Author Archive

Law school appearances: AU, Dickinson

Following my swing last week through Colorado, Wyoming and McGeorge (Sacramento), I’m speaking at lunchtime today at American University-Washington College of Law in Washington, D.C. And — this one a new last-minute booking — on Monday I’m scheduled to speak at Dickinson/Penn State in Carlisle, Pa. (simulcast at the State College campus). Events are sponsored by the Federalist Society and I’ll be discussing Schools for Misrule, my new book on law school progressivism.

April 6 roundup

  • Lack of defect poses problem for plaintiff: Toyota prevails in first acceleration case [NLJ]
  • Australia: writer Andrew Bolt on trial for alleged racially disparaging columns [Herald Sun, Crikey, The Age]
  • “Attorneys Put Themselves Before Consumers in Class Action over Faulty Computer Chip” [CJAC, Frank/CCAF on NVidia case]
  • Ruling by Federal Circuit is thinning out rush of patent marking cases [Qualters, NLJ, earlier]
  • Podcast: Lester Brickman and “Lawyer Barons” [PoL, earlier here and here]
  • “Are class actions unconstitutional?” [Lahav, Mass Tort Lit, on Martin Redish book]
  • “Free speech belongs on campuses too” [Ilya Shapiro, Cato, on Widener case, with kind mention of Schools for Misrule]
  • King Canute turns attention to dry land: states mull bills to forbid use of distressed properties as appraisal comps [Funnell]

Supreme Court to consider scope of ministerial exemption

The so-called ministerial exemption to workplace anti-discrimination laws is not very popular in some quarters of legal academia. Were the courts not to recognize a strong exemption of this sort, however, churches and congregations might be forced to employ teachers or even ministers who hew to doctrines they regard as erroneous or sinful, courts would be thrust into intrusive inquiries as to competing claims of fealty to religious doctrine, and the sorts of court orders often issued to bind the conduct of conventional employers might obstruct believers’ freedom to organize church institutions as they see fit. Now the Supreme Court for the first time has agreed to hear a case construing the scope of the ministerial exemption. As public debate proceeds, some might even wind up concluding that the legitimate liberty interest in freedom of association is so important that non-religious organizations should enjoy it too. [Rick Garnett and Chris Lund, PrawfsBlawg]