Sponsored by Reps. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), H.R. 2304, the Speak Free Act would introduce a federal procedural remedy against certain lawsuits that discourage speech. “The Act would allow a person who is SLAPPed to file a special motion to dismiss such lawsuits and collect legal fees from the person or entity that filed the initial SLAPP.” A letter from supportive groups cites the importance of not chilling reviews and feedback in the online economy. 28 states have enacted anti-SLAPP legislation in widely varying forms; “SLAPP” is originally an acronym for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” [Ronald Bailey, Reason; TechFreedom podcast with Evan Swarztrauber and Moriah Mensah]
February 17 roundup
- Cross-examination of Mr. Hot Yoga left jury steamed, especially when it came to explaining the luxury cars [Lowering the Bar; more on Bikram Choudhury litigation]
- Forty-nine (!) Georgia corrections officers accused of taking bribes, drug trafficking [WXIA Atlanta; compare Baltimore jail guards scandal]
- More reactions to Justice Scalia’s death: Lee Liberman Otis, Joseph Bottum, Emily Zanotti, David Wagner/Ninomania. His legacy on the Fourth Amendment [Jonathan Blanks, Cato] On canines in the curtilage and the Bill of Rights more generally [Jacob Sullum] Labor and employment law bloggers on his passing [Jon Hyman] Immune to internationalist argle-bargle, Scalia was actually one of SCOTUS’s more cosmopolitan members [Julian Ku/Opinio Juris]
- Los Angeles joins San Francisco and Boston in banning chewing tobacco in Dodger Stadium and every other park and stadium in the city, because it can [Curbed LA]
- “They are both highly educated attorneys” which means they should have known better than to launch that lurid plot to plant drugs on the rival PTA mom [Washington Post]
- To get a cosmetology license in Ohio, you’ll need to undergo training in spotting signs of human trafficking [Elizabeth Nolan Brown/Reason; earlier on hair and beauty professionals as informants]
- “British teenager creates robot lawyer to help people with their legal queries” [Mashable]
More recollections of Justice Scalia
“My own anecdote about Justice Scalia is that he once hired me for my dream job because I wouldn’t stop arguing with him.” I set down a few recollections about the great man which are up now at The Daily Beast.
The dream job in question was to help with the editing of Regulation magazine, which in its early years was a project of the American Enterprise Institute (it’s at Cato now). I remember well the magazine’s publication of the classic debate between Antonin Scalia and Richard Epstein on the proper role of the courts in protecting economic liberty, itself based on an “Economic Liberties and the Constitution” conference sponsored by the Cato Institute. By that point Scalia had departed as editor of the magazine and was a judge on the D.C. Circuit, while Epstein continued to teach law at the University of Chicago, where he had been Scalia’s colleague. Scalia begins his piece thus:
I recall from the earliest days of my political awareness Dwight Eisenhower’s demonstrably successful slogan that he was “a conservative in economic affairs, but a liberal in human affairs.” I am sure he meant it to connote nothing more profound than that he represented the best of both Republican and Democratic tradition. But still, that seemed to me a peculiar way to put it — contrasting economic affairs with human affairs as though economics is a science developed for the benefit of dogs or trees; something that has nothing to do with human beings, with their welfare, aspirations, or freedoms.
Epstein’s side of that memorable debate is here, and he recalls it in this new appreciation. [More background on the debate: Roger Pilon podcast]
Archives of Regulation magazine are here. During his editorship (which lasted until 1982), Scalia wrote many pieces both signed and unsigned, and his contributions to the unsigned front part of the magazine can often be identified once you know to look for his distinctive style (often there was one such piece per issue). I was at the magazine from its first 1981 through its last 1985 issue.
More: Earlier here. And I’ve adapted this (with some additional historical material) into a new Cato post, to which Nick Zaiac, Peter Van Doren, and Thomas Firey add a second post analyzing some of Scalia’s signed articles for the magazine during his tenure. I remember that his irreverent cover essay “The Freedom of Information Act Has No Clothes” was the one I most worried some senator would wave about to oppose his confirmation, but nothing of the sort happened. In it he wrote, of FOIA, “It is the Taj Mahal of the Doctrine of Unanticipated Consequences, the Sistine Chapel of Cost- Benefit Analysis Ignored.”
