Under a California bill introduced by Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderone and backed by the L.A. Times, restaurants would be permitted to give plastic straws only to patrons who ask for them. A widely cited statistic in support of the measure turns out to be based on research done by a 9 year old. [Christian Britschgi, Reason; who updates the story to say the sponsor now intends to revise the bill to take out the fines]
Archive for January, 2018
State of the Union address 2018 live-tweets
I live-tweeted President Trump’s address last night (text) and here are some highlights:
Hoping that tonight — unlike in his first big speech as President, the inaugural — Trump mentions the Constitution. It's the foundation for all the rest. https://t.co/TNGG0Xwzf1 #CatoSOTU
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) January 31, 2018
"To speak on behalf of the American people…" That's not what a President does in a #SOTU. #CatoSOTU
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) January 31, 2018
Figures from Maryland indicate that even in a state w/ high SALT deductions, federal bill will indeed cut taxes for big majority of taxpayers https://t.co/GCnRZTcSoi #CatoSOTU
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) January 31, 2018
One triumph of the new tax bill: easing tax treatment of repatriated overseas profits, which has already led to blockbuster good news from Apple. #CatoSOTU
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) January 31, 2018
No, the "Star-Spangled Banner" is not an "ode to slavery." https://t.co/aQkSFeVLw1 #CatoSOTU
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) January 31, 2018
Yay Gorsuch, seriously. #CatoSOTU https://t.co/I4nWYGdc2L
— Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) January 31, 2018
Was Trump hinting that he wants to loosen the civil service tenure rules that entrench underperforming federal employees? Good idea, if so #CatoSOTU https://t.co/vROiyGYULl
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) January 31, 2018
In his SOTU, Trump suggested easier firing of bad federal workers. Indeed, federal firing rate is just 1/6 of private firing rate https://t.co/6YkzPq0bc8 #CatoSOTU
— Chris Edwards (@CatoEdwards) January 31, 2018
Trump is returning again and again to the good economic news. Who can blame him? There's a whole lot of it. #CatoSOTU
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) January 31, 2018
A "right to try" experimental treatments for the gravely ill is a praiseworthy goal, but more complicated legally than it sounds https://t.co/JWBUoxMj5g #CatoSOTU https://t.co/Y0bd7NgPfm
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) January 31, 2018
Streamlining the federal project permitting and approval process has the potential to be one of Trump's best and most lasting reform ideas #CatoSOTU
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) January 31, 2018
Trump infrastructure plan: good on regulations, bad on spending https://t.co/fWVVx3LdzZ #CatoSOTU
— Chris Edwards (@CatoEdwards) January 31, 2018
Energy companies would put 7 years of work, resources, and planning into a project. Then their project would get denied at the 11th hour … not a way to do business. #CatoSOTU https://t.co/sZ48Frw743
— vanessa brown calder (@vanessabcalder) January 31, 2018
Here's an overview of some of the possible consequences of government-provided paid family leave. https://t.co/3nXM5mGtxe #CatoSOTU
— vanessa brown calder (@vanessabcalder) January 31, 2018
More on family leave here.
Free trade is fair trade, and it might be time to read some Ricardo. #CatoSOTU https://t.co/6Z4124UTPq
— Inu Manak (@inumanak) January 31, 2018
Best of Overlawyered — December 2017
- FATCA, the expatriate financial reporting law, may soon vex the British royal family;
- Passenger asked to leave US Airways flight after emotional support pig becomes disruptive;
- Quebec lawmakers to shopkeepers: don’t greet customers with “Bonjour hi,” might make English speakers feel too welcome;
- “Now unsealed: official report on Wisconsin John Doe probes“;
- Philadelphia city council votes to ban bulletproof glass in many delis, and more;
- D.C.’s ordinance requiring child care workers to have degrees in early childhood development: the year’s worst law?
- Penalties mount skyward: Oregon appeals court upholds $135,000 cake fine.
