We’ve covered “breed-specific” legal limitations on dog ownership, which often take the form of legislated curbs on particular breeds seen as dangerous, but have also cropped up in judicial rulings designating some breeds as inherently dangerous for purposes of strict liability. As we noted in 2013, after Maryland courts established elevated liability for bites by pit bulls, the result was continued pressure by insurers and landlords for families to abandon or relinquish pets “and a resulting flow of related breeds into the animal shelter system.” Now a story from Prince George’s County, Maryland, one of the larger jurisdictions to ban pit bulls: “A pit bull who stood by her injured owner while their house was on fire is now losing her home — not to the fire itself, but to a law prohibiting pit bulls from living in the county. … Back in May, Michigan’s Hazel Park lifted its pit bull ban in the wake of public outcry, after a dog credited with saving her owner from domestic violence was subsequently thrown out of town.” [Arin Greenwood, Huffington Post]
The next Sheldon Silver, and the next
Following up on Tuesday’s post, I’ve got some further thoughts at Cato at Liberty. Excerpt:
So does this mean better days ahead for New York, a terribly misgoverned state? As one who has been writing about New York politics since way back, I can’t bring myself to be too optimistic.
I got interested in Silver originally because of his distinctive role as protector of New York’s trial lawyers… But legal policy was only one of the many pots in which Silver kept his fingers, as Steven Malanga and Seth Barron detail in separate articles at City Journal. New York sluices huge amounts of money in its gigantic social services apparatus through non-profits, and friends of Sheldon were there to profit. Real estate development in New York is subject to famously convoluted restrictions, and huge sums are at stake in its rent control and rent stabilization system. Again and again, Silver was there to broker deals for his friends behind the scenes….
So long as New York pursues failed policies like rent control, it will open huge leeway for hidden favoritism. And then, sure as day, in will move the Sheldon Silver types.
“A right to speak anonymously?”
Attorneys general in California and New York are demanding that 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organizations disclose their donor lists to the state. At the recent Federalist Society National Lawyers’ Convention, that issue and others were discussed by a panel consisting of Andrew Grossman (BakerHostetler), Stephen Klein (Pillar of Law Institute), Paul S. Ryan (Campaign Legal Center), Hans von Spakovsky (Heritage Foundation), with Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert P. Young, Jr. as the moderator. From the summary:
Supporters of mandated disclosure of the source of speech (or of money used to pay for speech) claim it can provide important information to the public and the legal system. But opponents say it violates privacy rights and can also deter the sources from speaking or contributing.
This debate also applies to reporters’ confidential sources. In both situations, disclosure (of who contributed or spent, or who a confidential source was) may provide useful information to voters, prosecutors, civil litigants, judges, or jurors. In both situations, requiring disclosure of the source may deter people from contributing to controversial campaigns or organizations, or from talking to journalists. Politically, people tend to react differently to these reactions – confidentiality of contributors tends to be more supported by conservatives, while confidentiality of journalists’ sources tends to be more supported by liberals. But structurally, are these issues similar? This panel will consider both these questions together.
A playlist of all the videos from the Federalist Society convention is here.
“One effect of all this regulation is to essentially increase the minimum viable size of any business”
Wage and hour, employee classification and Obamacare regulations are transforming the nature of employment, argues Coyote. And in a development that will surprise few of those who watch this area, it’s been another record year for federal wage and hour lawsuits [Insurance Journal]
Campus climate roundup
- Student protesters go after Woodrow Wilson: full circle since his administration prosecuted student protesters [1917 NYT clip via John Brewer] Libertarians have been on Wilson’s case all along [Charles Paul Freund in Reason, 2002] It wasn’t just Wilson: the “entire Progressive movement had a terrible record on race.” [Damon Root] “‘We owe nothing to people who are deeply flawed,’ says Princeton student who apparently knows nothing about every important historical figure” [Samantha Harris referencing Daily Princetonian on Wilson, see also Weekly Standard]
- Social-justice careerism and the campus troubles: “This reads less like a manifesto of student [rebels], and more like a particularly aggressive salary negotiation.” [Robert Tracinski, The Federalist]
- More reactions to my Storify piece on the campus demands: John Leo/Minding the Campus, Glenn Reynolds/Instapundit, Jerry Coyne/Why Evolution is True;
- “Suppression of Free Speech in Academia Is Out of Control” [Nat Hentoff/Cato, earlier]
- Yale had compulsory chapel down till the 1920s and at the rate it’s going it’ll have compulsory diversity training in time for the centenary [Isaac Cohen, Yale Daily News]
- Official at Duke: “You can’t be a great scholar and be intolerant. You have to go.” Audience bursts into applause [KC Johnson, Minding the Campus]
- An earlier generation of student protesters rebelled against control by elders, now they ask institutions for more parent-like care [Jeannie Suk, The New Yorker]
EEOC’s use of “administrative subpoenas”
No warrant needed: “administrative subpoenas” or “civil enforcement demands” allow the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other federal agencies to demand “everything from Social Security numbers to medical records without a judge’s prior approval, so long as the information is “relevant” to the agency’s work.” Courts have allowed the maneuver although it bypasses the protections of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. [Kathryn Watson, Daily Caller]
Title IX enforcers descend from Washington on high schools
And they’ll be every bit as zealous as with they are with colleges [Scott Greenfield]
Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup
- “There is nothing in the Constitution that …even hints that the president’s power expands because Congress won’t pass the legislation he advocates.” [David Bernstein interview with Josh Blackman about Bernstein’s new book “Lawless,” on Obama administration vs. constitutional limits more from Bernstein on book]
- “Will the Supreme Court End Affirmative Action? A Preview of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin on the Eve of Oral Argument” [Cato event Dec. 7 with Andrew Grossman, John Paul Schnapper-Casteras, Gail Heriot, Richard Lempert, and Wallace Hall, moderated by Ilya Shapiro]
- Theme of this year’s Federalist Society lawyers’ convention was Congress, videos of related panels [originalist views of Congress, Congressional dysfunction, deference and delegation, prospects for getting legislative branch to reclaim lawmaking power]
- Certiorari petition asks SCOTUS to review dischargeability of law school debts in bankruptcy [BNA; Tetzlaff v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp.]
- At Cato’s Constitution Day, panels looked back at an eventful SCOTUS term [Cato Policy Report]
- Common law vs. statutes: Richard Epstein on Spokeo v. Robins oral argument [Hoover] Must plaintiffs show they actually suffered harm? [Daniel Fisher]
- No, the Constitution doesn’t let feds cancel Redskins trademark as offensive [Kristian Stout, Truth on the Market; Ilya Shapiro]
“ExxonMobil has a right to its opinion”
The editorial board of USA Today sees New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman’s probe as an “exercise in politics” and says it raises “serious First Amendment concerns” [USA Today] Concur, more or less: Washington Post editorial board (“Exxon deserves criticism, but it didn’t commit a crime…. Legitimate scientific inquiry depends on allowing strong, even unfair, criticism of the claims that scientists make.”) Related: Adam Freedman, City Journal (“bid to criminalize skepticism.”)
Letting 4-year-old play outside, in a gated community
What better reason for Mom to face jail time than to have let her 4 year old play outside alone, 120 feet from her front door, in a gated community? “We have a CPS (Child Protective Service) case now and every time he’s not in my visual site we’re in violation,” said Sonya Hendren. [KTXL, Sacramento]