Because bad things keep happening to her
“Since the beginning of 2015, three plaintiffs have brought more than 200 lawsuits against Arizona hotels, retailers and restaurants alleging American with Disabilities Act accessibility violations. One of the three, Theresa Brooke, has filed 151 of the 237 total ADA lawsuits that aren’t related to employment. These suits, brought mainly in Arizona by two law firms, allege the defendants’ premises aren’t in compliance with ADA standards.” She is represented by Phoenix attorney Peter Strojnik. [Laura Wilcoxen, Legal NewsLine]
Environment roundup
- Remembering William Tucker, author of books on many subjects including the 1982 classic on environmentalism, Progress and Privilege, and a valued friend of long standing [RealClearEnergy, where he was founding editor]
- Scalia took lead in defending property rights vs. regulatory takings, but mostly not by deploying originalist analysis. A missed opportunity, thinks Ilya Somin;
- What? Children in parts of Saginaw, Grand Rapids, Muskegon, etc. have higher blood lead levels than in Flint [Detroit News] Flint water department didn’t use standard $150/day neutralizing treatment. Why not? [Nolan Finley, Detroit News] Children in Michigan generally ten years ago had higher prevalence of lead in blood at concern thresholds than children in Flint today [David Mastio, USA Today] Earlier here and here;
- On eminent domain, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz seem to be “talking past each other, about two different things” [Gideon Kanner]
- Saboteurs going after Canadian pipelines [CBC]
- “Mission or Craftsman style” was insisted on, but the resulting vacant lot doesn’t seem to be either: south L.A. grocery scheme dies after decade-long urban-planning fight [Los Angeles Times]
- As prices plunge: “Where Have All the Peak Oilers Gone?” [Ronald Bailey, Reason]
They Came To Stay VI: co-owner feud on Telegraph Hill
He came to stay: “A Telegraph Hill resident who was squabbling with his building co-owners allegedly duped them into renting him their unit by using a false identity on Airbnb, according to a complaint filed in San Francisco Superior Court. Then, after two months in the apartment, he claimed he qualified for tenants’ rights and said he planned to stay indefinitely.” [San Francisco Chronicle, earlier in series]
“People are dying needlessly…”
“You hired me to reform EMS in the District of Columbia…” Amazing resignation letter sent to Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser [Jullette Saussy]
Remembering Justice Scalia: first reactions
In the early 1980s I had the honor to work for Antonin Scalia at the magazine Regulation, of which he was then editor. By the time Justice Scalia died yesterday at age 79, he had become the premier jurist of our time, the most influential legal writer, and, in my view, the most important American conservative since Ronald Reagan. Initial reactions, which include some very fine appreciations: Cass Sunstein, Mark Stern, John McGinnis, Ross Douthat, Jacob Sullum, Ilya Shapiro, and, at Cato’s blog, Roger Pilon, Trevor Burrus, Ilya Shapiro again, and Tim Lynch.
I’m at work on a couple of pieces remembering and appreciating his life and work. In the mean time, here are a few tidbits from this website’s coverage over the years:
- His dissent in Maryland v. King, the “genetic panopticon” DNA-swab case (and related Newsweek);
- American Express v. Italian Colors: vindicating freedom of contract in the form of freedom to agree to predispute arbitration. And his majority opinion in Wal-Mart v. Dukes;
- On racial preferences and the case against the Court’s flawed Hunter/Seattle line of cases on when democratic processes are supposedly unfair to minorities;
- On his opposition to cameras in the courtroom;
- From his dissent in Brown v. Plata (court-ordered mass prisoner release): “It is important to recognize that the dressing-up of policy judgments as factual findings is not an error peculiar to this case. It is an unavoidable concomitant of institutional-reform litigation.”
- From his Aereo dissent: “It is not the role of this Court to identify and plug loopholes. It is the role of good lawyers to identify and exploit them, and the role of Congress to eliminate them if it wishes.”
- The Obergefell marriage case, and a remarkable anecdote from Roger Pilon about how consistent Scalia could be in opposing what he viewed as invented constitutional rights (more on Scalia and parental rights).
- On the Rule of Lenity and ambiguity in criminal law;
- James Maxeiner on Scalia’s thoughts on statutory interpretation and views on law school. Relatedly, modern restatements are of questionable value, judges must use with caution;
- ObamaCare becomes SCOTUSCare in King v. Burwell: the “Court keeps on hand a supply of what one observer called Get Out Of Bad Drafting Free cards.”
Law firm that files overtime suits agrees to settle overtime action
“Law firm Morgan & Morgan PLLC has agreed to pay a former employee the wages she alleged are owed because the firm misclassified case managers as exempt from overtime pay, resolving a proposed collective action, according to documents filed Thursday in Georgia federal court.” [Law360; earlier on overtime actions against this firm, which itself files overtime suits]
Tribe: don’t put Navajo name on products without a license
Trouble ahead for Apache helicopters and Oneida silverware? Clothing retailer Urban Outfitters “is facing a lawsuit from the Navajo Nation for selling clothing and merchandise with patterns inspired by Native American designs and including the word ‘Navajo’ or ‘Navaho’ in the offerings.” [Timothy Geigner, TechDirt]