September 9 roundup

  • Not a parody: economics professor sets off debate on “ugly rights” with suggestion of making unattractiveness of appearance a protected discrimination-law category [Daniel Hamermesh/NYT, PoL, Eric Crampton, Jon Hyman] Apparently Niall Ferguson needn’t worry [Telegraph]
  • Feds sue banks and more than 130 executives, demanding billions over their role in the mortgage crisis; new “tobacco/asbestos” predicted [Biz Insider, more, yet more] Takes some cheek to cast Fannie and Freddie as victims [John Berlau, CEI]
  • Also on mortgages: Rahm Emanuel’s unsound new “lender must cut the grass” ordinance [Funnell] California AG sues lawyers, telemarketers over class action loan modification scheme; lawyer fires back with civil rights suit [AP, ABA Journal] New York chief judge wants state to fund more lawyers to resist enforcement of mortgages [PoL]
  • Related to last, on Civil Gideon’s “‘impossible dream’ of giving every civil litigant a lawyer” [Benjamin Barton & Stephanos Bibos, SSRN via Instapundit]
  • Fallen tree damage from all these storms? Think twice before taking your neighbor to court [Ilya Somin]
  • Stories you read here first: wider coverage for EEOC suit against trucking company for not letting alcoholic drive [Fox, earlier]
  • Illinois advocates plan push for punitive civil suits against johns, strip club owners, sex-ad websites [NYT]

SCOTUSblog symposium on class actions; Cato Constitution Day next week

SCOTUSblog, the eminent Supreme-Court-watching site, has been running a symposium on the future of class actions after such decisions as Wal-Mart v. Dukes, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, and Smith v. Bayer. Contributors include many names familiar from our columns, including Ted Frank, Andrew Trask, Russell Jackson, and Paul Karlsgodt.

And a reminder to those of you who can make it to the Washington, D.C. area next Thursday: Cato’s annual Constitution Day will feature three outstanding panels reviewing the work of the high court in the past term, including a panel moderated by me and featuring Roger Pilon (Cato) on pre-emption, Andrew Trask (McGuire Woods) on Wal-Mart, and Jonathan Adler (Case Western, Volokh Conspiracy) on climate change litigation. You can register here.

“You have a right to record the police”

The First Circuit federal court of appeals has ruled that the First Amendment protects the right to record police officers’ public activity, notwithstanding a Massachusetts law banning “wiretapping.” Meanwhile, in Chicago, a jury speedily acquitted Tiawanda Moore on charges that she had committed a similar offense by using her Blackberry to record the visit of officers who were attempting to talk her out of a sexual harassment complaint against a member of the force. [Glenn Reynolds, Examiner, Gizmodo; earlier here, here]

“Not every human problem deserves a law”

A veto message from Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, after the California legislature passed a bill imposing a fine on children or their parents or guardians for skiing or snowboarding without a helmet: “While I appreciate the value of wearing a ski helmet,” wrote the governor, “I am concerned about the continuing and seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state.” [John Myers, KQED; text of veto message]

“Cereal Maker Claims Non-Profit’s Bird Looks Too Much Like Toucan Sam”

“The Maya Archaeology Initiative is fighting back against claims by Kellogg North America that a bird depicted in MAI’s logo is too similar to ‘Toucan Sam,’ the fictional spokesbird for Froot Loops cereal.” In a response to the cease-and-desist letter from Kellogg lawyers, the Central American cultural philanthropy “noted the differences between the two toucans, including coloration, beak shape, and the fact that MAI’s bird is based on birds that actually exist in nature.” [Lowering the Bar](& welcome TechDirt readers)