- Full Fifth Circuit agrees to rehear challenge to constitutionality of Indian Child Welfare Act; a three-judge panel, reversing district court, had upheld the law [Timothy Sandefur, my post with Nathan Harvey from earlier this year]
- On basis of lack of complainant standing, but without reaching First Amendment issue, Kentucky high court rules in favor of Lexington t-shirt maker who had been ordered by the city’s Human Rights Commission to print shirts with messages he disagreed with and attend diversity training [ABA Journal, earlier on Hands-On Originals case]
- “Never-ending net neutrality litigation means lawyers always win” [Roslyn Layton, AEI]
- Online political ads and the First Amendment, Frosh and Bloomberg, red flag laws, Orioles as lobbying tool, and more in my latest Maryland roundup at Free State Notes;
- Are hate crimes up or down in number? The government has no idea [Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, I’m quoted; earlier]
- New York City Council adopts foie gras ban to take effect in 2022 [Baylen Linnekin] If you’ve assumed that production of this delicacy is unethical, this article might change your mind [J. Kenji López-Alt, Serious Eats]
Archive for November, 2019
Retailer: sorry about that overreaching trademark claim. Also, we’ve fired our lawyers.
Some outdoor enthusiasts launched a boycott of electronic retailer BackCountry.com after reports that it had unleashed a barrage of trademark lawsuits against various smaller companies that had sought to claim more specialized uses of the word “backcountry.” Company CEO Jonathan Nielsen published an apology and then, according to published reports, went a step further [Adam Ruggiero/Gearjunkie, Jason Blevins/Colorado Sun]
Tort lawsuit named wrong state, described living complainant as dead
Details, always with the picky details: in an opinion written by Justice Jay Mitchell, the Supreme Court of Alabama has thrown out as untimely a tort suit filed against Janssen Biotech Inc. claiming injury from the side effects of a medication. [Charmaine Little, Chamber-backed Legal Newsline] Timeliness wasn’t the only problem with the suit, drafted by the complainant’s attorney wife:
Mitchell noted in the ruling that it was “apparent” from a review of the original complaint that it was copied from another complaint.
“The complaint included numerous factual and legal errors, including an assertion that Tim was dead even though he is alive and claims invoking the laws of Indiana even though that state has no apparent connection to this litigation,” Mitchell wrote.
Constitutional law roundup
- “North Dakota legislators attempt to retroactively change the terms of contracts between manufacturers and dealers of farm equipment. Well, crack open your Con Law casebook because that violates the Contract Clause of Article I, Section 10. So holds the Eighth Circuit (over a dissent), treating the reader to a history of the clause from 1789 to the New Deal and beyond.” [IJ “Short Circuit” on Association of Equipment Manufacturers v. Burgum]
- Subsidies conditioned on, and meant to promote, an official orthodoxy: California moves to approve $50 million state fund for film and TV production earmarked for producers who “share” state’s “values” on reproductive rights [Eugene Volokh]
- Not your usual combination: Cato Institute, Brennan Center, and Sierra Club join in amicus brief to challenge President’s powers under National Emergencies Act to divert funds appropriated for other purposes to construction of U.S.-Mexico wall [David Post]
- Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain on textualism and the future of the federal judiciary [Federalist Society]
- “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law,” declares the constitution of Arizona. While judges in Washington have developed a distinctive jurisprudence based on the similar clause in their state’s constitution, the Arizona judiciary as yet has not [Timothy Sandefur]
- Does the Commerce Clause really empower the U.S. Congress to criminalize acts of animal cruelty “affecting” interstate commerce, whatever that means? [Jacob Sullum]
Arresting bystanders for taking photographs of emergencies
A reminder that if police try to invoke HIPAA, the health privacy law, to keep you from photographing a medical or police incident in a public place, they are almost sure to be talking through their hat. That isn’t how HIPAA works [Tim Cushing, Techdirt, Dallas transit case; earlier on Denver case]
Points for creativity dept.: back from the dead
“A man convicted of murder was rushed from the Iowa State Penitentiary to the hospital in 2015 where his heart was restarted five times. Now he claims his life sentence was fulfilled in his short-lived death, and that he has over-stayed his prison time.” [Anna Spoerre, Des Moines Register]
Climate change roundup
- I was part of an informative panel discussion of “Climate Change Litigation and Public Nuisance Lawsuits” organized by the Rule of Law Defense Fund [watch here] Podcast and transcript of an October update on state and municipal climate litigation with Boyden Gray [Federalist Society] And because it’s still relevant, my 2007 WSJ piece (paywalled) on how contingency fees for representing public-sector plaintiffs are an ethical travesty;
- New York securities case against ExxonMobil goes to trial [Daniel Fisher, Legal Newsline; earlier] At last minute, NY Attorney General Letitia James, successor to Eric Schneiderman, drops the two counts requiring proof of intent, which the state had earlier deployed to accuse Exxon of deliberate misrepresentation. Still in play is the state’s unique Martin Act, which allows finding fraud without proof of intent [Nicholas Kusnetz, Inside Climate News]
- Ninth Circuit panel hears “children’s” climate case, Juliana v. U.S. [Federalist Society podcast with James May, Damien Schiff, and Jonathan Adler; related commentary, James Coleman]
- Bernie Sanders doesn’t really need legal arguments for retroactive criminal prosecutions if he’s got Jacobin on his side, right?
