More regulation and legislation to protect privacy from a snooping press? “The common law is able to deal more flexibly with the questions that arise,” says Hofstra law professor Irina Manta [Federalist Society video]
Tipsy axe-throwing: in case it winds up in court
Not that an entertainment business plan based in part on providing a venue for tipsy axe-throwing would ever run into litigation. But just in case it ever does, here are arguments you might offer as plaintiff [Lowering the Bar]:
Maybe you’ve heard of the “assumption of risk” doctrine, maybe you haven’t. (Well, now you have.) You will point out, probably, that there is no warning on the company’s website saying not to do whatever it is you did, or if there is a warning about that, you didn’t see it. You will argue that they didn’t have a disclaimer form for you to sign; or if they did, you didn’t sign it; or if you did, you didn’t read it. You will consider arguing that the instructors aren’t qualified, but you probably won’t because one of them is actually named “Thor,” and a jury would never believe a guy named “Thor” isn’t qualified to teach axe-throwing.
Michigan, D.C. consider bounties for turning in those who underpay taxes
While expanding year by year, the complex of federal and state False Claims Act/whistleblowing laws often has exempted tax filings from the broad incentive provided to denounce others for “false claims” made to the government, often in a contract or program administration context. But new bills sponsored in the District of Columbia by Councilwoman Mary Cheh and in Michigan by Senator Steven Bieda would apply the bounty system to the tax area, starting, at least, with larger taxpayers. [Stephen P. Kranz, Diann Smith, and Eric Carstens, McDermott, Will, & Emery] We’ve covered some of the problems with laws rewarding tax tipsters in states like New York and Illinois here and here. On the latter story, note an update: a court has denied fees to attorney Stephen Diamond in a case in which he was both the relator and relator’s attorney. “Diamond has served as relator in about 1,000 qui tam actions over the last 15 years. A recent investigation by Bloomberg BNA revealed Diamond has collected almost $12 million through this pattern of litigation.” [Michael Bologna, BNA Daily Tax Report]
Free speech roundup
- ACLU of Oregon has it right: even in near aftermath of violent Portland attack, government cannot revoke rally permits because of disapproval of the message being sent [Ronald K.L. Collins, Scott Shackford/Reason, John Samples/Cato]
- “The ‘eye for an eye’ theory of respecting free speech is particularly pernicious because it represents the worst sort of collectivism, something the principled Right ought reject.” [Ken White, Popehat] Courts have been doing a stellar job of upholding free speech. Other sectors of U.S. society, less so [same]
- tl:dr version: yes, legally it can. “Can Charlotte Pride parade exclude Gays for Trump float?” [Eugene Volokh]
- “California AG agrees: Calif. law does not preclude private citizens from displaying Confederate battle flag at county fairs” [Volokh, earlier]
- “Germany Raids Homes of 36 People Accused of Hateful Postings Over Social Media” [David Shimer, New York Times] Per David Meyer-Lindenberg, German police launched 234,341 investigations over insult or other hurtful speech last year [Scott Greenfield] A vigilant comrade has reported your tweet of Wednesday last to the constabulary as doubleplus ungood [Matt Burgess, Wired, last August on Met Police plans in U.K.]
- On inviting controversial speakers: “A response to Scott Alexander” [Flemming Rose, Cato]
Supreme Court will look at partisan gerrymandering
The U.S. Supreme Court has now agreed to hear a much-watched Wisconsin case, Gill v. Whitford, inviting it to reconsider its position that the Constitution does not create a judicial remedy for partisan gerrymandering. I wrote a post for Cato on the case and its implications, cautioning that the euphoria in some circles about an impending change in the high court’s jurisprudence is at best premature. The Justices by a 5-4 margin stayed the lower court order from Wisconsin, which hints, at least, that Justice Anthony Kennedy might not be persuaded by the advocates hoping to get him to open wide the door he left ajar in his 2004 concurrence in Vieth v. Jubelirer. [cross-posted and abridged from Free State Notes, which has more on the Maryland implications]
“Man who jumped from ambulance says it’s New York City’s fault”
Yaugeni Kralkin injured himself jumping out the back of a speeding ambulance in Staten Island, and now he wants money from New York City, its fire department and four emergency workers. “Mr. Kralkin was incredibly drunk, with a blood-alcohol level so high he was unaware of his actions, he says, even as he unbuckled straps and ultimately dived from the vehicle, according to his lawyer. The emergency medical workers failed in their duty to protect him, the lawsuit contends, even from himself, in his inebriated state.” [Sarah Maslin Nir, New York Times]
June 21 roundup
- “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]
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?”