfield’' (23 April 1992). 20th Century Fox/Disney.

Analysis: If we try to slot the situation between the Simpsons and the Cooders in one of these categories, where would you put them?

It’s not a perfect fit, but the category that applies is category 2 (temporary occupiers), since it fits much better than the other categories.

Personal property is certainly not relevant since the Cooders have taken over the Simpsons’ house, not a movable object like a car or a purse. Category 1 (Tenant - Potentially violent criminal) does not apply since, although the Cooders have taken over the Simpsons’ house, they no longer presented a physical threat to the Simpsons. Category 4 (Landlord-tenant) also does not apply, since while the Simpsons let the Cooders stay at their place, it would be a stretch to say that the Cooders would qualify as the tenants of the Simpsons since no tenancy agreement was signed.

As a result, the category that best applies is likely Category 2 (temporary occupier) and, as a result, the Simpsons would be able to use some self-help. While they would not be able to set fire to get the Cooders out or use in any sort of violence, they are allowed to use other non-violent methods. In the episode, the Simpsons tricked the Cooders to get back into the house by luring them out, which the courts would certainly approve. However, the Simpsons would likely be able to use any number of other non-violent actions like using a locksmith to change the locks on the Cooders while the Cooders are getting groceries.

So, even though the Simpsons would not be able to smoke out the Cooders using fire, they would not be entirely helpless in getting rid of the Cooders. How the “Carny Code” would apply in this situation is a separate question that is not in the scope of this blog post.

Credit: "Screenshot from The Simpsons, Season 9, Episode 5, 'The Cartridge Family’' (2 November 1997). 20th Century Fox/Disney.

In Season 9, Episode 5 “The Cartridge Family,” Homer attempts to buy a gun from the local gun shop in Springfield. However, as he is about to buy the gun, he has the following conversation with Raphael, the gun-store clerk:

Homer: …Just give me my gun. (Homer tries to take the gun)

Clerk: I'm sorry, but the law requires a five-day waiting period. We've got to run a background check.

Homer: Five days? But I'm mad now. I'd kill you if I had my gun.

Clerk: Yeah, well you don't.

[Homer walks out of the store, muttering.]

Legal Question: In the episode, Homer ends up passing the waiting period and getting a gun. However, suppose Raphael did not sell the gun to him since Homer did not pass the background check or since Homer told him “I’d kill you if I had my gun.” If Homer sued Raphael and the Springfield Gun Shop for not wanting to sell him a gun, would he win the case?

Result: Springfield Gun Shop wins.

Legal Background: Interestingly enough, the relevant law in this case isn’t tied to the second amendment about the right to legally own firearms. Rather, the relevant law here is related to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was a seminal piece of legislation in US history. US Supreme Court decisions in the aftermath of this act have in effect created two types of refusals in shops: prohibited and permitted refusals.

(1) - Prohibited Refusals: Thanks to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, shop owners are absolutely prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity or religion.

Credit: Unsplash

The US Supreme Court affirmed these rights through a number of US Supreme Court cases in the 1960s. It repeatedly ruled in favor of African-Americans who were unjustly refused service at hotels, amusement parks and restaurants, most famously in the case Heart of Atlanta, Inc. v. United States (1964).

(2) - Permitted Refusals: However, if there is no discrimination on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity or religion, shop owners actually can kick out of their store whomever they’d like. In the 1970s, irritated shop owners started turning away hippies with impunity through their “No shirt, no shoes, and no service” and have merrily continued doing so ever since.

Credit: Vasilios Muselimis

Store owners are even allowed to discriminate against customers if the refusal is based on their religious belief. An interesting case involves the cases Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023) where the Court said, respectively, that a Christian cakemaker and web designer cannot be forced to make a wedding cake or a website for gay weddings if it violates their religious beliefs.

Analysis: In summary, as long as Raphael’s refusal to sell Homer a gun was not motivated by some sort of unjust discrimination, Raphael has a lot of freedom to handle customers in the way he likes, including Homer.

