Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

“Sacramento County Says It’s Illegal to Work on Your Own Car in Your Own Garage”

It’s common for communities to use zoning codes to exclude commercial and industrial uses from residential areas, but Sacramento County, California, seems extra-zealous about making sure that residents don’t try to operate auto repair businesses amid homes. While it concedes to residents the right to perform minor auto repairs on their own cars in their driveway or garage, it bans repairs or maintenance in any of the following circumstances:

1. Using tools not normally found in a residence;

2. Conducted on vehicles registered to persons, not currently residing on the lot or parcel;

3. Conducted outside a fully enclosed garage and resulting in any vehicle being inoperable for a period in excess of twenty-four hours.

So if you’re thinking of changing the oil in doing fairly minor work on your dad’s or girlfriend’s car, or trying any work that might run into a snag and have to be carried over to the next day — let alone working on a project car as a hobby, as many do — Sacramento County has other plans, and it doesn’t matter whether or not you are creating any nuisance for neighbors. “One commenter on the Grassroots Motorsports forum reported that he’d already been issued a $430 fine for working on his car in his garage.” [Jason Torchinsky, Jalopnik]

Filed under: ,

Land use and zoning roundup

  • NYC landmark decree will strangle famed Strand used bookstore, says owner [Nancy Bass Wyden, New York Daily News, Nick Gillespie, Reason, earlier] NIMBY resistance to Dupont Circle project behind Masonic Temple insists on preserving views that weren’t there until fairly recently [Nick Sementelli, Greater Greater Washington]
  • “Barcelona city hall has finally issued a work permit for the unfinished church designed by the architect Antoni Gaudí, 137 years after construction started on the Sagrada Família basilica.” [AP/Guardian] At least they’re not in one of the American towns and cities that would make them tear down work outside the scope of permit before proceeding;
  • FHA lending tilts heavily toward detached single-family housing over condos, encouraging sprawl [Scott Beyer]
  • “San Francisco’s Regulations Are the Cause of Its Housing Crisis” [Beyer]
  • “What Should I Read to Understand Zoning?” [Nolan Gray, Market Urbanism]
  • I think we can all guess which union was not cut into a share of the work in this Bay Area housing development [Jennifer Wadsworth, San Jose Inside (Laborers union files CEQA suit), Christian Britschgi, Reason]

Filed under: , , , , , ,

Ways to violate federal law

  • Leave the country with too many nickels, absent a special license from the U.S. Mint;
  • Label as “macaroni” pasta that is the wrong size or shape, or as “Swiss cheese” a cheese that is solid rather than having holes;
  • Circulate a private currency;
  • Engage in weather modification without notifying the Secretary of Commerce;

“An amusing guide to some of the more bizarre statutes can be found in the new book ‘How to Become a Federal Criminal: An Illustrated Handbook for the Aspiring Offender‘ (Atria Books) by criminal defense lawyer Mike Chase, who also runs the Crime A Day Twitter account.” [Reed Tucker, New York Post] “‘Almost anyone can be arrested for something,’ Justice Neil Gorsuch observed in a case the Supreme Court decided last month.” [Jacob Sullum]

Filed under: ,

Waters of the United States: navigating the shoals

Jonathan Adler at Cato’s Regulation magazine:

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to “eliminate the unconstitutional Waters of the U.S. rule” and constrain federal regulation of private land use. According to then-candidate Trump, the Obama administration’s 2015 regulation defining “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act (CWA)—the so-called WOTUS rule—was “so extreme that it gives federal agencies control over creeks, small streams, and even puddles or mostly dry areas on private property.” While guaranteeing “crystal clear” water under his administration, Trump also pledged to lessen the federal regulatory burden on landowners.

Two years into the president’s term, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are trying to make good on Trump’s promise. In December 2018, the two agencies proposed a revised WOTUS definition that would significantly curtail federal regulatory jurisdiction under the CWA. If the effort is successful, it could clear the muddy waters of the federal government’s regulatory reach. The effort to rewrite WOTUS will also be a test of the Trump administration’s ability to navigate the shoals of the administrative process in pursuit of its deregulatory goals.

Earlier here. More from Adler (court’s ruling in May tossing Obama rule); Federalist Society blog post by Daren Bakst, podcast with Bakst, Deidre G. Duncan and Tony Francois, and panel discussion with Jeffrey Clark, Jon Devine, and Tony Francois.

Filed under:

No lockable private room for breast-feeding at workplace: $3.8 million award

“Federal law requires that you provide breastfeeding moms a room with a locking door–that is not a bathroom–to pump breast milk up until the baby’s first birthday. This is pretty easy in a big office building with lots of space, but not so easy in a firehouse. The law, however, doesn’t make an exception for difficulty, as the [City of Tucson fire department] found out — to the tune of $3.8 million.” [Suzanne Lucas, Inc.]

