In the U.K., such a law — distant cousin to our own draconian enactments on eagle feathers and exotic woods — has (presumably inadvertently) wound up ensnaring museums. [Guardian]
{ 1 comment }
From the monthly archives:
December 2011
Some of Newt Gingrich’s curious ideas about the role of the judiciary are nowhere to be found in the constitution, observes my Cato colleague Roger Pilon [Philadelphia Inquirer] Related, Damon Root: “The Left-Wing Origins of Newt Gingrich’s Attack on the Courts” [Reason]
{ 0 comments }
How often does Los Angeles County throw people in jail due to mistaken identity? In some years “an average of once a day.” [L.A. Times]
{ 8 comments }
My new podcast at Cato discusses the American Psychiatric Association’s ongoing project of redefining and often loosening the criteria for diagnosing mental illness, and some of its legal implications in fields like disability law (earlier).
{ 2 comments }
Listicles and award contests from around the blawgosphere: Popehat on censorious clowns, Legal Ethics Forum, Trask on class action cases and articles, White Collar Crime Law Prof, Heritage on worst federal regs, Greenfield on best criminal law blawg post (and winner), Faces of Lawsuit Abuse (Chamber) on most ridiculous lawsuits, Balko on worst prosecutor (and finalists).
P.S. From The Week, “8 craziest lawsuits of 2011.” This in turn prompted a NYC personal injury attorney named David Waterbury, taking up valuable real estate at Eric Turkewitz’s, to write a counter-article saying the cases weren’t so bad, which involved me in the comments section after I observed Waterbury spreading the trial lawyer-favored line that the “Kara Walton” series of bogus lawsuit stories was a purposeful political fabrication.
{ 2 comments }
- “Copyright troll Righthaven in its death throes, domain going up for auction” [Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing]
- Controversy over litigation finance continues [WaPo, NYPost]
- Presumably unrelated to above: “Unpaid Bills Land Some Debtors Behind Bars” [NPR]
- “Rent Control Violates Property Rights and Due Process” [Ilya Shapiro and Trevor Burrus, Cato, on Harmon v. Kimmel cert petition]
- Child abuse horrors result in dubious policy proposals including moves to abolish statutes of limitation, cast wider mandatory-reporting net [Howard Wasserman/PrawfsBlawg, Kyle Graham/Concurring Opinions]
- Schwab IRA class action settlement: lawyers get $500K while benefit to class is unclear [Lawrence Schonbron, Washington Times]
- “State Court Challenges to Legislatively Enacted Tort Reforms” [Andrew Cook and Emily Kelchen, Federalist Society "State Court Docket Watch"]
{ 0 comments }
In a new Cato post, I explain why I wish such an organization existed.
{ 0 comments }
“Rights-bearing individuals do not forfeit those rights when they associate in groups” argue my Cato colleagues Ilya Shapiro and Caitlyn McCarthy in the John Marshall Law Review [SSRN via Cato at Liberty]:
Much of the criticism of Citizens United stems from the claim that the Constitution does not protect corporations because they are not “real” people. … This essay will demonstrate why the common argument that corporations lack rights because they aren’t people demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of corporations and the First Amendment.
Meanwhile, Virginia blogger/attorney Doug Mataconis [via the much missed Larry Ribstein] analyzes a constitutional amendment advanced by a number of Democratic representatives and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) which would, among other provisions, propose to abolish the constitutional rights of incorporated businesses, with the possible exception of rights held by “the press.” The measure would also impose a constitutional prohibition on (not just authorize official regulation of) such businesses’ engagement in “expenditures,” such as buying newspaper ads expressing their views, during initiative and referendum campaigns as well as elections for office.
