- Supreme Court takes Maryland gerrymander case to go with the Wisconsin one, Gill v. Whitford, on which it’s already heard oral argument [Benisek v. Lamone] I joined Andrew Langer on WBAL Baltimore’s C4 show to discuss the development [listen] More: Linda Greenhouse, NYT and generally;
- Self-recommending: Kevin Underhill at Lowering the Bar is out with his top posts of 2017 and they include “Guy Who Got a C on Constitutional-Amendment Paper Gets Constitution Amended,” “Judge Rejects Man’s Claim to Be ‘Some Sort of Agricultural Product‘,” and “It Is Not Illegal to Drive With an Axe Embedded in the Roof of Your Car”;
- Guess who’s supporting “CPSIA for cosmetics” bill, the same way the largest toymakers supported the original CPSIA fiasco? Right [@GabrielRossman on Twitter; earlier on “Personal Care Products Safety Act” and its predecessors]
- Good. Now eliminate it entirely. HUD suspends until 2020 Obama-era “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH) program [Emily Badger and John Eligon/New York Times, earlier]
- New conspiracy-minded attack on foodmakers’ use of sugar is led by Stanton Glantz. Yes, that Stanton Glantz [Allison Aubrey/NPR, Vaping Post April, our earlier coverage]
- “Five Below, Trendy Retailer, Sues 10 Below, Ice Cream Seller, For Trademark Infringement” [Timothy Geigner, Techdirt]
Posts Tagged ‘housing discrimination’
December 6 roundup
- Torts class hypotheticals come to life: tipsy axe-throwing, discussed in this space last June, is coming to D.C. [Jessica Sidman, Washingtonian] One guess why Japanese “slippery stairs” game show might not translate easily to Land O’ Lawyers [Dan McLaughlin on Twitter]
- “California lawyer pleads guilty in $50M visa scam” [Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal]
- Claim: longstanding practice in Louisiana and Oregon of not requiring jury unanimity for felony convictions reflects states’ racial past [Angela A. Allen-Bell, Washington Post]
- “Judge Halts Copyright Troll’s Lawsuit Against A Now-Deceased Elderly Man With Dementia And An IP Address” [Timothy Geigner]
- David Henderson reviews Richard Rothstein book on history of federal encouragement of housing segregation, The Color of Law [Cato Regulation magazine]
- Class action: sellers of cold-pressed juice should have disclosed that it was high-pressure-processed [Elaine Watson, Food Navigator USA]
July 5 roundup
- Court order (arising from federal demand for information on three accounts) forbids Facebook “from communicating the existence of the warrants to its users” [Paul Alan Levy]
- “The great intellectual property trade-off”: brief guide to IP by economist Tim Harford [BBC]
- Eye-opening if dogmatic history of how federal government and other institutions connived at residential segregation [David Oshinsky in N.Y. Times reviewing Richard Rothstein’s The Color of Law]
- About those “do not remove under penalty of law” mattress tags [Now I Know]
- What comes after a Congressional Review Act (CRA) repeal of a regulation? [Sam Batkins and Adam White, Cato Regulation magazine]
- Estate tax, DC Metro, bogus search-engine takedown suits, and kudos for a Democrat in my latest Maryland policy roundup [Free State Notes]
Supreme Court roundup
- DoJ reverses Obama predecessors’ stance on whether NLRA rights to collective action bar individual-arbitration clauses in employment contracts [BNA via Indisputably; consolidated trio of Murphy Oil, Ernst & Young, Epic Systems Corp. cases] Ninth Circuit OKs California end-run around Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on workplace arbitration class actions, time for review [WLF on Bloomingdales, Inc. v. Vitolo; update on cert denial: Deborah LaFetra, PLF]
- Roberts joins liberals to hold 5-3 that cities can sue alleging Fair Housing Act violations; damages theories are to be constrained, though [Josh Blackman, SCOTUSBlog roundup on Bank of America v. Miami, earlier here and here]
- How much deference should appellate courts give district courts in ruling on subpoenas issued by EEOC? [Ross Runkel and Federalist Society podcast with Karen Harned on McLane Co. v. EEOC]
- Court unanimously disallows stratagem by which class action lawyers voluntarily dismiss individual claim so as to secure immediate appeal of certification denial [Howard Wasserman, James Freije on Microsoft v. Baker]
- Chevron used racketeering law to fend off giant foreign judgment in Ecuador saga, losing side would like Supreme Court relief from that [Paul Barrett, Business Week on Donziger v. Chevron] Update Monday morning: Court will not hear;