Is there any indication that Homer is being discriminated against? It doesn’t look like it. Would Homer have a case in any situation?

Well, if some new facts came to light that Raphael refused to sell Homer a gun due to Homer’s religion. For instance, if Raphael hated Stonecutters and he knew that Homer was a Stonecutter, maybe it could be argued that the Stonecutters were a religion and Homer was discriminated under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, as the facts stand, Homer doesn’t really have a case.

So, like shop owners turning away hippies who don’t have to justify why they turned them away, the gun shop owner doesn’t have to go to great lengths to explain why he turned away Homer from his gun shop, even though he’s “mad now.” Probably for the best.

Credit: "Screenshot from The Simpsons, Season 5, Episode 19, 'Sweet Seymour Skinner’s Baadasssss Song’' (28 April 1994). 20th Century Fox/Disney.

In Season 5, Episode 19, “Sweet Seymour Skinner’s Baadasssss Song,” Principal Skinner is fired by the school for the duration of the episode. In his place, Superintendent Chalmers instates Ned Flanders, who, as most Simpsons fans know, is one of the most religious people in Springfield. Towards the end of the episode, Ned makes a morning announcement on the school intercom:

Ned Flanders: [over the intercom] Well, cockilly-doodilly-do, little buddies. Let's thank the Lord for another beautiful school day.

Superintendent Chalmers: Thank the Lor-- Thank the Lord? That sounded like a prayer. A prayer! A prayer in a public school! God has no place within these walls...just like facts have no place within organized religion! Simpson, you get your wish. Flanders is history.

[Outside in the hall]

Ned Flanders: Well, I really enjoyed my time here, Superintendent. May the Lord bless and keep you.

Superintendent Chalmers: Yeah, take it outside, God boy.

Ned Flanders: Okilly-dokilly.

Legal Question: Is Ned Flanders able to lead his students in prayer as principal in a public school?

Result: No, Springfield Elementary most likely wins this case.

Legal Background: In short, the Supreme Court’s approach to prayer in public schools boils down to the rule: feel free to do it yourself, but don’t push your religion onto other people, especially if you work at the school. In the United States, this is also part of the broader principle of the separation of church and state.

The Supreme Court has been very sensitive to even the most minimal endorsement of public school officials of religion and has stamped it out each time, with only a slight change in 2022. In the groundbreaking case Engel v. Vitale (1962), the US Supreme Court gave a big no to the New York School Board when it tried to institute a morning prayer at the school.

Cred: The Oregon State University Collections and Archives

Even though the prayer was completely voluntary and nondenominational, the Court still ruled it was unconstitutional. Since then, the Court has continued to stamp out any religious exercise in public schools in a set of cases called the "School Prayer Cases." For example, the Court ruled against Alabama giving students one minute for meditation or prayer and against a school district that invited a rabbi to give a nondenominational prayer at a Rhode Island school graduation.

In 2022, the Court did change tack slightly when it ruled in favor of a football coach who “silently prayed” after football games in the case Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022). The Court stated that school officials have the right to religious expression, even though they cannot push this onto their impressionable students. In reality, Kennedy’s speeches were not quite “silent” and reportedly involved him giving speeches to students with religious references while holding a student helmet in the air. However, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, a teacher can pray quietly to themselves during lunch or wear a yarmulke to school, but involving students in the slightest way is prohibited.

Analysis: In this case, did Flanders even slightly involve students in his prayer? He did. If it were a different scenario and Flanders prayed silently at lunch in the cafeteria while enjoying some plain white bread dipped in water as he does, there would not have been a constitutional violation. If students had come to his office to join him in prayer like students joined Coach Kennedy, this conduct also might have been protected as Ned practicing his religion.

