Litigation and Trial - Max Kennerly : Philadelphia Trial Lawyer Max Kennerly : Business and Commercial Litigation : Civil Attorney : The Beasley Firm : Philadelphia Pennsylvania

One of the true gems of the Internet is TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design), a nonprofit that invites luminaries from a wide variety of fields to give brief presentations about their signature ideas. A quick googling of "Best TED Talks" is well worth the hours of education and inspiration that will ensue.

I was thus disappointed to see that TED invited Philip K. Howard to talk about "Four ways to fix a broken legal system."

I have debunked Mr. Howard's work before (see my thoughts on his "Life Without Lawyers," his "health courts," and his claims about public support for tort reform). The bulk of his talk presents more of the same argument-by-anecdotes and generalized assertions that don't withstand a moment's scrutiny. Despite his claim around the 14:00 mark, I can safely assure my readers that we, as a society, do in fact still have seesaws, swingsets, and jungle gyms. Moreover, his overall argument that these problems are so insidious that you don't even notice them is, to me, unpersuasive.

About halfway through, Mr. Howard moves onto his four propositions, which are:

1. Judge law mainly by its effect on society, not individual situations
2. Trust in law is an essential condition of freedom. Distrust skews behavior towards failure
3. Law must set boundaries protecting an open field of freedom, not intercede in all disputes
4. To rebuild boundaries of freedom, two changes are essential: simplify the law and restore authority to judges and officials to apply law.

To call these propositions "vague" is an understatement.

That said, I generally agree with the first three. Indeed, it seems the irony of Mr. Howard's first proposition was lost on him; although his talk only mentions the former, for each funny story of a fishing lure with a warning label, there's a car manufacturer that bragged about avoiding a recall and ended up needlessly and carelessly endangering millions of people.

The fourth proposition, however, is where Mr. Howard and I diverge. It's not that I believe the law shouldn't be simple or that judges shouldn't apply the law; of course I do. I just don't believe it how he means it, which is to deny individuals the right to a jury trial.

But there's a bigger problem with his talk: the "authority to judges and officials to apply law" he claims should be "restored" never existed, and for good reason.

As part of his simplification argument, Mr. Howard gives, as an example, the United States Constitution. It's "only 16 pages" yet "worked well for over 200 years." Let's take a look at the Seventh Amendment thereto:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

(See the link for primary sources on the Amendment.)

I don't know what Mr. Howard thinks the words "common law" and "rules of the common law" mean there, but to the Framers of the Constitution, "common law" referred to hundreds of years of confusing — and sometimes contradictory — English court opinions.

So much for simplification.

But simplification isn't really what Mr. Howard wants; he wants to get rid of "the right of trial by jury."

That's not "rebuilding" freedom, nor is it "restoring" the way the Founders intended the civil justice system to work. It is a rescission of the freedoms guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment, which expressly preserved the same right to jury trial that was embodied in the Magna Carta and was recognized long before.

Indeed, the English "common law" of which the Framers were so enamored did not give judges any "authority" to usurp the fact-finding role of the jury. Mr. Howard claims that he wants to give judges the power "to apply law," but they have always had that power -- what Mr. Howard really wants is to give judges the power to determine facts, a power that the Framers of the Constitution expressly denied them.

Mr. Howard doesn't want to fix the legal system, he wants to break it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As Howard Bashman reports (along with many others, such as The Legal Intelligencer), yesterday two separate panels on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit simultaneously issued opinions in separate cases in which public-school students created prank MySpace pages about school administrators, were disciplined, and then brought suit alleging violations of their free speech rights.

The opinion in Layshock v. Hermitage School District is here. The opinion in J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District is here. 

In Layshock, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the student. In J.S., the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the school district.

On appeal, Layshock still won, J.S. still lost.

So how did that happen?

Different facts.

Both panels worked off the same law. In Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 513 (1969), the Supreme Court held that student expression may not be suppressed unless school officials reasonably conclude that it will “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.” In Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 678, 683 (1986), the Court upheld the school’s suspension of a high school student for delivering a nominating speech at a school assembly using “an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor” because "[t]he schools, as instruments of the state, may determine that the essential lessons of civil, mature conduct cannot be conveyed in a school that tolerates lewd, indecent, or offensive speech."

At the Third Circuit, the Layshock panel noted:

At the outset, it is important to note that the district court found that the District could not “establish[] a sufficient nexus between Justin’s speech and a substantial disruption of the school environment[,]” Layshock, 496 F. Supp. 2d at 600, and the School District’s does not challenge that finding on appeal.

That killed the School District's argument. Layshock held that, without the nexus, the District had no authority to punish the student.

The J.S. panel described the distinction between its opinion and Layshock:

A separate appeal dealing with school discipline of a student who created a MySpace profile of his principal was filed simultaneously in our Court. See Layshock v. Hermitage Sch. Dist., Nos. 07-4465 & 07-4555, slip op. (3d Cir. Feb. 4, 2010). However, upon review of the holding in that case, as set forth in that panel’s opinion, we find the two cases distinguishable.

Unlike the instant case, the school district in Layshock did not argue on appeal that there was, under Tinker, a nexus between the student’s speech and a substantial disruption of the school environment. Id. at Part IV.A.1. This nexus, under Tinker, is the basis of our holding in the instant case. Rather, the Layshock panel held that the school district failed to establish that a sufficient nexus existed between the student’s creation and distribution of the profile and the school district so that the district was permitted to regulate the student’s conduct. Id. at Part IV.A.2. That panel also held, under Frazer, that the student’s speech could not be considered “on-campus” speech just because it was targeted at the Principal and other members of the school community and it was reasonably foreseeable that school district and Principal would learn about the MySpace profile. Id. at Part IV.A.3.

In litigation and trial, "winning on the law" is important. It's necessary to win the case.

But winning on the law isn't sufficient by itself to win a case.

Facts win cases. Layshock won the facts. J.S. didn't.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Back in December, the Supreme Court held oral argument on Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Though the case raises several issues, the primary question is:

The Florida Supreme Court invoked “nonexistent rules of state substantive law” to reverse 100 years of uniform holdings that littoral rights are constitutionally protected. In doing so, did the Florida Court’s decision cause a “judicial taking” proscribed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution?

(See the summary at SCOTUSWiki for more.) "Judicial taking" is in quotes for a reason: the claim has never been recognized by any Federal court.

The founder of our firm, James E. Beasley, Sr., used to say "law is made on a lawyer's desk."

Let me explain.

Brown v. Board of Education was not a simple change of heart by the Supreme Court. It was the culmination of a century of litigation challenging the treatment of African Americans in education.

Even the reasoning of Brown v. Board of Education — striking down Plessy v. Ferguson by holding "separate but equal" was inherently unequal — was born not in the Supreme Court's chambers in 1954, but on Charles Hamilton Houston's desk in the 1930s. Whole books have been written on the strategy and the years of internal debates within the NAACP as to how to best frame the issue for a favorable Supreme Court opinion.

Courts do not, and cannot, change the law on their own. Federal courts in particular need a "case or controversy" to act at all.

To make new law, Federal and state courts need lawyers who can envision how the law should change before even filing suit, lawyers who can carefully guide the case — from the factual record to the preservation of arguments — through the trial courts and to the Supreme Court with the issue properly framed for judicial disposition. 

All of that happens on a lawyer's desk.

Back to Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. How do you get a court to recognize a claim that has never been recognized before?

First, you argue that precedent has implicitly supported the claim all along:

This Court’s prior cases provide a sound doctrinal basis for adopting a judicial takings doctrine. Specifically, this Court should adopt the judicial takings test articulated by Justice Stewart in Hughes that a state judicial decision effects a taking under the U.S. Constitution when it “constitutes a sudden change in state law, unpredictable in terms of relevant precedents.” See Hughes v. Washington, 389 U.S. 290, 296 (1967) (Stewart, J., concurring).

This Court has expressly held that the Equal Protection and the Due Process Clauses apply to state judiciaries. The Takings Clause should apply to state courts as well. Without such a doctrine, a state is free to clothe one of its agents with the power to violate the U.S. Constitution. Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 346 (1879).

Merits Brief, pp. 17–18.

Second, you argue why recognizing the claim is a good idea anyway:

First, nothing in the text of the Fifth Amendment suggests that it applies to one branch of government and not others. ... Second, the Takings Clause is founded upon basic notions of fairness and justice. ... Third, this Court’s takings jurisprudence provides no basis for distinguishing between action of a state’s court and those of its legislative or executive branches. ... Fourth, if state courts are free to reorder property rights insulated from the Takings Clause’s requirement to pay compensation, then the legislative and executive branches will no longer change the law themselves (and pay for it); rather they will encourage the judiciary to make the change so that the state does not have to pay compensation. ... Fifth, the stability of property rights is the foundation for a healthy economy.

Id., pp. 44–47.

Finally, you address why recognizing the claim will not 'open up the floodgates' to further litigation:

Despite suggestions to the contrary, a judicial takings doctrine based on Justice Stewart’s test is workable and will not result in a flood of litigation. Lower courts have had little trouble recognizing a sudden and dramatic change in property law. ... Moreover, the proposed ad-hoc test can be applied easily just like other ad-hoc tests this Court has developed.

Id., p. 48. Whoever is opposing the claim will inevitably argue that your claim will "open the floodgates," so it is essential that you use some form of the "flood" metaphor. (Don't believe me? Here's all 101 times in the last two years the "floodgates" metaphor has been used in briefs filed with the Supreme Court.)

Will it work? It's hard to tell. Justice Stevens, a Florida property-holder, recused himself, creating the possibility of a 4-4 split, which would leave the Florida Supreme Court's opinion intact and would not create new law.

Moreover, the Supreme Court is typically hesitant to second-guess a state Supreme Court's interpretations of its own laws (unless, of course, the case is Bush v. Gore). Property law, in turn, is purely a creation of state common law, unmoored from even the canons of statutory construction, much less Federal constitutional principles.

If new law is made by this case, it will have been made not in the chambers of the Supreme Court, but rather on the desk of the many lawyers who developed the theory of "judicial taking" over the years and the lawyers filed Stop the Beach Renourishment's petition back in 2004.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sometimes, a police officer's hunch is right:

Columbia [Missouri] Police Officer Jessica McNabb pulled over then-19-year-old Daniel Sanders at Stadium Boulevard and Audubon Drive for running a red light and failing to use his headlights at night. Sanders didn't have a license. He asked for an attorney almost immediately.

After a search of the trunk, McNabb found the body of Sanders' mother beneath a tire — next to a new shovel with the price tag still on it.

Sometimes not:

Jordan Miles, who is black, thought his life was in jeopardy when three white men jumped out of a car on the night of January 11 as he walked not far from his home.

"My son tried to run thinking his life was in jeopardy," Terez Miles said. "He made three steps before he slipped and fell." After that, she said, the [Pittsburgh] police used a stun gun and beat him, pulling out a chunk of his hair.

The criminal complaint says the officers, considering Jordan Miles' appearance suspicious, got out of the car and identified themselves as police. He tried to flee, fell, and then struggled to escape.

The officers "delivered 2-3 closed fist strikes to Miles' head/face with still no effect," and then a "knee strike to Miles' head causing him to momentarily stop resisting," so that he could be handcuffed, the document says.

Miles' mother said the officers did not identify themselves as police to her son, a viola player and student at the city's Creative and Performing Arts High School.

The complaint says the police officers believed Miles was engaged in criminal activity and possibly armed with a "large heavy object." The object turned out to be a bottle of Mountain Dew.

There's a law for both:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ironically, Daniel Sanders might have a better chance of avoiding a conviction for his mother's murder than Jordan Miles has of recovering compensation for his injuries.

Last year, the Supreme Court held in Arizona v. Gant that the Fourth Amendment prohibits "a vehicle search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle," with a limited exception for such searches "when it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle."

Sanders was not pulled over or arrested for his mother's murder, so the exception doesn't apply. There's no doubt that he was "secured" — he didn't even put up a fight, he just asked for his lawyer.

His lawyer has moved to exclude from the trial all evidence found from the search of Sanders' car, including, of course, his mother's body:

In that motion, [Sanders' lawyer] Slusher said McNabb continued to question Sanders after he asked for an attorney and that the search of the car was conducted without a warrant or probable cause. Slusher characterized the search and the continued questioning as unconstitutional and thus inadmissible in trial.

He might win it. I'm sure the district attorney's office is burning the midnight oil to find some daylight in Arizona v. Gant.*

Returning to Miles, it's quite possible that the officers identified themselves as police and that Miles didn't hear them. Police confrontations are often fraught with confusion. Consider this instance:

Defendant Murphy approached the driver's side window and asked Plaintiff to produce his identification and credentials for inspection. (Frohner Dep. at 39.) Plaintiff, who kept his credentials in the door pocket of the driver's side door when driving, (Pl.'s Br. Ex. C at 4), began to reach down to retrieve his credentials. (Frohner Dep. at 39.) As Plaintiff was reaching down, Defendant Murphy shouted at Plaintiff, "keep your hands where I can see them." (Id. at 39-40.) Plaintiff, "[n]ot immediately understanding what was transpiring," continued to reach for his credentials in the door pocket, which prompted Defendant Murphy, who by this time had drawn his firearm, to again shout to Plaintiff to keep his hands in view. (Id. at 39-42.) Plaintiff complied with Defendant Murphy's second order and ceased reaching down to the door pocket. (Id. at 40.)

Frohner v. City of Wildwood, 07-1174 (D.N.J. 2008).

Plaintiff there — who was almost shot — was an on-duty undercover FBI agent. He was approached by a uniformed police officer who had pulled him over in a marked police car. Yet, even he didn't "immediately understand what was transpiring."

Consider what Miles would have "immediately understood" when three men in plainclothes jumped out of a car and started chasing him.

To win in a civil lawsuit, though, Miles has to show more than that the officers made a mistake.

