- “We’re not asking for the Wild West. We’re asking for cookies.” New Jersey is the last state without a law legalizing at least some cottage food sales [Amelia Nierenberg, New York Times]
- Reversing district court, Fifth Circuit panel upholds Indian Child Welfare Act against constitutional objections; dissent by Judge Owen finds a commandeering problem [Brackeen v. Bernhardt, earlier]
- “The Larsens’ videos are a form of speech that is entitled to First Amendment protection.” Eighth Circuit panel rules [correctly, in my view] for videographers who wish to craft wedding videos only when the ceremonies accord with their religious beliefs [Telescope Media Group v. Lucero; Eugene Volokh]
- “Innocent man spent months in jail for bringing honey back to United States” [Lynn Bui, Washington Post/MSN]
- Preakness, Peter Pan Inn, relocating USDA jobs, Baltimore and Abell Foundation in my new Free State Notes roundup;
- Pushing back against the argument, much circulated lately, that eviction is a major factor in causing poverty [John Eric Humphries, Nicholas Mader, Daniel Tannenbaum, Winnie van Dijk, Cowles Foundation]
Filed under: Baltimore, Indian tribes, landlord tenant law, Maryland, New Jersey
5 Comments
That “Honey” case is heartbreaking. You’d think a judge could get someone immediately released and everything unwound as soon as it’s shown that the lab made a mistake. And is there even such a thing as “liquid meth?” It’s like they’re making things up!
A lot of drugs even if not liquid in a pure state, can be dissolved in liquids and later be extracted from them.
the argument, much circulated lately, that eviction is a major factor in causing poverty
Otherwise known as the “wet streets cause rain” fallacy. And for that capsule I am indebted to Michael Crichton.
Regarding the ICWA case mentioned —
There’s part of this I am not understanding: I realize the plaintiffs have to sue the department and the Secretary or head of that department or agency (as defendants).
BUT: Since the “Final Rule”, in some significant part the basis for the lawsuit, came out in 2016–a time of a different President and department heads—why are the plaintiffs not suing the people in charge in 2016 of the various departments and agencies, as well?
Melvin, the lawsuit isn’t trying to get money from various government officials personally (which would be impossible to do successfully in a case like this.) Its purpose is to change the rule. If an Obama administration official made the rule but is now out of office, it’s pointless to sue them now because they cannot change the rule even if a court orders them to.