- Second wave of retired NYC cops, firefighters arrested on 9/11 disability fraud charges, Vance says sums stolen could reach $300 million [Reuters] Related on disability fraud [Coyote]
- Members of U.S. Commission on Civil Rights blast EEOC plans on employer criminal background checks in report now put online [USCCR, Washington Times]
- Your Friends look hot: FBI details indictment of 10 unionists in 2012 arson at Philadelphia Quaker meetinghouse [FBI press release (“‘The Helpful Union Guys,’ or THUGs”); Trey Kovacs, Workplace Choice]
- Lawyers for UAW seek do-over at Volkswagen in Chattanooga [Benjamin Sachs and Jordan Grossman/On Labor, Fred Wszolek, Real Clear Policy, WRCB (views of Sen. Bob Corker)]
- Do low-wage employers benefit from government welfare programs? [Bryan Caplan]
- NLRB revives much-criticized “ambush elections” scheme [Aloysius Hogan, CEI, earlier]
- Minimum wage law makes zero sense as safety net or as redistribution [Jeffrey Miron] “In the Court of Logic, Federal Minimum Wage Loses by Nine to Zero” [Ira Stoll, NY Sun]
Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.: SCOTUS considers shareholder class actions
Andrew Grossman reports on yesterday’s oral argument in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, which “may be the biggest business case of the term. …Basic [Basic v. Levinson, 1988, in which the Court dispensed with the reliance requirement in favor of the “fraud on the market” theory] came at the tail-end of the Court’s decades-long experiment in policymaking by creating and defining the contours of civil actions. … The chief barrier to overturning Basic may not be its logic, its wisdom, or even its correctness as a matter of law, but instead stare decisis.” Earlier here, here, here, and here.
More: Kaye Scholer (possible “midway position” with impact on stock price considered at stage of class certification).
Argument: plaintiff should have used marijuana after crash
A court in British Columbia, Canada, has declined to reduce a plaintiff’s damages on the theory she could have alleviated symptoms after a collision by using medical marijuana but didn’t. [Erik Magraken] More: Ron Miller.
Police and prosecution roundup
- New insight into Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) casts doubt on criminal convictions [Radley Balko, earlier here, etc.]
- “The Shadow Lengthens: The Continuing Threat of Regulation by Prosecution” [James Copland and Isaac Gorodetski, Manhattan Institute]
- Police busts of “johns” thrill NYT’s Kristof [Jacob Sullum, earlier on the columnist]
- Sasha Volokh series on private vs. public prisons [Volokh]
- “Police agencies have a strong financial incentive to keep the drug war churning.” [Balko on Minnesota reporting]
- Forfeiture: NYPD seizes innocent man’s cash, uses it to pad their pensions [Institute for Justice, Gothamist] “Utah lawmakers quietly roll back asset forfeiture reforms” [Balko] “The Top 6 Craziest Things Cops Spent Forfeiture Money On” [IJ video, YouTube]
- After Florida trooper nabbed Miami cop for driving 120 mph+, 80 officers accessed her private info [AP]
Texas: a ploy fails
“Flush with trial lawyer cash, the PAC’s public face is ‘Texans 4 Justice,’ which portrays itself as a conservative grassroots group.” It didn’t work: Texas GOP primary voters yesterday returned incumbent Supreme Court justices. [Texas Observer, Houston Chronicle, earlier]
Related: Plaintiff’s lawyer Steve Mostyn, “omnipresent” in Austin, and his involvement with “Conservative Voters of Texas” [Chamber-backed Legal NewsLine]
Student, 18, sues parents for tuition
“A New Jersey couple does not have to pay — for now — for their 18-year-old daughter’s college education, a judge ruled Tuesday evening.” [CBS New York, ABC News, NY Daily News, AP]
Judge: Ecuador verdict against Chevron “obtained by corrupt means”
“U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in New York said he found ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that attorney Steven Donziger’s legal team used bribery, fraud and extortion in pursuit of an $18 billion judgment against the oil company issued in 2011.” [Reuters, Bloomberg, 485-pp., 1842-footnote opinion; SFGate, Kevin Williamson, Quin Hillyer, Ira Stoll (New York politicians including Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli roped in as allies of Donziger)] We’ve been covering the story for years.
March 5 roundup
- U.S. Commission on Civil Rights commissioners Gail Heriot, Peter Kirsanow: Administration’s new policy on race and school discipline likely to make schools more chaotic [Robby Soave, Daily Caller, 2011 related, earlier here, etc.]
- French court: fan club members suffered legally cognizable emotional damage from Michael Jackson’s death [Lowering the Bar, earlier]
- “The Newkirk incident demonstrates why cameras in the courtroom are a bad idea” [James Taranto, includes bonus New York Times disgrace]
- Claim: advocates stymied firearms research over most of past two decades. Accurate? [Fox News]
- Another look at the CPSC’s war on former Buckyballs CEO Craig Zucker [Jim Epstein, Reason, earlier]
- Chris Christie use of monitorships in white-collar prosecutions draws renewed scrutiny [New Republic, earlier]
- In which I am included in a list with George Will and Heather Mac Donald, all very flattering etc. etc. [Charles C. W. Cooke, NRO]
- D.C.: disbarred lawyer sat for years as workers comp judge [Washington City Paper]
- “German home-school family won’t be deported” although Supreme Court declines to hear asylum appeal [AP; discussion in comments earlier]
“Caution! Non-edible baby inside this cake”
Photo via David Boaz. We’ve been covering the Mardi Gras King-cake-figurine-liability issue at Overlawyered for years.
When AGs decline to defend state laws
Caleb Brown interviews me for this new Cato podcast on a knotty question: when should a state attorney general decline to argue in court in defense of a law he thinks unconstitutional? On the one hand, the legal profession’s norms strongly favor giving every client and cause its day in court, and practical dysfunction might result were cases routinely handed over to others to defend or dropped entirely. On the other hand, attorneys general like other officials take an oath of office to the constitution, which calls in doubt whether they should (or even may) use their skills on behalf of unconstitutional measures. Complicating matters: how should unconstitutionality be assessed, by way of the AG’s own judgment, by way of predicting how the highest relevant court would rule, or by some other method? What kind of difference should it make whether the assessment appears certain, very probable, or more ambiguous than that?
In recent weeks about a half-dozen Democratic AGs around the country have declined to defend their states’ bans on same-sex marriage, on the grounds that they are inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision of last year, while other AGs both Republican and Democratic have argued in defense of those laws. (Today, Kentucky’s attorney general announced that he will not appeal a federal court ruling requiring the state to recognize out-of-state marriages, although the state’s governor is stepping in to do so.) Finding either liberals or conservatives who have preserved entirely consistent positions on the issue, though, is not always easy. Former attorney general Ken Cuccinelli, a strong conservative, declined to defend a state education reform law last year, while in 2011 Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen declined to defend a state domestic partnership registry they deemed unconstitutional. In a case like the latter it was liberals who tended to criticize the refusal to defend a law, and conservatives who applauded — patterns that to some extent have been reversed this time around.