First, he has to show his constitutional rights were violated. Then, he must overcome qualified immunity by showing "it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted." Curley v. Klem, 499 F.3d 199, 206-07 (3d Cir. 2007). Neither is easy to prove; most plaintiffs alleging violations of their constitutional rights lose their cases.

Miles has two constitutional rights that were potentially violated: the right to be free from false arrest and the right not to be subjected to excessive force during an arrest. I don't know what about his "appearance" was "suspicious," but the article reports "the police officers believed Miles was engaged in criminal activity and possibly armed with a large heavy object." From that, we can presume their nominal purpose was to perform a Terry v. Ohio stop and frisk to see if the Mountain Dew was an illegal weapon. If either the judge or the jury believes that, then the officers (really, the City of Pittsburgh, which will indemnify them) are free from liability for the false arrest claim.

When it comes to the excessive force claim:

In deciding whether challenged conduct constitutes excessive force, a court must determine the objective reasonableness of the challenged conduct, considering the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Other factors include the duration of the officer's action, whether the action takes place in the context of effecting an arrest, the possibility that the suspect may be armed, and the number of persons with whom the police officers must contend at one time.

Couden v. Duffy, 446 F.3d 483, 496-97 (3d Cir. 2006). 

Hence the emphasis on the Mountain Dew: the officers want to justify their conduct by arguing "the possibility that the suspect may be armed." It also likely that, at some point, Miles was "actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight," given that he thought he was being assaulted. Such resistance, under excessive force precedent, makes the officers' punching and kicking less "objectively unreasonable."

After showing all of the above, Miles must also show the judge "it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted" to overcome qualified immunity. Miles can't just show what the officers did was wrong; he has to show it was so wrong that the officers had to know it was illegal.

Can Miles do that? Maybe so. Then again, a lot of constitutional rights / qualified immunity cases — like Curley v. Klem, in which a police officer was accidentally shot — end with a jury verdict for the defendant and a speech from the appellate court like so:

The mistake Klem made has undoubtedly been terrible in its long-term consequences for Officer Curley and his family, and we do not for a moment discount the pain, sorrow, expense, and frustration that it has visited on them in their innocence. But a mistake, though it may be terrible in its effects, is not always the equivalent of a constitutional violation. ... "[P]olice officers are often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving — about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation." Graham, 490 U.S. at 397, 109 S.Ct. 1865. Those were the circumstances facing both Trooper Klem and Officer Curley at the George Washington Bridge toll plaza. Viewed from that perspective, Saucier, 533 U.S. at 205, 121 S.Ct. 2151, the seizure effected by the mistaken shooting was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It therefore was not a constitutional violation.

Courts of law, not of justice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

[UPDATE: The WSJ Law Blog rounds up reactions by the parties, while SCOTUSBlog rounds up reactions from the media and bloggers.]

[UPDATE II: For a peek behind the corporate curtain, see the memo that Republican election lawyer Benjamin L. Ginsberg (of Patton Boggs) is circulating. I think he's going too far in his conclusions; as much as he and his clients would like corporations' electioneering to drown out candidates' and parties' own communications, the disclosure requirements — which were upheld by the Court 8-1 — put a significant damper on that, since the money can still be traced to some extent, and since voters can generally discern if an ad is from a campaign or from some shadow group with an Orwellian name.]

The Citizens United v. FEC opinion has been released, with a majority opinion, two concurrences, and two concurrences-dissents, totaling 183 pages. For those of you keeping score at home:

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA and ALITO, JJ., joined, in which THOMAS, J., joined as to all but Part IV, and in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined as to Part IV.

ROBERTS, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined.

SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined in part.

STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.

THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part

Here's how Justice Kennedy (joined by Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts) describe the statute at issue:

The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.

That would, indeed, be unconstitutional.

But it's not actually the law.

Corporations, unions, and nonprofits can do all of the above, they just have to do it through a Political Action Committee. To the five conservative Justices, that, apparently, is too much:

Section 441b is a ban on corporate speech notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak. See McConnell, 540 U. S., at 330–333 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.). A PAC is a separate association from the corporation. So the PAC exemption from §441b’s expenditure ban, §441b(b)(2), does not allow corporations to speak. Even if a PAC could somehow allow a corporation to speak—and it does not—the option to form PACs does not alleviate the First Amendment problems with §441b. PACs are burdensome alternatives; they are expensive to administer and subject to extensive regulations. For example, every PAC must appoint a treasurer, forward donations to the treasurer promptly, keep detailed records of the identities of the persons making donations, preserve receipts for three years, and file an organization statement and report changes to this information within 10 days. ...

PACs have to comply with these regulations just to speak. This might explain why fewer than 2,000 of the millions of corporations in this country have PACs. ... PACs, furthermore, must exist before they can speak. Given the onerous restrictions, a corporation may not be able to establish a PAC in time to make its views known regarding candidates and issues in a current campaign.

For shame. You run a multi-billion-dollar company and, before you can spend millions of dollars to influence an election, the mean old government demands you spend a couple grand on lawyers to set up a separate, regulated entity with disclosure requirements so that the public can actually know who is spending millions of dollars to influence an election.

It's all so unfair.

Justice Stevens' dissent (joined by Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor) starts off with that malarkey: 

The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering. Citizens United is a wealthy nonprofit corporation that runs a political action committee (PAC) with millions of dollars in assets. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it could have used those assets to televise and promote Hillary: The Movie wherever and whenever it wanted to. It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 days before the last primary election. Neither Citizens United’s nor any other corporation’s speech has been “banned,” ante, at 1. All that the parties dispute is whether Citizens United had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period. The notion that the First Amendment dictates an affirmative answer to that question is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided. Even more misguided is the notion that the Court must rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for-profit corporations and unions to decide this case. ...

Pervading the Court’s analysis is the ominous image of a “categorical ba[n]” on corporate speech. Ante, at 45. Indeed, the majority invokes the specter of a “ban” on nearly every page of its opinion. Ante, at 1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 38, 40, 42, 45, 46, 47, 49, 54, 56. This characterization is highly misleading, and needs to be corrected.

In fact it already has been. Our cases have repeatedly pointed out that, "contrary to the [majority's] critical assumptions,” the statutes upheld in Austin and McConnell do “not impose an absolute ban on all forms of corporate political spending.” Austin, 494 U. S., at 660; see also McConnell, 540 U. S., at 203–204; Beaumont, 539 U. S., at 162–163. For starters, both statutes provide exemptions for PACs, separate segregated funds established by a corporation for political purposes. See 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2)(C); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §169.255 (West 2005). “The ability to form and administer separate segregated funds,” we observed in McConnell, “has provided corporations and unions with a constitutionally sufficient opportunity to engage in express advocacy. That has been this Court’s unanimous view.” 540 U. S., at 203.

But what of the so-called "original meaning" of the Constitution — did the Framers intend the First Amendment's broad language to prohibit regulatory requirements for corporate speech?

[W]hereas we have no evidence to support the notion that the Framers would have wanted corporations to have the same rights as natural persons in the electoral context, we have ample evidence to suggest that they would have been appalled by the evidence of corruption that Congress unearthed in developing BCRA and that the Court today discounts to irrelevance. It is fair to say that “[t]he Framers were obsessed with corruption,” Teachout 348, which they understood to encompass the dependency of public officeholders on private interests, see id., at 373– 374; see also Randall, 548 U. S., at 280 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). They discussed corruption “more often in the Constitutional Convention than factions, violence, or instability.” Teachout 352. When they brought our constitutional order into being, the Framers had their minds trained on a threat to republican self-government that this Court has lost sight of.

So much for "originalism."

Stevens' conclusion puts the case in proper perspective:

In a democratic society, the longstanding consensus on the need to limit corporate campaign spending should outweigh the wooden application of judge-made rules. The majority’s rejection of this principle “elevate[s] corporations to a level of deference which has not been seen at least since the days when substantive due process was regularly used to invalidate regulatory legislation thought to unfairly impinge upon established economic interests.” Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 817, n. 13 (White, J., dissenting). At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

It's Kennedy's, Scalia's, Thomas', Alito's and Roberts' country; the rest of us just live in it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last spring, in How To Write Your Brief So That The Judge Will Hate You, I profiled a sarcastic and dismissive brief — filed by attorneys for West Publishing no less, in a case against a law professor — and concluded:

An opening brief filled with sarcasm will perturb a judge doing his or her best to reserve judgment until they've heard both sides just as much as an opening statement filled with indignity will repulse a jury doing their best to be fair and impartial until they've heard all of the evidence.

As Bruce Merenstein posted on The Legal Intelligencer Blog yesterday:

... I was curious when I read numerous reports not long ago of a brief filed by Sidley Austin lawyers in a case in Illinois state court involving claims of innocence by convicted murderer Anthony McKinney. Working on McKinney's behalf are students at Northwestern University's Medill Innocence Project. State prosecutors served subpoenas on the students, seeking to obtain, among other things, video footage of a witness statement and the students' notes. Sidley Austin filed a motion to quash the subpoenas on behalf of the students. Following the state's response to the motion, Sidley submitted a reply brief. It was this reply brief that received so much attention.

... The judge then referred to the brief as "reprehensible," an "editorial" not fit for court, and "dripping with sarcasm." She also compared the brief unfavorably to one she had received earlier that day from a pro se prisoner.

Merenstein didn't think much was wrong with the brief:

My primary conclusion after reading the brief a number of times is that the Sidley brief is well-written, to the point, devoid of irrelevant ad hominem attacks and quite persuasive. While I've seen sarcasm in many briefs (and cringed every time I read it), I looked high and low through the Sidley Austin brief and was unable to find anything remotely sarcastic in the brief. I'm also at a loss as to what is "reprehensible" about it.

I agree that the brief wasn't "reprehensible," but it certainly wasn't a model of courteous advocacy.

 Let's start with the first sentence:

The State's response brief evinces a surprising lack of comprehension of the requirements of the Illinois Reporter's Privilege Act (the ''Act'') and an equally surprising lack of affinity for the important First Amendment νalues that underlie the Act and the role of investigative reporting in promoting those values.

(Emphasis added.) Was it really necessary to accuse the flesh and blood representative of the State of Illinois of being too stupid to understand the state's laws? To accuse them of disliking free speech?

The Sidley Austin lawyers could have just as easily written:

The State's argument, if accepted by this Court, would void the requirements of the Illinois Reporter's Privilege Act (the ''Act'') and would undermine important First Amendment νalues that underlie the Act and the role of investigative reporting in promoting those values.

Same ideas, but without insulting opposing counsel's ability to "comprehend" the law.

Elsewhere in the brief, "The State must not understand the respective roles of government and the media in our society." The remark was simply gratuitous; it did nothing to enhance the argument that followed:

When the State discharges its prosecutorial powers, it does have strict disclosure obligations rooted in fundamental concepts of due process. Respondents have no such obligations. And while the maxim that ουr judicial system is entitled to "everyman's evidence" has currency, ουr society has also long recognized that the fundamental role newsgathering provides in our society places special restrictions on access to unpublished newsgathering materials. "The reporter's privilege has evolved from a common law recognition that the compelled disclosure of a reporter's sources could compromise the news media's first amendment right to freely gather and disseminate
information." In re Special Grand Jury Investigation, 104 Ill. 2d 419, 424 (1984).

A perfectly persuasive and cogent analysis marred by a gratuitous insult. Tisk, tisk.

We've all been there. We've all read briefs and heard oral arguments that were (at least to us) irrelevant, unfounded, or directly contradicted by controlling precedent or the plain meaning of the statute. The Innocence Project's attorneys had every reason to be infuriated by the State's subpoena: there's no question the State demonstrated a surprising amount of contempt for Illinois' Shield Law and for the fundamental free speech values embodied by that law.

But a brief is no place to question the intellect or motives of opposing counsel. Get mad, then get over it.

As James Fallows puts it: Always write angry letters to your enemies. Never mail them.

Always draft angry briefs. Never file them.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Years ago, Jonathan Turley, professor at George Washington University Law School, found himself unable to decide whether he wanted to be a professor or a litigator, so he cloned himself to be able to do both.

I am only half-joking; even after factoring in big firm co-counsel (including associates, paralegals, assistants, et cetera), being lead counsel on major litigation is no joke, particularly if you're up against a well-funded opponent who not only defends the rightness of their conduct, but who conceals and destroys the truth lying at the heart of the case.

Take, for example, Rayming Chang et al. v. United States et al., Civil Action 02-2010, United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Here's some background, courtesy of Washington City Paper:

On the morning of September 27, 2002, D.C. Police had set about to monitor anti-IMF/World Bank demonstrators. By then, the protests and the policing of the protests had become routine, almost boring. There were no major acts of violence, vandalism or unrest that day.

But then the police decided to move on people in Pershing Park. They had funneled protesters into the park. Video taken of the park shows the protesters looking bored, sitting around. There were also other non-protesters in the park including nurses in town for a convention, and lawyers on their way to work.  Without warning, police rounded them up and arrested them all.

Police then transferred the mass to its training  academy in Blue Plains; each citizen was then hogtied and left on a mat for hours. They were all arrested for "failure to obey" an officer's order.

We wrote  a cover story on the arrests. Cathy Lanier had a hand in developing the hogtie tactic.

The controversial arrests hounded then-Chief Charles Ramsey. Then-Councilmember Kathy Patterson conducted an investigation into the incident and issued a devastating report.

The report concluded that Ramsey and Co. did not have probable cause to arrest anyone in Pershing Park, failed to give any orders to the people in Pershing Park (they were arrested for "failure to obey"), and went on to question whether Ramsey lied to the council in his testimonies.

Prof. Turley, along with a number of lawyers at Bryan Cave, represent the plaintiffs, who filed suit in October 2002, less than a month after the incident. For seven years, plaintiffs and their lawyers have exercised their right to civil justice to investigate what happened.

Seven years, you ask? Indeed. The case is a classic example of how a determined, entrenched defendant can abuse the discovery process to bury the truth for years, forcing the plaintiffs to spend thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain basic information.