Along with abolishing incorporated businesses’ rights, the Sanders proposal contains a further provision of high importance (flagged by Eugene Volokh) that would abolish the constitutional rights of any and all non-profits and similar private entities that are “established … to promote business interests,” and would impose on them the same constitutionally mandated silence during initiatives, referenda and the like. Note the results of this language, which we must presume are intentional: in, say, a fight over a ballot measure that would increase some business tax, the citizens’ committee organized to agitate against the tax would be forbidden to expend money upon a determination that it had been “established … to promote business interests.” Such a private group would also be deemed to have no constitutional rights of any other sort — rights against, say, having its meetings stormed and broken up by police. Meanwhile, the citizens’ committee organized to agitate for the tax would retain not only its rights to speak and to spend money on behalf of its views but also all its other constitutional rights. Rarely do politicians, in this country at least, make it so clear in advance that their intent is to silence their opponents.
Who are the lawmakers who would propose such a measure? The House version was introduced by Rep. Theodore Deutch [FL] and its co-sponsors are Reps. Steve Cohen [TN], John Conyers, Jr. [MI], Peter DeFazio [OR], Keith Ellison [MN], Sam Farr [CA], Barney Frank [MA], Marcia Fudge [OH], Raul Grijalva [AZ], Alcee Hastings [FL], Sheila Jackson Lee [TX], “Hank” Johnson, Jr. [GA], Rick Larsen [WA], John Larson [CT], Barbara Lee [CA], Carolyn Maloney [NY], Jim McDermott [WA], Frank Pallone, Jr. [NJ], Chellie Pingree [ME], Charles Rangel [NY], Betty Sutton [OH], Chris Van Hollen [MD], and Peter Welch [VT].
{ 18 comments }
Brad Plumer in the Washington Post summarizes the provisions of the bill as well as the state of play on it in Congress as of mid-month. Although much commentary has assumed that persons determined to visit blocked sites could readily find ways around the SOPA restrictions, David Post notes that the draft bill authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctions against persons who assist in circumventing the law, which might include websites that publish “here’s how to evade SOPA blocking” information. Timothy Lee at ArsTechnica notes growing opposition to the bill among conservatives, while Joshua Kopstein at Motherboard reviews a comic markup session. Meanwhile, “Gibson Guitar & Others On SOPA Supporters List Say They Never Supported The Bill” [Mike Masnick, TechDirt] Earlier here and here.
{ 3 comments }
- But don’t call it quotas: “New Proposal May Force Federal Contractors to Hire More People with Disabilities” [Diversity Journal]
- Wow: SEIU local advertises job described as “Train/lead members in … occupying state buildings and banks” [Instapundit]
- $174K/year annual pension, collected for several decades? “Public retirement ages come under greater scrutiny” [AP] “Report makes ‘progressive’ pension-reform case” [Steven Greenhut, Public Sector Inc.] “Retired Cops and Firefighters in RI Town Accept Pension Cuts in Bankruptcy Deal” [Debra Cassens Weiss/ABA Journal, earlier] New York officials move to cut off public access to information about who’s getting what [NY Post]
- In end run around Congress: “Obama instating labor rules for home-care aides” [LAT]
- Artificial “take home pay” rule helped some highly paid Connecticut public workers qualify for emergency food stamps [Hartford Courant, more]
- Lawyers, business groups alarmed at Department of Labor’s proposed “labor persuader” regulations [ABA Journal, earlier]
{ 1 comment }
In cases such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), the Supreme Court has declined to put police and other public authorities under any general duty to protect individuals from crime. The decisions have been broadly unpopular, but Mike McDaniel at PJ Media takes the Court’s side on policy grounds: “This [lack of a particularized duty] might seem absolutely outrageous, but it is logical, rational, and unquestionably necessary.”
{ 14 comments }
Another law professor finds the hot-coffee and obesity lawsuits admirable, and Ted Frank once more begs to differ.
{ 0 comments }
Canada: The British Columbia Supreme Court has found “that a claim for damages for a break-up of a relationship following a collision is too remote for liability.” It accepted the plaintiff’s contention that the car crash had aggravated his pre-existing problems of back pain, but said the subsequent break-up of his romantic relationship was “too remote” a consequence to give rise to liability given that the couple appeared to have been at odds over “fundamental and deep-seated issues.” [Erik Magraken]
The federal government is suing to overturn Chicago’s law requiring lenders to maintain properties they don’t own [WSJ editorial]:
Earlier this month the federal agency that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sued Chicago for its vacant-buildings ordinance, which requires that a “mortgagee” register vacant properties, pay a $500 fee to the city, comply with onerous maintenance requirements and face a $1,000 daily fine for noncompliance. Any entity with a financial interest in the home—a bank, mortgage trust, mortgage servicer or Fan and Fred—is subject to the law, whether or not it has foreclosed on the home and owns the title….
