In many states, a criminal record acts as bar to obtaining a license even for occupations unrelated to the offense, a problem that has tended to grow as more and more positions in the economy are subject to licensure [Eric Boehm, Reason]
Archive for August, 2017
“And he disrespected the Wu-Tang Clan.”
Highlights from the jury selection process in the Martin Shkreli case. “More than two hundred potential jurors were excused from the trial.” [Harper’s]
Update: jury acquits in Nevada Bundy standoff
“For the second time this year, the federal government tried and failed to convict four men who joined the high-profile Bundy family in its 2014 [Nevada] standoff with federal agents in a dispute over grazing fees for cattle.” Two defendants were acquitted of all charges, and two others were acquitted of most with the jury hanging on the remainder. [Melissa Etehad and David Montero, L.A. Times] Both the armed Nevada standoff, and the later Bundy family takeover of the unoccupied Malheur wildlife refuge in Oregon, played at the time as big crisis stories. Despite the weakness of many of the underlying legal claims about land advanced by the protesters, federal prosecutors have struggled to obtain convictions; the Oregon takeover resulted in acquittals in October [our earlier coverage] [revised and corrected; an earlier version of this post had been based on confused chronology]
Supreme Court and constitutional law roundup
- Litigating the boundaries of religious liberty: Tunku Varadarajan interview/profile with Becket Fund’s Montse Alvarado [WSJ] And mark your calendar for Sept. 28, Cato’s inaugural day-long conference “The Future of the First Amendment” at which I’ll be on a panel on religious liberty;
- What Hamilton wrote: archive find casts further doubt on theory President isn’t “officer” subject to Emoluments Clause [Brianne Gorod, Take Care] Broad definition of emoluments in suit against Trump might trip up its own lead plaintiff, Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal [Michael Stern] “There is nothing wrong with Justice Gorsuch speaking at the luncheon despite its venue.” [Steve Lubet on Trump-Hotel-as-speech-venue flap]
- Duties of celebration: Cato amicus urges SCOTUS to consolidate Arlene’s Florist with Masterpiece Cakeshop case [Ilya Shapiro and David McDonald]
- Maryland gun ban unconstitutionally broad, argue Randy Barnett and Dave Kopel in Cato amicus [Shapiro, Kopel, and Matthew Larosiere] Restore rights to a rehabilitated felon? Sure, says Maryland, but not gun rights. Constitutional check [Shapiro]
- Federalist Society’s annual Supreme Court roundup speech for last term, by Miguel Estrada, is now online. Unfinished business: 10 certiorari petitions from last term SCOTUS justices should have granted [Mark Chenoweth, WLF] And don’t forget to mark your calendar for Cato’s Constitution Day Sept. 18;
- By 2019, constitutional law discussions at America’s top law schools were being conducted entirely in emoji [@tribelaw on Twitter on “First or Second Amendment, pick one” question of whether persons assembling for political protest have right to bear arms at the same time]
Seattle landlords aren’t to know about would-be tenants’ criminal records
“The Seattle City Council approved an ordinance Monday that will mostly prohibit landlords from screening tenants based on their criminal records. Landlords will be barred from excluding people with records in advertisements. When taking applications, they will be barred from asking about records. And in choosing tenants, they will be barred from rejecting people due to their records.” [Daniel Beekman, Seattle Times] Now with more re-education: “Any participation in this ‘conciliation’ process also mandates landlords attend anti-bias training courses.” [Christian Britschgi, Reason]
A win on pretrial asset freezes
Not only a good ruling from the Fourth Circuit, but a good unanimous en banc ruling: the Constitution does not permit the government to freeze untainted assets needed by a criminal defendant to prepare for trial [U.S. v. Chamberlain, with NACDL/Cato amicus brief]
L.A. jury blames ovarian cancer on baby powder, awards $417 million
Does the naturally occurring mineral talc, found in Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder, cause ovarian cancer? According to the National Cancer Institute last month:
The weight of evidence does not support an association between perineal talc exposure and an increased risk of ovarian cancer.
According to the American Cancer Society:
It has been suggested that talcum powder might cause cancer in the ovaries if the powder particles (applied to the genital area or on sanitary napkins, diaphragms, or condoms) were to travel through the vagina, uterus, and fallopian tubes to the ovary.