However, here Flanders is saying “Let’s thank the Lord for another beautiful day” over the school’s morning announcements. If Flanders had simply said “Thank the Lord for another beautiful school day”, Flanders could have argued that this was more self-expression, but his action was not silent and there does seem to be some light coercion of students going on here. It would depend on the facts of the case and perhaps the currently more conservative Supreme Court would rule in Ned's favor, but odds are Ned would have to stop being the school principal due to his actions and return to his job selling left-handed goods at the Leftorium.

Credit: "Screenshot from The Simpsons, Season 7, Episode 12, 'Team Homer' (7 January 1996). 20th Century Fox/Disney.

In Season 7, Episode 12, “Team Homer,” Bart wears a T-shirt to school that says “Down with homework”:

Teacher Edna Krabappel: Tonight's homework assignment is—

Bart: Oh, man, is it hot in here. I'd better take off my sweater.

[Bart takes off sweater to reveal shirt]

Edna: [reads shirt] "Down with"- "homework"?

[Children start laughing as Bart stands up in his chair and shows the shirt]

Krabappel: Don't look at it, children.

Milhouse: His shirt makes a good point.

Nelson: I'm with the shirt! Homework rots!

Students: [chanting together] Down with homework! Down with homework!

[All students in the classroom throw their books out of the window, a student makes dust fly up by clapping two erasers, students tip over a desk which somehow starts a fire. Shortly after, students race through the hallways and trample the superintendent]

Superintendent Chalmers: Skinner, why are there children walking on my head?

Bart is handed some tough justice by Principal Skinner as he is forced to remove the shirt, throw it in the garbage, and wear a couch cushion back home instead of a shirt. Then, Skinner mentions that he would have to think about Bart’s punishment.

Legal Question: By throwing Bart’s shirt in the trash (and punishing him), did Principal Skinner violate Bart’s free speech rights? If Bart sued Springfield Elementary, how would a court have ruled?

Result: Springfield Elementary would almost certainly win in this case.

Legal Background: The first amendment of the US constitution without question guarantees free speech, including the right of students to express themselves in school. However, the school can still tell students to shut up or punish them if the speech is disruptive to running the school. The logic being that teachers need to be able to teach the students, and they cannot do so effectively if students are throwing the F-bomb around, telling their students to use drugs, or being otherwise disruptive. The school is effectively the parent in school and is given a large amount of freedom in regulating the speech of its students.

For example, the US Supreme Court (often called just "the Court") ruled against the student Matthew Fraser in 1986 when he gave a speech at an assembly laced with sexual innuendo, against a student who was suspended for hosting a banner saying “Bong hits 4 Jesus” at a school event, and against a school newspaper that wanted to publish articles related to pregnancy and divorce.

Credit: Mischafer, Wikimedia Commons

However, if the speech is not disruptive or not happening in school, US law does protect that speech. In the famous US Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of a brother and sister who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. More recently, the Court ruled in favor of a school cheerleader who had been suspended from her cheerleading squad for posting “fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything” in a Snapchat message to a group of 250 friends.

Analysis: In this case at hand, a US court would almost certainly rule in favor of the school. As the United States is a common law system, when US courts think about how to decide a case, the key thing they look to is precedent—how courts have previously ruled on the same or similar issue. have decided. This is different from courts in a civil system, where judges primarily look at applying the legal code.

So which of the cases above is Bart’s case most similar to?

In this case, Bart’s case looks most like the previous cases where student speech was limited. Given that Bart’s shirt caused the students to riot and walk on Principal Chalmer’s head, it is hard to argue that Bart’s shirt was as non-disruptive as the black armbands worn by the students protesting the Vietnam war in Tinker. Also, Bart was wearing the shirt in school, so he cannot argue that he was engaging in off-campus speech like the angry cheerleader. A US Court would say Bart’s case is most like those other cases such as the student giving a speech with sexual innuendo or the student who hoisted the banner “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” Although in Milhouse’s view “the shirt makes a good point,” US courts would still say that the school can punish Bart.