Staring down in-state protectionism

The Supreme Court will consider whether to grant certiorari in the case of National Association of Optometrists & Opticians v. Harris, in which national eyewear companies are challenging a California regulation that works to the benefit of their locally based competitors. The Cato Institute has filed an amicus brief supporting certiorari, as Ilya Shapiro explains:

Under California’s Business and Professions Code, state-licensed optometrists and ophthalmologists are allowed to conduct eye exams and sell glasses at their place of business, while commercial retailers – such as the national eyewear chains represented by the NAOO – are barred from furnishing onsite optometry services. Since consumers have a strong preference for “one stop shopping” – buying their glasses at the same place where they have their eye exams – California’s law gives instate retailers a crucial competitive advantage. Businesses that cannot co-locate their services have quickly vanished from the market.

The Cato brief argues that by putting the out-of-state chains at an artificial regulatory disadvantage, California is violating the Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause.

International free speech roundup

  • UK: Jack Shafer on the trouble with the Leveson press inquiry [Reuters] Journos already cowed by hostile press laws: “Even foreign dictatorships know how to frighten Fleet Street.” [Spectator] “Even people who RT’d libelous allusions to [him] on Twitter could be sued. … surreal” [BoingBoing, Popehat]
  • Calling people names in Hanna, Alberta, or cheering on those who do, can now expose you to penalties under anti-bullying ordinance [Sun News]
  • “Britain’s High-Tech Thought Police” [Brendan O’Neill] Related, Rowan Atkinson [Telegraph]
  • Language muscle in Quebec: “After series of fire-bombings, Second Cup coffee shops added the words ‘les cafes’ to signs” [Yahoo Canada]
  • Blasphemy law around the world: Vexed with their speech, Egyptian court sentences to death in absentia various persons living in US and Canada [Volokh] “Turkish TV channel fined for ‘The Simpsons’ blasphemy episode” [Telegraph] After using Facebook to criticize politico’s funeral, women in India arrested for “hurting religious sentiments” [AFP] Indonesian man jailed, attacked by mob for writing “God does not exist” on Facebook group [Andrew Stuttaford, Secular Right] “A year of blasphemy” [Popehat]
  • Protesters block student access to “men’s-rights” speech at U. Toronto [Joshua Kennon via @amyalkon]

Chicago law firm benefits from tax whistleblowing

According to the retailers group [Illinois Retail Merchants Association], Mr. [Stephen] Diamond’s Chicago law firm, Schad Diamond & Shedden P.C., has filed no fewer than 238 lawsuits in recent years against retailers small and large, which in its view failed to collect said shipping-and-handling sales taxes. Since the suits have been filed under a “whistle-blower” section of law, the firm is entitled to as much as 30 percent of any recovered taxes as well as attorneys’ fees for its trouble. And because it’s often easier and cheaper for defendants to settle rather than continue to fight, Schad Diamond reportedly has pocketed millions of dollars.

The office of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan says the whistleblower provisions were intended for use by insiders disclosing misconduct rather than by outsiders, while “Illinois Revenue Director Brian Hamer says [the wave of suits] ‘has given Illinois a black eye’ and victimizes those who have made only an ‘inadvertent’ mistake.” [Greg Hinz, Crain’s Chicago Business]

IP and technology roundup

Supreme Court agrees to hear DOMA, Prop 8

But don’t be surprised if the Court decides to punt one or both cases, I conclude in a new online opinion piece at USA Today. P.S. Other commentators independently thinking along somewhat similar lines: Adam Serwer/Mother Jones, Daniel Fisher/Forbes. Note also that I should have described the problem for Edith Windsor as being denial of the spousal inheritance exemption, rather than estate tax.