June 27 roundup

  • Judge orders Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach to take CLE lessons as sanction for disclosure and discovery missteps [Lowering the Bar, Jonathan Adler]
  • In 7-2 decisions, Supreme Court of Canada finds it “proportionate and reasonable” limitation on religious liberty for Ontario and British Columbia to refuse rights of legal practice to grads of conservative Christian law school which requires students to agree to refrain from sex outside heterosexual marriage [Kathleen Harris, CBC, Caron/TaxProf, Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, Jonathan Kay/Quillette, earlier on Trinity Western]
  • “Gratiot County, Mich. officials foreclose on 35-acre parcel worth $100k over unpaid $2k tax debt. They sell the property for $42k and keep $2k to cover the tax bill—and keep the other $40k as well. District court: ‘In some legal precincts that sort of behavior is called theft.’ Motion to dismiss denied.” [John Kenneth Ross, “Short Circuit” on Freed v. Thomas, United States District Court, E.D. Michigan]
  • UK: “Obese people should be allowed to turn up for work an hour later, government adviser recommends” [Martin Bagot, Mirror]
  • “Law Schools Need a New Governance Model” [Mark Pulliam, and thanks for mention]
  • “Until 1950, U.S. Weathermen Were Forbidden From Talking About Tornados” [Cara Giaimo, Atlas Obscura]


  • How in the world does the law school requirement for chastity (and only during school?) affect the competence of its graduates? This is simply a war on christianity. The students do not take a pledge to not represent certain groups or violate the law.

    Obese people can come in an hour late? If 40% of adults are obese (depends on your definition) doesn’t this blow up the whole idea of work hours?

    • “How in the world does the law school requirement for chastity (and only during school?) affect the competence of its graduates?”

      It’s not about the competence of the schools graduates, they are deliberately trying to drive students away from the school because they are not towing the line on diversity/discrimination issues.

      “conservative Christian law school which requires students to agree to refrain from sex outside heterosexual marriage

      The schools policy specifies outside of hererosexual marriage, which means that under Canadian law, the school is discriminating against gays/lesbians, since the school doesn’t recognize same sex marriage.”

      Note that this is Canada, and Canada does not protect religious freedom to the same extent that the US does, even with as weak as the US’s religious freedom protections have become over the last several decades.

  • Curious place, the UK.
    From the obesity article:

    “Prof Stephen Bevan has advised the Department of Work and Pensions and is a member of Public Health England’s advisory board.
    He will tell 2,000 medics that obesity should be classed as a ‘protected characteristic’ allowing staff to sue fat shaming bosses.”

    And yet, it’s okay for the schools:


    Another study found one in five Brits said they would object to an obese person marrying in to their family.

    Just a reminder what the 4th of July means to us.

  • The Lowering the Bar post on Kris Kobach states, “[…] because the judge described ‘a pattern and practice by [Kobach] of flaunting disclosure and discovery rules that are designed to prevent prejudice and surprise at trial.’

    If the judge really did state that, she should be ordered back to English class. The word she’s looking for is “flouted.”

    • From Merriams Dictionary:

      Although the “treat contemptuously” sense of flaunt undoubtedly arose from confusion with flout, the contexts in which it appears cannot be called substandard.

  • Not “forbidden” from talking about tornadoes, just “discouraged” from doing so IN FORECASTS (not after the fact). I know it’s not your article, but whoever the headline writer was, gets an F– in synopsizing.

  • In re Trinity Western, a private Christian liberal arts university in Langley, British Columbia, the Canadian Supreme Court claims “the covenant would deter LGBT students from attending the proposed law school, and those who did attend would be at risk of significant harm.”
    1. Why would a person choose to attend a private institution whose rules he/she/it did not intend to obey and whose views are supposedly antithetical to one’s own? Because it is the best Canadian law school? Hardly. It is a proposed law school seeking accreditation.
    2. Does classifying oneself as LGBT require one to engage in sex?
    3. What “significant harm”?
    4. “The Law Society of Ontario applauded the decision for respecting its objective of promoting a diverse bar.” That’s what diversity means, eh?