In Illinois and other states, union-friendly governors have spearheaded efforts to redefine home care workers funded by state programs as public employees, the better to herd them into union representation. The upshot: persons who take care of their own family members in their homes, and accept checks from state programs designed to keep their loved ones out of nursing homes or other institutions, wind up being obliged to take on the status of employees (as distinct from contractors) and pay union dues, whether or not they are so inclined. Critics say the practice raises questions of freedom of association under the Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Supreme Court has signaled possible interest on the part of at least one justice by asking for additional information in the pending case of Harris v. Quinn. [Trevor Burrus, Cato; David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman, NRO; Ilya Shapiro and Trevor Burrus, Cato amicus brief]
Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’
Supreme Court to review Alien Tort Statute
In the case of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, scheduled for argument Tuesday, the Supreme Court will consider curbing the modern scope of the Alien Tort Statute, which asserts U.S. jurisdiction over various human rights controversies arising within the bounds of other countries. [Reuters, earlier] Considering that it amounts to the Law of the Hegemon, the Statute is oddly popular in some Left circles [Kenneth Anderson/Volokh] European governments (Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands) have filed amicus briefs on the defense side [John Bellinger, Lawfare; more, WaPo]
More: The New York Times’s Room for Debate discussion includes a contribution by my Cato colleague Ilya Shapiro. And Point of Law is having a featured discussion on the case with David Weissbrodt of the University of Minnesota and Julian Ku of Hofstra.
A Stuart Taylor, Jr. archive
The author, reporter, and legal commentator has just posted a nicely designed online archive of his work, often linked in this space.
January 28 roundup
- Voters unseat prosecutor in office during Luzerne County cash-for-kids scandal [Wendy N. Davis, ABA Journal]
- Obama plan for mass refinance overriding terms of mortgages “could permanently drive housing finance costs higher” [James Pethokoukis]
- In Sackett v. EPA case, SCOTUS will decide which EPA enforcement actions if any should escape judicial review [Ilya Shapiro/Cato, Adler, Root] Keystone XL episode gives reason to revisit NEPA [Conn Carroll] Ninth Circuit ruling on forest road runoff will test Obama position [David Freddoso]
- Debate at Point of Law on President’s recess appointment power between Jason Mazzone and Andrew M. Grossman;
- Lobbyists help get traffic-cams back on Connecticut legislative agenda [Chris Fountain]
- Read it here first: “Courts push back on bribery prosecutions” [Reuters]
- “In my little corner of the Blawgosphere, few things drive traffic like an Overlawyered link. Thank you, @walterolson.” [George Wallace]
Claim: Clinton offered Baron seat on Supreme Court
Andrew Baron at DemBot, writing on his father, Fred Baron, the late Texas tort lawyer and John Edwards benefactor who was a frequent mentionee on this site (e.g.):
With the strong support of my dad, after Bill Clinton out-raised and then defeated incumbent George Bush Sr., Clinton offered to nominate my dad to become a Supreme Court Judge. My dad actually considered it and even spent a couple of days shadowing one to see what the day-to-day activity was like. He just wasn’t interested. Plus, he would be required to sell his law firm. He told me that it was actually a pretty boring job.
The younger Baron’s piece is worth reading in its entirety for insights into the role and results of political fund-raising.
International law roundup
- More on John Fonte’s new book Sovereignty or Submission [FrontPage interview, W. James Antle III/Washington Times, Clifford May via Israpundit, earlier here and here] U.N. Human Rights Council finds much to criticize about U.S. rights record, including inadequate attention to rights of clean water and sanitation; State Department response to “universal periodic review”;
- “The President Can’t Increase Congress’s Power Simply by Signing a Treaty” [Ilya Shapiro, Cato, on Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Bond]
- Another “international norms vs. American sentencing practices” showdown headed to SCOTUS? [Hans Bader]
- France, Turkey restrict talk of Armenian genocide in opposite ways, and both are wrong [Walter Russell Mead]
- Transnational prosecutions on an inexorable upward arc? Depends on how you count them [Jeremy Rabkin, TAI]
- International law pressed into use to remake family law and gender customs [Stephen Baskerville]
- “Time to Fix the European Court of Human Rights?” [Julian Ku, Opinio Juris]
- “We are fighting the caste system with capitalism”: open market in India helps Dalits [NY Times]
“The Police Have No Obligation To Protect You. Yes, Really.”
In cases such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), the Supreme Court has declined to put police and other public authorities under any general duty to protect individuals from crime. The decisions have been broadly unpopular, but Mike McDaniel at PJ Media takes the Court’s side on policy grounds: “This [lack of a particularized duty] might seem absolutely outrageous, but it is logical, rational, and unquestionably necessary.”
November 23 roundup
- Big win for Ted Frank against cy pres slush funds [CCAF, Fisher, Zywicki, CL&P, @tedfrank (“Ninth Circuit rules in my favor … but I still think I’m right”.)]
- “Can the Vatican Be Subject to ICC Prosecution?” [Ku/OJ]
- “Tennessee: ATS Sues City Over Right Turn Ticket Money” [The Newspaper]
- “Law firms dominating campaign contributions to Obama” [WaPo]
- Does that mean it’s an entitlement? Punitive damage limits face constitutional challenges in Arkansas, Missouri [Cal Punitives]
- Businessman sues to silence critical blogger, case is dismissed, now files suit #2 [Scott Greenfield]
- Going Hollywood? “The Supreme Court should move to Los Angeles” [Conor Friedersdorf]
November 2 roundup
- A request for anti-SLAPP lawyers in Maine and Maryland [Popehat]
- “Gallup: Government Regulation the Top Concern Among Small Business Owners” [NRO Corner] Almost as if in rebuttal to claims from Treasury economist [Business Roundtable]
- Foreclosure law firm in upstate NY under fire after pics posted of its Halloween party [Nocera, Mystal]
- “GAO Report Details Secrecy Of Asbestos Trusts” [Dan Fisher, Forbes] Crown Cork & Seal seeks successor-liability bill in Massachusetts [Eagle-Tribune]
- Case against FMCSA’s rule change on truckers’ hours-of-service [Marc Scribner, CEI]
- Richard Epstein on John Paul Stevens as justice and, now, author [Hoover]
- Feds say lawyer who advised giant theft ring was partly paid in chic shoes and other designer gear [ABA Journal]
EEOC vs. the ministerial exception
Argued yesterday before the Supreme Court, the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC pits the quasi-religion of employment discrimination law against organized religion of every other sort. Guess which side the Obama administration comes down on? I explain in a new op-ed at The Daily Caller. More background: Christopher Lund (Wayne State), “In Defense of the Ministerial Exception”, North Carolina Law Review/SSRN. And per Rick Garnett at NRO “Bench Memos,” the Court’s justices in their questioning yesterday did not appear friendly toward the idea of overthrowing the exception (& followup). According to the L.A. Times and other reporting, Justice Kagan described the Justice Department’s position as “amazing.” More: Marcia McCormick, Workplace Prof (linking to transcript of oral argument, PDF)(& welcome Damon Root/Reason “Hit and Run” readers).