- “To Be Liable for Fraud, You Have to Have Actually Defrauded Someone” [Ilya Shapiro and Thomas Berry on Cato cert amicus in SGE Management v. Torres]
May 3 roundup
- Sixth Circuit ruling breaks new ground in disturbing ways: employer can be sued under Fair Housing Act if it withdraws job offer based on disapproval of accepted applicant’s public position on a housing controversy [Linkletter v. Western Southern Financial Group Inc.; Chiodi]
- A request from blogger Coyote: he’s looking to interview folks who run 10-40 employee firms [details]
- “Massachusetts is just one of six states that prohibit employers from donating to candidates while allowing unions to donate,” and the only one that prohibits employers from administering a PAC [Paul Craney and James Manley, Commonwealth Magazine]
- California voters sought to fix gerrymandering in races for state and federal office, but omitted to address the county level. Guess what’s happening now? [AP] No one is really fooled by Maryland legislature’s pledge to reform redistricting if five (5) nearby states all agree to enact exactly the same reforms [Nancy Soreng and Jennifer Bevan-Dangel, Washington Post; Rachel Baye/WYPR and related audio, legislation]
- D.C. should concentrate on deregulating hotel and apartment provision, rather than try to choke off AirBnB. [David Alpert, Greater Greater Washington, rounding up various views] “California will audit Airbnb hosts for racial discrimination” [ABA Journal, Guardian]
- Securities class action settlements continue steep rise [Harvard Corporate Governance Project]
Third Circuit: neighbors who criticized condo residents over emotional support dogs must face civil rights suit
In blog posts and comments, two residents of a Virgin Islands condominium complex criticized two other residents who were (in line with rights prescribed to them under federal law) keeping emotional-support dogs despite a no-dog rule in the complex. Among other statements, one or the other of the two said dog owners would be “happier in another community,” speculated that “diploma mill” paperwork could certify any canine whose owner cared to claim stress, suggested the complex should “lawyer up” and be prepared to go to court to defend its rule against “known violators,” and proposed the dog owners be “ostracized” by other residents.
The dog-owning residents sued the neighbors, along with the condo association and other defendants. They cited federal legal interpretations, which have since been buttressed by a regulation issued in the Obama administration, that hold it “hostile environment harassment” under the Fair Housing Act to make statements that “interfere” with another’s exercise of rights under the law.
Now the Third Circuit, as part of a decision resolving numerous issues about the case, reversed grants of summary judgment in favor of the two blog writers and ruled that they could properly be sued for damages for creating a hostile environment under the Fair Housing Act. It described as “harassment” various instances of their critical speech and noted that a single instance of harassing speech could give rise to liability under the law. It is not clear whether the parties raised, and the court did not make any gesture toward considering, whether some or all of the statements involved might be protected by the First Amendment, which is mentioned nowhere in the opinion. [Revock v. Cowpet Bay West Condominium Association et al., see relevant section VI, pp. 31-41 of opinion via John Ross, Short Circuit]
As Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has pointed out, the Ninth Circuit in 2000 slapped down federal officials for having investigated Berkeley, Calif. residents who had fought a housing project that they believed would bring mentally ill residents or recovering substance abusers (both protected as disabled under the Fair Housing Act) to their neighborhood. “It found this principle was so plain and obvious that it denied individual civil rights officials qualified immunity for” having investigated the citizens. That case [White v. Lee] would appear to stand for the proposition that the First Amendment provides robust protection for much speech that criticizes, opposes, and disparages others’ exercise of rights under the Fair Housing Act, and that the speech does not lose protection just because others regard it as retaliatory or discouraging to the exercise of rights.
More: Hans Bader, Scott Greenfield, and Eric Goldman, who got to the case before either of us.