CCAF contests $8.5 million Google privacy settlement
It’s a cy pres special: members of the injured class will get no part of an $8.5 million settlement Google negotiated with plaintiff’s lawyers over a data privacy lapse. “Instead, the money is to be split among the plaintiffs’ attorneys, who billed their time at $1,000 an hour, and others. The others are cy pres recipients, or organizations that are not parties in the suit: Carnegie Mellon University; World Privacy Forum; the Center for Information, Society and Policy at the Chicago-Kent College of Law; Stanford Center for Internet and Society; Harvard University’s Berkman Center; and AARP Inc.” Ted Frank’s Center for Class Action Fairness is asking the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari after its objections were turned down by lower courts. [Dee Thompson, Legal NewsLine, earlier here and here (Beck: “cy pres abuse poster child”)]
Plus: Bank of America settlement will now yield cy pres windfall for five University of California law schools of $150,000 rather than $20 million. Easy come, easy go? [ABA Journal]
Free speech roundup
- Two new podcast series on free speech: “Make No Law,” from Ken White (Popehat) on Legal Talk Network; Clear and Present Danger: A History of Free Speech from Jacob Mchangama for FIRE and other groups;
- No, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not require tech companies to provide a “neutral public forum.” Has Sen. Ted Cruz been properly briefed on this? [John Samples]
- “Arizona naturopath Colleen Huber is suing me in Germany for defamation over my opinions about her so-called natural cancer treatments and research.” [Britt Hermes, Naturopathic Diaries]
- “Should the Government Get to Define ‘Native-American’ Art? One Woman’s Free Speech Fight” [Paul Detrick, Reason]
- “Minnesota prohibits any insignia deemed to be “political” — as determined solely at the discretion of the on-site election judges—from being worn into a polling place.” Overbroad? [Ilya Shapiro and Reilly Stephens on Cato brief in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky]
- Free speech was under fire in 2017 [Jeffrey M. McCall, Providence Journal]
Free-range kid legislation
“The Utah State Legislature is reviewing a bill that would decriminalize the actions of responsible parents who let their kids walk or play outside” [Lenore Skenazy, Reason, more]
Court strikes down overbroad Illinois ban on stalking/cyberstalking
Illinois “stalking” and “cyber-stalking” statutes criminalize (among other things),
- “knowingly engag[ing] in [2 more or acts] directed at a specific person,”
- including “communicat[ing] to or about” a person,
- when the communicator “knows or should know that this course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to”
- “suffer emotional distress,” defined as “significant mental suffering, anxiety or alarm.”
The statute expressly excludes, among other things, “an exercise of the right to free speech or assembly that is otherwise lawful.”
Despite that last exclusion, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the provisions as unconstitutionally broad under the First Amendment. (The Cato Institute and the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project had filed an amicus brief). Shouldn’t Illinois lawmakers have known better? [People v. Relerford]
Ontario lawyers resist mandatory promote-equality pledge
Lakehead University law faculty member Ryan Alford has filed a challenge to the new Ontario bar rule requiring all lawyers to prepare and submit personal “Statement of Principles” avowing their support for equality, diversity, and inclusion. The rules have drawn fire across Canada as compelled speech, but the bar association turned down a request that individual lawyers be allowed exemptions if they believe the requirement violates their conscience. I’ve got a write-up at Cato at Liberty noting the parallels with Model Rule 8.4 (g), adopted by the ABA in 2016, which makes a vaguely defined category of discriminatory conduct, including speech, the subject of discipline as “professional misconduct,” and which Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton warns would be unconstitutional if adopted into state regulation. I write:
The “Test Acts” were a series of enactments of England that excluded from public office and penalized in other ways those who would not swear allegiance to the prevailing religious tenets of the day. There is no good reason to bring back their principles.
Full piece here. More: Scott Greenfield.
Painkiller payday
Best of Overlawyered — November 2017
- From the comments: Braille at drive-through ATMs;
- “If the Law Is This Complicated, Why Shouldn’t Ignorance Be an Excuse?”
- Burger workers class action makes Happy Meal for lawyers;
- HOA mailbox spat turns into three-year court battle;
- “Why the trial by ordeal was actually an effective test of guilt”;
- “Robot Patrols Grocery Store To Prevent Slip-and-Falls”;
- Will regulation submerge Baltimore’s favorite cookie? A drama in two acts.