Author Archive

February 22 roundup

  • “Freedom of Association Takes Another Hit” as Washington high court rules against florist Barronelle Stutzman [Roger Pilon, Ilya Shapiro, earlier]
  • Aside from chipping away at the rule of law, job preservation via presidential threats may not work well as an economic development strategy [David Henderson]
  • NYC cops shot burglar in rear end and now he wants $10 million over that [New York Post]
  • Granting certiorari in Blackman v. Gascho case would allow Supreme Court to tackle fee abuses in class actions [Ted Frank, Daniel Fisher, earlier]
  • Will competing versions be introduced of FADA, the religious-exemption First Amendment Defense Act? [Jessica Yarvin/PBS, I’m quoted; my take on the first introduced version of the bill]
  • I talked Sunday with Maryland-based blog radio hosts Ryan Miner and Eric Beasley on topics that included the Gorsuch nomination, Chevron deference, doctor-assisted suicide, and redistricting reform [BlogTalkRadio, one of my longer audio interviews at 1:12:00]

Washington, D.C. March 2: Book forum on business and the Roberts Court

At 4 p.m. on March 2 — that’s Thursday of next week — I’m hosting a Cato book forum for Jonathan Adler to discuss his new book, Business and the Roberts Court (Oxford University Press, 2016). Commenting will be Andrew Pincus of Mayer Brown. Details and registration here:

Is the Supreme Court “pro-business?” That’s a claim often heard from critics of the Roberts Court, now circulating once more amid a likely battle over the confirmation of a successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia. But what does the claim mean? Does it charge the Court with ruling wrongly in favor of business litigants, with shaping legal doctrine in unprincipled ways, or with something else? In Business and the Roberts Court, Professor Jonathan Adler assembles essays from scholars who consider how and whether Roberts Court decisions can or cannot be fairly deemed favorable to business. One pattern is that this Court follows doctrinal commitments — in areas from free speech to federalism to employment and securities law — that sometimes though not always coincide with the interests of producers and employers in the national economy. As the Senate considers President Trump’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the vacant seat on the Court, join us for a book forum on one of the most important elements of Chief Justice John Roberts’ rule — and Antonin Scalia’s legacy.

If you can’t make it in person, you can watch live online.

Workplace roundup

  • Bad idea keeps spreading: “Philadelphia to Prohibit Asking Job Applicants About Their Prior Wage History” [Ford Harrison] Bill introduced in Maryland legislature [Danielle Gaines, Frederick News-Post on HB 398]
  • “New York (State and City) Imposes New Rules for Freelancers, State Contracts” [Daniel Schwartz]
  • On the minimum wage, lame reporting and motivated reasoning make war on Econ 101 [David Boaz and Ryan Bourne, Cato]
  • In final Obama days, EEOC finalizes rules toughening affirmative action requirements for federal agency employers regarding workers with disabilities [Joe Seiner, Workplace Prof]
  • Study: Indictments of union officials correlate with close election outcomes [Mitch Downey via Tyler Cowen]
  • “Ohio again tries to restore sanity to its bonkers employment discrimination law” [Jon Hyman]

“Cheating Frenchman sues Uber for unmasking his mistress”

“An adulterous businessman in southern France is seeking damages of up to 45 million euros ($48 million) from Uber over his wife’s discovery of his extra-marital rides, his lawyer and a report said Friday.” According to the man, he once used his wife’s phone to arrange a ride, and although he logged the account off afterward, it continued to send her alerts that revealed his travel activities to incriminating effect. [France 24]

Switcheroo: newspaper publisher threatens to sue politician for libel

A Colorado state senator disparaged his hometown paper, the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, as “fake news” (as well as “very liberal”). The publisher of the family-owned newspaper then responded with an editorial that struck a threatening tone: “see you in court.” [Corey Hutchins, Columbia Journalism Review]

More from Ken at Popehat to newspaper publisher: stop making things worse.