I’m in today’s New York Post with a second take on yesterday’s Ricci (New Haven firefighters) case. Link thanks: Instapundit, Damon Root/Reason “Hit and Run”. My first take on the decision, at Forbes.com yesterday, is linked here.
Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’
Now up at Forbes.com: my reactions on Ricci
I’ve got an opinion piece up at Forbes.com on today’s Supreme Court decision in Ricci v. DiStefano, the New Haven firefighter reverse-discrimination case. The title: “Sued If You Do, Sued If You Don’t: Through the Looking Glass on Affirmative Action” (& link thanks to Ramesh Ponnuru, NRO “Corner”, Daniel Schwartz, Connecticut Employment Law Blog, Jon Hyman, Ohio Employment Law (to whom thanks for the kind comments as well), and Scott Greenfield, Simple Justice).
Private school, the disabled-rights way
Last week the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the parents of an Oregon student diagnosed with ADHD and other problems could send him to an expensive private school and bill the government for the cost, even if he had not previously been enrolled in a public school special education program. San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders discusses the case and quotes me on a couple of points:
Walter Olson of overlawyered.com nailed the problem with the majority ruling when he opined in an e-mail, “The impulse to get a better shake for one’s kid is universal, but it’s disproportionately wealthy and clever parents, with their hired lawyers and experts, who succeed in using these rules to obtain a private school education at public expense. In this case, the question was whether parents should at least try the public schools’ proffer of special-ed services before declaring them inadequate, which doesn’t seem to me to be too much to ask.” …
Noting that Souter’s dissent was joined by conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Olson noted, “I’m still trying to figure out why being progressive on this issue means siding with the private schools and affluent parents, while the conservative justices are the ones to defend the public school ideal of universal service.”
Saunders also quotes my distinguished Manhattan Institute colleague Jay Greene, who takes a different view. It’s worth noting, by the way, that parents of non-disabled students continue to have no right at all to obtain reimbursement for private alternatives should they decide the public schools are failing their kids. More: Tamar Lewin, New York Times; Zach Lowe, American Lawyer.
And: Scott Greenfield also takes a different view, and Jay Greene explains his reasoning further in comments and at his site.
Monday on the Hill: Justice Delayed, Justice Denied?
I’m speaking on the Hill this Monday along with Robert Alt of Heritage and Ken Boehm of the NLPC on this topic. Monday, June 22, 2009, 12:30 – 1:45 pm, Room B354, Rayburn House Office Building. “It may be an old legal cliche, but several pending cases that have been remanded by the Supreme Court raise the question of whether we face this problem today. Please join our distinguished panel for a lively discussion on several cases that have clogged court dockets in an effort to determine if this old legal cliche is, in fact, true.” And “Food Will Be Served.”
SCOTUS refuses to review Flax punitive damages
I expressed skepticism this summer that the Exxon Shipping v. Baker decision was a positive sign for the Court’s punitive damages jurisprudence. After the replay of Philip Morris v. Williams and, now, the Court’s denial of certiorari in DaimlerChrysler v. Flax this week, I can say I was right.
As readers of Overlawyered know, the Tennessee Supreme Court reinstated $13.3 million of punitive damages over a good-faith dispute over a van’s seat back design (in an accident caused by a drunk driver), giving no credit to the fact that the design in question was safer than federal safety standards, or to Exxon Shipping’s suggestion that punitive damages greater than a 1:1 ratio were possibly constitutionally inappropriate where compensatory damages were substantial and the defendant’s actions were not intentional or done for profit. As I described the case back then:
In 2001, Louis Stockell, driving his pickup at 70 mph, twice the speed limit, rear-ended a Chrysler minivan. Physics being what they are, the front passenger seat in the van collapsed backwards and the passenger’s head struck and fatally injured 8-month old Joshua Flax. The rest of the family walked away from the horrific accident. Plaintiffs’ attorney Jim Butler argued that Chrysler, which already designed its seats above federal standards, should be punished for not making the seats stronger — never mind that a stronger and stiffer seat would result in more injuries from other kinds of crashes because it wouldn’t absorb any energy from the crash. (Rear-end collisions are responsible for only 3% of auto fatalities.) Apparently car companies are expected to anticipate which type of crash a particular vehicle will encounter, and design accordingly.
(h/t Cutting)
Did Sotomayor “save baseball”?
I’ve been added to the contributors at NRO’s Bench Memos discussing the Sotomayor nomination, and my first post skeptically looks at the talking point that she “saved baseball” in 1995.
Symposium: “Replacing Justice Souter”
I’m one of the participants in an online symposium at Reason on who can, should or will serve as President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. I have kind words for Walter Dellinger III, mixed views on “empathy”, and predict that the current surge of activist federal economic policy will contribute to the Court’s docket in coming years. The full list of participants: Radley Balko, Alan Gura, Wendy Kaminer, Manuel Klausner, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Walter Olson, Roger Pilon, Glenn Reynolds, Damon W. Root, Ilya Shapiro, Harvey Silverglate, Ilya Somin, and Jacob Sullum.
