- Judge blocks sweeping Obama administration ban on new offshore drilling [Roger Pilon, Cato] Some reasons judge may have found ban irrational [Lowry, NRO, scroll to reader comment; Gus Lubin, Business Insider] More on Jones Act waivers in the Gulf [Bainbridge, earlier]
- Connecticut AG Blumenthal launches investigation of Google Street View [Rick Green, Courant]
- Florida judge tosses out $10 million libel verdict against St. Petersburg Times [St. P.T.]
- Lawyer in British Columbia suspends practice after bizarre jury tampering charges [CBC]
- “Disclosed to death”: why laws mandating disclosure are so overused and overbroad [Falkenberg, Forbes on work of Omri Ben-Shahar and Carl E. Schneider, via PoL]
- Judge dismisses controversial Pennsylvania case against Johnson & Johnson over Risperdal marketing, Gov. Rendell had hired major donor to run suit on contingency [LNL, McDonald/NJLRA, earlier]
- Rick Hills vs. Ilya Somin on federalism and constitutional enforcement of property rights [Prawfsblawg, Volokh]
- Beware proposed expansion of Federal Trade Commission powers [Wood, ShopFloor]
Posts Tagged ‘federalism’
SLAPP bill: advancing free speech at federalism’s expense?
Ken at Popehat: “Let’s get this straight from the start: I’m in favor of anti-SLAPP statutes and vigorous legal protections for free speech. I’m just not convinced that federalizing libel law is the right way to go about it.” Earlier on the Cohen bill here.
November 16 roundup
- German law firm demands that Wikipedia remove true information about now-paroled murderers [EFF] More: Eugene Volokh.
- “Class Actions: Some Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Fed Up, Too?” [California Civil Justice]
- Drop that Irish coffee and back away: “F.D.A. Says It May Ban Alcoholic Drinks With Caffeine” [NYT]
- Profile of L.A. tort lawyers Walter Lack and Thomas Girardi, now in hot water following Nicaraguan banana-pesticide scandal [The Recorder; my earlier outing on “Erin Brockovich” case]
- Federalist Society panel on federalism and preemption [BLT]
- Confidence in the courts? PriceWaterhouseCoopers would rather face Satyam securities fraud lawsuits in India than in U.S. [Hartley]
- Allegation: Scruggs continuing to wheel and deal behind bars [Freeland]
- Not much that will be new to longtime readers here: “Ten ridiculous lawsuits against Big Business” [Biz Insider] P.S.: Legal Blog Watch had more lists back in June.
Howard Dean on Obamacare and med-mal reform
Perhaps the most buzzed-about story while I was on vacation (I’m back now) was the frank acknowledgment by former Democratic Party chairman (and former physician) Howard Dean when asked why liability reform was omitted from the health care redesign. 
From the New York Times “Prescriptions” blog:
The man then asked why tort reform was not part of any health overhaul.
Dr. Dean replied that the more items in a big bill, the more enemies it will have. “The people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everyone else,” Dr. Dean said.
Dr. Dean also said he believed that patients should be able to bring actions against health care professionals, but they should go to arbitration. Then the case could go to trial, he said, but the arbitration verdict should be submitted as evidence. Not much reaction to that either way.
Mr. Moran [Northern Virginia Congressman Jim Moran] then apologized to the man whose identity he had questioned and added his 2 cents about why tort reform was not part of any bill. He said if it were, such a bill would have to go through the judiciary committee, which he said was one of the most partisan in Congress and would never have reported it out.
Commentary: Mark Tapscott/Examiner, Washington Times, Darrin McKinney/ATRA, Dan Pero linking Tiger Joyce/Investors Business Daily, Charles Krauthammer/FoxNews.com via Carter Wood/PoL and NRO “Corner”, Fred Barnes/Weekly Standard.
Relatedly, Philip K. Howard writes on “Stonewalling Legal Reform“, citing a Jon R. Gabel piece in the Times that rebuts a much-touted-by-trial-lawyers Congressional Budget Office report minimizing the likely cost reductions from malpractice reform. From the American Spectator Blog, “Conservative Leaders on Costly Lawsuits and Health Care Reform“. And Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO reiterates his argument that while malpractice reform is a good idea, it shouldn’t be imposed on the national level by the federal government.
More: Jim Lindgren at Volokh Conspiracy skewers an appalling report on health care “myths” which received, but did not deserve, the imprimatur of Indiana University.
