School suspensions by the (racial) numbers
Caleb Brown interviews me on the very, very bad new federal guidelines demanding that schools avoid disciplinary practices with “disparate impact” — in practice, those that result in more-than-proportional suspensions of minority or special-ed kids. Earlier here.
Free speech roundup
- Setback for climate scientist Michael Mann in defamation suit against critics [Jonathan Adler, Mark Steyn, earlier here and here; update, Mann wins a round] Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has taken interest on defendants’ side [Steyn] “Blogger’s Incarceration Raises First Amendment Questions” [NYT on Shuler case in Alabama, on which earlier; more]
- Religious liberty: “When thought is a crime, no other freedom can long survive.” [Doug Bandow]
- Nigeria’s new jail-the-gays law is brutally repressive toward speech and association. Oil-rich country gets upwards of $500 million in US foreign aid a year [Reuters, AP and followup, Al-Jazeera]
- Members of Ramapough tribe in New Jersey sue Hollywood over “Out of the Furnace” depiction [AP]
- “California’s New Law Shows It’s Not Easy To Regulate Revenge Porn” [Eric Goldman]
- Catching up on the Ampersand case, where the NLRB got slapped down trying to restrict newspaper owner’s First Amendment rights [Harry G. Hutchison]
- Video interview with noted civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate [Cato]
Supreme Court on civil procedure: calm and unanimous
One (Hood v. AU Optronics) went for plaintiffs, the other (Daimler AG v. Bauman) for defendants, but both were unanimous, in another indication that the work of the Justices rises well above the silly caricature offered by critics like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (“wholly owned subsidiary of Big Business,” etc.) I explain at Cato at Liberty. While Justice Sotomayor in a separate concurrence took a different approach to the problems of general jurisdiction, it arrived at the same place with respect to the unreasonableness of suing Daimler in California over faraway conduct.
For more on the Warren outburst, see Ramesh Ponnuru last September. Earlier links on the AU Optronics case here and here. Similarly: Josh Blackman.
More: While concurring in the result of Daimler v. Bauman, Justice Sotomayor sharply differed on the reasoning, which resulted in some unusually strong language directed at her from Justice Ginsburg writing for the other eight Justices [Blackman] Eugene Volokh considers the foreign-law angle. (& welcome Amy Howe/SCOTUSBlog readers)
“Newtown: The moral panic that wasn’t”
After the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary a year ago, “the president appeared comparatively restrained next to the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, who breathlessly demanded ‘an active national database of the mentally ill’ and federally funded ‘armed police officers in every school’ or Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who proposed legislation encouraging governors to call out the National Guard for school shootings.” Fortunately cooler heads have prevailed [Gene Healy, Washington Examiner]
Recess appointments at the Supreme Court
Explainers by Trevor Burrus and William Baude at Forbes and by Nina Totenberg at NPR . “Noel Canning” is a packaging company in Yakima, Wash., not a person like Noel Coward, but confusingly enough is represented by Noel Francisco of Jones Day, who is a person. Coverage of yesterday’s Supreme Court argument from Cato’s Ilya Shapiro, who says the argument went very badly for the administration’s claims of executive power. “At one point during argument, SG Verrilli argued for Schroedinger’s Senate: in session re 20th Am, not in session for Recess Appts Clause.” [@ishapiro] Cato’s brief in the case is here.
California mandates gloves for all food handling
Chefs “hate” the idea of using gloves or tongs on everything, says the L.A. Times, and the epic volume of plastic disposables that will have to be run through daily will make a bad joke out of the bag bans popular in the state, but the legislature was unswayed:
Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation that made changes to the California Retail Food Code in an effort to curtail foodborne illnesses, and those changes include a law that says “food employees shall not contact exposed, ready-to-eat food with their bare hands.”
That means cooks must wear single-use gloves or use utensils when handling food such as sushi, bread, fresh fruit and vegetables and any cooked components of dishes that will be plated for customers.
Some opinions from Twitter:
California-Crazy: New law requires bartenders to wear gloves or use tongs while adding drink garnish – plus all chefs
http://t.co/P75vAHkLzK
— Mark Lee (@MarkLeeDC) January 11, 2014
Thank goodness gloves don't get dirty! Pointless. Chefs hate new law requiring them to wear gloves: 'It's terrible' http://t.co/Q5T85zvave
— Alicia (@Jedimaster128) January 13, 2014
"I bet it’s three months before a glove shows up in a salad." The end of the cooking craft is nigh: http://t.co/bc61JwLFom
— christophehille (@christophehille) January 12, 2014
Not a good idea. Wearing gloves is a crutch to washing hands and being sanitary. http://t.co/moJfCnhQnf
— Jamie DeRosa (@JamieDeRosa) January 9, 2014
You're going to eat raw fish, and you're worried about what's on the chef's hands? http://t.co/J3Yhy3fiSP
— David Freddoso (@freddoso) January 11, 2014
P.S. Cookery writer Michael Ruhlman has more to say here (“at any busy restaurant, my experience has been that the cooks’ hands are the cleanest in the place. You’re more likely to pick up germs from the waiter’s hand that sets your plate before you — but you don’t hear the legislators clamoring for this.”)
Crime and punishment roundup
- Under new Illinois law, third offense of tossing cigarette to ground will be a felony [Andrew Stuttaford]
- “The New York Times calls for prosecutors to establish an ‘open file’ policy to combat prosecutorial misconduct.” [Nicole Hyland, LEF; New York Times; Radley Balko, whose column at the Washington Post has now launched]
- “Three Arrests Illustrate the Impact of New York’s Silly Seven-Round Ammunition Limit” [Jacob Sullum]
- Forfeiture reform on the agenda in Michigan? [John Ross/Reason, Institute for Justice, earlier]
- Speaking of law enforcement for profit, more on the proliferation of fees and third-party collectors that can land minor miscreants in “debtors’ prison” [Fox News; related, Balko]
- “Want to stop repeats of Columbine and Newtown? Deprive mass killers of the spotlight. Can the media do that?” [Ari Schulman, WSJ via @garyrosenwsj]
- “She’s regretted the lie that sent him to prison ever since.” [NY Mag]
“Efforts under way to convene ‘common law grand juries'”
No, a random group of discontented citizens can’t declare itself a grand jury. Good grief. [Bozeman Daily Chronicle; compare frivolous “sovereign citizen” claims] More: Greenfield.
Uninsured drivers: “no pay, no play”
At least ten states have now adopted variations on the idea that motorists who unlawfully drive without insurance should give up at least some of their right to sue for pain and suffering in a later accident. Missouri has become the latest, its legislature overriding a veto by Gov. Jay Nixon (D). Organized insurers have backed the idea, which one recent study says can reduce the number of drivers on the road without insurance. It should be noted that trial lawyers’ collective interest in the issue is subject to some ambiguity: while they will recover less in a given lawsuit if their uninsured-motorist client cannot sue for pain and suffering, a rise in the share of drivers that are insured improves their chances of recovering funds in cases generally. [Insurance Journal, Billy Smith/Wolters Kluwer Compliance Corner, PCIAA, Susan Ladika/CarInsurance.com]