- “Law Professors: Three Centuries of Shaping American Law”: The Economist favorably reviews new Stephen Presser book;
- Profile of Texas Supreme Court notes that its members regularly face opposition at election time from alliance of plaintiffs’ bar with some social conservatives [Mark Pulliam]
- 10 lawyers, 6 others charged in alleged workers’ comp fraud scheme targeting Latinos in California [Associated Press]
- Employee’s ADA case against Novartis backfires, court orders her to pay nearly $2 million; her attorney quit case after discrepancies in her background were discovered [Kathleen O’Brien, NJ.com]
- To protect the children, feds ban a product one of whose functions is to keep drugs out of hands of children [Christian Britschgi, Reason]
- Budget choices and trade-offs faced by advocacy groups don’t give them constitutionally required standing to sue [Daniel E. Jones and Archis Parasharami, WLF]
Archive for June, 2017
SCOTUS: state courts not on elastic jurisdictional leash
My new Cato post applauds the Supreme Court for its 8-1 decision yesterday in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California correcting the Ninth Circuit on the permissible extent to which California can reach out to hear lawsuits arising from controversies and litigants in other states. A couple of weeks ago a companion 8-0 decision from the court addressed similar issues from Montana in BNSF v. Tyrrell.
…in both instances — with only Justice Sonia Sotomayor still balking — the Justices made clear that some states’ wish to act as nationwide regulators does not allow them to stretch the constitutional limits on their jurisdiction that far. …
…the contemporary Court is keenly aware of the danger that the tactical use of forum-shopping will eclipse the merits in many categories of high-stakes litigation, turning potentially losing cases into winners through the chance to file them in a more friendly court.
That insight might prove significant at a time when forum-shopping has come to play a prominent role in high-profile ideological litigation—with conservatives running to file suit in the Fifth Circuit, liberals in the Ninth.
(& welcome readers from SCOTUSBlog, which rounds up other commentary on the decision)
“Slants” band win trademark battle at high court
In a First Amendment win with many future implications — most immediately for the Washington Redskins football team — the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not allow the Patent and Trademark Office to withhold trademark protection from a rock band because it considers its name to be possibly racially disparaging (or self-disparaging). The holding was unanimous, although the Justices divided on rationale. [Ilya Shapiro/Cato, Betsy Gomez/CBLDF, Eugene Volokh and more (“Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment”)] Earlier here (“Did Cato just file the most not-safe-for-work amicus brief in Supreme Court history?”), here, etc.
Union sues against term it negotiated
Thanks to reader J.H. for flagging Alcala v. Santa Fe Rubber Products, from the California courts last fall: “A very strange case — Union demands 20 minute lunch breaks (instead of the required 30), which are put into a union contract. Then, in balked renegotiations years later, they threaten to sue for labor violation claiming 20 violates statute, and ultimately get evidence of their demands kept out. Court of Appeals agrees with most of that. And the unions protect exactly who?”
“That’s not free speech, it’s hate speech”
By now we should probably read a claim that the First Amendment doesn’t cover hate speech not as an ignorant flub, but more as a declaration of intent to curtail the First Amendment’s scope. More: Ken White, Los Angeles Times.
Supreme Court roundup
- DoJ reverses Obama predecessors’ stance on whether NLRA rights to collective action bar individual-arbitration clauses in employment contracts [BNA via Indisputably; consolidated trio of Murphy Oil, Ernst & Young, Epic Systems Corp. cases] Ninth Circuit OKs California end-run around Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on workplace arbitration class actions, time for review [WLF on Bloomingdales, Inc. v. Vitolo; update on cert denial: Deborah LaFetra, PLF]
- Roberts joins liberals to hold 5-3 that cities can sue alleging Fair Housing Act violations; damages theories are to be constrained, though [Josh Blackman, SCOTUSBlog roundup on Bank of America v. Miami, earlier here and here]
- How much deference should appellate courts give district courts in ruling on subpoenas issued by EEOC? [Ross Runkel and Federalist Society podcast with Karen Harned on McLane Co. v. EEOC]
- Court unanimously disallows stratagem by which class action lawyers voluntarily dismiss individual claim so as to secure immediate appeal of certification denial [Howard Wasserman, James Freije on Microsoft v. Baker]
- Chevron used racketeering law to fend off giant foreign judgment in Ecuador saga, losing side would like Supreme Court relief from that [Paul Barrett, Business Week on Donziger v. Chevron] Update Monday morning: Court will not hear;
- “To Be Liable for Fraud, You Have to Have Actually Defrauded Someone” [Ilya Shapiro and Thomas Berry on Cato cert amicus in SGE Management v. Torres]
Floyd Abrams on Citizens United
Why do so many in the press despise Citizens United, a decision whose point is to protect First Amendment liberties? One factor may be that the decision undermines their own sector’s claims to specialness by making clear that press liberty is meant for everyone, not just for media professionals and their organizations. [Floyd Abrams, guest-blogging at Volokh]
“Lawsuit Claims Bank Is Responsible for Employee Sending Naked Photo on LinkedIn”
A lawsuit filed by celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos asserts that a bank is responsible for the actions of an executive whose message exchanges with the complainant allegedly turned from professional exchanges to sexual overtures, including the sending of a naked picture. [Bloomberg/Insurance Journal]
Lawsuits to scrub search engine results
Schools roundup
- Georgia sheriff mass-frisks 900 students at a high school. Is that legal? [Scott Greenfield, Lowering the Bar]
- Federal judge dismisses “clock boy” discrimination suit against Dallas-area school district [CBS News]
- Ilya Shapiro on Gloucester County v. G.G., the transgender school bathroom Title IX case [Federalist Society]
- Social worker on public reaction against Named Person program in Scotland: families “had wanted a single point of contact for parents,” but Scottish government instead created “point of contact about parents” [No2NP campaign, earlier]
- “In places like New York City, schools have made it more difficult for principals to suspend disruptive or threatening students. The results? Increased violence, drug use, and gang activity, according to the Manhattan Institute’s Max Eden.” [Hans Bader/CEI, Eden paper, related on national policy]
- Rethink your assumptions about Betsy DeVos’s appointees [Erica L. Green, New York Times] More on appointee Candice Jackson [George Leef, Martin Center, earlier]