August 17 roundup
- Liability protection for doctors, premised on “best-practices” medicine: a proposal to address the federalism difficulties [Bernstein/MacCourt, MI Center for Medical Progress, PoL]
- Fraud in immigration law victimizes both U.S. and aspiring immigrants [NYT]
- Paralyzed while tackling opponent, high school footballer now suing Barre, Vt. school system [Barre-Montpelier Times Argus]
- Memo to Sen. Edwards: voters forgave Grover Cleveland the paternity, but they do mind lies [Mickey Kaus]
- Issue in New Orleans case: defamatory to call tour guides “thugs”? [Times-Picayune]
- No more Lux et Veritas: Yale press
wimps out on Mohammed cartoons [NYT, Moynihan/Reason “Hit and Run”, Steyn/NRO “Corner”, Hitchens] - More on NYC woman’s “wasted-tuition” suit against college [Mark Gimein, NY Mag via Genova, earlier]
- Do we really want to let CPSIA’s drafters within a mile of redesigning our health care system? [Inoculated]
Heritage panel on preemption
I may have a new job as what David Lat calls the “Class Action Avenger” and a new blog to go with it, but that doesn’t mean I won’t be speaking about more general legal reform issues. A Heritage Foundation panel on preemption, featuring Kyle Sampson, former NHTSA and DOT general counsel Jeffrey Rosen, and myself is now viewable online. It’s only fair to note that I cribbed a lot from Michael Greve’s Bradley Lecture on federalism (video), which I can’t recommend enough.
Hey, those stimulus bucks were supposed to be for our jobs!
Rochester teachers threaten to sue over the city’s budget cuts [Democrat & Chronicle] And having taken the king’s stimulus shilling, California finds it is no longer free to cut the pay of the king’s powerful retainers, in the form of SEIU members [Los Angeles Times via J.G. Thayer, Commentary]
More: A followup from the L.A. Times.
Wyeth v. Levine
After the Wyeth v. Levine argument, I worried that the Supreme Court might decide the case on such narrow grounds that it would do little good to confront the problem of trial-lawyer abuse. I now see I wasn’t nearly pessimistic enough.
We can put the nail in the coffin in the idea that this is a pro-business Supreme Court: the 6-3 Wyeth v. Levine decision is the worst anti-business decision since United States v. Von’s Grocery, 384 U.S. 270 (1966). Justice Thomas’s confused concurring opinion is especially disappointing, as it declares an abdication of the Supreme Court’s appropriate structural role to prevent individual states from expropriating the gains from interstate commerce.
Sell your pharmaceutical stocks now, because the Supreme Court just declared it open season on productive business. One should now fear the coming decision in the as-yet-to-be-briefed Clearinghouse v. Cuomo, and the effect that is going to have on an already battered banking economy, as well.
Beck and Herrmann have first thoughts, but are likely to be relatively quiet thereafter.
Update, as Walter points out in the comments, see also Andrew Grossman’s post at Point of Law, and the earlier coverage at that site by numerous authors, dating back to when the case first began making headlines.
Contrary to the suggestion of Justice Thomas, Dan Fisher, this is not a “victory for federalism” by any stretch of the imagination: federalism is a two-way street, and permitting states to impair interstate commerce through a litigation tax upsets the federalist structure of the Constitution. See, e.g., Epstein and Greve.
Did I say anything about punitive damages?
If it’s going to put me in danger of removal from state to federal court, I guess it must have just been a typo. An Arkansas federal court bought the argument. (CAFA Law Blog, Sept. 18).
“The Inverted Federalism of Grider v. Compaq”
As good an argument for the Class Action Fairness Act as any: Trial lawyers sued Compaq in Texas over an allegedly defective disk controller, though none of the plaintiffs had ever suffered a malfunction or a loss of data, alleging a violation of Texas consumer fraud law on behalf of a nationwide class. No dice: the Texas Supreme Court threw out the case, noting that Texas law did not permit the sort of nationwide class action contemplated by the plaintiffs. End of story? Nope: the same trial lawyers filed the same complaint again, this time in Oklahoma state court, and asked the Oklahoma state court to apply Texas law to a nationwide class. “Sure thing!” the court rubber-stamped–applying an ersatz version of Texas law rejected by Texas courts. The forum-shopping was able to extract $40 million in attorneys’ fees from a questionable coupon settlement, as an Overlawyered post noted August 6. The Summer 2008 issue of State Court Docket Watch includes my essay discussing why this is a constitutionally problematic set of decisions by Oklahoma courts–written before, though published after, the Anthony Caso analysis for WLF.