- “Emails show feds asking Florida cops to deceive judges by calling Stingrays ‘confidential sources.'” [Wired]
- Trial penalty: mortgage fraud defendants in study fared far worse if they insisted on process of law to which they are notionally entitled under Constitution [Wes Oliver at Daniel Fisher’s; more on joint Duquesne Law/Pittsburgh Post Gazette study from reporter Rich Lord, first, second]
- “‘Florida’s Worst Cop’ Finally Convicted of Something, May Be Headed to Jail” [Ed Krayewski, Reason, earlier]
- “Plans to expand scope of license-plate readers alarm privacy advocates” [Center for Investigative Reporting, earlier here, here, here, here, here] But at least our sensitive personal information will be safe with the government! [Lowering the Bar]
- “Challenges to ‘shaken baby’ convictions mounting” [Wisconsin State Journal, earlier]
- A Pavlik Morozov for the Drug War? “Brave” Minnesota 9-year-old hailed for turning in parents on pot rap [Minneapolis Star-Tribune, background on Soviet youth hero]
- “Police SWAT teams in Massachusetts form private corporations, then claim immunity from disclosure laws” [Radley Balko via @gabrielroth, more from ACLU report on police militarization]
Podcast: “Discrimination Law in an Overlawyered America”
My first appearance at Cato’s Free Thoughts podcast series at Libertarianism.org, this is feature length — an hour, as opposed to a few minutes as is typical with Cato’s daily podcast. (Direct SoundCloud and YouTube links). The description:
Walter Olson joins Aaron and Trevor for a discussion on the evolution of discrimination law in the American legal system. They talk about common carrier obligations, preferential treatment and employee discrimination suits, the disparate impact of anti-discrimination laws —- especially in hiring decisions —- and the role of law schools and academia in perpetuating this cycle.
I wrote about many of these issues at length in The Excuse Factory, and expanded on the law-school angle in my more recent Schools for Misrule. You can follow our tags for more background on discrimination law generally, disabled rights and the ADA, age discrimination law, and many other topics.
P.S. From David Bernstein, Cato Unbound, 2010: “Context Matters: A Better Libertarian Approach to Antidiscrimination Law”
Hopes of taming discovery at last?
Following widespread complaints, led by the business community, that the high cost of the discovery phase of litigation is enough to deprive parties of substantive justice, the Advisory Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure in August of last year proposed amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to make discovery less burdensome. Following a public comment period that ended in February it amended the proposals somewhat and submitted them to a standing rules committee which in turn approved them in late May “with the recommendation that the U.S. Supreme Court accept the changes. If approved, the proposed amendments will go into effect on December 1, 2015.”
Some resources:
- Tony Rospert and Rob Ware (Thompson Hine), working paper for Washington Legal Foundation on e-discovery costs;
- Beck, Drug & Device Law (“While hardly perfect, these changes to Rule 37(a) are a welcome step in the right direction.);
- Alison Frankel, Reuters, on the politics (trial lawyers and legal academics resisting reform);
- Adapted excerpt in Reason from the chapter on discovery (“The Assault on Privacy”) from my book The Litigation Explosion, 1991.
Free speech roundup
- Why are PEN and Index on Censorship luminaries supporting Hacked Off press control campaign in UK? [Brendan O’Neill]
- Religious offense, hate speech and blasphemy: meet India’s self-appointed “Ban Man” [WaPo]
- “Like a free press? Thank corporate personhood.” [Dylan Matthews, Vox]
- Participant’s memoir: “spontaneous” mob violence against Danish cartoons was anything but [Lars Hvidberg, Freedom House]
- Floyd Abrams testifies at Senate hearing on proposed constitutional amendments to curtail First Amendment for purposes of limiting campaign speech [Volokh]
- Ruling: Pennsylvania high court judge can proceed with libel suit against Philadelphia newspapers [Philadelphia mag, Inquirer]
- Missouri gun activist ordered to remove material from internet about police encounter wins settlement [Volokh, earlier]
Unsurprising small business news
Federal false-advertising law allows competitors (not just consumers claiming loss) to sue companies over allegedly false or unsubstantiated ad claims. Long-established result that will surprise only newcomers: big guys use the law to beat up little guys, as well as each other. “In March, a Supreme Court ruling widened the range of businesses that can sue other companies for false advertising under the federal Lanham Act, by allowing businesses that aren’t direct competitors to pursue claims.” [WSJ via Lexology]
Andrew Pincus on Halliburton
The Supreme Court’s refusal to revisit the fraud-on-the-market presumption in securities litigation leaves intact an economically irrational system that mostly benefits lawyers. “Indeed, the Court’s decision almost certainly will make this litigation even more expensive by increasing the scope of the class certification inquiry (while not changing the result in many cases). That means even more money out of the pockets of shareholders and into the pockets of lawyers and economic experts.” [Mayer Brown, earlier]
The way the macaron crumbles
Bureaucracy and taxes in Greece strangle a woman’s dream of a baking business before she even gets it properly launched [Despina Antypa, New York Times via Dan Mitchell]:
…as happens so often in Greece, the bureaucrats had other plans. In a country where you are viewed favorably when you spend money but are considered a criminal when you make it, starting a business is a nightmare. The demands are outrageous, and include a requirement that the business pay taxes in advance equal to 50 percent of estimated profit in the first two years. And the taxes are collected even if the business suffers a loss. I needed only 20 square meters for my baking business, but inspectors told me they could not give me permission for less than 150 square meters. I was obliged to have a separate toilet for customers even though I would not have any customers visit. The fire department wanted a security exit in the same place where the municipality demanded a wall be built. … I, like thousands of others trying to start businesses, learned that I would be at the mercy of public employees who interpreted the laws so they could profit themselves.
More: Hans Bader.
“Facebook to Face Formal Complaint for Manipulating Users’ Emotions”
It should realize the privilege of doing so is reserved for other societal institutions, like lawyers and the press. [National Journal]
“The six states where you can’t buy alcohol today”
Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Utah ban package sales on Independence Day. [Reid Wilson, Washington Post] Whether or not you live in one of those states, have a happy Fourth of July.
Fireworks on the 4th? Bring your own Coke
Eight of the twelve most affluent counties in the United States are in the Washington, D.C. area, and high among them stands Howard County, Maryland (Columbia/Ellicott City), where the celebrations tomorrow will be a bit constrained:
Some find it a damper on the festivities to bring Howard County’s Fourth of July fireworks into compliance with County Executive Ken Ulman’s December 2012 edict sharply restricting the sale of sweet beverages and high-calorie snack food at county-sponsored events. Under the regulations, which are “the first and only of their kind in the state,” at least “50 percent of packaged food offered at county events must contain 200 calories or less per portion”; prepared food, such as funnel cakes and soft-serve ice cream, is not covered. [Baltimore Sun via Quinton Report] The rules exempt the county’s “Wine in the Woods” event, held each May.
Whether or not the policy mirrors the preferences of voters in Howard County (and who knows, it might), it serves the function of affluence signaling in the conspicuously prosperous county. One reason families pay a premium to move to a county like Howard is the implicit promise that their kids will grow up with plenty of worldly, educated, skinny role models and that the government is not going to be run in line with the wishes of poorer or lower-status residents. Message sent!
[adapted from my Free State Notes blog]