Many studies in women have looked at the possible link between talcum powder and cancer of the ovary. Findings have been mixed, with some studies reporting a slightly increased risk and some reporting no increase. Many case-control studies have found a small increase in risk. But these types of studies can be biased because they often rely on a person’s memory of talc use many years earlier. Two prospective cohort studies, which would not have the same type of potential bias, have not found an increased risk.
For any individual woman, if there is an increased risk, the overall increase is likely to very be small. Still, talc is widely used in many products, so it is important to determine if the increased risk is real. Research in this area continues.
On the other hand, some experts believe the risks are higher. Our contemporary American legal way of handling this disagreement is to submit the question in a series of high-stakes trials in venues selected by plaintiff’s lawyers, in which juries will listen to a battle of hired experts. On Aug. 21 a Los Angeles jury told Johnson and Johnson to pay $417,000,000 to Eva Echeverria, a 63-year-old California woman who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007. [ Margaret Cronin Fisk and Edvard Pettersson/Bloomberg, ABA Journal, Amanda Bronstad/NLJ, Alison Kodjak/NPR, Eric Lieberman/Daily Caller]
August 23 roundup
- Crash-faking for insurance money, long a U.S. problem, happening in U.K. too [Legal Futures, Telegraph, compare]
- $5000 and an apology for a racist comment on AirBnB? Sounds good. Community service? Even better. A college course too? Why not? Plus more community service? Sure! [The Guardian, ABA Journal; settlement presided over by California state agency]
- Encyclopedia of Libertarianism now free online thanks to Cato Institute. My contribution was on Thomas Macaulay;
- Conservatives! Victory lies within reach! All you need to give up are your principles! [Jeremy Carl and Mark Krikorian, NRO, on idea of regulating social media and Internet providers as public utilities; more from Electronic Frontier Foundation on the new wave of electronic de-platforming; related yesterday on business ostracism]
- Per Judge Easterbrook, caption tells story of case: “The City of South Bend, Indiana, is suing one of its constituent parts.” [City of South Bend v. South Bend Common Council, Seventh Circuit]
- “Difficulty proving ‘criminal intent’ should be ‘a severe, even disabling, obstacle to prosecution.'” [Caleb Kruckenberg on this New Yorker piece deploring lack of more white-collar convictions]
“Blinded by the Eclipse?”
Yes, really; it’s from the Facebook feed of Florida attorney and political hopeful John Morgan of Morgan & Morgan, who has featured in these columns on various occasions over the years. More eclipse-chasing from the firm’s website: “If you’re an eclipse viewer and you’re hurt on someone else’s property, you could have a claim, depending on the circumstance.” [George Bennett, Palm Beach Post]
P.S. According to this Space.com account of the turbulence found on the sun’s surface, “These pockets, or ‘bombs,’ eject plasma.” So that explains it. The sun has deep pockets! (And welcome Ray Dunaway show listeners.)
Good riddance, Operation Choke Point
The Department of Justice has confirmed that it is putting an official end to Operation Choke Point, the under-the-radar initiative by Obama financial regulators to discourage banks from doing business with certain disfavored businesses such as payday lenders and gun dealers. I’ve written a piece for the Washington Examiner on it, excerpt:
The fate of Choke Point should serve as a warning that it’s dangerous to allow those in power to flag legal-but-suspect domestic businesses for shaming and commercial ostracism — especially if the process is covert, and especially if the result is to cut off the outcasts from access to the basics of economic life.
At the same time, it’s significant that the answer to Choke Point was *not* to pass some new law compelling banks to do business with payday lenders, fireworks stands, or X-rated studios.
Part of a free society is that we shouldn’t force commercial relationships on private actors. Businesses — and that includes providers of credit and payments services — should legally be free to follow their conscience.
And Eric Boehm quotes me at Reason:
“It should serve as a warning that the government doesn’t get to flag for banks—or businesses generally—which legal-but-suspect domestic customers it would like them to ostracize,” Olson told Reason on Friday. “Those in power must refrain from signaling that they’d be pleased if certain categories of otherwise legal customer get cut off from their access to economic life.”
Earlier at our tag. More coverage: Politico, Vending Times (vending machine sales companies hail decision).