- “For any value of x, ‘X’s Law’ is a bad idea.” [David Wagner on this Radley Balko post]
- “Politicized hiring at DOJ” shoe is on the other foot now [Caroline May, Daily Caller; Hans Bader/CEI]
- “THE FACTS: Nothing is unconstitutional until courts declare it to be so,” quoth AP. Whaaaa? [Taranto]
- Pull back your town’s Section 8 program, get sued or investigated [James Bovard, WSJ]
- New Jersey Turnpike Authority legal payouts include $150K in legal fees to ADA claimant [Press of Atlantic City]
- NYT’s faux-criticism of Title IX enforcers: colleges aren’t cowed enough by them [Joshua Thompson, PLF Liberty Blog]
- After silicosis-payout scandal, lawsuits aim at defrauded insurer among other parties [Brenda Sapino Jeffreys, Texas Lawyer, earlier]
Posts Tagged ‘constitutional law’
July 18 roundup
- Per New Jersey court, overly sedentary home office job can result in valid worker’s comp claim [Courier-Post, NJLRA]
- Trial bar’s AAJ denies it played “direct” role in backing “Hot Coffee” [WaPo, some background]
- “Cop repeatedly harasses waitresses, never disciplined. Feds defend their civil rights by . . . suing the restaurant.” [Palm Beach Post via Radley Balko]
- On “unauthorized practice of law” as protective moat around profession’s interests, Britain does things differently [Gillian Hadfield via Andrew Sullivan; related, Larry Ribstein] Forthcoming book by Robert Crandall et al urges lawyer deregulation [Brookings]
- “The Treaty Clause Doesn’t Give Congress Unlimited Power” [Ilya Shapiro, Cato on Golan v. Holder case headed to Supreme Court]
- The small bank regulatory shakedown blues [Kevin Funnell] Why is the Department of Justice including gag orders as part of its enforcement decrees against banks on race and lending? [Investors Business Daily via PoL] “Emigrant fights back against mortgage-discrimination suits” [Fisher, Forbes] Dodd-Frank squeezing out community banks [Funnell]
- “North Carolina to Seize Speeding Cars That Fail to Pull Over” [The Newspaper] “With what, a tractor beam?” [James Taranto]
July 15 roundup
- Dreadful “Caylee’s Law” proposals continue unabated [Balko and more, Lowering the Bar, Skenazy, Frank, Somin] Confirmed non-members of Nancy Grace fan club include Stephen Bainbridge and Scott Greenfield;
- Swedish heavy metal fan has musical preferences officially classed as disability [Cowen]
- In welcome Goodyear and Nicastro rulings, SCOTUS reins in “stream of commerce” jurisdiction [Yeary, Beck, Wasserman and more, Lahav, Fisher]
- Federal lawsuit alleges polka song infringement [Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel]
- EPA winning showdown with Texas, power plants may shutter at cost to Lone Star economy [Chron] Don’t dismiss the Texas job creation story — or the role of lawsuit reform [Rick Wartzman, L.A. Times]
- Breyer backs Thomas on recusal ethics [Adler]
- “Clashing Visions of a ‘Living’ Constitution” [William Van Alstyne on SSRN, his Cato lecture last fall]
July 10 roundup
- Jury rejects Jamie Leigh Jones rape claim against Halliburton/KBR. Next, a round of apologies from naive commentators and some who used the case to advance anti-arbitration talking points? [WSJ; Ted Frank/PoL and more; WSJ Law Blog (plaintiff’s lawyers sought shoot-the-moon damages)]
- Time magazine vs. James Madison on constitutional law (spoiler: Madison wins) [Foster Friess via Ira Stoll]
- Andrew Trask reviews new Curtis Wilkie book on the Dickie Scruggs scandal;
- “Right to family life” evolution in human rights law deters UK authorities from deporting various bad actors [Telegraph]
- Paging Benjamin Barton: How discovery rules enrich the legal profession at the expense of the social good [PoL]
- USDA heeds politics, not science, on genetic crops [Henry Miller/Gregory Conko, PDF, Cato Institute Regulation]
- “Legal Questions Raised by Success of Monkey Photographer” [Lowering the Bar]
But is it constitutional?
“Philly judges tell reporter he can’t take notes in court” [Legal NewsLine]
Medical liability reform: the federalism problem
It’s quite real, I argue at Cato at Liberty — and I try to draw some distinctions as to ways Congress could usefully address liability without inserting itself into the proper business of the state courts. More: Adler, Volokh; Reynolds, Instapundit, Turkewitz, Childs/TortsProf, Beck/Drug & Device Law.
Bernstein, “Rehabilitating Lochner”
I haven’t had a chance yet to look through a copy of this new book (whose publication date is today) by George Mason lawprof and Volokh Conspiracy contributor David Bernstein. But it could be a landmark, to judge from the glowing blurbs from a distinguished and very ideologically diverse group of law professors and the excellent May 2 author forum at Cato (in which I turn up in the Q-&-A). Description via Cato:
No Supreme Court decision concerning economic liberty has been more emblematic of the alleged errors of the “old,” pre-New Deal Court than Lochner v. New York, decided in 1905. Upholding contractual freedom against a New York statute that limited the hours that bakers might work, the decision has been reviled by both liberals and conservatives as an egregious example of judicial malfeasance — cited today most often for the prescient dissent of the sainted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Yet the story of Lochner is not over. In a new book that examines the history and background of the case, David Bernstein argues that the decision has been widely misunderstood and unfairly maligned, that it was well grounded in precedent, and that subsequent battles over segregation laws, sex discrimination, civil liberties, and more owe much to the limited-government ideas of Lochner’s proponents.
The book’s available from Cato or the author. You can also read an author interview by Josh Blackman, as well as the book’s introduction on SSRN.
Class actions unconstitutional?
Martin Redish’s work is attracting attention. [“Wholesale Justice” via Trask]
The Constitution’s General Welfare Clause
No, it does not and never did authorize limitless federal power to engage in activities imagined to advance the general welfare [Roger Pilon, Cato at Liberty]
“Overcriminalization and the Constitution”
Brian Walsh and Benjamin Keane of the Heritage Foundation explore the collision between ever-advancing criminalization and the values of the U.S. Constitution. [Heritage Legal Memorandum]