Federal judge: suit can go forward against Cuomo over regulatory squeeze

A federal judge has ruled the National Rifle Association can proceed with its First Amendment suit against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo over his pressure on regulated banks, insurers to cut ties with gun rights advocacy groups like the NRA. “U.S. District Judge Thomas McAvoy questioned Cuomo’s claim that his messages about the wisdom and propriety of providing financial services to the NRA amount to nothing but legitimate regulatory oversight and protected government speech.” [Jacob Sullum and background, Eugene Volokh] “It is well-established under binding federal appeals court decisions that government officials like Cuomo are not allowed to pressure organizations or businesses to cut off services to someone because of their political stances or expression — even when the government official uses informal pressure as opposed to explicit threats. (See, e.g., Rattner v. Netburn, 930 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1991)).” [Hans Bader] Earlier here, here and here (ACLU files amicus brief defending NRA’s rights), etc.

Title IX roundup

Operation Choke Point documents show FDIC brass covertly pressured banks

Since the termination of Operation Choke Point, some have questioned whether Obama-era federal regulators really did engage in systematic and top-down attempts to squeeze off access to financial services for businesses that were lawful but disliked. Now Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) has released documents produced in connection with a lawsuit against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. They show extensive pressure by numerous FDIC regional directors and other officials on regulated banks to terminate customer relationships with payday lenders (the banks were generally already not themselves engaged in such lending). They also include repeated wordings about how higher-ups wanted the pressure applied and that banks’ decisions to cut off customers should be styled as if it were a voluntary choice. [Luetkemeyer press release; Norbert Michel, Forbes; John Berlau, Forbes; trade group Community Financial Services of America]

In the mail: Supreme Court Haiku

Now out: Supreme Court Haiku paperback makes a perfect fun gift for your literary or contemplative lawyer friend.

Banking and finance roundup

Cato-centric edition:

Anti-discrimination law and the future of adoption

I’ve posted before about our July Cato conference on adoption, pluralism, and children’s interests. Now Cato’s bimonthly Policy Report has published highlights of the panel on anti-discrimination law and religious agencies, with speakers including Stephanie Barclay of BYU, Sarah Warbelow of the Human Rights Campaign, Robin Fretwell Wilson of the University of Illinois, and me.

One of my comments about pluralism and freedom in the system: “When I began reading about adoption, I realized for about the umpteenth time how glad I was to live in America.” Not that the system isn’t full of problems: on the grueling 26-year litigation in the New York City foster care case, Wilder v. Bernstein, see this 2011 piece of mine.

November 7 roundup

  • Notwithstanding one-person-one-vote, some House districts do have unusually high or low populations. Main reasons: 1) Small states get rounded up or down; 2) demographics change in existing districts over 10-year Census cycle especially where new housing is being built [Hristina Byrnes, 24/7 Wall Street, I’m quoted]
  • “‘Outrageously excessive’ requests for attorney fees can be altogether denied, 3rd Circuit says” [ABA Journal]
  • Prenda copyright troll Paul Hansmeier, who also did mass ADA filings, pleads guilty to fraud and money laundering charges [Dan Browning, Minneapolis Star-Tribune via Mike Masnick, TechDirt]
  • Thread: calm, factual discussion of Department of Justice brief on Title VII and gender identity [Popehat on Twitter]
  • We’ve often discussed the high cost of the maritime-protectionist Jones Act, and now Cato has launched a Project on Jones Act Reform;
  • “Landlord, a Fairfax, Va. mobile home park, imposes requirement that all adult tenants show proof of legal residence in the country; four Latino families (four men with legal status, four women who are illegal immigrants, and 10 U.S. citizen children) face fines, eviction. A violation of the Fair Housing Act? Could be, says the Fourth Circuit (over a dissent).” [IJ Short Circuit]