Peeking under the Hood, cont’d: Mississippi has finally passed sunshine legislation exposing to public scrutiny dealings of its attorney general with outside law firms, which can make large sums in contingency arrangements representing the state [Maggie Haberman, Politico] Not exactly unrelatedly, a Mississippi court has ruled that a settlement of the state’s case against MCI can’t funnel $14 million separately to private lawyers representing Hood on the theory that it was just a side payment and never represented public funds [YallPolitics, earlier on now-disbarred lead private lawyer in case]
Archive for June, 2012
Abraham Lincoln’s career-making patent case
Competition through patent suits, circa 1857: I’ve got a new post at Cato on how loser-pays works to improve the general fairness of an inevitably imperfect litigation system.
“Discrimination lawsuits double as definition of ‘disability’ expands”
File under intended and expected effects of Congressional action: the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 reversed various court decisions that had limited the number of claimants who could invoke the Americans with Disabilities Act. [Luke Rosiak, Washington Times] More here, etc.
“Publicity-hound lawyer: Cannibalism is bad”
How would we come to realize these things if not for Gloria Allred? [Fred Grimm, Miami Herald]
June 7 roundup
- Not only did Wisconsin turn back the effort to recall Gov. Walker, but voters in San Jose and San Diego embraced public employee pension reform by convincing margins [Steven Greenhut, Cal Watchdog] Union immediately sues to overturn measure backed by 70 percent of San Jose voters [Greenhut, PSI] Illinois and Ohio have ducked the need for reform, Wisconsin and Indiana haven’t [Malanga] Did it make a big difference that recall proponents were outspent? [John Samples, Cato Institute; Ira Stoll] “Comparing the Impact: Public Sector Labor Reform in Wisconsin and Indiana” [Josh Barro via Reihan Salam] Where next — on to Michigan? Maryland? More: Althouse;
- New Mexico ruling: “Why Not Force Somebody Who Hates You to Photograph Your Wedding?” [Reason, Kincaid/Box Turtle Bulletin, Volokh and more, Bader, earlier]
- Suddenly, the science of salt casts less odium on sodium [Gary Taubes/NYT via Alkon; Bader]
- For making up authority without statutory basis: “Supreme Court spanks HUD” [Mark Calabria/Cato]
- Another way to think of Oglala v. Bud: “Native American Tribe files lawsuit requesting discrimination on alcohol sales” [Rob Green/Abnormal Use, earlier]
- It’s not every day the New York Times agrees with me in favoring broader use of loser-pays in litigation [editorial on shifting costs of document translation]
- GOP sinks misnamed, lawsuit-promoting Paycheck Fairness Act [Steve Chapman, Caroline May/Daily Caller, WSJ, David Harsanyi, earlier]
“Bloomberg’s Long History of Nannying”
Caleb Brown interviews me in this new Cato Institute podcast, in which we discuss the futility of Mayor Bloomberg’s effort to turn NYC soda fans into two-fisted drinkers (that is, they’ll need to carry one in each hand); the role of federal grants from the Obama administration; and more broadly, the creepily intrusive ambitions of the New York City Health Department. If the embedded version doesn’t work, you can find it here.
Related: “The issue is freedom, not soft drinks.” [Jonathan Tobin, Commentary]. “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign,” wrote John Stuart Mill [Patrick Basham, U.S. News] A new study finds restricting people’s junk food choices doesn’t help them lose weight [Reuters] James Lileks offers a helpful picture gallery distinguishing “Poison” from “Not Poison,” and classes a-burger-and-a-Coke in the latter category. Contrariwise, a ban backer at the Daily Beast is happy to contemplate future rules limiting hamburger sizes: “why not? Eight- and ten-ounce burgers are sick things.” And from earldean71: “If history is any guide at least one Atlanta suburb will pass an ordinance requiring giant soda drinks if NYC has a ban.” Earlier here, here, here, here, etc.
More: Watch me on the video version, just up on YouTube:
9-0, 9-0, 9-0
In three significant cases before the Supreme Court this term — Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC on religious liberty, U.S. v. Jones on warrantless GPS search, and Sackett v. EPA on rights to challenge regulatory agency actions — the justices have been unanimous in rejecting the Obama Administration’s position. This Department of Justice, it seems, keeps asserting a vision of virtually unfettered executive-branch power that even its own appointees on the Court find unpersuasive. “If the government loses in the health-care or immigration cases,” writes my Cato Institute colleague Ilya Shapiro, “it won’t be because its lawyers had a bad day in court or because the justices ruled based on their political preferences. It will be because the Obama administration continues to make legal arguments that don’t pass the smell test.” [WSJ]
Labor and employment law roundup
- Connecticut: “Medical Marijuana Bill Includes Restrictions For Employers” [Daniel Schwartz, my take earlier]
- More on Montgomery County Maryland police-disability scams [WaPo editorial, earlier] California cop-pension backlash [Greenhut]
- Highest rate of per capita EEOC charges is in Deep South [David Foley, Labor Related]
- Are unpaid internships immoral? Illegal? [David Henderson/Econlog, more]
- NLRB memo launches assault on common language found in personnel manuals [Daniel Schwartz]
- Year’s most embarrassingly awful dispute over whether employee misconduct was within scope of employment [Lowering the Bar, adult content]
- Ominously, Canadian Supreme Court has read labor union rights into the nation’s constitutional Charter, most recently in Fraser case [Workplace Prof on new book; CFLR; Roy Adams/SocialPolicy.org]
“Click it or ticket,” extended
You didn’t think it was going to stop with humans, did you? The fines in New Jersey for driving with pets not restrained by harnesses or carriers are a lot bigger than the fines for driving with unbelted people [John Cichowski, “Not buckling up your pet in the car can mean big fines,” NorthJersey.com] (& Alkon)
EPA’s aerial surveillance of farms
“Snapping photos of livestock farms from an airplane is a legal and cost-effective way to help protect Nebraska and Iowa streams from runoff contamination, say officials with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.” The agency does not inform landowners that it is conducting the flights. [Omaha World-Herald, Reuters] “The EPA says it doesn’t rely solely on the aerial photos in taking enforcement actions against feedlots and their owners, but it does use them to identify businesses to target.” [Alexander Cohen, Business Rights Center]