- “Lawyers are unleashing a flurry of lawsuits to step up the fight against climate change” [Darlene Ricker, ABA Journal]
- Who’s backing Extinction Rebellion, the lawbreaking group that blocked intersections in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere this fall? “The answer, in part, is the scions of some of America’s most famous families, including the Kennedys and the Gettys.” [John Schwartz, New York Times]
SCOTUS declines to intervene in Sandy Hook gunmaker case for now
I joined the Lars Larson Show on Tuesday to talk about the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing a suit against Remington over the Sandy Hook massacre to proceed for now [earlier]. The current suit, as green-lighted by the Connecticut Supreme Court earlier this year over a dissent from three of its seven justices, claims that Remington violated the broad provisions on deceptive marketing of a state consumer protection law, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). It should be emphasized that the case is still at an early stage and that the Justices will probably be presented with further opportunities to pronounce on its compatibility with the federal law that pre-empts most gun suits, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
I’ve got a new post up at Cato at Liberty taking a more extended look at the ruling and what lies ahead for gunmaker litigation.
“OK Boomer?” HR law to the rescue!
"Ok boomer" is undeniably age-related comment inconsistent with #ADEA. Make clear unacceptable. If employee does not listen, take prompt and proportionate corrective action. #age #HR https://t.co/zNnHOTL0EX
— Jonathan A Segal (@Jonathan_HR_Law) November 5, 2019
1) Under federal employment discrimination law, employers face higher risk of liability if they fail to take action against stray workplace comments that are derogatory toward protected groups.
2) There is no exception for comments derogatory toward older persons.
3) People will now get warned, disciplined, or fired for saying “OK Boomer.”
Welcome to the House That Social Justice Built!
P.S. To make things clear, whatever lawsuits are at issue are unlikely to be aimed at whoever made the remark, but instead at the employer, which is after all the party with money worth going after. Most likely, claims of boomer insults, overheard or direct, will be used as additional leverage to raise the buyout/payoff level of departing older executives. That is why the employer, in its self-interest, has a reason to suppress such comments before they start. (The tweet above is by a seasoned management-side employment attorney.)
Age discrimination is already by some measures the most successful branch of employment discrimination law for plaintiffs, and it pays off especially in the case of high earners, that is to say persons of middle management rank and above, mostly affluent white males. They can afford to hire good lawyers, the sort who can afford to probe and trawl a large record for age-related remarks. [More: Robin Shea]
Social media law roundup
- Despite warnings that its “copyright small claims” format could call forth a new troll business model and trip up ordinary Internet users, U.S. House of Representatives votes lopsidedly in favor of CASE Act [Makena Kelly, The Verge; Jonathan Bailey, Plagiarism Today; Katharine Trendacosta and Ernesto Falcon, Electronic Frontier Foundation, here, here, here, and here; Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Copyright Alliance and ABA president Judy Perry Martinez (supportive of bill); earlier]
- A social media platform that proposes to vet political claims for truthfulness will inevitably be drawn into taking sides in favor of some political factions against others [John Samples, Cato] You’d think New Yorker writers and New York Times editors would know better: no, free speech is not “killing us.” [same]
- “Top Myths About Content Moderation” [Eric Goldman] And a Cato Daily Podcast about content moderation with Thomas Kadri and Caleb Brown;
- “Attorney Who Sued Grindr Responds Extremely Poorly To The Supreme Court’s Rejection Of Her Section 230 Lawsuit” [Tim Cushing, TechDirt, on “victims’ lawyer” Carrie Goldberg; Cathy Gellis in January]
- It must be campaign season because here come the DMCA takedown notices over fair use [Paul Alan Levy]
- “Facebook isn’t liable for algorithm that put terrorist content in news feeds, 2nd Circuit rules” [ABA Journal, earlier here, etc.]