D.C. has undoubtedly failed to permit discovery: e.g., after filing a motion to dismiss attaching affidavits referencing events outside of the complaint (which is flatly prohibited), defendants turned around and objected to discovery into those affidavits and events. After agreeing to produce some discovery informally, defendants turned around and demanded formal discovery, to which they then objected. After scheduling depositions, defendants canceled them at the last minute, then turned around and claimed the depositions were inappropriate.

Adding insult to injury, all of this litigiousness — all the above attempts to delay and to deny justice in a blatantly obvious case, all 567 docket entries in the case — are paid for by taxpayers not once (paying the Court), not twice (paying the government defense lawyers), but thrice, since attorney's fees are available to plaintiffs who win in constitutional rights / 42 U.S.C. 1983 cases.

Plaintiffs have asked for simple stuff. Stuff that's preserved in the ordinary course of business even when there's no lawsuit. Stuff you'd expect the government that polices our national capitol city to hold on to when they throw hundreds of people in jail for doing nothing more than lawfully attending a protest.

Seven years of litigation later, the police's own activity log from that day (the "running resume") has never been found. Audiotapes of police radio communications from that day have been produced, but with significant gaps.

Gone.

The dog ate it.

The judge isn't buying it:

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan last week blasted D.C. officials for mishandling evidence in a civil lawsuit brought by some of those arrested seven years ago. In an extraordinary rebuke that reduced D.C. assistant attorney general Thomas Koger to tears, Judge Sullivan likened the city's "shenanigans" to the kind of prosecutorial abuses he saw in the criminal case of former senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). The office of D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles was singled out, but the questions extend to police and other officials.

Plaintiffs allege that critical evidence -- such as the "running résumé" of all events and decisions made on Sept. 27 -- was destroyed or lost. Even more troubling is their rather convincing charge that information was deleted from audiotapes supplied to them during discovery. Judge Sullivan has demanded that Mr. Nickles provide a full accounting of the city's "pattern of shortcomings" and "discovery abuses."

Mr. Nickles told us that he is taking the judge's admonition to heart. He has blamed the city's inability to properly manage records during discovery on a chronic lack of resources, but he said he is reserving judgment on exactly what went wrong in this case until he knows all the facts. It's encouraging that he enlisted former federal judge Stanley Sporkin, who is offering his considerable expertise on a pro bono basis, to advise him.

That was a few months ago. As Turley reported Saturday,

For those following the World Bank/IMF litigation, the Attorney General of the District of Columbia has been repeatedly referencing the forthcoming report of his adviser, former Judge Stan Sporkin, on the allegations of the destruction of evidence in the case. Judge Sullivan has previously indicated that he is considering a criminal referral and would wait for the Sporkin Report. The District waited until after 6 p.m. on a Friday night to file the report.

The report states the following:

* “Because the contradictory statement in the record are incapable of being reconciled, we cannot rule out the possibility of untruthfulness or something worse.” (Page 16)

* “We are particularly disturbed by the fact that not only have we been unable to retrieve a hard copy of the Running resume but also that the electronic copy was purged from the system. We have no way of knowing whether this was an act of intentional mischief or reflects a benign action. We do not believe it was the later” (sic) (page 15.)

* “We are particularly troubled by the fact that the group recordation system was purged. It is difficult to understand how something like this could occur innocently.” (Page 16)

Judge Sporkin wasn't hired by the plaintiffs; he wasn't even appointed by the Court. He's D.C.'s own advisor, and he thinks the running resume was intentionally destroyed.

Turley's role in the case precludes him from saying much about the case, but the truth is, everything can be summed up in one word: the whole case — from the arrests to the coverup to the stalling tactics in litigation — is a disgrace.

The Sporkin Report — by no means a whitewash, but an incomplete investigation since he left no paper trail — is only the beginning. If we cannot have the truth, then we must know at least where it went and why. Actions have consequences.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Following up on yesterday's post about "ex parte blogging," i.e. the possibility that the Supreme Court might see a newspaper editorial, article or blog post about a pending case, let's consider the supposed worst-case scenario, in which a Justice sees an editorial, article or blog post which has an effect on their interpretation of the case.

So what?

The Student Note that started the discussion at Balkinzation and Prawfsblog based its analysis on the Kennedy v. Louisiana fiasco, in which a military-justice blogger revealed a significant error in the Supreme Court's opinion, resulting in new briefing and a modification to the opinion.

Kennedy, however, does not show the danger lurking in "ex parte blogging," but rather exactly the opposite: Kennedy shows the danger in relying upon nine people (and their typically fresh-out-of-law-school staff of four clerks each) to set legal policy for the entire country based upon two merits briefs of 15,000 words each and two reply briefs of 7,500 words each. More words are spilled on the Wikipedia page listing the people in line to succeed to the British throne.

The re-hearing and re-writing of the Kennedy opinion was a good thing; we want the Supreme Court's opinions to be based on accurate facts and solid legal reasoning.

We also want those opinions to be as clear as possible; consider Washington v. Davis, the 2006 case in which the Supreme Court laid down an "objective and quite workable" rule that was, quite literally, interpreted differently in every state in the union.

Why wait until the damage has been done — why not invite public comment before the opinions become law?

That's what the other two branches of the federal government do. The United States Congress debates bills for weeks, sometime months, prior to passage, all of which you can see on the Library of Congress' Thomas service, or on the non-profit OpenCongress.org. The Executive Branch similarly posts each and every regulatory change to Regulations.gov for public review and comment prior to promulgating the regulations.

Just how powerful is the public comment process?

Consider epidemiology. As Jennifer Gardy, the co-head of British Columbia Centre for Disease Control explains in this fascinating talk (via), when the SARS coronavirus pandemic began in 2003, it took 19 days just to sequence the virus's genome. This year, after the H1N1/09 influence was declared a pandemic, by the 19th day dozens of virus genomes had been sequenced, the origin and spread of the virus had been established, and a vaccine was already in the works. (Read more from Gardy here; see late-breaking H1N1 research in progress at the Public Library of Science's Currents.)

Indeed, open access / public commenting is how most of academia functions these days. Draft social science and law journal articles are posted on SSRN prior to publication. Draft papers on physics, mathematics, and other complex quantitative papers are posted on arXiv.org.

It's hard to think of any field of government or scholarship today in which work not subject to public scrutiny is considered worthy of use by others; in cryptography, for example, any encryption method which doesn't make its source code available for public scrutiny, like even the government's own encryption standard is available, is presumed worthless.

Individual collegiate evaluation worked for Henry Oldenburg when he was peer-reviewing the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society back in 1665. It doesn't work so well when nine Justices are supposed to decide cases of national importance involving hundreds of thousands of pages of briefs, precedent, statutes, regulations, and appellate records at a rate of one opinion issued every four or five days, every word of which will be pondered, analyzed, scrutinized, and, unfortunately, misinterpreted by courts every day.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Dan Markel is "singularly unimpressed" with the arguments in favor of prohibiting newspapers from editorializing about pending cases before the Supreme Court:

Over on Balkinization, Eugene Fidell has a post expressing sympathy with the idea that newspapers and others should forbear from trying to influence the Supreme Court on the same day that the Court is going to hear oral arguments in a case.  Fidell seems to be persuaded by the gist of this student note in the Stanford Law Review, which raises ethical concerns with "ex parte blogging."

With no disrepect to the competent job in the student Note, I find myself boggled at the suggestion that newspapers or other writers (including legal bloggers) should abjure from weighing in on matters before the Court.

Part of the concern raised by the Balkinization post appears to come from editorials on the day of oral argument:

Times editorial advice to the Supreme Court has, in fact, flowed very freely--increasingly, I believe, on argument days. For example, on October 6, 2009, in Animal Cruelty and Free Speech, the editorial page advised the Court to affirm in United States v. Stevens (No. 08-769), a case that was to be argued that same day. The following day, in The Constitution and the Cross, an editorial gave the Court advice on how to decide a case to be heard that day involving a cross that had been erected on federal land by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The same thing happened on February 23 and 25 and March 2 and 24, when editorials titled Justice for American Indians, And Unequal Justice for Some, The Right to DNA Evidence, and Corporate Money and Campaigns ran. On January 9, November 4, 12 and 25, and December 10, 2008, editorials on The Court and Voter ID's, The Court and 'Fleeting Expletives,' A Case of Religious Discrimination, Indefinite Detention, and Accountability and the Court all appeared on the day of oral argument.

Sounds like a lot.

I assure you, the Justices don't care.

How do I know? Because the Justices don't care much for what even the parties to the case have to say on the day of oral argument:

Oral arguments are normally conducted during October through April. A 2-week session is held each month with arguments scheduled on Monday through Wednesday of each week. Unless the Court directs otherwise, each side is allowed one-half hour for argument. The Court generally hears argument in 2 cases (hours) each day beginning at 10 a.m. and adjourns after the argument in the second case ends, usually around noon. If more than two cases are to be argued in one day, the Court will reconvene at 1 p.m. to hear the additional arguments.

That's from the Supreme Court's own "Guide for Counsel in Cases to be Argued," which helpfully points out that 30 minutes may in fact be too much:

Your argument time is normally limited to 30 minutes. You need not use all your time. Counsel for the respondent in Whitfield v. United States, 543 U. S. 209 (2005) argued for only 10 of the allotted 30 minutes. Counsel for the respondent in Burgess v. United States, 553 U. S. ––– (2008) argued for only 7 of the allotted 30 minutes. Both respondents prevailed in unanimous decisions of the Court.

"Respondent" in Whitfield and Burgess was the United States government; the "Petitioners" there, both criminal defendants, did not pass Go, did not collect $200, but instead went straight to jail after combined oral argument shorter than a sitcom.

I digress. The bigger problem with the argument raised by the Student Note (Ex Parte Blogging: The Legal Ethics of Supreme Court Advocacy in the Internet Era, 61 Stanford L. Rev. 1535 (2008)) and the Balkinization post is that both miss the forest for the trees: the primary utility of such posts, articles and editorials on the day of oral argument is not to influence the Court but to influence everyone else.

When else — other than the day of oral arguments — are these arguments timely and interesting? When else can the raw power of the Supreme Court and the scope of its reach be highlighted for the hundreds of millions of citizens who have not a clue what the Court is doing this year? Even lawyers don't stay on top of the Supreme Court's docket; most of them learn of pending issues from their newspapers, from these day-of-argument editorials. The same goes for elected representatives.

But we are to ban this practice, one of the few ways we as a society have of keeping aware of what an entire branch of our federal government is doing because maybe, just maybe, 700 words in the newspaper will dislodge the Justices' decades of education, training, experience and ideology?

More on this subject tomorrow.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote,

Great cases, like hard cases, make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their importance in shaping the law of the future, but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment.

Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197, 400–401 (1904)(Holmes, J., dissenting).

That idea seems to be on David Feige's mind when he writes in Slate about the upcoming trial of admitted 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:

No jury on this continent is going to acquit their client, the government is certain to insist on the death penalty, and KSM will almost certainly try to put the government on trial. So what's a team of hardworking criminal defense attorneys to do?

Everything they can, which, in this case, will mean a lot of futile maneuvering that will generate a tragic flood of bad law, rendering the defense team's valiant service not merely unsuccessful but actually hostile to the interests of all their other clients. ...

In an idealized view, our judicial system is insulated from the ribald passions of politics. In reality, those passions suffuse the criminal justice system, and no matter how compelling the case for suppressing evidence that would actually effect the trial might be, given the politics at play, there is no judge in the country who will seriously endanger the prosecution. Instead, with the defense motions duly denied, the case will proceed to trial, and then (as no jury in the country is going to acquit KSM) to conviction and a series of appeals. And that's where the ultimate effect of a vigorous defense of KSM gets really grim.

At each stage of the appellate process, a higher court will countenance the cowardly decisions made by the trial judge, ennobling them with the unfortunate force of precedent.

That's surely a possibility. The trial of the admitted mastermind of 9/11 is, due to "immediate overwhelming interest," most certainly "great" under Holmes' definition.

On the other hand, whatever apparent principles, rules or interpretations of law laid down by the courts in the prosecution admitted mastermind of 9/11 will be forever indelibly stamped with an annotation that the case involved no less than the admitted mastermind of 9/11.

Moreover, the courts, aware of the "greatness" and/or difficulty of the case, often make an extra effort to minimize the precedental value of their opinion.

Consider Bush v. Gore, certainly the "greatest" — at least in terms of immediate impact — legal ruling in recent memory, which openly instructed future courts to ignore it entirely: 

Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 109 (2000). Indeed, Bush v. Gore has been treated by many as a singular case that served a pre-determined goal rather than an evolutionary step in the progression of election law. For a number of courts, the case is downright radioactive due precisely to its "greatness."

Our Constitution's protections for the criminally accused were drafted by a generation among whom treason was commonplace, then sculpted over eleven score years of rebels, thieves, gangsters, murderers and even a protracted civil war followed by decades of reconciliation and the integration of oppressed minorities into equal society in the face of socially-approved violence. Those protections can handle a couple trials of admitted mass murderers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Following up on my post of two weeks ago on judicial immunity in the "kids for cash" Luzerne County scandal, Judge Caputo of the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued his ruling yesterday, which holds in pertinent part:

For judicial immunity to apply, only two requirements need to be met: jurisdiction over the dispute, and a judicial act. As to the first, a judge is not immune only when he has acted in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction." Stump 435 U.S. at 349 (citation omitted). Second, a judicial immunity extends only to “judicial acts,” not administrative, executive, or legislative ones. Id. at 360-61.

...

The Plaintiffs argue that because Ciavarella’s acts contravened the Constitution of the United States, he was acting in the “clear absence of jurisdiction” and therefore is not immune from suit. The Plaintiffs cite no authority for this proposition, nor is there any. They allege that Ciavarella violated the constitutional rights of the juveniles brought before him in the following ways: (1) his court or tribunal was not impartial; (2) he failed to advise them of the right to counsel and therefore assure that any waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary; and (3) he failed to determine that the pleas of guilty were knowing and voluntary. While these acts constitute egregious, unjustifiable judicial behavior, they do not make out a case for the absence of jurisdiction. If unconstitutional acts by a judge deprived the court of jurisdiction, and hence eliminated judicial immunity, it could be argued that all erroneous decisions in constitutional tort cases would subject the judge to civil liability. Such is not, and should not be, the case. As to their courtroom behavior, I conclude that both Ciavarella and Conahan had jurisdiction.

