- Too much of a stretch: US nixes copyright in yoga exercises [Bloomberg, earlier]
- “Know your rights dealing with cops” material construed as probative of criminality [Popehat] Is Justice Scalia really an “unlikely” champion of defendants’ Constitutional rights? [LATimes, Adler] “Overcriminalization: The Legislative Side of the Problem” [Larkin/Heritage, related Meese] When feds spring false-statements trap, it won’t matter whether you committed underlying offense being investigated [Popehat] “‘Clean Up Government Act’ sparks overcriminalization concerns” [PoL]
- Former Attorney General Mukasey on ObamaCare recusal flap [Adler]
- American Antitrust Institute proposals might be discounted given group’s longstanding pro-plaintiff bias [Thom Lambert]
- NYC: “The tour guide said that the way to get rich is to be a zoning lawyer.” [Arnold Kling]
- “Obama’s Top Ten Constitutional Violations” [Ilya Shapiro, Daily Caller] In at least two major areas, “Obama has broken with precedent to curtail religious freedom” [Steve Chapman]
- Ted Frank-Shirley Svorny med mal debate wraps up [PoL, Bader]
Posts tagged as:
constitutional law
- High court tees up case on ObamaCare constitutionality, potentially one of the most significant in decades [Ilya Shapiro, Cato]
- “Andrew Sullivan Is Wrong About the Supreme Court and Guns” [Damon Root]
- Trade groups’ advocacy: judge quashes Tillery subpoena as chilling to free association [Madison County Record]
- Takings: “California’s Kafkaesque Rent Control Laws” [Richard Epstein] Things may be worse in China, though: “more than one attendee described Beijing as Kelo-on-steroids” [same]
- No, the federal government can’t find authority to overstep its otherwise delimited powers by entering into treaties calling for it to do so [Shapiro]
- Authors: U.S. Constitution is becoming less influential as model to foreign nations [Law/Versteeg via Zick, ConcurOp]
- Fight between strip-search lawyers leaves little to imagination [Kerr]
Neither Stephen Bainbridge nor Larry Ribstein is particularly impressed by it.
{ 11 comments }
Florida lawmakers have purported to impose strict liability on defendants for some drug crimes, but the mens rea (guilty mind) prerequisite is no mere option as a matter of constitutional principle. [Ilya Shapiro, Cato at Liberty] (& welcome Above the Law readers)
{ 2 comments }
Cato-intensive edition:
- David Bernstein’s Rehabilitating Lochner, recently praised by George Will, is part of Cato series challenging constitutional law myths [Roger Pilon, earlier; Bernstein's recommended-books list]
- Constitutional conservatism: the forgotten history [Johnathan O'Neill, Heritage] “Progressive originalism” a development to be welcomed, but faces uphill slog [Damon Root, Reason] Tim Lynch: constitution is too hard to amend ["Amending Article V", Tennessee Law Review] Toobin’s “startling reappraisal” of Clarence Thomas in The New Yorker [Walter Russell Mead]
- When it comes to abortion clinics, left and right swap usual positions on regulatory burdens [A. Barton Hinkle, Richmond Times-Dispatch] I’m quoted on courtroom battles over state anti-abortion enactments [Steve Weatherbe, National Catholic Register]
- Exhaustion of remedies: “Property Rights Are Not Second-Class Rights” [Ilya Shapiro, Cato at Liberty]
- Property ordinance in San Juan Capistrano bars Bible study groups and even regular bridge foursomes. Bill of Rights violation? [CBS-LA]
- For those in the D.C. area, a George Mason U. event Monday at 5: Roger Pilon (Cato) vs. Ed Whelan (Ethics and Public Policy Center) on judicial activism [Fed Soc]
{ 3 comments }
- “For any value of x, ‘X’s Law’ is a bad idea.” [David Wagner on this Radley Balko post]
- “Politicized hiring at DOJ” shoe is on the other foot now [Caroline May, Daily Caller; Hans Bader/CEI]
- “THE FACTS: Nothing is unconstitutional until courts declare it to be so,” quoth AP. Whaaaa? [Taranto]
- Pull back your town’s Section 8 program, get sued or investigated [James Bovard, WSJ]
- New Jersey Turnpike Authority legal payouts include $150K in legal fees to ADA claimant [Press of Atlantic City]
- NYT’s faux-criticism of Title IX enforcers: colleges aren’t cowed enough by them [Joshua Thompson, PLF Liberty Blog]
- After silicosis-payout scandal, lawsuits aim at defrauded insurer among other parties [Brenda Sapino Jeffreys, Texas Lawyer, earlier]
- Per New Jersey court, overly sedentary home office job can result in valid worker’s comp claim [Courier-Post, NJLRA]
- Trial bar’s AAJ denies it played “direct” role in backing “Hot Coffee” [WaPo, some background]
- “Cop repeatedly harasses waitresses, never disciplined. Feds defend their civil rights by . . . suing the restaurant.” [Palm Beach Post via Radley Balko]
- On “unauthorized practice of law” as protective moat around profession’s interests, Britain does things differently [Gillian Hadfield via Andrew Sullivan; related, Larry Ribstein] Forthcoming book by Robert Crandall et al urges lawyer deregulation [Brookings]
- “The Treaty Clause Doesn’t Give Congress Unlimited Power” [Ilya Shapiro, Cato on Golan v. Holder case headed to Supreme Court]
- The small bank regulatory shakedown blues [Kevin Funnell] Why is the Department of Justice including gag orders as part of its enforcement decrees against banks on race and lending? [Investors Business Daily via PoL] “Emigrant fights back against mortgage-discrimination suits” [Fisher, Forbes] Dodd-Frank squeezing out community banks [Funnell]
- “North Carolina to Seize Speeding Cars That Fail to Pull Over” [The Newspaper] “With what, a tractor beam?” [James Taranto]
{ 3 comments }
- Dreadful “Caylee’s Law” proposals continue unabated [Balko and more, Lowering the Bar, Skenazy, Frank, Somin] Confirmed non-members of Nancy Grace fan club include Stephen Bainbridge and Scott Greenfield;
- Swedish heavy metal fan has musical preferences officially classed as disability [Cowen]