January 25 roundup
- Four views of the Trump conflicts plan [Milan Markovic/Legal Ethics Forum, Prof. Bainbridge, Andrew Grewal series, Max Kennerly, earlier on Morgan Lewis] And the paper that summarizes the views of President’s most vocal critics [Norman Eisen, Richard Painter, and Laurence Tribe, Brookings, earlier on Emoluments Clause]
- Five years after filing, Michigan consumer’s unusual suit against makers of Ryan Gosling movie ‘Drive’ grinds on [Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter]
- A law unto themselves: Indian tribe expulsions and related governance issues can trample member rights [Brooke Jarvis, New York Times Magazine (“The ejection of tribal members is most prevalent in small tribes with casinos on their land”), earlier on Nooksack controversy]
- “The False Promise of ‘Buy American'” [Dan Ikenson, Cato]
- State travel sanctions against other states: a bad idea in themselves, an insult to constitutional comity, and inevitably a 2-way street [Samantha Allen, The Daily Beast]
- Obama HUD’s far-reaching AFFH (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) scheme now being portrayed unconvincingly as just slight extension of earlier law [Vanessa Brown Calder]
Discrimination law roundup
- Prof. Sam Estreicher proposes safe-harbor rule to overcome disincentives to hiring of costly or risky job seekers [SSRN via Workplace Prof]
- “Muslim flight attendant for ExpressJet suspended, wouldn’t serve alcohol” [Detroit Free Press, earlier]
- Profile of lawyer Joel Liberson, who’s talked many cities into suing banks for big bucks under Fair Housing Act [WSJ]
- “Did the 7th Circuit finally kill McDonnell-Douglas?” [Jon Hyman on “burden-shifting” evidentiary framework in employment discrimination law]
- U.S. Commission on Civil Rights believes law should defer to religious conscience claims “only to the extent that they do not unduly burden” bans on discrimination [Stephanie Slade, Reason; report with nonpartisan sections written by Lenore Ostrowsky] Anti-discrimination laws as applied to private actors restrict liberty and sometimes force conscience [David Harsanyi, The Federalist] “Massachusetts: Churches may be covered by transgender discrimination bans, as to ‘secular events'” [Volokh]
- “Unfair ‘Fair Housing’: The new Obama administration policy to ‘deconcentrate’ poverty is a threat to communities” [Howard Husock, City Journal; Kurtz, NRO]
September 14 roundup
- “Conviction Overturned In Case Of Rutgers Student Whose Roommate Committed Suicide After Being Secretly Filmed” [Mike Masnick, TechDirt; earlier on Dharun Ravi and the Tyler Clementi case generally]
- Report from Denver: “Threat of Lawsuits Crimps Condo Developments” [Chris Kirkham, WSJ]
- “California bans Civil War painting from county fair because it shows Confederate flag. Artist now suing the state.” [Jacob Gershman, WSJ Law Blog; Ken White, Popehat]
- Don’t make housing discrimination law a money tree for municipal government plaintiffs [Thaya Brook Knight and Ilya Shapiro on Cato amicus brief in Supreme Court case of Bank of America v. City of Miami; earlier on municipal suits against banks here, here, here, etc.]
- Federal court: bus company not responsible for what happened to its passenger after she alit in D.C.’s Union Station [Reyen v. Jones Lang Lasalle and Megabus]
- Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and eight GOP colleagues co-sponsor bill to transfer $490 million to United Mine Workers pension fund [Diana Furchtgott-Roth, WSJ]
Baltimore County to consider bill forcing landlords to take Section 8
In suburban Baltimore County, county executive Kevin Kamenetz has introduced a bill to ban “housing voucher discrimination,” that is to say, a bill requiring landlords to take Section 8 tenants. “Kamenetz is required to introduce the bill as part of a housing discrimination settlement with the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development that was reached this year. … If [it] does not pass the County Council, the HUD settlement requires it to be reintroduced in future years.” Landlords and property owners say that it is unfair to force them to enroll against their will in a program with cumbersome paperwork and inspections. [Pamela Wood, Baltimore Sun] HUD is now arm-twisting jurisdictions nationwide into enacting these bad laws; earlier here (bad renter trashes unit), here, etc.
Update: County legislature votes down bill [Baltimore Campaign for Liberty]