- Annals of discrimination lawsuits: a Tennessee cop contests his firing [Chattanooga Pulse]
- New book on lawsuits against universities: Amy Gajda, “The Trials of Academe: The New Era of Campus Litigation” [Harvard University Press via Stanley Fish, NYT]
- Bernard Kerik’s bail revoked because he used Twitter to promote a website put up by his friends flaying the prosecution? [Scott Greenfield] Plus: More complicated than that, says Bill Poser in comments;
- Another big setback for birther litigation [Wasserman/ Prawfsblawg, Little Green Footballs, earlier]
- “I won’t be able to function,” says Missouri woman after judge rules her monkey is not a service animal [On Point News, Molly DiBianca] More: service ferret gets owner kicked out of North Carolina mall [DigTriad]
- Eleventh Circuit agrees that U.S. cannot prosecute criminal defense lawyer Ben Kuehne for money laundering charges for having written opinion letter saying untainted money was available for legal fees [WSJ Law Blog, coverage (and update) at Scott Greenfield's site, Miami Herald]
- One for the Coase Theorem literature? Cranky neighbor forces closure of famed South Carolina recording venue [Ribstein]
- Hallowe’en is safe [BoingBoing, earlier on Pennsylvania town's trick-or-treating ban] “Toronto schools: Hallowe’en insensitive to witches” [four years ago on Overlawyered]
Tagged as:
Barack Obama,
child protection,
colleges and universities,
defense lawyers,
Missouri,
music and musicians,
police,
prosecution,
service animals,
South Carolina,
Tennessee
In “a little-publicized October 2 resolution … [the U.S.] State Department joined Islamic nations in adopting language all-too-friendly to censoring speech that some religions and races find offensive, notes Stuart Taylor, Jr.’s new column for National Journal. Legal academics, including some who have gone on to join the Obama Administration, have sketched out doctrines indicating “how the resolution could be construed to require prosecuting some offensive speech and how it could be used in the long run to change the meaning of our Constitution and laws… In my view, Obama should not take even a small step down the road toward bartering away our free-speech rights for the sake of international consensus.” More: Reason, Jonathan Turley/USA Today. And (h/t comments): A Monday statement by Secretary of State Clinton is being widely greeted as reaffirming a free-speech position, but Taylor is not convinced that it undoes the damage. Nor, it seems, are Eugene Volokh and Ilya Somin.
P.S. What Rick Brookhiser told the Yale Political Union about that cartoonless Mohammed-cartoons book from Yale University Press [NRO] And here’s word that in the U.S., liberal church denominations will ask the FCC to probe conservative broadcasters [Jeffrey Lord/American Spectator]
Tagged as:
Barack Obama,
free speech,
hate speech,
international law,
United Nations
Tagged as:
ACORN,
Barack Obama,
class action settlements,
Florida,
land use and zoning,
libel slander and defamation,
Massachusetts,
newspapers,
privacy,
restaurants,
schools
Some interestingly cross-cutting results, summarized by National Journal as “Would Tort Reform Make Pill Easier To Swallow? Right-Leaning Bloggers Say They’d Support A Health Care Bill That Included It; Some Left-Leaners Would Hold Their Nose For It.” The results, though, may have been influenced by wording that was susceptible to multiple interpretations. I added this comment, raising a sub-issue that I think might make a good topic for bipartisan discussions:
My pet proposal? Work on out-of-court dispute resolution methods for the sizable share of medical care the federal government already provides. Alas, Congress is headed in the other direction, as with its interest in opening up med-mal suits by active-duty personnel against military doctors.
More: David Kopel, Volokh.
Tagged as:
Barack Obama,
medical malpractice
“In his speech tonight, the president shouldn’t forget tort reform.” (John Avlon of the Manhattan Institute, City Journal).
P.S. Maybe he was listening. In his speech tonight, Obama made a non-trivial gesture toward critics’ views on the subject, acknowledging that defensive medicine drives up costs and “prompting an eruption of applause from Republicans at Wednesday’s joint session of Congress.” [UPI]. From the same article:
“I know that the (George W.) Bush administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues,” Obama said. “It’s a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services (Kathleen Sebelius) to move forward on this initiative.”
On the politics of the gesture, see Jake Tapper/ABC, news-side WSJ (cross-posted from Point of Law).
Some reactions: Dr. Wes notices language recycled from the med-mal plan championed earlier by then-Sen. Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) My reaction? I think trying a bunch of demonstration projects to see how they work is actually one of the better reform ideas at the federal level, but obviously a great deal depends on how the demonstration projects are picked and designed. Projects might be selected from a list of ideas pre-vetted for acceptability to the litigation lobby, or at worst might even be designed to fail. I agree with Ron Miller: when it comes to actual policy, “Let’s just say President Obama is keeping his options open.” (bumped Thurs. a.m.)
And more: okay, maybe I gave the President too much credit above on having acknowledged the costs of defensive medicine: his exact wording was “defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs” (emphasis added). Ramesh Ponnuru: “A demonstration project for med-mal reform — don’t we already have one, called Texas?” Carter Wood notes that demonstration projects on med-mal reform have been shot down by Congressional Democrats in recent years. Dan Pero calls the gesture an “olive twig“. And from commenter Jack Wilson: “How come tort reform is the only part of this plan that needs to go through a demonstration project?”