...

Conahan’s issuance of an injunction for an alleged corrupt motive is identical to the conduct the Supreme Court considered when granting immunity in Dennis v. Sparks. Dennis, 449 U.S. at 28 (illegal injunction allegedly based upon corruption). As to Ciavarella, focusing only on the nature of the act performed, as I am required to do by law, I also find that the determinations of delinquency and the sentences imposed were judicial acts. As the Supreme Court has made clear, the alleged motivations, be they corrupt or with malice, are irrelevant to this determination. As to the courtroom acts of Conahan and Ciavarella, I find that they are protected by judicial immunity.

That is not to say, however, that every act alleged of the two was judicial in nature. For example, Conahan’s signing of a “Placement Agreement” would be an administrative, not a judicial act. Similarly, any acts in making budget requests to the Luzerne County commissioners would also be administrative or executive in nature. And the actions of Conahan and Ciavarella in coercing probation officers to change their recommendations is outside of the role of a judicial officer. Probation officers are to advise the court, not the other way round, on sentencing matters. The nature of these acts are not judicial in nature, and therefore judicial immunity does not shield such conduct.

(Emphasis added.)

I disagree, but Judge Caputo's ruling has strong support in precedent and policy going back well before the founding of our nation and the founding of Pennsylvania.

Also, even though Judge Caputo in general accepted the judicial immunity of the defendants, there's also a strong argument to be made that Judge Caputo had to rule this way, for he had no appellate court precedent supporting a ruling otherwise, no matter how persuasive the plaintiffs' arguments may have been to him. Some questions are not for the District Court to decide in the first instance.

The opinion — which is very clear and concise — is worth reading by anyone interested in the subject. An article that will appear in Monday's The Legal Intelligencer is available here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

"Removal" is the process by which a defendant in a state court case "removes" the case to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) makes it sound so simple:

Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.

There are two ideas behind removal, each expressed in their own sentence above. (If you're in the mood for some light reading of 18th century constitutional debates, here's primary source material on federal court jurisdiction.)

The first idea (in the first sentence) is that defendants have the right to have claims made against them under federal law heard by a federal court. For example, if plaintiff brings a claim under the RICO Act, a claim for violation of federal constitutional rights, or a claim under the Lanham Act, then the defendant has the right to remove the case to federal court so that a federal court will preside over the federal claims.

The second idea (in the second sentence) dates to the beginning of our Republic: federal courts, where the judges were appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, were (and still are) perceived as being less likely to be biased in favor of local litigants than state courts, where the judges were either elected by the public or appointed by state officials. The "other such actions" described by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) refer to cases brought under "diversity" jurisdiction, which allows plaintiffs in one state to sue defendants in another state in federal court, regardless of the claims brought. Thus, out-of-state defendants concerned about bias in a plaintiff's home state can remove cases if the case could have been filed in federal court in the first place under "diversity" jurisdiction.

Diversity jurisdiction, however, is disfavored by the federal courts. Personally, I think the most simple reason for the federal courts' dislike for diversity jurisdiction is because, much like how we prefer federal courts preside over cases bringing federal claims (as reflected by the first part of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)), we prefer state courts preside over cases bringing state claims. Much like how a defendant has an interest in having federal law claims against them heard in federal court, a plaintiff has an interest in having their state law claims heard in state court.

The United States Constitution provides for a limited federal government, including a limited federal judiciary. Thus, the requirements for removal have been strictly construed, since loosely construing them would violate basic principles of federalism:

Because lack of jurisdiction would make any decree in the case void and the continuation of the litigation in federal court futile, the removal statute should be strictly construed and all doubts resolved in favor of remand." Abels v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 770 F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). If there is any doubt as to the propriety of removal, that case should not be removed to federal court. See Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1085, 111 S. Ct. 959, 112 L. Ed. 2d 1046 (1991).

Brown v. Francis, 75 F.3d 860, 864–865 (3d Cir. 1996). 

The latest "fad" among defense lawyers — more on the source of the word "fad" in a moment — is to hire companies to monitor state court dockets for suits against big corporations, particularly class actions alleging product liability. The moment a plaintiff files a lawsuit that includes any out-of-state defendants, the big corporations collude to have the out-of-state defendant file for removal, on the grounds that the in-state defendants haven't been "properly joined and served" yet.

It doesn't matter if the case involves 99 in-state defendants and 1 out-of-state defendant. It doesn't matter, if, quite obviously, the case could not have been filed in the first instance as a diversity case, since it involves in-state defendants, too. The big corporations found themselves a dubious loophole and decided to run with it.

And run with it they have: the defense gurus at Drug & Device Law have tallied a few dozen of these cases across the country. The defense argument is always the same: under the "plain meaning" of the statute, we can remove any case we want if the in-state defendants haven't been served yet.

It's a silly argument: the plain meaning rule does not permit a court to find a "plain" meaning “demonstrably at odds with the intentions of the drafters.” United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 242 (1989). There is, of course, no indication that Congress intended to let defendants avoid the strict, centuries-old federal policies against diversity jurisdiction and against removal by setting up a computer program that downloads the state court dockets every 10 minutes.

The more compelling "plain meaning" of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) is that Congress wanted to ensure the in-state defendants were "proper" defendants, and thus prevent plaintiffs from adding bogus in-state defendants to a lawsuit.

The defendants' game worked for a while, but the tide is turning.

Via Gregory P. Joseph's Complex Litigation Blog, we see the Northern District of Ohio rejecting the "properly joined and served" silliness:

Comerica's interpretation of §1441(b) suggests that the language "properly joined and served" creates an exception to the forum defendant rule. This argument is not novel; in fact, it has been the topic of much jurisprudential debate with varying success across the country. I, however, have no need to survey such case law because the Northern District of Ohio recently rejected Comerica's argument in a case of first impression. In Ethington v. Gen. Elec. Co., 575 F. Supp. 2d 855, 861 (N.D. Ohio), my colleague, District Judge Dan Aaron Polster, engaged in a thorough review of available case law.

And what does Ethington say?

The Court further notes that the growing trend among district courts wrestling with this latest litigation fad is to grant a timely motion to remand. While a review of the Frick, Thomson, and Ripley cases indeed shows that the judges in those cases abided by the plain meaning interpretation of the forum defendant rule, the GE Defendants' assertion that the New Jersey federal district courts 'ha[ve] rejected Plaintiffs' argument' is disingenuous at best; it fails to acknowledge that Frick (issued February 23, 2006), Thomson (May 22, 2007), and Ripley (Aug. 16, 2007) were each issued well in advance of the more recent case law from the District of New Jersey -- starting with Judge Chesler's opinion in DeAngelo-Shuayto -- that in fact rejected the approach taken in those three earlier cases. See, e.g., DeAngelo-Shuayto, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92557, at 5, 2007 WL 4365311, at *3 (finding that '§ 1441(b) must bar removal by a forum defendant, whether it has been served or not'); Fields, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92555, at *12-13, 2007 WL 4365312, at *5 (rejecting the plain language approach because it would create an 'untenable result' that would 'eviscerate the purpose of the forum defendant rule,' and holding that 'the 'properly joined and served' language of § 1441(b) does not encompass the situation in which the removing party is a forum defendant, and that in such situations removal to federal court is improper.'). See also, Brown, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55490, at *8, 2008 WL 2833294, at *5 (adopting magistrate judge's report and recommendation with additional analysis, explicitly embracing the reasoning provided in the R&R, DeAngelo-Shuayto, and Fields, and stating 'this Court agrees with [the conclusion] that § 1441(b) must be read to preclude removal by an in-state defendant whether it has been served or not.'); Brown v. Organon USA Inc. (hereafter 'Brown R&R'), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50179, at *24-25, 2008 WL 2625355, at *8 (D.N.J. June 27, 2008) (M.J. Salas) (magistrate judge's R&R concluding that '[t]he Court agrees with DeAngelo-Shuayto' and finding 'that § 1441(b) bars a forum defendant from removing to federal court even if they have not been 'properly joined and served.''); Optec Displays, Inc. v. Am. Maint., Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47562, at *3, 2008 WL 2510633, at *2 (D.N.J. June 16, 2008) (J. Debevoise) (remanding removed case with forum defendant, and explaining that 'even if [defendant] was not properly joined and served, it is still precluded, as a forum defendant, from removing the action to federal court.') (citing DeAngelo-Shuayto, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92557, at *15, 2007 WL 4365311, at *3)).).

Notably, these more recent New Jersey federal district court cases are not alone in adopting Judge Chesler's reasoning and analysis on the proper way to interpret § 1441(b). Other federal district courts as of late have likewise followed the reasoning articulated in DeAngelo-Shuayto. See, e.g., Allen, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42491, at *13-15, 17-18, 2008 WL 2247067, at *4-6; Vivas v. Boeing Co., 486 F. Supp. 2d 726 (N.D.Ill. 2007) (J. Lefkow). (See also, ECF No. 30-2, Pls.' Rep. Mem., Ex. A to Aff. Dec. of Mitchell M. Breit, 1-6 (remand order in Evans v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Civ. A. No. 07-5046 (Jan. 10, 2008) (J. Brody); remand order in Hance v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Civ. A. No. 07-5047 (Jan. 10, 2008) (J. Brody); remand order in Malone v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Civ. A. No. 07-5048, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97461 (Dec. 4, 2007) (J. Savage) (citing Oxendine v. Merck & Co., Inc., 236 F. Supp. 2d 517, 524-25 (D. Md. 2002)); remand order in Scott v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, No. 07-CV-5049, Order of March 11, 2008, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84490, n.1 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2008) (J. Joyner)).) But see Flores v. Merck & Co. (In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig.), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57473, at *37-38, 2008 WL 2940560, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2008) (a recent federal district court opinion invoking the plain language of § 1441(b) with little analysis to deny plaintiff's motion to remand).

After considering Sixth Circuit precedent on statutory interpretation and carefully reviewing case law on both sides of a federal district court split, the Court finds that applying the plain language of § 1441(b) would produce a result demonstrably at odds with Congressional intent underpinning the forum defendant rule, and specifically with the 'properly joined and served' language. Accordingly, the Court hereby joins the DeAngelo-Shuayto line of cases, and in so doing, the Court incorporates and adopts the well-reasoned, thorough analysis and holdings of Judge Chesler in DeAngelo-Shuayto as the basis for the instant ruling.

Ethington v. GE, 575 F. Supp. 2d 855, 864 (N.D. Ohio 2008). A "fad" that is "demonstrably at odds with Congressional intent." 

Told you so.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Ashby Jones at the Wall Street Journal reports on absolute judicial immunity:

In January, federal prosecutors filed fraud charges against Mark A. Ciavarella and Michael T. Conahan, judges on the Luzerne County, Pa., Court of Common Pleas. Prosecutors alleged that the judges sent numerous juveniles to detention centers over several years in exchange for more than $2.6 million in kickbacks from the former co-owner of two centers.

After the criminal charges, several lawyers filed civil suits seeking monetary damages on behalf of dozens of children and their families against the judges and other defendants. They alleged, among other things, that the judges violated their civil rights.

...

In filings, the judges argued that judicial immunity insulated them from suits. A ruling on the motions is pending. Both judges declined to comment.

Legal experts say the plaintiffs face an uphill battle in piercing the immunity shield. Dating to 1872, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly supported the notion that judges should express their legal convictions without having to worry about personal consequences. In perhaps the most widely cited Supreme Court case on judicial immunity, the court in 1978 rejected a suit filed by a woman against an Indiana judge who had years earlier ordered the woman -- who was then 15 and allegedly mentally impaired -- sterilized without her knowledge.

According to Arthur Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, judicial immunity doesn't protect judges from suits stemming from administrative decisions made while off the bench, like hiring and firing decisions. But immunity generally does extend to all judicial decisions in which the judge has proper jurisdiction, he says, even if a decision is made with "corrupt or malicious intent."

In Mr. Hellman's mind, the rule makes sense. Without it, the courts might be stacked with baseless lawsuits filed against judges. "On one level, it seems outrageous to ban someone from suing a corrupt judge," he says. "But if you allow plaintiffs to pierce the immunity by alleging bad motive, it opens the floodgates."

There is good reason for judicial immunity. Judges, more than any other government officials, determine who wins and who loses in our legal system. They do not pass general laws applicable to everyone like the legislature. They do not enforce the laws in general through multiple levels of supervision, collaboration, and procedures like the executive.

They spend weeks, months and years right in front of citizens with a lot to lose and then tell those citizens to their faces if they win or lose. It is very easy to blame a judge for a citizen's loss in a civil or criminal trial: the judge was the one who made it happen.

We thus cannot have judges hesitating in their good faith decisions about who loses because they fear litigation. The system just will not work; it's the judge's job to determine the loser.

That said, the Luzerne County case is different. We don't need to dive into the bigger questions of when and how immunity should be denied, because it's quite clear it should be denied here, for the two reasons raised by a group of former judges who filed an amicus brief in the case:

Application of immunity to judges who admitted under oath to engaging in a criminal scheme that lasted for years would indeed be "monstrous." [Quoting Judge Learned Hand in Gregorie v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579 (2d Cir. 1949)] To find immunity would denigrate the respect of the public for the judiciary, which is dependent upon judges making decisions based on the law and the facts, rather than personal, corrupt motives. Moreover, denying Conahan and Ciavarella the privilege ofjudicial immunity in this case would not risk a flood of civil claims against other judges.

...

