The author, reporter, and legal commentator has just posted a nicely designed online archive of his work, often linked in this space.
{ 0 comments }
Posts tagged as:
Supreme Court
- Voters unseat prosecutor in office during Luzerne County cash-for-kids scandal [Wendy N. Davis, ABA Journal]
- Obama plan for mass refinance overriding terms of mortgages “could permanently drive housing finance costs higher” [James Pethokoukis]
- In Sackett v. EPA case, SCOTUS will decide which EPA enforcement actions if any should escape judicial review [Ilya Shapiro/Cato, Adler, Root] Keystone XL episode gives reason to revisit NEPA [Conn Carroll] Ninth Circuit ruling on forest road runoff will test Obama position [David Freddoso]
- Debate at Point of Law on President’s recess appointment power between Jason Mazzone and Andrew M. Grossman;
- Lobbyists help get traffic-cams back on Connecticut legislative agenda [Chris Fountain]
- Read it here first: “Courts push back on bribery prosecutions” [Reuters]
- “In my little corner of the Blawgosphere, few things drive traffic like an Overlawyered link. Thank you, @walterolson.” [George Wallace]
{ 0 comments }
- More on John Fonte’s new book Sovereignty or Submission [FrontPage interview, W. James Antle III/Washington Times, Clifford May via Israpundit, earlier here and here] U.N. Human Rights Council finds much to criticize about U.S. rights record, including inadequate attention to rights of clean water and sanitation; State Department response to “universal periodic review”;
- “The President Can’t Increase Congress’s Power Simply by Signing a Treaty” [Ilya Shapiro, Cato, on Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Bond]
- Another “international norms vs. American sentencing practices” showdown headed to SCOTUS? [Hans Bader]
- France, Turkey restrict talk of Armenian genocide in opposite ways, and both are wrong [Walter Russell Mead]
- Transnational prosecutions on an inexorable upward arc? Depends on how you count them [Jeremy Rabkin, TAI]
- International law pressed into use to remake family law and gender customs [Stephen Baskerville]
- “Time to Fix the European Court of Human Rights?” [Julian Ku, Opinio Juris]
- “We are fighting the caste system with capitalism”: open market in India helps Dalits [NY Times]
{ 2 comments }
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 }
- A request for anti-SLAPP lawyers in Maine and Maryland [Popehat]
- “Gallup: Government Regulation the Top Concern Among Small Business Owners” [NRO Corner] Almost as if in rebuttal to claims from Treasury economist [Business Roundtable]
- Foreclosure law firm in upstate NY under fire after pics posted of its Halloween party [Nocera, Mystal]
- “GAO Report Details Secrecy Of Asbestos Trusts” [Dan Fisher, Forbes] Crown Cork & Seal seeks successor-liability bill in Massachusetts [Eagle-Tribune]
- Case against FMCSA’s rule change on truckers’ hours-of-service [Marc Scribner, CEI]
- Richard Epstein on John Paul Stevens as justice and, now, author [Hoover]
- Feds say lawyer who advised giant theft ring was partly paid in chic shoes and other designer gear [ABA Journal]
Argued yesterday before the Supreme Court, the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC pits the quasi-religion of employment discrimination law against organized religion of every other sort. Guess which side the Obama administration comes down on? I explain in a new op-ed at The Daily Caller. More background: Christopher Lund (Wayne State), “In Defense of the Ministerial Exception”, North Carolina Law Review/SSRN. And per Rick Garnett at NRO “Bench Memos,” the Court’s justices in their questioning yesterday did not appear friendly toward the idea of overthrowing the exception (& followup). According to the L.A. Times and other reporting, Justice Kagan described the Justice Department’s position as “amazing.” More: Marcia McCormick, Workplace Prof (linking to transcript of oral argument, PDF)(& welcome Damon Root/Reason “Hit and Run” readers).
{ 2 comments }
It’s a modest $15 for the softcover and just $5.99 for the e-edition. As I said while singing its praises at Constitution Day recently, it’s distinguished from conventional law reviews not only by its Madisonian point of view, and by its extreme speediness (published only three or so months after the conclusion of the Court’s last term) but also by its unusual readability and style, pitched to intelligent readers whether or not they are specialists in the law. You can buy it here.
Early next year the Supreme Court will hear Knox v. SEIU Local 1000, an important case about union power and individual conscience. The Cato Institute has joined several other organizations in filing an amicus brief (PDF), as my colleague Ilya Shapiro explains here.
SCOTUSblog, the eminent Supreme-Court-watching site, has been running a symposium on the future of class actions after such decisions as Wal-Mart v. Dukes, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, and Smith v. Bayer. Contributors include many names familiar from our columns, including Ted Frank, Andrew Trask, Russell Jackson, and Paul Karlsgodt.
And a reminder to those of you who can make it to the Washington, D.C. area next Thursday: Cato’s annual Constitution Day will feature three outstanding panels reviewing the work of the high court in the past term, including a panel moderated by me and featuring Roger Pilon (Cato) on pre-emption, Andrew Trask (McGuire Woods) on Wal-Mart, and Jonathan Adler (Case Western, Volokh Conspiracy) on climate change litigation. You can register here.
{ 1 comment }
Two weeks from this Thursday, on Sept. 15, Cato is holding its annual Constitution Day in Washington, D.C., just down the street from the Institute offices (which are undergoing renovation). The event will celebrate the publication of the 10th annual Cato Supreme Court Review and panelists will include familiar names like Jonathan Adler, Orin Kerr, Roger Pilon, Ilya Shapiro, Andrew Trask and many others. I’ll be moderating a panel on “Federalism, Civil Procedure, Business, and the Proper Judicial Role,” which will discuss among other topics the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Wal-Mart v. Dukes. The closing lecture will be given by Judge Alex Kozinski. How can you not plan to attend?
- Seattle’s best? Class action lawyer suing Apple, e-publishers has represented Microsoft [Seattle Times, earlier]
- “Disabled” NYC firefighter/martial arts enthusiast can go on getting checks for life [NYPost; compare]
- After the FDA enforcement action on drug manufacturing lapses come the tagalong liability claims by uninjured plaintiffs [Beck]
- “What If Lower Court Judges Weren’t Bound by Supreme Court Precedent?” [Orin Kerr]
- Fark.com settles a patent suit for $0 (rough language);
- Canadian law society to pay $100K for asking prospective lawyers about mental illness [ABA Journal]
- Self-help eviction? “Chinese Developers Accused Of Putting Scorpions In Apartments To Force Out Residents” [Business Insider]
{ 1 comment }
- 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]
On upholding consumer and employee agreements to arbitrate, as in the days before the telegraph, it can take a while for the word to get from D.C. to the West Coast. [Cal Biz Lit]
The L.A. Times misses the boat when it acts as if biology — and not known judicial philosophy as expressed in earlier cases — were the factor that best explains Justices’ alignments in cases like Wal-Mart v. Dukes [Eugene Volokh]
{ 4 comments }
Some academic critics say the Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision is the latest in a string of decisions in which the Court has insisted that litigants be accorded individual rather than group or batch consideration, even though “a more collectivist view,” as Connecticut lawprof Alexandra Lahav contends, would carry with it more “potential for social reform.” I take up this charge, and defend the Court, at Cato at Liberty. More: John Steele at Legal Ethics Forum, with a link to Samuel Issacharoff’s work.
{ 2 comments }
