DC may require child care workers to have college degrees

Among other effects, it will make care more expensive, and will saddle some child carers with unwanted and burdensome student debt. How did humanity ever raise children before there were college degrees? [Washington Post] More: Ryan Bourne, Cato (measure proceeds from debatable premise “that child care should be seen as formal pre-school education rather than whatever parents decide is best for their children”), and follow-up (“policy: restrict supply, then subsidize it”).

Cash discount OK; credit surcharge not OK

New York Business Law § 518 “prohibits merchants from imposing a ‘surcharge’ on customers who use credit cards, but allows for a ‘cash discount.’ To put it simply: the law allows stores to advertise ‘discounts’ for paying cash, but makes it a crime to advertise an economically equivalent ‘surcharge’ for paying with plastic.” The Supreme Court ruled late last month that by penalizing a merchant for its description of a transaction rather than for a transaction itself, the law triggered First Amendment scrutiny. So that’s a victory, if in the circumstances a narrowly limited one, for the modern trend toward serious First Amendment scrutiny of restrictions on commercial speech [Ilya Shapiro and Frank Garrison on Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman]

Treasury: most structuring money grabs are of otherwise lawful funds

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has released a new report on federal seizures of funds for the offense of unlawful bank “structuring” — the purposeful keeping of deposits or withdrawals below $10,000, a threshold that triggers reporting by the bank. The report confirms that in the great majority of cases, the funds being deposited or spent were not themselves associated with unlawful activity such as narcotics, tax evasion, or fraud. “The IG took a random sample of 278 IRS forfeiture actions in cases where structuring was the primary basis for seizure. The report found that in 91 percent of those cases, the individuals and business had obtained their money legally.” The seizure of legal source funds appears to have dropped sharply since the announcement of new policies by the IRS in 2014 and the U.S. Department of Justice in 2015. [Christopher Ingraham, Washington Post] Earlier on structuring here.

Wage, hour, and pay roundup

Baltimore police consent decree, cont’d

There’s much that needs reforming about the Baltimore police department, but the collusive sweetheart agreement between two lame duck administrations, transferring power over department practices to outside activists and the usual monitor setup, has a great deal wrong with it. George Liebmann of the Calvert Institute, who has been critical of the settlement, wrote up his objections in a lengthy communication to the court, excerpted at Free State Notes.

More from Tim Lynch at Cato on the DoJ’s changing posture:

…Sessions is making a grave mistake if he thinks previous DOJ investigations did not uncover severe problems in American policing. The problems are there. The real question is how to address them. In the education area, teacher unions are the main obstacles to reform. Police unions are the major obstacle to sensible accountability measures for police organizations. But over the long run, local mayors and city councils must make a sustained commitment to proper oversight of police. It is unrealistic to expect the Attorney General or a federal monitor to do their jobs.

Free speech roundup

  • “Spanish woman given jail term for tweeting jokes about Franco-era assassination” [The Guardian]
  • If California Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s 15-felony complaint and arrest warrant against activist filmmakers David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt is a vendetta, it’s one motivated by speech. That’s serious [Jacob Sullum]
  • “A.B. 1104 — a censorship bill so obviously unconstitutional, we had to double check that it was real.” [EFF on stalled California bill to ban “fake news,” introduced by Assemblymember Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park)] “Germany approves bill curbing online hate crime, fake news” [AP/Yahoo, earlier]
  • “Another Free Speech Win In Libel Lawsuit Disguised As A Trademark Complaint” [Tim Cushing, TechDirt; criticism of doctor’s experimental treatment methods]
  • Punching a hole out of Section 230: new “sex trafficking” bill could have far-reaching consequences for web content and platforms [Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Reason]
  • One section of a Maine bill would bar state’s attorney general from investigations or prosecutions based on political speech [HP 0551; Kevin at Lowering the Bar is critical of bill]

April 5 roundup

  • Lawsuit by pilot against landowner who shot down his drone is dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction [Cyrus Farivar, ArsTechnica; earlier here and (criminal case) here]
  • Super-broad readings of Emoluments Clause intended to trip up President Trump might have unwelcome consequences for over 2 million military retirees and 2.8 million federal employees also affected by the Clause’s interpretation [Chuck Blanchard via Andy Grewal; earlier on Emoluments Clause]
  • “Appeals court throws out six Intellectual Ventures ‘do it on a computer’ patents” [Joe Mullin, ArsTechnica]
  • David Meyer-Lindenberg interviews Cato Institute chairman and legal scholar Bob Levy on topics that include Heller v. D.C., his taking up of law as a second career after business success, and Cato’s mission [Simple Justice]
  • Judicial deference to the administrative state: Evan Bernick reviews “Law’s Abnegation: From Law’s Empire to the Administrative State,” by Adrian Vermeule [Federalist Society Review]
  • An economist visits India’s great onion market [Alex Tabarrok]

“FBI Arrests Hacker Who Hacked No One”

Can the feds make conspiracy/aiding and abetting charges stick against software maker Taylor Huddleston, creator of a software tool that can be used by both bad and good players? “Because NanoCore has both legal and illegal uses, establishing that Huddleston wrote it for criminals is crucial for prosecutors. ‘It’s a dual-use technology case,’ says [Cornell law prof James] Grimmelman. ‘And you typically don’t get criminal liability in dual-use technology cases unless there’s a pretty clear intent to promote the criminal use instead of the legitimate ones.'” [Kevin Poulsen, The Daily Beast]