The [Chicago enactment] came at the expense of small banks and mortgage servicers that can’t afford, for instance, to install “commercial-quality metal security panels” on windows or clean snow “from the walkway leading to the main entry door, and any public sidewalk adjoining the lot.” It’s legally dubious to impose these requirements on private owners of private property, and by doing so Chicago will raise the cost of mortgage loans to future homeowners.
More: Kevin Funnell, Bank Lawyer’s Blog; earlier here and here.
{ 2 comments }
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, who has made “distracted driving” his “signature safety issue,” is putting distance between himself and the NTSB’s call for a sweeping ban. [Reuters, Tina Korbe/Hot Air, earlier here and here]
{ 4 comments }
- Exoneree’s ex sues him for share of state’s wrongful-imprisonment payout [Dallas Observer via Balko]
- Gibson’s alleged crime: ebony veneer too thick [Andrew Grossman, earlier here, here]
- About that flap over “free” lawyer representation of Wisconsin high court justice [Rick Esenberg, Shark and Shepherd]
- Allegation: Binder & Binder, largest Social Security advocacy firm, used red stickers to flag clients’ unfavorable medical info, often withheld it from disability-claim judges [WSJ]
- “Judge Dismisses Landmark Bribery Conviction, Rips DOJ” [WSJ Law Blog, Lindsey order, more, my Cato post] FCPA reverse for federal prosecutors in arms trade case [BLT]
- Congress passes bill clarifying jurisdiction, venue [Howard Wasserman, Prawfs]
- Important reason to record cop-citizen interactions: to protect police from false claims [Scott Greenfield]
Legal academia is in mourning for one of its most distinguished and multitalented figures, Larry Ribstein, a key scholar in corporate law and a provocative and rigorous exponent of law and economics thinking. Larry was an early blogger (at Ideoblog and more recently Truth on the Market), an influential critic of prosecutorial and regulatory excess, and a key voice in the debate on what law schools should do. He was also, I am grateful to say, an important friend of this site over many years. Like so many others, I had reason to appreciate his generous gifts of time and engagement, most recently in February when he helped arrange my U. of Illinois speech on Schools for Misrule, for which he served as the friendly counter-speaker, and led me around Champaign-Urbana, to which he was the perfect guide.
Some samplings of the outpouring around the blogosphere: Geoffrey Manne and Paul Caron (with tribute roundups), Steve Bainbridge, Tom Kirkendall (”a teacher who understood precisely what his life’s purpose was and pursued it with an endearing combination of intellectual curiosity, vitality, humanity and good humor,” Dave Hoffman (”a galvanic force… a great and unique voice”), Ted Frank, Henry Manne, Andy Morriss (”I suspect he’s already been named Associate Archangel for Research in heaven and doubled scholarly output there.”). A memorial service is planned at George Mason.
{ 1 comment }
From the archives:
- Christmas in legalese: “…Hosiery was meticulously suspended from the forward edge of the woodburning caloric apparatus… ” [1999]
- California lawyer using Prop 65 bounty-hunting statute goes after silver dragées found on some gingerbread houses [2005; more on gingerbread (and chestnut-roasting) hazards, 2002]
- Yuletide in old England less jolly given health and safety adjustments [2007, 2009]
- Santa’s extra helper might be a witness in case of litigation, and other items from the legal-Claus file [2005]
- “Law firm offers divorce vouchers for Christmas” [2009]
- Unable to cope with CPSIA testing rules, charity will discontinue donating handcrafted wood toys [2010]
- “Cease this shouting!” cried Grinch, “From all Yule din desist!” But he’d Moved To The Nuisance and so, case dismissed [Art Carden, Forbes on Whoville externalities] [2010]
{ 1 comment }
