From Institute for Justice’s “Short Circuit”: “Using publicly available descriptions of property boundaries, startup company draws lines on satellite photos, which helps its customers, community banks, visualize their property assets and identify issues (such as a property’s legal description not describing a completed shape). Mississippi regulators: That is the unlicensed practice of surveying, a civil and criminal offense. Fifth Circuit: There is no occupational speech exception to the First Amendment. The startup’s challenge should not have been dismissed. (This is an IJ case.)” In the 2018 case of NIFLA v. Becerra, the Supreme Court rejected a former doctrine that lower levels of First Amendment protection applied to “professional speech.” “The Board’s expansive regulatory theory would allow it to shut down Google Maps, Zillow and other map-based apps.” [Institute for Justice case page]
- Certificate-of-need laws in 38 states restrict hospital bed capacity by giving competitors a lever to object. More beds would have helped with emergency preparedness [Jeffrey Singer; more from Eric Boehm; bed crisis feared within weeks]
- White House, Congress negotiate on liability-limit measure aimed at freeing up 31 million expired but usable masks; “3M and Honeywell don’t feel comfortable providing them without assurances they won’t be sued.” [Michael Wilner, McClatchy; latest on HHS proclamation] Between death, business interruption, and enormous disruption to business practice, a landscape of litigation opens up [Bob Van Voris et al., Fortune]
- Proposed executive order would bar import of critical medical supplies from China, closing supposed “loophole” that could save your loved one’s life as shortages of ventilators loom [Ana Swanson, New York Times; Greta Privitera, Politico Europe on triage decisions at Italian hospitals reeling under equipment shortages]
- Courts canceling jury trials as virus spreads [Eric Turkewitz] Supreme Court building closes to public until further notice;
- Newark, N.J. threatens to prosecute persons who make false statements about the pandemic [Mike Masnick, TechDirt (“a masterclass in how not to deal with the problem of misinformation about the coronavirus”); Eugene Volokh (while some kinds of lies can be criminalized consistent with the First Amendment, many of those relevant here cannot]
- Memo to HR: EEOC has advised “that taking the temperature of all employees may violate the ADA under some circumstances, but has indicated that the rules may change during a pandemic” [Daniel Schwartz; employee temperature checks in Singapore]
Like a number of other states, Wisconsin by law requires lawyers to join and pay dues to its state bar, which takes stands on controversial issues. Two earlier SCOTUS cases upheld mandatory bar rules. Has the Janus decision changed that? [Deborah La Fetra, Ilya Shapiro, and Trevor Burrus on Cato certiorari brief in Jarchow v. State Bar of Wisconsin; Alison Frankel, Reuters; Eugene Volokh (in second case seeking certiorari, Fleck v. Wetch, Eighth Circuit rejected challenge to North Dakota dues; and note update that Supreme Court has denied certiorari in that North Dakota case); earlier here (Louisiana challenge), here, here (Texas)]
Everyone knew this was the state of the law, and highly unlikely to change, but conservative commentator Dennis Prager had many of his followers hoping otherwise. A Ninth Circuit panel has now ruled that YouTube is not a state actor and that its marketing of itself as a forum featuring diverse viewpoints was opinion and not false advertising. [Nancy Scola, Politico; Eugene Volokh; Prager University v. Google; earlier (many channels not identified with conservative ideas saw far higher shares of their content placed in parental-control category than did Prager); Jonathon Hauerschild, American Legislative Exchange Council last January (YouTube not “public forum” for legal purposes)]
In the 2018 Janus decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects individual public employees from having to financially support unions to which they do not wish to belong. But labor law continues to require “exclusive representation”; individual public employees may not bargain on their own behalf in place of the designated union, nor may they enlist a different union to represent their interests. (Meanwhile, and also problematically, incumbent unions are tasked with a legal duty to represent individual employees even if they reject membership and decline to pay dues.) Jonathan Reisman is an economics professor at the University of Maine-Machias who does not wish to be represented by the recognized faculty union, which he does not believe represents his own priorities either on work-specific issues such as wages and schedules or on public policy more broadly. Reisman is now seeking Supreme Court review of his action seeking relief from exclusive representation on First Amendment grounds [Trevor Burrus and Michael Collins on Cato certiorari amicus brief in Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine]
Josh Blackman spots an article in the ABA Journal proposing a new ABA Model Rule 8.5 that would declare it “a lawyer’s professional responsibility to promote equality in society generally, diversity in the legal profession specifically, and encourage lawyers to devote 20 hours annually to activities directed toward promoting diversity in the profession.” Blackman writes:
The [proposed] Rule adopts a specific philosophical viewpoint–promoting diversity and inclusion–and makes it the orthodoxy for attorneys. Under this proposed rule, those who do not adopt that philosophy will be violating a “duty” and “ethical obligation.” Those who choose not to attend certain CLE classes would now be disregarding an aspirational goal….
Not every attorney agrees that “every lawyer has a professional duty to undertake affirmative steps to remedy de facto and de jure discrimination, eliminate bias, and promote equality, diversity and inclusion in the legal profession.” Far too many attorneys–especially academics–take this statement as an unassailable fact of life. It’s not.
Bar associations exist to promote and regulate the legal profession. They do not exist to promote specific ideologies.
Compare ABA Model Rule 8.4(g), which Blackman and many others have argued is a step toward an unconstitutional speech code for attorneys, and the mandatory statements of support for diversity, equity and inclusion in the University of California system and elsewhere in higher education.
