“[The legal filing] is also plainly a publicity stunt, intended to get you to watch a Bigfoot documentary on Netflix. While writing about it arguably plays into this tactic, I am going to do it anyway because even a petition intended as a publicity stunt should be better than this one.” [Lowering the Bar]
Archive for March, 2018
Taxis have no constitutional entitlement to rules against ridesharing
A federal court rejects claims from Philadelphia cab companies: “Exposing Taxis to Competition from Uber and Lyft Is Not a Taking that Requires Compensation Under the Constitution” [Ilya Somin, Reason]
Uneeda Biscuit vs. Iwanta Biscuit
— From a series of illustrations and photographs used as evidence in litigation, part of an exhibition (“Law’s Picture Books”) at NYC’s Grolier Club of more than 140 items from the Yale Law Library’s collection of images and writings on legal themes. The case of the rival cookie boxes resulted in a court’s finding in 1899 that the National Biscuit Co., maker of Uneeda, was entitled to an injunction.
$850 million Minnesota 3M settlement
In a $850 million settlement of environmental claims by the state of Minnesota against 3M, private attorneys hired by the state will get $125 million, and the settlement fund is structured so as to evade the legislative appropriations power [Youssef Rddad, AP/St. Paul Pioneer Press]
Maligned by litigant, judge goes on to rule in his favor in dispute
To be impartial is an arch-virtue in a judge. Unfairly maligned, the Hon. Gonzalo Curiel did not respond with unfairness in kind when presented with a dispute over the proposed border wall [ABA Journal, earlier on “so-called,” “hater,” etc.]
Liability roundup
- Poster case for cy pres abuse: Cato files amicus brief in Google referral header privacy class action settlement [Ilya Shapiro, earlier]
- “California Court Decision Offers Hope for Procedural Brake on Lawyer-Driven Class Actions” [Glenn Lammi, WLF on Noel v. Thrifty Payless]
- New book details Tampa attorney Brian Donovan’s frustrations with multi-district litigation (MDL) in Transocean spill case [Amanda Robert, Legal NewsLine]
- West Virginia: “House moves to limit Attorney General’s use of settlement funds” [Brad McElhinny, WV Metro News]
- “2017 Civil Justice Update” [Mark Behrens and Sarah Goggans, Federalist Society white paper]
- “Here’s why you’ll be paying more for car insurance if you live in Baton Rouge, New Orleans” [Dan Fagan, The Advocate]
Emily Yoffe at Cato
If you missed the December Cato event with acclaimed writer Emily Yoffe on the problems with campus sex-misconduct tribunals, you can watch here as well as checking out KC Johnson’s live-tweeted summary. Yoffe was joined by commenter Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post and moderator John Samples of Cato, who kindly stepped into my place when I was unable to attend. Earlier here and here.
When law professors sue
Study on law professors as plaintiffs finds that they “generally do a poor job assessing their chances, for they lose much more often than they win.” Also, “many law professors are guilty of a shocking level of thin-skinnedness.” [Robert M. Jarvis, Albany Law Review via Caron/TaxProf]
Great moments in public accommodations law
Gabriel Malor summarizing this Eugene Volokh post: “An age discrimination suit against Dick’s for refusing to sell long guns to individuals between age 18 and 21 looks like a winner in Oregon, where it is lawful for an 18 year-old to purchase one and which has heavy-handed public accommodation laws.”
When can states impose their own conditions on presidential candidates’ ballot access?
My letter to the editor at the Frederick News-Post:
I have myself been critical of President Donald Trump’s refusal to divulge his tax returns, but the bill advanced in the Maryland Senate purporting to make that a requirement for the next presidential ballot in Maryland is partisanship at its most inane. [Sponsors] are here attempting to (1) impose a new qualification on presidential candidates not found in either the U.S. constitution or federal law; (2) do so by means of denying ballot access in their own state, which means by restricting the choices of their own electorate; and (3) do so with the open aim of opposing a single particular candidate.
We may pause for a moment to imagine how this sort of stunt could be pulled by other partisans against other candidates, should it catch on.
No wonder California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) vetoed a similar bill because of the obvious constitutional concerns.
Related: in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1994), a Supreme Court divided 5-4 held that Arkansas could not add to the qualifications for election to Congress enumerated in the Constitution by disqualifying candidates who had already served a set number of terms in office; it also specifically rejected the view that a restriction on ballot access does not act as a bar to office because it leaves open the possibility of running as a write-in.
Note also that the Arizona legislature in 2011, under the influence of “birther” sentiment, passed a measure requiring presidential candidates to provide proof of citizenship in order to get on the state’s ballot. Although natural born citizenship unlike the release of tax returns is of course a genuine constitutional prerequisite for serving as president, the interference with the appropriate distribution of federal-state power, as well as the intent to target one particular candidate, namely birther target and incumbent President Obama, was evident enough that conservative Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the measure.