- In welcome Goodyear and Nicastro rulings, SCOTUS reins in “stream of commerce” jurisdiction [Yeary, Beck, Wasserman and more, Lahav, Fisher]
- Federal lawsuit alleges polka song infringement [Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel]
- EPA winning showdown with Texas, power plants may shutter at cost to Lone Star economy [Chron] Don’t dismiss the Texas job creation story — or the role of lawsuit reform [Rick Wartzman, L.A. Times]
- Breyer backs Thomas on recusal ethics [Adler]
- “Clashing Visions of a ‘Living’ Constitution” [William Van Alstyne on SSRN, his Cato lecture last fall]
- Jury rejects Jamie Leigh Jones rape claim against Halliburton/KBR. Next, a round of apologies from naive commentators and some who used the case to advance anti-arbitration talking points? [WSJ; Ted Frank/PoL and more; WSJ Law Blog (plaintiff's lawyers sought shoot-the-moon damages)]
- Time magazine vs. James Madison on constitutional law (spoiler: Madison wins) [Foster Friess via Ira Stoll]
- Andrew Trask reviews new Curtis Wilkie book on the Dickie Scruggs scandal;
- “Right to family life” evolution in human rights law deters UK authorities from deporting various bad actors [Telegraph]
- Paging Benjamin Barton: How discovery rules enrich the legal profession at the expense of the social good [PoL]
- USDA heeds politics, not science, on genetic crops [Henry Miller/Gregory Conko, PDF, Cato Institute Regulation]
- “Legal Questions Raised by Success of Monkey Photographer” [Lowering the Bar]
{ 7 comments }
“Philly judges tell reporter he can’t take notes in court” [Legal NewsLine]
It’s quite real, I argue at Cato at Liberty — and I try to draw some distinctions as to ways Congress could usefully address liability without inserting itself into the proper business of the state courts. More: Adler, Volokh; Reynolds, Instapundit, Turkewitz, Childs/TortsProf, Beck/Drug & Device Law.
{ 3 comments }
I haven’t had a chance yet to look through a copy of this new book (whose publication date is today) by George Mason lawprof and Volokh Conspiracy contributor David Bernstein. But it could be a landmark, to judge from the glowing blurbs from a distinguished and very ideologically diverse group of law professors and the excellent May 2 author forum at Cato (in which I turn up in the Q-&-A). Description via Cato:
No Supreme Court decision concerning economic liberty has been more emblematic of the alleged errors of the “old,” pre-New Deal Court than Lochner v. New York, decided in 1905. Upholding contractual freedom against a New York statute that limited the hours that bakers might work, the decision has been reviled by both liberals and conservatives as an egregious example of judicial malfeasance — cited today most often for the prescient dissent of the sainted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Yet the story of Lochner is not over. In a new book that examines the history and background of the case, David Bernstein argues that the decision has been widely misunderstood and unfairly maligned, that it was well grounded in precedent, and that subsequent battles over segregation laws, sex discrimination, civil liberties, and more owe much to the limited-government ideas of Lochner’s proponents.
The book’s available from Cato or the author. You can also read an author interview by Josh Blackman, as well as the book’s introduction on SSRN.
Martin Redish’s work is attracting attention. ["Wholesale Justice" via Trask]
No, it does not and never did authorize limitless federal power to engage in activities imagined to advance the general welfare [Roger Pilon, Cato at Liberty]
{ 4 comments }
Brian Walsh and Benjamin Keane of the Heritage Foundation explore the collision between ever-advancing criminalization and the values of the U.S. Constitution. [Heritage Legal Memorandum]
Canadian courts in recent years have ruled that the nation’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms creates an enforceable right to collective bargaining, that is, compels employers to bargain with unions rather than with individual workers over terms of employment. Now the Supreme Court of British Columbia has ruled that the Charter prohibits the provincial government from reserving class size and teacher-student ratios, among other topics, as matters of government policy ruled out of bounds as subjects of bargaining with the teacher’s union. [British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia, 2011 BCSC 469 via Bales, Workplace Prof; related 2009 (Alberta court constitutionalizes mandatory dues checkoff)]
{ 2 comments }
I’ve got a new post up at Cato at Liberty explaining why the American Electric Power v. Connecticut case — which was heard in oral argument yesterday before the Supreme Court — should be tossed for stating a fundamentally political rather than judicial claim.
More: Adam Chandler at SCOTUSBlog rounds up reporting on the “chilly reception” the case got yesterday before the high court and the “uphill battle” it may face in convincing the justices. As Andrew Grossman recounts, Peter Keisler had a very good day before the court representing the utilities, with Justices Kennedy and Breyer both signaling disapproval of plaintiff arguments, raising the likelihood of a lopsided or even unanimous defense victory. And Jonathan Adler recounts skeptical questioning from Kagan and Ginsburg as well. (& ShopFloor, Trevor Burrus @ Cato)
{ 2 comments }
“The Electronic Frontier Foundation joined civil liberties and privacy groups in criticizing a proposal from the San Francisco Entertainment Commission that would require all venues with an occupancy of over 100 people to record the faces of all patrons and employees and scan their ID’s for storage in a database which they must hand over to law enforcement on request. … Events with strong cultural, ideological, and political components are frequently held at venues that would be affected by these rules.” [EFF]
{ 5 comments }