An opinion by the Fourth Circuit sees a big difference between legal representation of unions or complainants — idealistic, pro-rights, good in short — versus legal representation of businesses. Is that so? And should the role of the First Amendment apply equally across the two cases? I explore the case of Capital Associated Industries Inc. v. Stein, from North Carolina, in a new post at Cato at Liberty.
Racial activist Deray Mckesson led a Black Lives Matter demonstration in Baton Rouge, Louisiana that illegally occupied a roadway; in the ensuing confrontations, an unidentified person threw a missile that seriously injured a police officer. Can the officer sue Mckesson for lawbreaking acts that foreseeably created dangerous conditions that led to his injury?
In August a panel of the Fifth Circuit ruled unanimously that the First Amendment did not block such a suit; earlier this month the panel reissued an altered opinion after one of its members, Judge Don Willett, changed his mind and wrote a partial dissent finding Mckesson to have a First Amendment defense. [Jonathan Adler, Volokh Conspiracy] Central to the constitutional issues at play here is the 1982 case of NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, in which a unanimous Supreme Court held that the First Amendment can bar the imposition of civil liability on organizers of protests even when some participants commit, or threaten, acts of violence.
Eugene Volokh has now written a series of posts on the case. Part I asks: why didn’t Mckesson’s lawyers invoke doctrines precluding recovery by rescue professionals (“firefighters’ rule”) to bar the officer’s claim? Part II is on the tort law side of the case (independent of the First Amendment angle), and so far as I can see Volokh and Willett reach different conclusions. In Part III, Volokh addresses the First Amendment issues, in the light of precedents like Claiborne Hardware. While the analysis is not a simple one, Volokh is “inclined to say that the First Amendment doesn’t require” immunity for foreseeable civil harms resulting from unlawful blocking of public roads as a protest.
- “New legislation aimed at curbing foreign influence in U.S. elections also appears to be aimed at curbing Americans’ influence in U.S. elections.” [Cato Daily Podcast with Caleb Brown and Scott Blackburn of the Institute for Free Speech on SHIELD Act]
- “Everyone always talks about how much money there is in politics. This is the wrong framing. The right framing is… why is there so little money in politics?” [Scott Alexander]
- Free speech advances other freedoms: “Frederick Douglass’s “Plea for Freedom of Speech in Boston”” [Law and Liberty, Kurt Lash introduction] The very idea of a gay rights organization once seemed unthinkable in America, and might have remained so “in the absence of a strong and particularly libertarian First Amendment.” [Dale Carpenter, SSRN and Volokh Conspiracy summary]
- “That unlimited right to lobby the lawmakers who make decisions that affect your life, your family, and your fortune is one that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) thinks American businesses should not have.” [Peter Suderman; Bradley Smith and Luke Wachob, NRO] A federal appeals court says an independent Missouri activist doesn’t have to register as a lobbyist to talk to lawmakers [Cato Daily Podcast with Caleb Brown and Zac Morgan of the Institute for Free Speech]
- “Every Democrat in the Senate Supports a Constitutional Amendment That Would Radically Curtail Freedom of Speech” [Jacob Sullum] Same bunch “Still Fundraising Off Citizens United, Still Wrong About What It Means” [Elizabeth Nolan Brown]
- “Essentially, L.A. has passed a law saying people with one interest in a decision by the council can support candidates, but the other side can’t.” [Christian Britschgi, Reason on city’s ban on contributions by developer but not anti-development interests]
- New federal bill seeks middle ground on LGBT discrimination law and religious accommodation [Kelsey Dallas/Deseret News, “Fairness For All” coalition, sponsor Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) on bill] Early criticism from left and right [Daniel Silliman, Christianity Today; Katelyn Burns, Vox] The impulse to get past Culture War enmities is to be praised, even if, alas, some of the bill’s provisions would extend the coercive reach of federal law in ways libertarians would oppose;
- Third Circuit panel, Judge Thomas Hardiman writing, rules in favor of atheist group challenging Pennsylvania county’s rejection of bus ads. Creates split with D.C. Circuit [Charles Gallmeyer, Jurist; Hemant Mehta; Northeastern Pennsylvania Freethought Society v. County of Lackawanna Transit System]
- “Eighth Circuit holds that videographers have First Amendment free speech right to refuse to provide services at same-sex weddings” [Joseph Singer, KNSI (Minnesota); Telescope Media Group v. Lucero] Update on Sweet Cakes by Melissa case in Oregon [Adam Gustafson, Federalist Society; earlier] Federalist Society teleforum on Brush & Nib case [Phoenix wedding calligraphy] with Eric M. Fraser, Jennifer Perkins, and Jonathan Scruggs, and earlier;
- And speaking of which: SCOTUS should resolve “expressive wedding vendor” issue once and for all [Ilya Shapiro and Michael Collins on Cato certiorari brief in (latest stage of) Arlene’s Flowers v. Washington, noting that “Cato is the only organization in the country to have filed briefs in support of both Jim Obergefell (lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage case) and Jack Phillips (owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop)”; earlier]
- Article takes issue with currently popular idea that claims of harm to third parties should routinely defeat claims to religious accommodation [Mark Storslee, University of Chicago Law Review/SSRN]
- “Top Scholars, Diverse Religious Groups Ask SCOTUS to Reconsider Employment Division v. Smith — Again” [Joseph Davis, Becket/Federalist Society on certiorari petition in Ricks v. Idaho Board of Contractors]