July 18 roundup

  • Per New Jersey court, overly sedentary home office job can result in valid worker’s comp claim [Courier-Post, NJLRA]
  • Trial bar’s AAJ denies it played “direct” role in backing “Hot Coffee” [WaPo, some background]
  • “Cop repeatedly harasses waitresses, never disciplined. Feds defend their civil rights by . . . suing the restaurant.” [Palm Beach Post via Radley Balko]
  • On “unauthorized practice of law” as protective moat around profession’s interests, Britain does things differently [Gillian Hadfield via Andrew Sullivan; related, Larry Ribstein] Forthcoming book by Robert Crandall et al urges lawyer deregulation [Brookings]
  • “The Treaty Clause Doesn’t Give Congress Unlimited Power” [Ilya Shapiro, Cato on Golan v. Holder case headed to Supreme Court]
  • The small bank regulatory shakedown blues [Kevin Funnell] Why is the Department of Justice including gag orders as part of its enforcement decrees against banks on race and lending? [Investors Business Daily via PoL] “Emigrant fights back against mortgage-discrimination suits” [Fisher, Forbes] Dodd-Frank squeezing out community banks [Funnell]
  • “North Carolina to Seize Speeding Cars That Fail to Pull Over” [The Newspaper] “With what, a tractor beam?” [James Taranto]


  • Did anyone ever say “direct” or are you quoting direct quoting the article? This makes a huge difference.

  • With a Department of Justice like this, who needs criminals? What they are doing to these banks is misuse of authority at the least and you could probably make a case for extortion. Then you have “Operation Gunrunner” or “Fast and Furious”, giving guns to Mexican criminals in order to justify stronger gun laws in the US, what next?

  • Watch out for that Treaty Clause. We got caught the same way in Australia. Our constitution gives authority to the Federal Government in “international relations”. But our High Court ruled that, if the Federal Government signs an international treaty – particularly the anti-discrimination ones – then what would otherwise be an internal matter becomes an international one. Needless to say, this is something that never occurred to the writers of the constitution, and which they would have rigorously opposed if it had.