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.
Posts tagged as:
Supreme Court
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 }
“…I Don’t Think ‘Moderate’ Means What You Think It Means” [David Lat, Above the Law]
{ 3 comments }
Yesterday’s decision was the most momentous Supreme Court pronouncement on class actions in many years, addressing issues that go far beyond the case at hand. A sampling of early analysis:
* Some consideration of merits okay at certification stage. Paul Karlsgodt:
For more than 30 years, plaintiffs’ counsel and many courts have cited the Court’s opinion in Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974) as prohibiting any examination of the plaintiffs’ claims on the merits at the class certification phase. Consistent with the majority trend in the lower federal courts, the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. confirms that a court should consider and resolve any issues of fact that are necessary to determine whether one or more elements of Rule 23 are satisfied, regardless of whether those issues may overlap or be identical to one or more issues to be decided in ruling on the merits of the plaintiff’s claims.
In its day the Eisen case was a milestone in the 1960s-1970s liberalization of class action procedure, and seemed at the time to authorize the plaintiff’s side to dream up all the actions it wanted while the defense side could not block the actions at the certification stage by pointing out that they were bogus on the merits. Russell Jackson bluntly assesses the case’s fate: “Stick a fork in Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin. It’s done!”
* Statistical proofs can’t be used to bypass individualized defenses. At least in the context of back pay discrimination claims, all nine justices agreed that the company had a right to assert individualized defenses based on the details of particular cases rather than simply hand over a giant damage check based on some formula derived from statistical testimony. In particular, the Court said:
Because the Rules Enabling Act forbids interpreting Rule 23 to “abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right,” a class cannot be certified on the premise that Wal-Mart will not be entitled to litigate its statutory defenses to individual claims.
Russell Jackson draws out implications for actions far removed from the employment context:
This means that third-party-payor claims and consumer fraud class actions will not be able to prove causation or reliance using statistical proof like that proposed and rejected in McLaughlin v. American Tobacco Co., 522 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2008) in order to facilitate class certification. This is BIG NEWS!!!
* Subjective managerial discretion under less suspicion. Returning to the employment context, a key issue in the case is whether plaintiffs could assert the requisite common question by challenging Wal-Mart’s delegation of decentralized discretion to store managers over many issues of pay and promotion. The Court majority refused to entertain such a challenge. Michael Fox:
The 5-4 opinion seems to pull the teeth from what I have always considered one of the more dangerous Supreme Court opinions, Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust, a 1988 decision which seemed to permit a disparate impact case any time an employer’s promotion practices were subjective (which was every employer) and there was a disparate impact (almost every employer).
If Fox is right, this is a giant step in the right direction, and helps correct a pernicious tendency in modern employment law to pressure large employers into maintaining more centralized (and inevitably more bureaucratic) personnel policies.
{ 1 comment }
I’ve got an instant analysis up at Cato at Liberty of the retailer’s big Supreme Court win today in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the class action certification case. The Court ruled unanimously that the Ninth Circuit had jumped the gun in certifying the case as a class action, and 5-to-4 (Scalia writing) that plaintiffs had failed to assemble the evidence needed for certification. (& welcome Real Clear Politics “Best of the Blogs”, Atlantic Wire, Nicole Neily/Daily Caller, Jon Hyman, SCOTUSBlog)
More: Josh Blackman (with a comment on the Court’s recognition of the work of the late Richard Nagareda), Hans Bader, Jim Copland, John Steele Gordon. Spot-the-errors dept.: Dahlia Lithwick. Briefs and other resources on the case at SCOTUSBlog.
{ 5 comments }
David Kopel of the Independence Institute interviews my Cato Institute colleague Ilya Shapiro on Cato’s active amicus-filing program, ObamaCare challenges, “Libertarian ConLaw 101,” and more. You can listen here.
The distinguished panel includes Lester Brickman and Myriam Gilles (Cardozo), Richard Epstein (NYU), Jim Copland and Ted Frank (Manhattan Institute), R. Matthew Cairns (Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell and the 2011 president of the Defense Research Institute), Russell Jackson (Skadden), and Andrew Trask (McGuire Woods). You can follow the discussion here.
{ 1 comment }
Easier said than done, especially given the mandates of the Constitution about the structure of the judiciary, warns Brookings’s Russell Wheeler. Relatedly, Ed Whelan at NRO “Bench Memos” scrutinizes the ethics charges floated by some left-leaning groups against Justices Scalia and Thomas in recent weeks (parts one, two, three).
- EU imposes unisex insurance rates [BBC, Wright]
- Law blog on the offense? TechnoLawyer asserts trademark claim against Lawyerist over “Small Law” [Lawyerist]
- “Pro-business Supreme Court” meme strikes out yet again as SCOTUS backs “cat’s-paw” bias suit theory by 8-0-2 margin [Josh Blackman, Schwartz, Fox; Lithwick locus classicus]
- Subprime CDO manager sues financial writer Michael Lewis over statements in his book The Big Short [AW, Salmon, Kennerly]
- Police in Surrey, England, deny advising garden shed owners not to use wire mesh against burglars [Volokh, earlier]
- Patterns of intimidation: protesters swarm Speaker Boehner’s private residence [Hollingsworth, Examiner] Unions fighting Wal-Mart in NYC plan actions at board members’ homes [Stoll] Report: GOP lawmakers in Wisconsin fear for personal safety [Nordlinger, NRO] White House pushing street protests [Welch, Nordlinger] Age of Civility short lived [Badger Blogger, Althouse, Sullivan]
- In clash with trial lawyers, Cuomo proposes pain and suffering limits in med-mal suits [NYDN, more: NYT] “Bloomberg looks to Texas for ideas on changing medical malpractice laws” [City Hall News]
- Hey, should we seize his drum set? Infuriating video on cop raids and forfeiture laws [Institute for Justice, Michigan]
{ 1 comment }
Justice Samuel Alito’s Wriston Lecture before the Manhattan Institute last fall is now online.
At The Atlantic, civil libertarian Wendy Kaminer catches Washington Post columnist Katrina Vanden Heuvel misrepresenting the role of campaign spending in the defeat of Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, and the New York Times — in a more appalling lapse of journalistic standards — digging in to defend gross misstatements about the high court’s opinion.