Update: Animal rights vs. free speech
The Supreme Court “has agreed to consider whether a law barring videotapes and other depictions of animal cruelty violates the First Amendment.” The law could result in criminal charges being filed over, say, videos of bullfights or cockfights taken in nations where those practices are perfectly lawful, or taken in U.S. states where until recently various forms of animal fighting were lawful. The Third Circuit ruled it an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. [ABA Journal, Lyle Denniston/SCOTUSBlog, Adler @ Volokh; earlier] Nearly ten years ago (yes, believe it or not, this blog will turn 10 as of the first of July) we covered the original federal legislation, and visitors still arrive regularly at this site after searching on the term “crush videos”.
As we noted in a 2006 post, litigators for the Humane Society of the U.S. have been trying to force the U.S. Postal Service to ban the use of the mails by animal-fighting magazines like The Feathered Warrior. Now, according to an HSUS release, they have gotten a judge to order the USPS to reconsider its non-censorship policy. [Rebecca Baker, “Completely Legal” Gannett Westchester legal blog, Apr. 23]
Wyeth v. Levine
After the Wyeth v. Levine argument, I worried that the Supreme Court might decide the case on such narrow grounds that it would do little good to confront the problem of trial-lawyer abuse. I now see I wasn’t nearly pessimistic enough.
We can put the nail in the coffin in the idea that this is a pro-business Supreme Court: the 6-3 Wyeth v. Levine decision is the worst anti-business decision since United States v. Von’s Grocery, 384 U.S. 270 (1966). Justice Thomas’s confused concurring opinion is especially disappointing, as it declares an abdication of the Supreme Court’s appropriate structural role to prevent individual states from expropriating the gains from interstate commerce.
Sell your pharmaceutical stocks now, because the Supreme Court just declared it open season on productive business. One should now fear the coming decision in the as-yet-to-be-briefed Clearinghouse v. Cuomo, and the effect that is going to have on an already battered banking economy, as well.
Beck and Herrmann have first thoughts, but are likely to be relatively quiet thereafter.
Update, as Walter points out in the comments, see also Andrew Grossman’s post at Point of Law, and the earlier coverage at that site by numerous authors, dating back to when the case first began making headlines.
Contrary to the suggestion of Justice Thomas, Dan Fisher, this is not a “victory for federalism” by any stretch of the imagination: federalism is a two-way street, and permitting states to impair interstate commerce through a litigation tax upsets the federalist structure of the Constitution. See, e.g., Epstein and Greve.
Is litigation the answer to the CPSIA problem?
As anyone reading Walter Olson’s posts and Forbes coverage knows, CPSIA is a bad law, with disastrous effects on retailers and small manufacturers.
It certainly seems unfair that Congress can wipe out thousands of businesses with the stroke of pen. It’s certainly bad public policy: as I have written elsewhere, when legislatures act to retroactively disrupt settled expectations, the effects redound far beyond the targeted industries to create uncertainty throughout the economy.
It’s a jump, however, from “bad public policy” to “unconstitutional,” and I am concerned that I see many lay blogs asserting otherwise. Starting in the 1930s, the Supreme Court has given free rein to Congress and legislatures to engage in economic regulation, even when that regulation has dramatic effects on individuals. In cases such as Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 202 (2002), and Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470 (1987), the Supreme Court signed off on the constitutionality of far-reaching regulations, despite the large economic effect on property owners affected by the laws. While conservative justices and scholars have argued that such “regulatory takings” without compensation violate the Fifth Amendment, their respect for the rule of law and the actual text of the Constitution are pooh-poohed by Democrats as following an esoteric (and fictional) “Constitution in Exile” movement. There are, at most, four justices on today’s Supreme Court that would recognize the doctrine of regulatory takings; that number is not going to grow under President Obama (who has explicitly disclaimed any need to appoint judges who merely “follow the law”) and a Democratic Senate.
There exist public-interest law firms like the Institute for Justice that engage in litigation over economic constitutional rights–and, while they take donations, they do so without charging their clients money. I think litigation would be fruitless with the makeup of the current judiciary, but I acknowledge that IJ does do a good job of putting forward its principles, and often leveraging its litigation into political success.
But it concerns me even more to see a website recruiting victims of CPSIA to send money to a lawyer to bring a lawsuit. The attorney, involved, Michael Kushner, is a run-of-the-mill plaintiffs’ attorney without any demonstrated expertise in Fifth Amendment law, but has offered to take the case for a $25,000 retainer–which is certainly not enough to fully litigate this to the Supreme Court. There is questionable ethics, if not outright fraud, in asking parties to what is most appropriately filed as a Rule 23(b)(2) class action to “file forms” and send money to join–the whole point of a class action is that a representative of a class is named who will act on behalf of parties that haven’t signed up. Moreover, the Equal Access to Justice Act permits attorneys who have won constitutional litigation when the government’s position was not “substantially justified” to collect attorney’s fees. And note that at no point in Kushner’s website or the related blog recruiting members does he spell out a theory of legal victory.
Sending money to a lawyer to litigate the CPSIA is throwing good money after bad. That a law is unsound does not make it unconstitutional and vice versa. The road to solving the problem of the CPSIA is through Congress, either by making Democratic legislators see common sense, or electing legislators who aren’t so willing to sign off on bills constructed by trial lawyers to benefit themselves at the expense of society at large. Spending resources on doomed litigation diverts from the pressure needed to get Congress to change its mind.