There is simply no way that Conahan's and Ciavarella's admittedly criminal arrangements with the detention facilities or their predetermination to detain juvenile offenders before any judicial proceeding even existed, can be considered judicial acts. Conahan's and Ciavarella's arguments to the contrary are disingenuous. They necessarily conceded that they acted non-judicially when they admitted to criminal conduct in violation of their judicial oath. Those admissions cannot be reconciled with their present assertion that they acted in a judicial capacity.

Exactly. Wherever it may be that judicial immunity should lie, we know it should not lie where a judge (1) admitted (or were convicted of) corruption or (2) acted wrongfully outside their judicial function.

The "immunity" underlying judicial immunity is — like qualified immunity for executive officials — an "immunity" from being sued. It is a deliberate policy choice to deny some worthy cases even a shot at proving entitlement to relief in exchange for ensuring unworthy cases do not waste judicial time or cause hesitation in the judicial process.

Here, there is no doubt as to the worthiness of plaintiffs' claims: the judges admitted corruption. There is also no doubt that the problem at here was not solely judicial, for there is nothing "judicial" about receiving payments under the table from a private party.

The United States Supreme Court is already considering a related issue, the extent of immunity for prosecutors who fabricate evidence, in Pottawattamie County v. McGhee. They will see this case coming down the pipeline; let's hope they understand the robes cloak only those decisions made for the right reasons.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Prof. Robert Reinstein, my mentor at Temple University Beasley School of Law, has just posted on SSRN a draft of The Limits of Executive Power:

Justice Jackson’s concurring opinion in The Steel Seizure Case has taken on iconic status among legal scholars and had been adopted by the Supreme Court as the governing framework for evaluating presidential power. But Jackson’s principles are conclusory, do not rest on any historical foundation, and raise as many questions as they answer. He fails to examine, much less justify, the existence or scope of implied presidential powers, nor does he meaningfully explain the extent to which those powers are subject to congressional regulation and override. I apply novel originalist methodologies to answer those unexamined questions, with important consequences to several current theories and cases concerning presidential power.

The construction of the presidency and the allocation of legislative and executive powers can be understood only by an examination of the historical experiences that influenced the Framers. Prominent among these were the preceding two centuries of constitutional developments in England which critically influenced the allocation of executive and legislative power in the Constitution. The central lesson of these historical experiences was that proscriptive legislative restraints on executive power were necessary but not sufficient to prevent autocracy. any of the English proscriptions on the exercise of executive power were included in our Constitution, but there was also a massive transfer of previously held executive power to the legislature. Most of the prerogatives that had been exercised by the King were vested completely in Congress, prohibited to the President, or omitted altogether from the Constitution. Of the small number delegated to the Executive, only one was the same as its royal counterpart; the others were more limited or structurally shared with the Legislative Branch.

I examine this history in detail and apply its underlying principles to develop a general theory of presidential power. In lieu of creative but ultimately inconclusive arguments over indefinite powers that are said to be “executive” in nature, implied powers should be tied to, and derived from, the powers expressly vested in the President in Article II. I refute the propositions that the Vesting Clause is a residual source of plenary executive power and that there is a presidential “completion” power. I apply and elaborate on these principles in the context of the President’s two most important implied powers - executing the laws and developing and implementing foreign policy. The President has broad discretion in choosing how to exercise these powers, but they are not plenary in nature. They are subject to three basic limitations: (1) the President may not, without congressional authorization, use these powers to change domestic law or create or alter existing legal obligations; (2) these powers are subject to regulation by Congress; and (3) in the event of a conflict between the exercise of these powers and congressional legislation, the latter prevails.

Finally, I argue that these limits on presidential power have continuing validity despite the enormous changes in the country since these principles were established. We are now in much the same situation as England in the 18th century - the real power of the Executive is much greater than its nominal legal power. Although the Framers viewed the President as a necessary check on an otherwise dominant Congress, the present reality is now the reverse. The Executive has become the most powerful branch of government. There is no reason to adopt legal theories that would further enhance executive power.

Highly recommended for anyone with an interest in constitutional history.

Anyone looking for relevant primary material should review The Founder's Constitution. Anyone looking for further historical support for Reinstein's argument that,

the construction of the presidency owed much less to political theory or a reflexive reaction to George III than to two centuries of historical experiences that shaped the Framers’ views on executive and legislative powers: “the great disputes of Stuart England, which resonated still in eighteenth-century America; alarms over the rise of ministerial ‘corruption’ under the Hanoverian kings; and lessons learned from the efforts of early state constitutions to cabin executive power within strict republican limits”

should consider Kevin Phillips' The Cousins' Wars, an economic, sociological, religious and political examination of the links between the English Civil War, the American Revolution, and the U.S. Civil War.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I admire Judge Posner, one of the flag bearers for the law and economics movement. He is thoughtful, prolific, and has not succumbed to the extraordinary pressure judges feel to guard their actual thoughts and feelings. He is in every sense of the word an open book, and we should be grateful for that.

It also makes him the logical target for critics of any of the ideas he champions. Such is the case for my remarks below.

I rather enjoyed Posner's latest article, How I Became A Keynesian, which does as good a job as any at summarizing Keynes' core philosophy, until I came across this paragraph:

But the government may be able to arrest the decline--another of Keynes's central ideas, and one strongly resisted by the conservative economists of his time, as of today. It can reduce interest rates (by buying government bonds or other debt for cash, which increases the amount of money that banks are permitted to lend) in an effort to reduce the costs of active investment and thus encourage employment. Keynes urged this approach. But he also pointed out that it might not work well--as we have learned in the current downturn. The banks may lack confidence in "those who seek to borrow from them," so that "while the weakening of credit is sufficient to bring about a collapse, its strengthening, though a necessary condition of recovery, is not a sufficient condition." In fact, banks in America today are hoarding, rather than lending, most of the cash that they have received from the government's bailouts. The hoard may make the banks a little freer with lending, but the effect on economic activity, at least in the short run, may be tepid.

In sum: the government can "arrest" an economic decline by taking action to "reduce interest rates," but such has "not work[ed] well ... in the current downturn."

Perhaps he's correct. Then again, perhaps he was correct a month ago when he wrote that "the various factors that are responsible for the reduction in the rate of decline of output" last quarter are "probably impossible" to "disentangle:"

This assertion is groundless. No one has the faintest idea what effect the stimulus has had. My guess is that it has had some positive effect, because of its confidence-enhancing character that I mentiioned earlier and because some of the $100 billiion--though no one seems to know how much--has been spent rather than saved. But it is impossible to determine the net impact of the stimulus on GDP or employment because so much else has been happening to stimulate an economic recovery. Some people have had to dissave--turn savings into expenditures--because their income has fallen (maybe because they have become unemployed) below the level necessary to cover their basic expenses. Some people have had to replace durables that wore out. Foreign demand for U.S. products has risen some. (Dissaving, replacing durables, and export growth if the domestic currency loses value are standard nongovernmental spurs to recovery from a depression.) And the government has been doing a lot to stimulate recovery besides the stimulus--has in fact expended or guaranteed trillions of dollars in an effort to increase the amount of lending, which is essential to economic activity.

Disentangling the various factors that are responsible for the reduction in the rate of decline of output in the second quarter is probably impossible, but in any event has not, to my knowledge, been attempted--and certainly not in Romer's talk.

Which Posner do I believe? The one who asserts that "disentangling the various factors" affecting the economy "is probably impossible" (with whom economists vehemently disagree), or the one who asserts as a matter of fact that, of the "various factors" affecting the economy, government efforts to "reduce interest rates" "might not work well?"

Of course, Keynes himself famously responded to a critique that he had changed his mind about the causes of the Great Depression with: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

The facts here, however, have not changed. The columns were published a month apart.

That, too, would be perfectly fine -- Richard Posner, the man, is entitled to his own thoughts and opinions and should change them as befits further thought, data, argument and experience -- but for the belief of many adherents to "law and economics"  that judges' interpretations and application of economic theory should color their judicial decisions.

There's a difference, of course, between the macroeconomics that trouble Posner and the microeconomics at play in most cases. And there's a difference, of course, between recognizing the contributions that economics can bring to legal policy decisions (which is what the original law and economics scholars, like Ronald Coase and Guido Calabresi, focused on) and enabling courts to decide cases by way of economic theories they are not even trained to understand, much less apply.

These distinctions, however, rapidly break down in actual practice. Witness the Twombly Supreme Court opinion, in which seven Justices, none of which have any formal training in economics, held the following as a matter of law:

The complaint makes its closest pass at a predicate for conspiracy with the claim that collusion was necessary because success by even one CLEC in an ILEC’s territory “would have revealed the degree to which competitive entry by CLECs would have been successful in the other territories.” Id., ¶50, App. 26–27. But, its logic aside, this general premise still fails to answer the point that there was just no need for joint encouragement to resist the 1996 Act; as the District Court said, “each ILEC has reason to want to avoid dealing with CLECs” and “each ILEC would attempt to keep CLECs out, regardless of the actions of the other ILECs.” ...

Plaintiffs’ second conspiracy theory rests on the competitive reticence among the ILECs themselves in the wake of the 1996 Act, which was supposedly passed in the “ ‘hop[e] that the large incumbent local monopoly companies … might attack their neighbors’ service areas, as they are the best situated to do so.’ ... Contrary to hope, the ILECs declined “ ‘to enter each other’s service territories in any significant way,’ ” Complaint ¶38, App. 20, and the local telephone and high speed Internet market remains highly compartmentalized geographically, with minimal competition. Based on this state of affairs, and perceiving the ILECs to be blessed with “especially attractive business opportunities” in surrounding markets dominated by other ILECs, the plaintiffs assert that the ILECs’ parallel conduct was “strongly suggestive of conspiracy.” Id., ¶40, App. 21.

But it was not suggestive of conspiracy, not if history teaches anything. In a traditionally unregulated industry with low barriers to entry, sparse competition among large firms dominating separate geographical segments of the market could very well signify illegal agreement, but here we have an obvious alternative explanation. In the decade preceding the 1996 Act and well before that, monopoly was the norm in telecommunications, not the exception. ... The ILECs were born in that world, doubtless liked the world the way it was, and surely knew the adage about him who lives by the sword. Hence, a natural explanation for the noncompetition alleged is that the former Government-sanctioned monopolists were sitting tight, expecting their neighbors to do the same thing.

 In fact, the complaint itself gives reasons to believe that the ILECs would see their best interests in keeping to their old turf. Although the complaint says generally that the ILECs passed up “especially attractive business opportunit[ies]” by declining to compete as CLECs against other ILECs, Complaint ¶40, App. 21, it does not allege that competition as CLECs was potentially any more lucrative than other opportunities being pursued by the ILECs during the same period and the complaint is replete with indications that any CLEC faced nearly insurmountable barriers to profitability owing to the ILECs’ flagrant resistance to the network sharing requirements of the 1996 Act, id., ¶47; App. 23–26. Not only that, but even without a monopolistic tradition and the peculiar difficulty of mandating shared networks, “[f]irms do not expand without limit and none of them enters every market that an outside observer might regard as profitable, or even a small portion of such markets.” Areeda & Hovenkamp ¶307d, at 155 (Supp. 2006) (commenting on the case at bar). The upshot is that Congress may have expected some ILECs to become CLECs in the legacy territories of other ILECs, but the disappointment does not make conspiracy plausible. We agree with the District Court’s assessment that antitrust conspiracy was not suggested by the facts adduced under either theory of the complaint, which thus fails to state a valid §1 claim.

Is the above economic analysis correct? We will never know -- even economists will never know -- since this economic theory was codified as law without anyone reviewing the empirical data, because the Supreme Court dismissed the case prior to any discovery.

Twombly is not some outlier case hurriedly drafted by an overworked trial judge. It is the thoughtfully considered, yet wholly uninformed, product of the highest court in the land.

That's the problem with law and economics: it creates the illusion of judicial competence to interpret and apply economic theories to individual cases. Such is particularly problematic these days because economics is in a state of intellectual collapse and is plagued by conflicts of interest, making it particularly ripe for misuse and abuse in other fields, like the law.

Now that Posner has seen the light and become a Keynesian, will he recognize the criticisms of law and economics and become a legal realist?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The must-read SCOTUSBlog alerts us to the following petition for certorari being granted by the United States Supreme Court:

Docket: 08-1521
Title: McDonald, et al.  v. City of Chicago
Issue: Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home.

• Opinion below (7^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari (08-1521)
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply (08-1521)
• Brief amicus curiae of Arms Keepers
• Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al
• Brief amicus curiae of  National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.
• Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union
• Brief amici curiae of Institute for Justice, and Cato Institute
• Brief amicus curiae of California
• Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners of America, Inc.,et al.
• Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Professors

The Circuit Court opinion by Judge Easterbrook was an pitch-perfect example of judicial restraint:

Repeatedly, in decisions that no one thinks fossilized, the Justices have directed trial and appellate judges to implement the Supreme Court’s holdings even if the reasoning in later opinions has undermined their rationale. “If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989). Cruikshank, Presser, and Miller have “direct application in [this] case”. Plaintiffs say that a decision of the Supreme Court has “direct application” only if the opinion expressly considers the line of argument that has been offered to support a different approach. Yet few opinions address the ground that later opinions deem sufficient to reach a different result. If a court of appeals could disregard a decision of the Supreme Court by identifying, and accepting, one or another contention not expressly addressed by the Justices, the Court’s decisions could be circumvented
with ease. They would bind only judges too dim-witted to come up with a novel argument.

...

But the municipalities can, and do, stress another of the themes in the debate over incorporation of the Bill of Rights: That the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule. See New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) (“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”); Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 40–53 (1978) (Powell, J., dissenting) (arguing that only “fundamental” liberties should be incorporated, and that even for incorporated amendments the state and federal rules may differ); Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974). Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon. How arguments of this kind will affect proposals to “incorporate” the second amendment are for the Justices rather than a court of appeals.

Plaintiffs undoubtedly believe that Heller, which invalidated the District of Columbia's handgun ban, gives them a good chance at having the state bans struck down as well.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Adam Liptak at the New York Times writes:

In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court decided more than 150 cases a year. These days, it decides about half that many.

