- Backing down, sort of: “Menino says he can’t actively block Chick-Fil-A” [Boston Herald; Michael Graham on the Boston mayor’s curious standards] Glad for small favors: Maryland public officials have wisely stayed out of the fracas [my post at Maryland for All Families got an Instalanche, thanks Glenn Reynolds] Earlier here, here, here;
- Trying to start a business in Greece? What to expect [Reuters on shrimp farm]
- Proceeds of California’s Prop 63 “millionaire’s tax” were supposedly earmarked for mental health. Here’s where the dollars have actually been spent [AP]
- George Will on prosecution of whale-watcher for “harassing” humpback [WaPo, our January coverage]
- Tries to slide down banister four stories up, survivors now suing Chicago’s Palmer House hotel [Chicago Sun-Times]
- Link bait: the ABA Journal picks the 12 greatest courtroom plays;
- Prop 65 and carryout bags: “California, Land of the Free” [David Henderson]
Freebie phones everywhere
Thanks to the federal Lifeline Universal Service program — you helped pay via an extra line of charges on your own bill — freebie cellphones now abound in many American cities, with 231,000 having been given away in Maryland alone [Fox Baltimore via Amy Alkon]
Farewell to the Ravenna flagpole?
The landmark in the Ohio town near Akron is one of only two survivors from a fashion for giant municipal flagpoles in the late nineteenth century; the other one is in Palmyra, N.Y. “The township trustees say they don’t want to own it anymore because of liability concerns.” [Recordpub.com via Robert Breugmann, Urbanophile]
“Why Does the U.N. Still Exist?”
Even as it performs badly at its original primary aim of providing for international peace and security, its system of sub-organizations branches out into an endlessly ambitious attempt to prescribe international regulations and codes on everything from commerce in firearms to disabled rights. [Kenneth Anderson, Hoover]
Teacher’s union threatens to sue private schools that accept vouchers
“If we do not receive a signed copy of the attached letter from you [agreeing not to accept voucher funds under Louisiana’s newly enacted Student Scholarships for Educational Excellence program] by 4:00 P.M. on Friday, July 27, 2012, we will have no alternative other than to institute litigation against St. Theodore Holy Family Catholic School…” — one of many such letters sent by lawyers representing Louisiana Association of Educators, the state teacher’s union. [The Hayride, Pelican Post]
New Hampshire passes jury nullification law
It’s a fairly mild enactment as these things go, but any hint that juries are free to acquit a defendant to avoid injustice is deeply controversial in establishment legal circles [Tim Lynch/Cato Institute, Radley Balko, Reason]
Or mandate earplugs for DJs?
The Newspaper of Record suggests that occupational-health regulators are improperly dragging their heels about ordering night spots to reduce internal noise levels to which entertainment workers are exposed. [Cara Buckley, New York Times] Earlier here, here.
July 27 roundup
- “Banks push back against lawsuits that target fee-warning signs on ATMs” [NYT via PoL]
- Crash fraud and clinic fraud: organized crime gangs eye insurance money [Dennis Jay, PC360]
- Maryland pit bull ruling endangers dogs that have harmed no one [Wash Times editorial, ABA Journal, earlier] New Jersey town bans dog and cat sales at new pet stores [Asbury Park Press; Brick, N.J.]
- “Cato is mentioned roughly equally by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress.” [Caleb Brown]
- “Futile remedies for mass shootings” [Steve Chapman, Reason]
- “After Awful Tragedies, The Campus Bureaucracy Expands” [Harvey Silverglate, Minding the Campus]
- “Delaware judges mean it: Don’t file derivative suit pre-investigation” [Alison Frankel, Reuters]
A “judicially sanctioned extortion racket”
Shelby County, Ala. judge Hub Harrington had some scathing words for the town of Harpersville and a private probation company over “debtors’ prison” treatment of local defendants milked for large fines and fees. [Birmingham News via ABA Journal] More on abusive fine extraction and privatization of law enforcement here, here, etc.
When regulators retaliate
The uproar continues, and quite properly so (earlier here and here), over the threats of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago alderman Proco (“Joe”) Moreno to exclude the Chick-Fil-A fast-food chain because they disagree (as do I) with some of the views of its owner. Among the latest commentary, the impeccably liberal Boston Globe has sided with the company in an editorial (“which part of the First Amendment does Menino not understand?…A city in which business owners must pass a political litmus test is the antithesis of what the Freedom Trail represents”), as has my libertarian colleague Tom Palmer at Cato (“Mayor Menino is no friend of human rights.”)
The spectacle of a national business being threatened with denial of local licenses because of its views on a national controversy is bad enough. But “don’t offend well-organized groups” is only Rule #2 for a business that regularly needs licenses, approvals and permissions. Rule #1 is “don’t criticize the officials in charge of granting the permissions.” Can you imagine if Mr. Dan Cathy had been quoted in an interview as saying “Boston has a mediocre if not incompetent Mayor, and the Chicago Board of Aldermen is an ethics scandal in continuous session.” How long do you think it would take for his construction permits to get approved then?
Thus it is that relatively few businesses are willing to criticize the agencies that regulate them in any outspoken way (see, e.g.: FDA and pharmaceutical industry, the), or to side with pro-business groups that seriously antagonize many wielders of political power (see, e.g., the recent exodus of corporate members from the American Legislative Exchange Council).
A few weeks ago I noted the case of Maryland’s South Mountain Creamery, which contends through an attorney (though the U.S. Attorney for Maryland denies it) that it was offered less favorable terms in a plea deal because it had talked to the press in statements that wound up garnering bad publicity for the prosecutors. After that item, reader Robert V. wrote in as follows:
Your recent article about the [U.S. Attorney for Maryland] going after the dairy farmers reminded me a case in New York state where the Health Department closed down a nursing home in Rochester. They claim is was because of poor care, the owner claims it was because he spoke out against the DOH.
The state just lost a lawsuit where the jury found the DOH targeted the nursing home operator because he spoke out against them.
According to Democrat and Chronicle reporters Gary Craig and Steve Orr, the jury found state health officials had engaged in a “vendetta” against the nursing home owner:
Beechwood attorneys maintained that an email and document trail showed that Department of Health officials singled out Chambery for retribution because he had sparred with them in the past over regulatory issues. The lawsuit hinged on a Constitutional argument — namely that the state violated Chambery’s First Amendment rights by targeting him for his challenges to their operation.
The Second Circuit panel opinion in 2006 permitting Chambery/ Beechwood’s retaliation claim to go forward is here. It took an extremely long time for the nursing home operators to get their case to a jury; the state closed them down in 1999 and the facility was sold at public auction in 2002.