Canadian courts in recent years have ruled that the nation’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms creates an enforceable right to collective bargaining, that is, compels employers to bargain with unions rather than with individual workers over terms of employment. Now the Supreme Court of British Columbia has ruled that the Charter prohibits the provincial government from reserving class size and teacher-student ratios, among other topics, as matters of government policy ruled out of bounds as subjects of bargaining with the teacher’s union. [British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia, 2011 BCSC 469 via Bales, Workplace Prof; related 2009 (Alberta court constitutionalizes mandatory dues checkoff)]
Posts Tagged ‘constitutional law’
Global warming as political question
I’ve got a new post up at Cato at Liberty explaining why the American Electric Power v. Connecticut case — which was heard in oral argument yesterday before the Supreme Court — should be tossed for stating a fundamentally political rather than judicial claim.
More: Adam Chandler at SCOTUSBlog rounds up reporting on the “chilly reception” the case got yesterday before the high court and the “uphill battle” it may face in convincing the justices. As Andrew Grossman recounts, Peter Keisler had a very good day before the court representing the utilities, with Justices Kennedy and Breyer both signaling disapproval of plaintiff arguments, raising the likelihood of a lopsided or even unanimous defense victory. And Jonathan Adler recounts skeptical questioning from Kagan and Ginsburg as well. (& ShopFloor, Trevor Burrus @ Cato)
San Francisco panel: places of public assembly should have to photograph patrons
“The Electronic Frontier Foundation joined civil liberties and privacy groups in criticizing a proposal from the San Francisco Entertainment Commission that would require all venues with an occupancy of over 100 people to record the faces of all patrons and employees and scan their ID’s for storage in a database which they must hand over to law enforcement on request. … Events with strong cultural, ideological, and political components are frequently held at venues that would be affected by these rules.” [EFF]
April 18 roundup
- Time to put teeth back into sanctions: more on reintroduction in Congress of LARA, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act [Wajert, Wood, more, earlier]
- RFK-Jr.-&-friends watch: Environmentalists wrangle in court over “keeper” monicker [Coleman]
- More on Chicago school that bars home-brought lunches [Adler, Welch, earlier]
- Definition of “cyber-bullying” in newly passed Arkansas bill could imperil legitimate speech [Volokh] Related: Harvey Silverglate video.
- Thoughts on a new Hungarian constitution [Ilya Shapiro, Cato at Liberty]
- Court reveals Righthaven’s operating agreement with client newspaper chain [Legal Satyricon, PaidContent, Las Vegas Sun]
- Cops: Ohio man stole gavel from judge [Lorain Chronicle-Telegram, Smoking Gun]
Fastening ethics rules on the U.S. Supreme Court
Easier said than done, especially given the mandates of the Constitution about the structure of the judiciary, warns Brookings’s Russell Wheeler. Relatedly, Ed Whelan at NRO “Bench Memos” scrutinizes the ethics charges floated by some left-leaning groups against Justices Scalia and Thomas in recent weeks (parts one, two, three).
An unconstitutional patent false-marking statute
Along with the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies, I’ve filed an amicus brief (a first for me) urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to recognize the constitutional flaws in the federal “false marking” statute, which empowers private parties to sue over inaccurate (in practice, mostly expired) patent markings on products and collect fines of a generally criminal/punitive as opposed to civil/compensatory nature. Here’s our argument in a nutshell, from the Cato website:
Read On…
Senator Leahy spares Professor Fried…
…from having to explain what many law professors (not including himself) actually think about constitutional interpretation [Ann Althouse]
January 5 roundup
- Notables including Alan Morrison, Richard Epstein, Kathleen Sullivan sign amicus brief urging court review of multistate tobacco settlement [Daniel Fisher/Forbes, Christine Hall/CEI, Todd Zywicki]
- “Congress rediscovers the Constitution” [Roger Pilon, WSJ]
- Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. profiled [Roger Parloff, Fortune]
- When outside investors stake divorce litigants: yes, there are legal ethics angles [Christine Hurt]
- Mexico, long noted for strict gun control laws, has only one legal gun store [WaPo]
- Judge throws out “parasitic” lawsuit piggybacking on Wisconsin drug-pricing settlement [Madison.com]
- Erin Brockovich sequel: Talking back to the Environmental Working Group on dangers of chromium-6 in drinking water [Oliver, Logomasini/CEI]
- “Little white lies” to protect the bar’s image [five years ago on Overlawyered]
FDA expansion bill hits “arcane,” “technical” roadblock
The New York Times and Los Angeles Times are surprised that Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution should have arisen as a stumbling block to the food safety bill passed by the Senate last week. But as I explain in a new post at Cato at Liberty, they shouldn’t be so surprised.
September 28 roundup
- Senators and their Constitutional duties: Christine O’Donnell 1, Dahlia Lithwick 0 [Bernstein/Volokh, Shapiro/Cato, Garnett/Prawfs] More: Ted at PoL.
- 15-year-old sentenced to 20 years for killing dog, family says that isn’t long enough [USA Today]
- “Fla. man settles McDonald’s suit over hot sandwich” [AP, earlier]
- “Blasphemy laws by the back door” [Stuttaford, Secular Right, on UK Koran prosecution] “A Defense of Free Speech by American and Canadian Muslims” [The American Muslim]
- “15 new legal blogs prove the blawgosphere is alive and kicking” [Ambrogi, Law Technology News; reactions, Greenfield and Balasubramani]
- A video on your right to videotape cops [David Rittgers, Cato; Greenfield, Balko]
- “My Lie: Why I Falsely Accused My Father” [Meredith Maran interview, Salon]
- “Judge-Mandated Racial Quotas For Plaintiffs’ Law Firms” [Krauss, PoL]