A couple of weeks ago, the Supreme Court advocacy clinic at Yale Law School held a conference to explore the mystery of the court’s shrinking docket. Law professors presented data, theories and speculation. Expensive lawyers told rueful stories about can’t-miss cases that somehow did not make the cut.

Some participants blamed the newer justices, others their clerks. Some blamed Congress, saying it is not cranking out enough confusing legislation. And some blamed the Justice Department, which is filing fewer appeals.

But there emerged nothing like a definitive answer to why the court now selects perhaps 80 cases from more than 8,000 requests for review it receives every year.

I suppose this is as good a time as any to dust off a post of mine from June, Granting or Denying The Writ of Certiorari: The Most Important Decision by Supreme Court Justices:

Thus, for the vast majority of cases, the parties must first complete all of their appeals through state or federal appellate courts, after which they file a "writ of certiorari" with the Supreme Court requesting the Court hear their case. About 8,000 of these writs are filed every year. The Supreme Court grants (through a vote of at least four justices in favor) about 1 or 2% of them.

Why is this so important? Of course, a Supreme Court decision is always a big deal, affecting the livelihood and liberty of millions of people.

But there's another reason, too, one that goes to the heart of debates about "judicial temperament:" the law of unintended consequences.

Just as the best-laid plans of mice and men go oft' astray, so too do Supreme Court decisions:

Appellate judges who don't first serve as trial judges are prone to stupid decisions.  Not because the judges themselves are stupid, of course, but because they literally don't know what they're doing. Example: Scalia insisting that his 2006 Davis decision imposed a constitutional test that was "objective and quite 'workable'." 

After three years, that test has come to mean something different in every state - literally, without exaggeration, different in each of the 50 states.  It produces contradictory results on a daily basis. It's become a constitutional Rorschach test, revealing judges' biases with hi-res fidelity.

So was Scalia lying?  Of course not.  How could he have known enough to be able to lie about what he was doing?  He's never been a trial judge, never practiced criminal law, and hasn't practiced any kind of law since 1967.  He was just guessing.

(via Sentencing Law & Policy)

Since these days actual ideology is off the table in Supreme Court confirmation hearings (everyone claims they don't want to "prejudge" the issue (PDF), even to the extent of neither agreeing nor disagreeing with existing case law), we should at least examining when, how and why a potential Justice would grant the writ.

It's not necessarily wrong for the Court to take few cases -- indeed, abstention generally makes the law more stable and predictable because the intermediate appellate courts are far less likely to issue sweeping rulings that change existing law.

Indeed, for the "unintended consequences" reason above, on many issues the Supreme Court should wait for organic development of the law by way of actual cases litigated throughout the District Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeal. That way, the Supreme Court can see those consequences on a smaller level before irrevocably applying them to the whole country, rather than dealing with the aftermath of an ill-considered decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Business Week points us to the major cases.

As Litigation & Trial is a legal, rather than a business, blog, I'm going to take their list of cases but replace their description of each with the actual legal issue at stake, along with links to SCOTUSWiki, which hosts all of the relevant briefs for your reading pleasure:

Bilski v. Kappos: Whether a “process” must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing (”machine-or-transformation” test), to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and whether the “machine-or-transformation” test for patent eligibility, contradicts Congressional intent that patents protect “method[s] of doing business” in 35 U.S.C. § 273.

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, et al.: Whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is consistent with separation-of-powers principles - as the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board is overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is in turn overseen by the President - or contrary to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, as the PCAOB members are appointed by the SEC.

Black et al. v. United States: Whether the “honest services” clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 applies in cases where the jury did not find - nor did the district court instruct them that they had to find - that the defendants “reasonably contemplated identifiable economic harm,” and if the defendants’ reversal claim is preserved for review after they objected to the government’s request for a special verdict.

American Needle Inc. v. NFL, et al.: Whether NFLP, the NFL, and the teams functioned as a “single entity” when granting the company an exclusive headwear license and therefore could not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, which requires proof of collective action involving “separate entities.”

United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa: Where a debtor declares to discharge a student loan debt in his Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, has the debtor satisfied the due process requirements of Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co, and does the fact that the debtor failed to initiate an adversary proceeding render the enforceability of the discharge order under 11 U.S.C. 1327(a)inapplicable?

Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Company: Can a state legislature properly prohibit the federal courts from using the class action device for state law claims?

Hemi Group, LLC, et al v. City of New York: Whether city government meets the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act standing requirement that a plaintiff be directly injured in its “business or property” by alleging non commercial injury resulting from non payment of taxes by non litigant third parties.

Graham County Soil and Water Conservation Dist v. ex rel. Wilson: Whether federal courts have jurisdiction over False Claims Act suits based on revelations in administrative reports or audits issued by state or local governments, as opposed to the federal government.

Stay tuned for more discussion of each in upcoming posts.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As you may already know (Google News already lists 300+ articles on it):

A state investigation found that a Montgomery County swim club racially discriminated in June when it revoked an agreement to allow a Northeast Philadelphia day camp to use its pool after 56 African American and Hispanic children made their first visit.

"The racial animus . . . and the racially coded comments" by club members at the Valley Club in Huntingdon Valley were the reasons the club revoked Creative Steps Inc.'s contract, according to a 33-page report by the Human Relations Commission that was released last night by an attorney for four of the campers.

The situation elicited a national media firestorm during the summer over allegations that members of a swim club in a historically white suburb withdrew permission to allow minority children into their pool - even after a $1,950 check had been delivered to pay for the children to have weekly swimming trips.

We've discussed the case twice before on this site. As I wrote before,

Let's assume, for the moment, that everything the Club said is true. There's still a big unanswered question: once they realized they were overbooked, how did they choose which money to refund?

The most recent members? Did they do that for individual white members, too? What about predominantly white day camps?

On its face, the Storybrook Day Camp story sounds favorable to the Valley Swim Club's position, but upon closer inspection it's another diverse day camp whose money was refunded after they showed up. Like the "statistics" described by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the presence of another minority Day Camp which was excluded might be very damaging to the Swim Club's defense, unless they can show similar exclusions / refunds of white camps or members.

But I think they've got an even bigger problem: we're having a debate they obviously did not have when they refunded the money. The concern stated at the time was over "complexion" and "atmosphere."

A copy of the PHRC's findings are available on Scribd. Let me highlight a few of them (excuse any typos; I had to perform OCR to copy the text):

31. In 2009, the Respondent employed eight persons as life guards and seven persons as grounds crew. All of the life guards and grounds crew employees are race, Caucasian.

33. In 2009; the Respondent had a total of 155 paid memberships of whom none were African American.

34. In 2008, the Respondent had a total of 179 paid memberships of whom none were African American.

109. Approximately 30-45 minutes after their arrival, ________and ____________, Creative Steps campers, left the swimming pool and walked to the Respondent's concession stand to get a snack.

110. As they returned to the swimming pool area, ____________ heard Michelle Flynn (race, Caucasian), a Respondent member and a teacher at Laura H.Carnell Elementary School, state the following: "What are all of these black kids doing here?" and "I am scared they might do something to my child. "

130. Immediately after the Creative Steps campers departed, Mr. Duesler stated that Meg Wescott, a Respondent member, spoke to him on behalf of 5 or 6 women who were in favor of the ·summer day camps, including Creative Steps. Mr. Duesler also stated that Yasmin Adib, Amy Goldman, Walter Poukish, Respondent members, spoke to him in favor of Creative Steps.

131. On or about June 29, 2009 ill the early evening, Mr. Duesler received a telephone call from Mary Beth DeGeorge, a Respondent member, who indicated that she was at the pool earlier in the day. She 'told Mr. Duesler that she felt that the Respondent was not prepared to host the camps due to the volmne of children in the shaIlowend of the swimming pool and that it was beyond the Respondent's capacity.

132. On or about June 29, 2009 at 9:45 p.m., Ms. Flynn sent an e-mail to the Respondent members explaining that she was "'very upset" that when she arrived at the swim club at 4:00, there was a bus emptying off a group of kids.She explained that while it is a community pool, "'this is not the community where these kids live." She also noted that she was especiaijy annoyed "'because there was no notice ahead of time like there is for the swim team."

133. Ms. Flynn also stated: "', .. since I personally know some of these kids because I teach at their school and I have seen first hand what at least one of these children is capable of I don't feel comfortable with my children even going to the bathroom during this time." She also stated: "Thank you for your time and I needed to write something because I felt I was being treated as if because the kids were African American it was an issue.. That could not be further than the truth."

138. On or about June 29, 2009 at 11:17 p.m., Walt Slowinski, a Respondent member, sent an e-mail to the Respondent members with a subject line of "bussing." Mr. Slowinski stated that he was a "little upset" at the news "about the bussing of kid (sic) to the pool every Monday." He explained that "[w]hen we joined we assumed that this was a private club not a club for hire or some sort of social program." He concluded that "[w]e like Valley and would love to stay but after hearing what transpired today I guess we will be looking for somewhere else to go next year. "

144. Just over twelve hours after Mr. Duesler defended his decision to invite the campers in an e-mail to Mr. Slowinski, on or about June 30, 2009 at 12:40 p.m., Mr. Duesler sent an e-mail to" the members of the Responqent's Board of Directors with a subject line of "Feedback from our Summer Camp Program" recommending the cancellation of Creative Steps.

145. Mr. Duesler explained that "[w]hat ultimately is holding sway with me is the tension that will linger throughout every hour of the club, essentially pitting member against member, as we are forced to take sides in this debate. This is no way to spend the summer for anyone, and, believe me, its all people are talking about at the club." With that in mind, Mr. Duesler recommended to the Respoiu:lent Board of Directors the following: "we refund out Monday summer campers' money, and inform Wednesday's camp that things are not going to work out this summer. Our Summer Bible Camp will conclude this week." Mr. Duesler concluded by explaining he welcomed feedback from the members of the Respondent Board of Directors but requested such feedback be quick as he needed to contact the campers to let them know.

150. On or about June 30, 2009 at 3:54 p.m., Steve Korolyk, a Respondent member, e-mailed the Respondent members with a subject line of "LET THE MEMBERS KNOW." He stated: "I hear the Valley Swim Club is becoming a day camp pool, I see nothing posted on your website or at the board at the bottom of the fill." He also voiced complaints regarding the Wexler Plumbing party and asked when the party would be occurring this year. He concluded by stating that it was not right not letting members know when the pool was rented out and that he might have to rethink his membership.

151. On or about June 30,2009 at 4:01 p.m.• Mr. Duesler responded to Mr. Korolyk's e-mail stating that it was a mistake on his part not telling the club about the summer camps. He also stated: "I will also tell you that after this week, we are pulling the plug on the camps, since 1 have been receiving many emails similar to yours. "

152. On or about June 30, 2009 in the late afternoon, Mr. Duesler called Ms. Wright and informed her that the Respondent was discontinuing its relationship with Creative Steps Summer Day Camp and that it would refund the $1,950.00 payment.

It's clear from the rest of the findings that "safety" had nothing to do with the decision to refund the day camp's money. Ironically, it seems that the "atmosphere" and "complexion" remarks by Mr. Duesler that inflamed this controversy really summed up what happened: after receiving multiple complaints with implicit, but not explicit, references to the campers' race, Mr. Duesler "pulled the plug on the camps" not necessarily out of any personal racial animus he felt against the campers, but rather to assuage the complaints of those who appeared to feel racial animus towards the campers. Ergo, the campers were rejected due to their race.

Although the PHRC findings have been described as finding, for example, "racial discrimination did play a role in the rejection of campers from a local swim club," that's not quite what the findings mean. Rather, as the findings conclude:

WHEREFORE, probable cause exists to credit the Complainant's allegations that the Respondent refused and denied Complainant's child the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of its public accommodation and commercial property, including the use of its swimming pool, due to the child's race, Black/African American in violation of Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 P.S. 955 ...

Which is to say, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission found probable cause to believe discrimination occurred, rather than a actually finding discrimination. As described by my second post, the next step involves the Commission sitting down with the parties to encourage a settlement. If that doesn't work, then the Commission will hold a formal hearing on the matter, after which the factual and legal findings will be made.

Interestingly, the finding awarded "actual damages, including damages caused by humilitation and embarrassment." That doesn't line up with the statute itself, which allows damages for "humiliation and embarrassment" only for employment and housing cases, but not for public accommodation cases. See 43 P.S. § 959(f)(1) and Mechensky v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm'n, 134 Pa. Commw. 192, 205, 578 A.2d 589, 595–96 (1990)(describing Midland Heights Homes, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 478 Pa. 625, 387 A.2d 664 (1978), as holding "the Commission was without authority to award compensatory damages").

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports:

Since the beginning of the year, a new Pennsylvania law on public records has been sending tremors through state and local governments.

Unprecedented numbers of citizens, civic groups, reporters and businesses have filed thousands of requests for government documents and data.

Now come the aftershocks: Dozens of public-record lawsuits are piling up in courthouses around the state, waiting for judges to spit out rulings on what the law really means.

...

The new law is more detailed than the old one in specifying which government records are open to the public and which are not.

It also created the [Office of Open Records], a state agency to act as a first-stage arbiter when there's a dispute over a record being public or not.

In just eight months, the OOR has handled more than 4,500 e-mails and phone inquiries, about evenly split between people wanting to get information and government agencies wondering if they have to provide it.

...

The new law could be a victim of its own success.

As of yesterday, 55 rulings from the OOR have been appealed to local or state courts, where county and appellate judges will ultimately decide which government records the public is entitled to see.

There's a serious risk that when the cases are argued, John Q. Public will be legally outgunned by local and state agencies, using taxpayer money to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees - and arguing, usually, that taxpayers have no legal right to see the records they're asking for.

The problem of excessively defensive litigation is typically mitigated by awarding the plaintiff attorney's fees if they prevail, as is done in civil rights and discrimination cases.

