Tagged as:
asbestos,
bloggers and the law,
domestic violence,
eat drink and be merry,
insurance fraud,
loser pays,
New Zealand,
North Carolina,
oil industry,
Supreme Court,
Sweden,
Victim Compensation Fund
- Fearful of adverse Supreme Court ruling, Department of Justice said to have exercised pressure on city of St. Paul to buckle in housing-disparate-impact case [Kevin Funnell]
- Justice Janice Rogers Brown: we can dream, can’t we? [Weigel] The Brown/Sentelle opinion everyone’s talking about, questioning rational basis review of economic regulation [Hettinga v. U.S., milk regulations; Fisher, Kerr]
- Claim: “The Bachelor” TV franchise discriminates on basis of race [Jon Hyman]
- Chicago sold off municipal parking garages. Good. It also promised to disallow proposals for private parking nearby. Not good [Urbanophile]
- Bad day in court for Zimmerman prosecution [Tom Maguire, more, Merritt]
- “I want some systematic contacts wherever your long arm can reach” — hot-’n'-heavy CivPro music video satire [ConcurOp, language]
- Federal judge dismisses charge against man who advocated jury nullification outside courthouse [Lynch, Sullum, earlier]
Tagged as:
broadcasters,
Chicago,
competition through regulation,
disparate impact,
fair housing,
jury nullification,
Martin-Zimmerman case,
procedure,
Supreme Court
Legal academia, and the sector of legal journalism most closely aligned with its views, is too remote from practice, too wrapped in theory and too far left to have a good feel for how the current Supreme Court approaches legal issues. Thus argues Jonathan Adler, who notes that “In some corners, it’s more important to reconcile one’s claims with the writings of John Rawls than the opinions of John Roberts.” More: Mike Rappaport (noting that the right too has been influenced by legal academia’s “preference for broad overarching theories,” as on originalism), Peter Suderman, David Bernstein.
Tagged as:
Dahlia Lithwick,
law schools,
Schools for Misrule,
Supreme Court
A unanimous Supreme Court has struck down a patent over diagnostic methods in medicine, the latest in a series of controversies over the bounds of patentable subject matter. [Mayo v. Prometheus Labs; Marcia Coyle/NLJ, SCOTUSBlog, Timothy Lee/ArsTechnica] As I noted last fall, my Cato Institute colleagues Ilya Shapiro, Jim Harper and Timothy Lee filed an amicus brief on behalf of the side that prevailed yesterday, arguing against the spread of “a dangerous exception to traditional patent law… the Court should reject medical-diagnostic patents as impermissibly restricting the freedom of thought.”
Tagged as:
medical,
patent law,
Supreme Court
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938) was the New Deal-era decision that directed federal courts to apply the law of the states in which they are located, and in so doing abolished a huge body of federal common law. In a new series of posts based on his book The Upside-Down Constitution, Michael Greve argues that Erie was wrongly decided and in practical terms a gigantic mistake that needs correcting. [Liberty and Law]
Tagged as:
federalism,
Supreme Court
In Illinois and other states, union-friendly governors have spearheaded efforts to redefine home care workers funded by state programs as public employees, the better to herd them into union representation. The upshot: persons who take care of their own family members in their homes, and accept checks from state programs designed to keep their loved ones out of nursing homes or other institutions, wind up being obliged to take on the status of employees (as distinct from contractors) and pay union dues, whether or not they are so inclined. Critics say the practice raises questions of freedom of association under the Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Supreme Court has signaled possible interest on the part of at least one justice by asking for additional information in the pending case of Harris v. Quinn. [Trevor Burrus, Cato; David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman, NRO; Ilya Shapiro and Trevor Burrus, Cato amicus brief]
Tagged as:
labor unions,
Supreme Court
In the case of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, scheduled for argument Tuesday, the Supreme Court will consider curbing the modern scope of the Alien Tort Statute, which asserts U.S. jurisdiction over various human rights controversies arising within the bounds of other countries. [Reuters, earlier] Considering that it amounts to the Law of the Hegemon, the Statute is oddly popular in some Left circles [Kenneth Anderson/Volokh] European governments (Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands) have filed amicus briefs on the defense side [John Bellinger, Lawfare; more, WaPo]
More: The New York Times’s Room for Debate discussion includes a contribution by my Cato colleague Ilya Shapiro. And Point of Law is having a featured discussion on the case with David Weissbrodt of the University of Minnesota and Julian Ku of Hofstra.
Tagged as:
Alien Tort Claims Act,
extraterritoriality,
Netherlands,
Supreme Court
Andrew Baron at DemBot, writing on his father, Fred Baron, the late Texas tort lawyer and John Edwards benefactor who was a frequent mentionee on this site (e.g.):
With the strong support of my dad, after Bill Clinton out-raised and then defeated incumbent George Bush Sr., Clinton offered to nominate my dad to become a Supreme Court Judge. My dad actually considered it and even spent a couple of days shadowing one to see what the day-to-day activity was like. He just wasn’t interested. Plus, he would be required to sell his law firm. He told me that it was actually a pretty boring job.
The younger Baron’s piece is worth reading in its entirety for insights into the role and results of political fund-raising.
Tagged as:
Bill Clinton,
Fred Baron,
Supreme Court
- 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]
Tagged as:
Europe,
family law,
France,
India,
international human rights,
international law,
Supreme Court,
Turkey
- Big win for Ted Frank against cy pres slush funds [CCAF, Fisher, Zywicki, CL&P, @tedfrank ("Ninth Circuit rules in my favor ... but I still think I'm right".)]
- “Can the Vatican Be Subject to ICC Prosecution?” [Ku/OJ]
- “Tennessee: ATS Sues City Over Right Turn Ticket Money” [The Newspaper]
- “Law firms dominating campaign contributions to Obama” [WaPo]
- Does that mean it’s an entitlement? Punitive damage limits face constitutional challenges in Arkansas, Missouri [Cal Punitives]
- Businessman sues to silence critical blogger, case is dismissed, now files suit #2 [Scott Greenfield]
- Going Hollywood? “The Supreme Court should move to Los Angeles” [Conor Friedersdorf]
Tagged as:
Arkansas,
Barack Obama,
bloggers and the law,
Catholic Church,
cy pres,
Missouri,
punitive damages,
red light cameras,
Supreme Court,
Ted Frank
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).
Tagged as:
churches,
discrimination law,
EEOC,
Supreme Court
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.
Tagged as:
Cato Institute,
Supreme Court