Tagged as:
Barack Obama,
medical malpractice
- Cops in London borough “remove valuables from unlocked cars to teach the owners about safety” [UPI, Sullum/Reason "Hit and Run", Coyote]
- “Trial starts for PI lawyer accused of paying bribes (to Texas insurance managers) for settlement” [ABA Journal]
- Tort reform in Oklahoma takes effect Nov. 1, so law firm advises getting those lawsuits filed quickly [The Oklahoman]
- Patent assembler Intellectual Ventures says it’s averse to suing. Its close partners, on the other hand… [Recorder, earlier]
- Bill to assert U.S. control of waters whether “navigable” or not is major federal power grab [Kay Hutchison and Nolan Ryan, Dallas News]
- California high court rules in Taster’s Choice photo-permission case [Lowering the Bar, WSJ Law Blog, earlier]
- Civil libertarians, secularists protest as Ireland criminalizes blasphemy [Volokh, Irish Times (Dawkins), MWW and more]
- He knows about big paychecks: “Obama’s ‘Pay Czar’ Made $5.76M Last Year as a Law Firm Partner” [ABA Journal]
Tagged as:
Barack Obama,
environment,
free speech,
insurance,
Ireland,
patent trolls,
police,
United Kingdom
Some believe the Obama camp has spent a fortune in lawyers’ fees responding to far-fetched “birther” lawsuits, but John Bringardner at Legal Blog Watch is skeptical about that claim. Speaking of which, don’t you wish more conservatives would keep their distance from the site WorldNetDaily? [Jon Henke]
Tagged as:
Barack Obama,
wrong right
Perhaps the most buzzed-about story while I was on vacation (I’m back now) was the frank acknowledgment by former Democratic Party chairman (and former physician) Howard Dean when asked why liability reform was omitted from the health care redesign. 
From the New York Times “Prescriptions” blog:
The man then asked why tort reform was not part of any health overhaul.
Dr. Dean replied that the more items in a big bill, the more enemies it will have. “The people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everyone else,” Dr. Dean said.
Dr. Dean also said he believed that patients should be able to bring actions against health care professionals, but they should go to arbitration. Then the case could go to trial, he said, but the arbitration verdict should be submitted as evidence. Not much reaction to that either way.
Mr. Moran [Northern Virginia Congressman Jim Moran] then apologized to the man whose identity he had questioned and added his 2 cents about why tort reform was not part of any bill. He said if it were, such a bill would have to go through the judiciary committee, which he said was one of the most partisan in Congress and would never have reported it out.
Commentary: Mark Tapscott/Examiner, Washington Times, Darrin McKinney/ATRA, Dan Pero linking Tiger Joyce/Investors Business Daily, Charles Krauthammer/FoxNews.com via Carter Wood/PoL and NRO “Corner”, Fred Barnes/Weekly Standard.
Relatedly, Philip K. Howard writes on “Stonewalling Legal Reform“, citing a Jon R. Gabel piece in the Times that rebuts a much-touted-by-trial-lawyers Congressional Budget Office report minimizing the likely cost reductions from malpractice reform. From the American Spectator Blog, “Conservative Leaders on Costly Lawsuits and Health Care Reform“. And Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO reiterates his argument that while malpractice reform is a good idea, it shouldn’t be imposed on the national level by the federal government.
More: Jim Lindgren at Volokh Conspiracy skewers an appalling report on health care “myths” which received, but did not deserve, the imprimatur of Indiana University.
Tagged as:
Barack Obama,
federalism,
medical malpractice,
politics
Confirming earlier reports: “In closed-door talks, Mr. Obama has been making the case that reducing malpractice lawsuits — a goal of many doctors and Republicans — can help drive down health care costs, and should be considered as part of any health care overhaul, according to lawmakers of both parties, as well as A.M.A. officials.” One positive factor for reformers: presidential aide Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel has written that there is “no doubt” that “monumental change” in the malpractice system is called for. [New York Times]
In 2004, Obama was quoted as saying, “Anyone who denies there’s a crisis with medical malpractice insurance is probably a trial lawyer”. Other coverage here, here (Ted at PoL, taking skeptical view) and here. The Times characterizes former Senate leader Tom Daschle as being these days “a strong proponent of linking evidence-based medicine with protections against lawsuits”; it’s not clear how new this development is, or how comfortably it meshes with Daschle’s role as a reliable longtime ally of organized trial lawyers (cross-posted at Point of Law). More: Sean Alfano, CBS “Political HotSheet”; Max Kennerly (on proposal’s lack of clarity); Carter Wood @ ShopFloor (if this is meant as more than a bargaining chip, shouldn’t the Obama administration be looking askance at expanded medical-device liability?).
Tagged as:
Barack Obama,
medical malpractice
One can certainly see why ending tax deductions for punitive damages is a superficially appealing idea.
But the main effect will be to increase settlement pressure in cases where there are unjust punitive damages awards. Because settlements can be characterized as “compensatory” and tax-deductible while court-ordered judgments cannot, trial lawyers will be able to use the tax differential to discourage defendants from seeking appellate review. So one cannot expect very much tax revenue from this: “punitive damages” will drop precipitously, but money going to trial lawyers will go up. Moreover, appellate courts will have fewer opportunities to correct bad decisions by trial courts, creating more uncertainty in litigation, which raises litigation expenses because it will be harder to predict outcomes.
Note that taxpayers are not subsidizing punitive damages award deductions by businesses: the income “lost” because a defendant deducted the punitive damages award will be income realized by the plaintiff and his or her attorney. If the deduction is forbidden, the government will be, in effect, double-taxing the same money.
The Obama administration makes much of its claim of being pragmatic, rather than ideological, but this looks like an indirect giveaway to the trial bar rather than a source of government revenue. More: Walter at Point of Law; and my shining mug quoted at the Southeast Texas Record.
Tagged as:
Barack Obama,
politics,
punitive damages,
taxes,
Ted Frank,
trial lawyer earmarks
This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve
mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is
foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to
do.
— from the court’s opinion in Hollister v. Soetoro, an “Obama citizenship” case.
Tagged as:
Barack Obama,
WO writings