Unfortunately, the Pennsylvania Right To Know Law's attorney's fees provision is not nearly as strong as the federal freedom of information act. The Pennsylvania law only permits attorneys fees to be shifted where:

Section 1304. Court costs and attorney fees.

(a) Reversal of agency determination. — If a court reverses the final determination of the appeals officer or grants access to a record after a request for access was deemed denied, the court may award reasonable attorney fees and costs of litigation or an appropriate portion thereof to a requester if the court finds either of the following:

(1) the agency receiving the original request willfully or with wanton disregard deprived the requester of access to a public record subject to access or otherwise acted in bad faith under the provisions of this act; or

(2) the exemptions, exclusions or defenses asserted by the agency in its final determination were not based on a reasonable interpretation of law.

(b) Sanctions for frivolous requests or appeals. — The court may award reasonable attorney fees and costs of litigation or an appropriate portion thereof to an agency or the requester if the court finds that the legal challenge under this chapter was frivolous.

That's a hard standard to meet, as shown by cases in other states with similar "willful" language, and thus it makes the Right-To-Know Law essentially unavailable except to lawyers and well-heeled parties.

Compare that weak fee-shifting to the Federal Freedom of Information Act's more robust fee-shifting:

The Freedom of Information Act provides that the court "may assess against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case . . . in which the complainant has substantially prevailed." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E).

Given low rates typically awarded to prevailing plaintiffs, FOIA litigation is by no means profitable, but the fee-shifting takes enough of bite out of the costs plaintiffs must incur when fighting against the unlimited resources of the government to attract the attention of public interest organizations, non-profits, and media companies. Which is good for democracy, and strikes a respectable balance between the need to know and the preservation of taxpayer funds: only the strongest cases get picked up by those organizations and carried through to their conclusion.

But that's only on the Federal level. In Pennsylvania, however, if you want to know what your state or local governments are up to, you need to be willing to pony up five-or-six figure attorneys' fees just to dispute their objections, much less prevail over them through litigation and appeals. Though it's your government, you have to put your money where their mouth is.

Of course, it bears repeating that, when the government hires lawyers by the hour, the relationship creates an inherent conflict of interest in which the lawyers have an incentive to excessively defend, delay and deny to generate more billable hours, exacerbating the problem and raising even more barriers to citizen-led investigations of the government.

Thus, much like how taxpayers are better served when the government is represented on a contingent fee for its own lawsuits, I propose the government only be defended on a contingent fee, too: if the defense lawyers don't "substantially prevail," they don't get paid at all.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a stunning display of judicial activism, two conservative judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia re-wrote several recent Department of Defense regulations, a sixty-year-old Act of Congress, a basic principle of federalism upheld by dozens of Supreme Court opinions, and millenia of common law to dismiss the Saleh v. Titan Corporation and Ibrahim v. Titan Corporation lawsuits brought by more than a dozen Iraqis who "were beaten, electrocuted, raped, subjected to attacks by dogs, and otherwise abused by private contractors working as interpreters and interrogators at Abu Ghraib prison." Dissent op., p.1. The United States was not a defendant, nor were the military officers. The lawsuit was solely against the private contractors.

You already know the "allegations" -- you've probably already seen much of the evidence. There's no doubt what happened. It was "abhorrent" and "[doesn't] represent America” according to President Bush. Secretary Rumsfeld assured “[t]he people of the Middle East . . . that we will investigate fully, that we will find out the truth . . . and [that] justice will be served.” Dissent op., p. 2. Ilham Nassir Ibrahim isn't around for justice; he was beaten to death while in captivity. His widow is one of the plaintiffs.

The prohibition on unauthorized violence, even against prisoners, is universal to civilization. Under the Code of Hammurabi, if a prisoner like Ibrahim died "from blows or maltreatment," the responsible party's son was put to death. These days, torture for fun and profit without even the pretense of government authorization violates a panolopy of laws, including the Torture Victim Protection Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, numerous common law torts (assault and battery, wrongful death and survival, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence), government contracting laws, and various international laws and agreements.

To cover their bases, the plaintiffs sued under all of them. Surely at least one such claim would survive under centuries-old Anglo-American legal maxim -- reaffirmed by the most important Supreme Court decision in our history -- that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded?"

The plaintiffs' claims were strengthened by the absence of any Executive or Congressional action to stop them, despite numerous claims by the private contractors that the federal government had a substantial interest in the outcome of the case. The Bush and Obama administrations both declined to intervene in the case. Congress for a half-century now has authorized dozens of military actions which included the use of private contractors without passing a single law granting them immunity from suit.

The only related Congressional Act -- the Federal Tort Claims Act -- expressly says it "does not include any contractor with the United States.”  In fact, the only recent relevant action by either the Executive or Legislative branches is a regulation from the Bush-era Department of Defense stating that, for performance-based service contracts, "contractors [are] accountable for the negligent or willful actions of their employees, officers, and subcontractors." Dissent op., p. 22. The DoD further explained that "“[i]nappropriate use of force could subject a contractor or its subcontractors or employees to prosecution or civil liability under the laws of the United States and the host nation.” Id at p. 21.

The Supreme Court, too, has made it quite clear that, when a government contractor breaches its agreement with the government and thereby causes a third party harm, that contractor is responsible for the harm. In Miree v. DeKalb County, 433 U. S. 25 (1977), the victims of an airplane crash sued a county airport because it "breached the FAA [flight permission] contracts by owning and maintaining a garbage dump adjacent to the airport, and that the cause of the crash was the ingestion of birds swarming from the dump into the jet engines of the aircraft." After reiterating (consistent with prior law) that "the issue of whether to displace state law on an issue such as this is primarily a decision for Congress" and noting "Congress has chosen not to do so in this case," the Supreme Court affirmed the victims' right to sue. Keep that "primarily a decision for Congress" concept, a basic principle of federalism recently upheld in Wyeth v. Levine, in mind -- we'll come back to it later.

Why, then were the Abu Ghraib cases dismissed? Judicial activism, plain and simple: having no act of Congress, no Executive decision (in fact, regulations to the contrary), and no applicable Supreme Court precedent to support their preferred policy outcome, two conservative judges invented an entirely new judicial doctrine.

The judges didn't say that, of course. They claimed to be applying existing law.

A bit of background is required to see why that's not true. Though Miree is the general rule for lawsuits brought by third parties injuried by government contractors who breach their contracts, an exception for government manufacturers who perform their contracts properly was created by Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), where a United States Marine helicopter copilot was killed when his CH-53D helicopter crashed off the coast of Virginia Beach and he drowned. His family brought a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the CH-53D, alleging that the helicopter was defective because escape hatch opened out instead of inward, and thus was impossible to open underwater.

The Supreme Court held the family could not recover against the manufacturer because that design had been specifically required by the government, and thus the federal procurement specification "preempted" any claims of negligence, rendering the contractor immune from suit for following those specifications. Make no mistake: as the Supreme Court later described Boyle, preemption and immunity for government contractors applies only in the "special circumstance" where the “government has directed a contractor to do the very thing that is the subject of the claim.”  Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 74 n.6 (2001)(applying the old Miree rule)

It's a sensible rule, even though one not enacted by Congress (as Miree and long-standing law said it should be). But it's also a very limited rule: as Justice Scalia wrote for the Supreme Court, it applies where "the asserted basis of the contractor's liability (specifically, the duty to equip helicopters with the sort of escape-hatch mechanism petitioner claims was necessary) is precisely contrary to the duty imposed by the Government contract (the duty to manufacture and deliver helicopters with the sort of escape-hatch mechanism shown by the specifications)."

Note those words: "precisely contrary." Scalia even gave an example of where it would not apply, such as where a government merely purchased air-conditioning units without any requirement contrary to a specific safety feature. As Scalia wrote, "no one suggests that state law would generally be preempted" if someone injured by the lack of that safety feature filed a lawsuit. Of course, absolutely no one suggested that a government contractor who breached their contract would be immune. As Scalia wrote, "conflict there must be" between the federal contract requirements and the lawsuit.

Compare "precisely contrary" and "conflict there must be" to Abu Ghraib, where the contractors intentionally breached their contracts through criminal conduct. Such is even less a case for preemption and immunity than Miree, where the breach was negligent, and which was reaffirmed by Boyle. Yet, Boyle is what the conservative judges claimed they were applying:

Slip op., p 13.

Did you catch all of that? The conservative judges took a twenty-year-old Supreme Court case admittedly involving the "special circumstance" where a plaintiff sued alleging a government manufacturer should have done the exact opposite of what the government told them to do, then, by way of a federal statute that expressly says it does not apply to contractors (the FTCA), the conservative judges applied that "special circumstances" to immunitize every private contractor in any "battle-field" -- which Abu Ghraib certainly wasn't -- who tortures and kills people without even the pretense of governmental authority.

In order to do that, the conservative judges also ran roughshod over the millenia-old prohibition on abusing prisoners, the centuries-old maxim that every right has a remedy, decades of precedent holding that Congress -- not the Courts -- is responsible for creating immunities, and recent crystal-clear Department of Defense regulations affirming that private contractors remain responsible for their wrongful conduct.

Judicial activism at its finest. Read the opinion yourself, if you dare. I recommend you start with the fine dissent by Judge Garland.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In recognition of the extraordinary circumstances, the Supreme Court has agreed to release the audio from the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission argument soon after it is completed. It will be worth a listen, for the hearing is not only a highly unusual four-way argument involving the brand-new Solicitor General, two former Solicitors General and a legendary First Amendment lawyer:

The Court’s Day Call shows this sequence for the argument: Theodore B. Olson of Washington, arguing for Citizens United, 30 minutes [some of that time will be saved for rebuttal after all others have argued]; Floyd Abrams of New York, arguing for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, 10 minutes; Solicitor General Kagan, for the FEC, 30 minutes, and Seth P. Waxman of Washington (a former Solicitor General), for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and other present and former congressional sponsors of campaign finance legislation.

But also because it is a rare special session re-argument requested by the Court to address a decades-old principle of constitutional law that most people today take for granted:

The large stakes of this case were not really apparent when the Court first agreed to hear it last Nov. 14 — ten days after Americans had cast their ballots in the most recent federal elections.  At that time, Citizens United, a politically active group with strong conservative views, pressed the case primarily as a test of whether federal campaign finance restrictions applied to what it called “a broadcast feature-length documentary movie.”  There was some constitutional argument involved, but the case was primarily statutory in scope.  At the center of the case was Citizens United’s sharply critical portrayal of the presidential candidacy last year of Hillary Rodham Clinton.  The feature-length film was titled “Hillary: The Movie.”  The contents of that film have been all but obscured by the profound shift in the shape of the case that has since occurred.

After the Court heard oral argument on the case last March 24, and began debating in private how to decide it, some members of the Court — the public does not know who, or exactly why — apparently began viewing the case as a more fundamental inquiry into constitutional questions about corporations’ rights of political speech.   On the final day of the Term, the Court ordered the case reargued, and set the date for Sept. 9.  Lawyers were told to come back to debate whether the Court should overrule two of its most important precedents that had upheld curbs on campaign finance by corporations.

For more, read this SCOTUSBlog commentary, as well as the Wiki it links to, which has all the major briefs. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Not too long ago, I argued that Ashcroft v. Iqbal was not nearly as important as commentators thought, and that the sky had not fallen on plaintiffs. Instead, Iqbal merely put into words the standard that numerous courts had already applied to large-scale litigation without saying as much. I also argued that Iqbal in particular involved a very unique circumstance -- a Bivens suit against top-level official -- and so was easily distinguishable from the vast majority of civil litigation.

For a while, it seemed no one agreed with me. Every week there was another "[pharmaceutical manufacturing defect / establishment clause / whatever] case dismissed under Iqbal" story.

It's not easy being green.

But I'm no longer alone.

Drug & Device Law has more news, referencing a law review article and a post by a law professor who, like me, but in a more scholarly fashion, reject the argument that six paragraphs of Iqbal radically re-rewrote the rules of civil procedure.

"They're just professors," the defense bar nay-sayers will nay-say, "Iqbal has nonetheless overruled centuries of precedent, making it nearly impossible to file a lawsuit against anyone anymore."

I, of course, disagree. So how about I up the ante with recent opinions from two of the most respected conservatives judges in the federal appellate courts?

Like Judge Frank Easterbrook:

Lusby contends that Rolls-Royce defrauded the United States about the quality of the turbine blades in the T56 engine. The complaint alleges that five contracts between Rolls-Royce and the United States require all of the engine's parts to meet particular specifications; that the parts did not do so (and the complaint describes tests said to prove this deficiency); that Rolls-Royce knew that the parts were non-compliant (not only because Lusby told his supervisors this but also because audits by Rolls-Royce's design and quality-assurance departments confirmed Lusby's conclusions); and that Rolls-Royce nonetheless certified that the parts met the contracts' specifications. The complaint names specific parts shipped on specific dates, and it relates details of payment. Simple breach of contract is not fraud, but making a promise while planning not to keep it is fraud, see Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. v. United Int'l Holdings, Inc., 532 U.S. 588, 121 S. Ct. 1776, 149 L. Ed. 2d 845 (2001), and this complaint alleges the promise, the intent not to keep that promise, and the details of non-conformity. What else might be required to narrate, with particularity, the circumstances that violate 31 U.S.C. §3729(a)(1)?

Rolls-Royce's answer is: the specific request for payment. Lusby has not seen any of the invoices and representations that Rolls-Royce submitted to its customers. He knows about shipments and payments, but he does not have access to the paperwork. The district court held that, unless Lusby has at least one of Rolls-Royce's billing packages, he lacks the required particularity. Since a relator is unlikely to have those documents unless he works in the defendant's accounting department, the district court's ruling takes a big bite out of qui tam litigation.

We don't think it essential for a relator to produce the invoices (and accompanying representations) at the outset of the suit. True, it is essential to show a false statement. But much knowledge is inferential--people are convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy without a written contract to commit a future crime--and the inference that Lusby proposes is a plausible one. 