Filed under: ,

Federal judge: time to end “racket” of “worthless” merger litigation

“U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin of Chicago has thrown down the gauntlet: In a ruling issued [June 24], he said it’s time to end the ‘racket’ of ‘worthless’ M&A [mergers and acquisitions] shareholder litigation.” [Alison Frankel/Reuters]

“The plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuits sued Akorn and its board of directors in connection with the proposed merger, seeking additional disclosure regarding the transaction. After Akorn revised its proxy statement, plaintiffs dismissed their lawsuits in exchange for a mootness fee. Ted Frank, an Akorn shareholder, moved to intervene and object to the fee.” The fee amount in question was $322,500. [Kevin LaCroix/D&O Diary] See also Seventh Circuit review of the Subway footlong settlement (“utterly worthless,” “no better than a racket”), which likewise followed a Ted Frank objection.

Filed under: ,

U.K. bans gender stereotypes in ads

The United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has “instituted a ban on gender stereotypes ‘that are likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence.'”

According to the ASA’s overview, setups that will likely be in violation of the law include but are not limited to:

* An ad that depicts a man with his feet up and family members creating mess around a home while a woman is solely responsible for cleaning up the mess.

* An ad that depicts a man or a woman failing to achieve a task specifically because of their gender e.g. a man’s inability to change nappies [diapers]; a woman’s inability to park a car.

* Where an ad features a person with a physique that does not match an ideal stereotypically associated with their gender, the ad should not imply that their physique is a significant reason for them not being successful, for example in their romantic or social lives.

* An ad that seeks to emphasise the contrast between a boy’s stereotypical personality (e.g. daring) with a girl’s stereotypical personality (e.g. caring) needs to be handled with care.

* An ad aimed at new mums which suggests that looking attractive or keeping a home pristine is a priority over other factors such as their emotional wellbeing.

It will not be a defense of a stereotype that it is by and large true — that, for example, persons whose physique departs significantly from social expectations might genuinely face worse average outcomes in their romantic lives.

The rules do allow a few exceptions; for example, it will still be fine for advertisers in Britain to invoke gender stereotypes for purposes of challenging them. [Billy Binion, Reason; update on action against ads for Volkswagen and Philadelphia Cream Cheese]

Happy Independence Day!

Filed under: , , ,

Labor and employment roundup

  • “Your license is gone, your livelihood is gone, the care of your patients is gone. How fair is that?” Opposition grows to policy of yanking occupational licenses over unpaid student loans [Marc Hyden and Shoshana Weissman, Governing; Nick Sibilla, Forbes]
  • Los Angeles ballot measure was billed as advancing affordable housing, but prevailing-wage provisions helped ensure that it didn’t [Steven Sharp, Urbanize Los Angeles]
  • Not mad at Jon Hyman for advising client employers to avoid legal risk by not employing released sex offenders, just mad at the policymakers who play to the cheap seats by perpetuating the casual cruelties of the offender registry laws;
  • “International programs demonstrate that paid leave benefits grow substantially over time, similar to other government entitlement programs.” [Vanessa Brown Calder, Cato; more Calder on paid leave mandates here, here, and (roundtable conversation) here (from last fall) and here; Emily Ekins, Cato and more (depth of public support depends on assumptions about impact on pay and women’s career prospects); Veronique de Rugy (why are conservatives supporting?)]
  • Frankfurter and Greene’s 1930 book The Labor Injunction, one of the most influential books ever about American labor law, prepared the ground for the New Deal’s Norris-LaGuardia Anti-Injunction Act. How accurately did it portray the labor injunctions of its day? [Mark Pulliam, Law and Liberty]
  • “What Will the E-Verify Program Be Used to Surveil Next?” [David Bier, Cato via David Henderson]

Filed under: , , , ,

Domino’s seeks Supreme Court review of web accessibility ruling

For years now regulated parties (which means much of the country) have been waiting urgently for an answer to the question of whether and to what extent the Americans with Disabilities Act requires websites to be made accessible to blind, deaf, and other disabled users. (Coverage of this issue here dates back two decades.) Now the Supreme Court will be asked to review a much-watched case against Domino’s Pizza (earlier) which resulted in a plaintiff’s win before the Ninth Circuit. Four other appeals court rulings have addressed the issue. Will this be the case that finally reaches the high court?

[Frank Cruz-Alvarez and Talia Zucker, Washington Legal Foundation Kristina Launey and Minh Vu/Seyfarth Shaw, January and March posts; J. Gregory Grisham, Federalist Society; Nicole Porter where SCOTUS may be headed on disability issues]

Filed under: ,