“The United States asserts that a search of all data stored on a cell phone is ‘materially indistinguishable’ from searches of [a wallet or purse] … That is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon. Both are ways of getting from point A to point B, but little else justifies lumping them together.” — Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court in Riley v. California, in which the Justices unanimously disallowed warrantless police searches of arrestees’ cell phones.
Nevada: political contributions and federal judgeships [ATL]
In Louisiana, Orleans Parish pays its lawyers about $1.7 million a year. Are they worth it? [Lee Zurik, WVUE]
“I brought the big soda back to my desk, and then the terminal said ‘You really shouldn’t have so much sugar.’” [@ledbetreuters via @jackshafer] “I Know When You Logged In Last Summer: The Bloomberg Spying Scandal” [ChartGirl]
Easterbrook, Barnett and others: video of panel on federalism and federal power [Fed Soc] Constitutional law treatise available free online through Library of Congress [Volokh] New Podcast: Who violates the constitution–statutes or individuals? [Nick Rosenkranz, PoL]
National Endowment for the Arts uses creative misreading to conjure up a constitutional charter for its existence [Roger Pilon/Cato]
History of judicial elections in the US: rethinking the received account [Stuart Banner, Jotwell, on Jed Shugerman]
After election, expect renewed push for limits on campaign spending [Ira Stoll]
John Roberts’ doing? “Supreme Court not top campaign issue,” didn’t come up at debates [USA Today] Do libertarians fare better with Republican presidents’ Supreme Court picks, or just libertarian lawprofs? [Bernstein, Radia, etc.]
How’d we get shortages of hospital and community sterile injectables? Check out the role of FDA Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) regs, warning letters, and resulting plant closures [Tabarrok, with comments controversy; earlier here, here, here, etc.]
California orthopedist sues, wins damages against medical society that took action against him based on his testimony for plaintiff in liability case [American Medical News; earlier here, etc.]
Can’t have that: medical apology should be opposed because it “can create an emotional connection with an injured patient that makes the patient less likely to ask for compensation.” [Gabriel Teninbaum (Suffolk Law), Boston Globe]
New federal pilot project in Buffalo will provide concierge-style home care to emergency-department frequent fliers. Spot the unintended consequence [White Coat]
Dastardly drug companies? Deconstructing Glaxo SmithKline’s $3 billion settlement [Greg Conko, MPT] More: Beck, Drug and Device Law, on suits over “what are mostly medically valid and beneficial off-label uses”. Paging Ted Frank: “HIPAA’s Vioxx toll” thesis may depend on whether one accepts that the premised Vioxx toll has been established [Stewart Baker, Ted's recent post]
U.K.: “Lawyers seizing lion’s share of payouts in NHS negligence cases” [Telegraph]
My new opinion piece on the ObamaCare decision and its leaks. It’s the first thing I’ve written for The Daily, the iPad-native news launch. Earlier coverage of NFIB v. Sebelius/the Health Care Cases here, here, here, here, here, etc.
“We won everything but the case.” Ilya Shapiro at SCOTUSBlog on what it’s like to have your arguments succeed while your client goes down. Recommended;
David Kopel applauds, especially the Medicaid ruling limiting strings on federal support of states;
Michael Greve turns thumbs down: “the Chief’s supposed act of statesmanship has bought nothing that is worth having.”
Clark Neily: “as litigators know very well, it is always more important what a court did than what it said. … Notwithstanding the majority’s assurances … the Court ratified what many perceive as the most significant expansion of federal power in 75 years.”
The wise general does not always march forth and capture a city, even one of great strategic importance, if he knows his forces are unlikely to hold it against the inevitable counterattack. He may be better off taking only the territory he has a good chance of holding on to.
“For those of us who oppose the Affordable Care Act as a policy matter, this is a bad day,” [Georgetown law professor Randy] Barnett said. “For those of us in this fight to preserve the limits of constitutional government, this is not a bad day.” [Ezra Klein; more from Prof. Barnett at Daily Beast] Similarly, at more length: Sean Trende, RCP via Tom Smith, Right Coast. Contrasting views: Ilya Shapiro, Philadelphia Inquirer (“an unfortunate convergence of two unholy strains of constitutional jurisprudence: liberal activism and conservative pacifism”); Ramesh Ponnuru (“The resulting law may be a better one than Congress wrote. It is not, however, the law that Congress wrote.”).
And here is a podcast from the Cato Institute with colleagues Roger Pilon, Ilya Shapiro, Trevor Burrus, Michael Cannon, and Michael Tanner:
And a video interview with Trevor Burrus here. Don’t forget, if you didn’t check in on it at the time, yesterday’s periodically updated Twitter-scroll post with (at last count) 43 tweets and dozens of links to relevant posts and resources.
“Why Does Pedigree Drive Law Faculty Hiring?” [Paul Caron] Using the accreditation process to mandate more tenure for lawprofs? [same] “ABA to Continue as Law School Accrediter, Despite Noncompliance With 17 Regs” [same]
“Have Law Schools Violated Consumer Protection Laws?” [Jeff Sovern, CL&P] Villanova keeps mum after embarrassing revelations [Inquirer]
Get your copy today!My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.