There’s something wrong with it, in fact a whole lot of things, according to Eric Turkewitz, who is downright gentle compared with Ken at Popehat. Earlier on Trump here, here, and at our tag.
“Judge Kozinski: Time to Rein in Prosecutors”
“In the latest issue of Georgetown Law Journal, Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals turns a critical gaze toward America’s criminal justice system. …one of [the essay’s] major themes is prosecutorial advantage, both in federal and state courtrooms.” Among his topics: judges’ and federal authorities’ reluctance to name or charge misbehaving prosecutors. He thinks the U.S. Department of Justice should drop its opposition to “a bill proposed by Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska in 2012 — called the Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act — that would require federal prosecutors to disclose any evidence ‘that may reasonably appear to be favorable to the defendant in a criminal prosecution.'” (The Department currently follows a less demanding standard on disclosure of adverse evidence). Kozinski also “favors abolishing state judicial elections, among other recommendations.” [Jacob Gershman, WSJ Law Blog; Alex Kozinski, “Preface,” Georgetown Law Journal Annual Review of Criminal Procedure 2015]
French taxi drivers vs. Uber: the musical version
French taxi men attack Uber drivers, set cars ablaze, so France arrests (you guessed it) Uber executives. And someone needed to do a musical version, so I stepped up at Cato, to a familiar tune from Les Miz, with “Do You Hear the Drivers Honk?”
Schools roundup
- University of California deems it “microaggressions” to say these things. How many have you said today? [Eugene Volokh; related from Hans Bader on federal government’s role]
- Regarding those conniptions among some University of Wisconsin faculty: “Despite what you’ve heard, tenure is unchanged.” [Christian Schneider, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, via Ann Althouse]
- Indiana school board president: black market for sugar, salt observed in our schools after federal lunch mandate [Washington Free Beacon, B.K. Marcus/FEE via @farmerhayek (comparison to prisoner of war economy)]
- “Amherst’s version of Kafka’s ‘The Trial'” [KC Johnson, Minding the Campus] Problems with Washington Post journalism on campus assault [KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor, Jr., Weekly Standard; Ashe Schow, D.C. Examiner]
- Judge rules against NYC teacher competence test that showed disparate impact against minorities [New York Times; Blake Neff, Daily Caller]
- Update: “Jury Rejects Unsuccessful Conservative Faculty Candidate’s Discrimination Suit Against Univ. of Iowa Law School” [Caron/TaxProf, earlier here, etc.]
- Ethics regs forbid researchers to exercise “undue influence” over survey subjects’ decision to answer their questions, and applications of that concept can be surprising [Nicholas Christakis on Berkeley instance via Zachary Schrag, IRB Blog]
“De Blasio continues crusade against smoking at home”
“The administration [of Mayor Bill de Blasio] is planning to select and pay four health-advocacy groups $9,000 apiece to pressure landlords and developers to prohibit smoking in their apartment complexes so neighboring tenants don’t inhale secondhand smoke.” [Carl Campanile/New York Post]
Great moments in alcohol enforcement
Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic:
[Charles Murray, author of the newly published By the People: Rebuilding Liberty without Permission] is quick to add that he is perfectly fine with a wide range of sensible regulations, and that only a narrow subset of regulations ought to be disobeyed, offering this rule of thumb: if the matter in question were to become a news story in the mass media, the vast majority of Americans would side with the rule-breaker. He offered the example of a bartender with whom he corresponded––she was fined $3,000 for failing to card a customer, and while he granted the legitimacy of requiring alcohol sellers to check the ages of customers, he felt it was unfair to fine the bartender in this particular situation as the customer was her father.
Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup
- Supreme Court grants certiorari (as Cato had urged) in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, on First Amendment rights of individual public employees against unions, potentially major sequel to Harris v. Quinn (our coverage) and Knox v. SEIU (our coverage). More: Jason Bedrick, Cato;
- More First Amendment: On same day, high court says Texas can turn down Confederate-flag license plates but that town of Gilbert, Ariz. impermissibly took content into account in regulating roadside signs [Lyle Denniston; Eugene Volokh on Gilbert and earlier, and on license plates] Ilya Shapiro has a wrap-up of other end-of-term cases;
- Paging judicial-independence buffs: study finds Obama stands out for aggressive comments on pending SCOTUS cases [W$J via Jonathan Adler]
- Abercrombie v. EEOC followup (earlier): If Thomas’s dissent has the courage of its convictions, maybe it’s because he was longest-serving chairman in EEOC history [Tamara Tabo] “SCOTUS requires employers to stereotype in ruling for EEOC in hijab-accommodation case” [Jon Hyman] Yes, employers can still have dress codes, but read on for the caveat [Daniel Schwartz]
- “Illinois Uses Racial Preferences for No Good Reason,” Seventh Circuit take note [Ilya Shapiro and Julio Colomba, Cato]
- Feds can refuse to register a “disparaging” trademark. Consistent with the First Amendment? [Shapiro, Cato]
- More from Ilya Somin on anniversary of eminent domain Kelo v. New London decision [one, two, more]
Unwanted endorsements dept.
James (Whitey) Bulger, former Boston crime kingpin: “Advice is a cheap commodity. Some seek it from me about crime. I know only one thing for sure: If you want to make crime pay go to law school.” [New York Times via Paul Caron]
What Anthony Kennedy could have learned from Brown v. Board
Go for clarity rather than depth of feeling, advises Paul Horwitz [PrawfsBlawg] Re: AMK’s revival of substantive due process, warns John McGinnis, libertarians should be careful what they wish for [Law and Liberty]
More: Obergefell in haiku [Daniela Lapidous, McSweeney’s]
Forfeiture roundup
- How does your state rank on asset forfeiture laws? [Michael Greibok, FreedomWorks via Scott Shackford] Maryland delegate alleges that vetoed bill “would have made it easier for criminals to get their forfeited property back,” seemingly unaware that it focused on rights of owners *not* found guilty of anything [Haven Shoemaker, Carroll County Times] Arizona counties said to have nearly free rein in spending money [Arizona Republic via Coyote]
- I took part last week in a panel discussion in Washington, D.C. on civil asset forfeiture, sponsored by Right on Crime, and it went very well I thought [Sarah Gompper, FreedomWorks]
- “Nail Salon Owner Sues For Return Of Life Savings Seized By DEA Agents At Airport” [Tim Cushing, TechDirt] And: “A federal judge has just ordered the government to return $167,000 it took from a man passing through Nevada on his way to visit his girlfriend in California.” [Cushing]
- “How Philadelphia seizes millions in ‘pocket change’ from some of the city’s poorest residents” [Christopher Ingraham, Washington Post “Wonkblog”]
- IRS drops structuring forfeiture case against N.C. convenience store owner Lyndon McLellan, will return more than $107,000 it seized [Institute for Justice]
- Canada, too, has civil forfeiture when there has been no criminal conviction [British Columbia Civil Liberties Association]
- Michigan testimony: “After they breached the door at gunpoint with masks, they proceeded to take every belonging in my house” [Jacob Sullum]
- Town of Richland, Mississippi, population 7,000, builds $4.1 million police headquarters with forfeiture money. Thanks, passing motorists! [Steve Wilson, Mississippi Watchdog via Radley Balko]