United States ex rel. Lusby v. Rolls-Royce Corp., No. 08-3593, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14119, at *10–11 (7th Cir. Jun. 30, 2009)(reversing dismissal of qui tam / false claims act complaint).

And Judge Richard Posner:

In our initial thinking about the case, however, we were reluctant to endorse the district court's citation of the Supreme Court's decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007), fast becoming the citation du jour in Rule 12(b)(6) cases, as authority for the dismissal of this suit. The Court held that in complex litigation (the case itself was an antitrust suit) the defendant is not to be put to the cost of pretrial discovery--a cost that in complex litigation can be so steep as to coerce a settlement on terms favorable to the plaintiff even when his claim is very weak--unless the complaint says enough about the case to permit an inference that it may well have real merit. The present case, however, is not complex. Were this suit to survive dismissal and proceed to the summary judgment stage, it would be unlikely to place on the defendants a heavy burden of compliance with demands for pretrial discovery. The parties did not negotiate face to face over the termination agreement, and though some of the negotiations were over the telephone rather than in letters or emails, Smith recorded those and the transcripts are attached to his complaint. So almost all the potentially relevant evidence is already in the record.

But Bell Atlantic was extended, a week after we heard oral argument in the present case, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)--over the dissent of Justice Souter, the author of the majority opinion in Bell Atlantic--to all cases, even a case (Iqbal itself) in which the court of appeals had 'promise[d] petitioners minimally intrusive discovery.' Id. at 1954. Yet Iqbal is special in its own way, because the defendants had pleaded a defense of official immunity and the Court said that the promise of minimally intrusive discovery 'provides especially cold comfort in this pleading context, where we are impelled to give real content to the concept of qualified immunity for high-level officials who must be neither deterred nor detracted from the vigorous performance of their duties.' Id. (emphasis added).

So maybe neither Bell Atlantic nor Iqbal governs here. It doesn't matter. It is apparent from the complaint and the plaintiff's arguments, without reference to anything else, that his case has no merit. That is enough to justify, under any reasonable interpretation of Rule 12(b)(6), the dismissal of the suit.

Smith v. Duffey, No. 08-2804, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17211, at *11–13 (7th Cir. Aug. 3, 2009).

Neither Easterbrook nor Posner are bleeding hearts, and neither has shown much sympathy for plaintiffs in the past. Yet, even they believe the Twombly and Iqbal chatter is overblown.

Chalk two victories up for plaintiffs. It seems the battle over pleading standards is far from over.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

[UPDATE: The Supreme Court issued its opinion in Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, holding attorney-client privilege was not immediately appealable.]

Last week, the Fulton County Daily Report noted:

The Obama administration and a group of law professors and former federal judges are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a Georgia company's plea for a change in the way many appellate courts deal with questions of attorney-client privilege.

Earlier this year, a coalition of business interests and the American Bar Association filed amicus briefs joining carpet maker Mohawk Industries' argument that parties in federal cases should be allowed to immediately appeal lower court findings that the parties have waived their rights to keep key information secret under attorney-client privilege. They argue that once privileged material is produced in discovery, the consequences of disclosure cannot be undone by an appellate reversal of the trial order mandating production.

But this month, the former Mohawk employee seeking information the company claims is privileged received some high-powered help of his own. U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan filed an amicus brief supporting the former employee, plaintiff Norman Carpenter, as did the group of 19 law professors and six former federal judges that includes former Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr; former Federal Bureau of Investigation director William S. Sessions; former federal judges Patricia M. Wald and Abner J. Mikva; and legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky. They argue that a Mohawk win at the Supreme Court would undermine district court judges' ability to control the discovery process.

The relevant briefs and a synopsis of the arguments are available at SCOTUSwiki. Seeing Starr and Chemerinsky on the same side of an issue is almost as odd as seeing Ted Olson joining David Boies to sue for gay rights.

The position of the Chamber of Commerce and Defense Research Institute is no surprise: deny, distract and, above all, delay.

But why do bar associations (like the Philadelphia Bar Association) have a penchant for chiming in only on behalf of defendants?

In one sense, the question we're really asking is one of balance. Everyone would like to have every issue decided against them made immediately appealable. But we can't do that; as the former judges' brief notes, the courts are overworked as is, and, as the plaintiff's brief notes, there are dozens of serious issues -- like those affecting constitutional rights and criminal convictions -- which are not immediately appealable.

Where does attorney-client privilege (involving discussions regarding a separate case) fit on the totem pole?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

[Apologies for the typo in the title -- unfortunately, I can't change it without damaging all the syndication links to the post. See also update below regarding the "downloading" and "sharing" distinction.]

Green Day's "Minority" is available for $0.99 on Amazon MP3.

Joel Tenenbaum will pay $22,500 for it (a total of $675,000 for 30 songs) because he downloaded and shared it through KaZaA, a peer-to-peer network.

Since Warner Music apparently didn't bother proving any actual damages beyond the $0.99 for Tenenbaum's personal use of the song, we must assume that $21,499.01 of the award is for punitive damages.*

Tenenbaum and other activists have argued such an award is unconstitutional. The issue is "unsettled," but doesn't look good for Tenenbaum: previously, in Eldred and Grokster, the Supreme Court bent over backwards for copyright owners by, respectively, nullifying a clause of the United States Constitution and inventing an entirely new federal common law cause of action for copyright holders.

If the Tenenbaum situation had been reversed -- if Warner Music had ripped off Tenenbaum by fraudulently selling him an MP3 then revoking his access to it, which Warner (through the RIAA) claims they can do -- then there would be no question on the limit of the punitive damages. As the Supreme Court held in State Farm v. Campbell:

Our jurisprudence and the principles it has now established demonstrate, however, that, in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process. In Has lip, in upholding a punitive damages award, we concluded that an award of more than four times the amount of compensatory damages might be close to the line of constitutional impropriety. 499 U. S., at 23-24. We cited that 4-to-1 ratio again in Gore. 517 U. S., at 581. The Court further referenced a long legislative history, dating back over 700 years and going forward to today, providing for sanctions of double, treble, or quadruple damages to deter and punish. Id., at 581, and n. 33. While these ratios are not binding, they are instructive. They demonstrate what should be obvious: Single-digit multipliers are more likely to comport with due process, while still achieving the State's goals of deterrence and retribution, than awards with ratios in range of 500 to 1, id., at 582, or, in this case, of 145 to 1.

(emphasis added)

The unconstitutional 145-to-1 verdict is but a tiny fraction of the 21,716-to-1 awarded against Tenenbaum. Tenenbaum's award is thus a no-brainer under existing due process / constitutional precedent: it's grossly excessive and unreasonable.

The only question is if we have one set of laws for lawsuits against big corporations and another set for lawsuits by big corporations.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In today's Wall Street Journal:

Good news: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear an unusual but important legal challenge in a case involving Governor Ed Rendell’s hiring of a contingency fee law firm to sue a drug manufacturer on behalf of the state.

The lawsuit—which we first wrote about in April—concerns Bailey Perrin & Bailey, a Houston law firm tapped by the Rendell administration to prosecute Janssen Phamaceuticals over the marketing of its antipsychotic drug Risperdal. When states lack the resources or expertise to bring certain suits, it’s not uncommon for them to seek help from private lawyers. ...

In agreeing to hear the challenge, the state Supreme Court said it will consider, among other things, “whether Bailey Perrin Bailey, LLP, should be disqualified because the due process guarantees of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions prohibit the Commonwealth from delegating the exercise of its sovereign powers to private counsel with a direct contingent financial interest in the outcome of the litigation.”

The WSJ makes a big deal out of donations the firm made to Governor Rendell's campaign while negotiating the contract. If there's an issue there, this appeal won't address it.

Drug & Device Law has a copy of the petition for review, which bizarrely claimed companies accused of ripping off taxpayers have a due process right to force the government to hire only lawyers who are "impartial."

Of course, everyone wants government officials to be "impartial." But once those impartial officials have made the decision to sue, common sense dictates they hire lawyers who will "act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf," as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct.

The real issue is whether the Commonwealth may hire lawyers on the same terms as businesses and individuals do every day or if the Commonwealth is forced to use a particularly wasteful system invented by corporate lawyers that came to prominence in the 1970s (and is being rejected today) as a means of extracting greater profits from business clients by creating unnecessary work for recent law graduates.

You can guess what I think: the appeal is a blatant attempt to make litigation more expensive for the government, thereby making it harder for the government to sue companies when they cheat or injure taxpayers.

If there was pay-for-play, that's obviously illegal and unethical, but contingent fee litigation itself is a win-win for taxpayers, as it protects the public coffers (no fee if they lose), preserves state cash for other use (no billables to pay at the end of each month), and ensures the matter will be prosecuted in a prompt and efficient manner, rather than through the relentless fee churning that characterizes complex litigation billed by the hour.

Examples of waste by the hour aren't hard to find: the litigation (excluding trial) of a few trust documents at Princeton was reached $40 million for each side. The white collar criminal defense of an executive for accounting fraud was a "feeding frenzy" of $12 million. Compare that to the $0.00 that Pennsylvania taxpayers have paid so far for the prosecution of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.

It should be noted that the "among other things" to be considered by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court are:

A. Whether 71 P.S. § 732-103 dictates that Petitioner lacks standing to
seek disqualification of Bailey Perrin Bailey, LLP on the basis of alleged
violations of constitutional law.

B. Whether the Attorneys Act, 71 P.S. § 732-101 et seq., authorizes the Office
of General Counsel’s contingent fee arrangement with Bailey Perrin Bailey, LLP.

C. Whether Bailey Perrin Bailey, LLP, should be disqualified because the
General Assembly did not authorize the contingent fee arrangement between
the Office of General Counsel and the law firm, such that the agreement
violates Article III, § 24 and the separation of powers mandate of the
Pennsylvania Constitution.

The first question is a substantial one. 71 P.S. § 732-103 reads in full:

No party to an action, other than a Commonwealth agency including the Departments of Auditor General and State Treasury and the Public Utility Commission, shall have standing to question the authority of the legal representation of the agency.

Such would appear to be a clear indication by the General Assembly that choice of counsel is a political question.

Nonetheless, an interesting and important case to watch. Will Pennsylvania taxpayers be required to open their wallets again?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on Friday:

An association of black police officers has sued the Philadelphia Police Department in federal court for allowing its officers to post "blatantly racist . . . and offensive" content on a popular Web site devoted to law enforcement topics.

The suit, filed Wednesday, says Domelights.com, which bills itself as "the voice of the good guys," was founded by a Philadelphia police sergeant who uses the screen name "McQ" and "encourages the racially offensive conduct."

...

Guardian Civic League attorney Brian Mildenberg said that black officers had long reviled the site and that complaints had been been lodged with current and past police administrations to no avail.

Even the word domelights, which normally refers to the police lights on top of cruisers, has taken on an "insulting connotation" among black officers, according to the lawsuit.

...

Mildenberg said white officers post and moderate the forums while on duty and on department computers, creating "a racially hostile environment."

"It's the same thing as you can't hang racist material in the workplace," he said.

Of interest is the response "McQ" posted at the website:

Domelights.com has two members (founders and co-owners) with global administration rights, along with several moderators of individual forums. I am the only current PPD employee among the moderators and administrators. I do not administer the site from work, and since the site is only lightly moderated, I barely administer the site from home (it is essentially an open forum to members). I have personally NEVER made a racist/sexist post on Domelights or anywhere else on the Internet.

...

Domelights.com has no association, official or otherwise, with the Philadelphia Police Department. It is just a semi-popular social networking site that is geared towards cops/firefighters. There are THOUSANDS of city employees with blogs, facebook pages, myspace pages, twitter accounts and even websites, with ALL kinds of content, offensive and otherwise. I just happen to run the site that gets the most hits (at least for now).

WHYY has a copy of the complaint, available here.

There are plenty of sites offering analysis of the comments posted at the site and quoted in the complaint. For the moment, let's assume that, consist with Third Circuit jury instructions on hostile work environments, the allegedly harassing conduct was not "generally harsh, unfriendly, unpleasant, crude or vulgar," but rather "could be objectively classified as the kind of behavior that would seriously affect the psychological or emotional well-being of a reasonable [member of plaintiff’s race]."

How could the Philadelphia Police Department, and thus the City of Philadelphia, be liable for posts on a website with "no association, official or otherwise, with the Philadelphia Police Department?"

Let's go back to 1866.

Plaintiffs allege three counts, two of which are only against "Sgt. 'McQ,' Domelights.com a/k/a Domelights Enterprises, LLC and JOHN/JANE DOES ## 1-10,000," the other of which is:

FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION/DISCRIMINATION
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON THE BASIS OF RACE
42 U.S.C. § 1981 as enforceable through § 1983
Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
The Philadelphia Police Department

The core language in 42 U.S.C. § 1981 was originally passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (over President Johnson's veto), which included:

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

Such did little to halt the Ku Klux Klan's frustration of Reconstruction. In 1871, Congress passed (and President Grant signed) a bill colloquially referred to as "the Ku Klux Klan Act," which included:

[A]ny person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State, shall subject, or cause to be subjected any person within the jurisdiction of the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States, shall, any such law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the State to the contrary notwithstanding, be liable to the party injured in any action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress

The primary purpose of the Act was to create criminal penalties -- "a fine not less than five hundred nor more than five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment, possibly with hard labor, for not less than six months nor more than six years or by both fine and imprisonment" -- for a host of wrongful conduct, including witness intimidation, voter intimidation, obstruction of justice, and interference with federal government operations.

More than a century later, lawyers revived § 1981 to pursue discrimination actions against state governments, only to be shot down by Jett v. Dallas Independent School District, 491 U.S. 701 (1989). In January of this year, the Third Circuit "consider[ed] whether a private right of action against state actors can be implied under 42 U.S.C. § 1981," and held it could not. McGovern v. City of Philadelphia, 554 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2009).

But suit can be brought against "state actors," including municipalities themselves, by using § 1983 to apply § 1981. Yet, to recover against a municipality under § 1983 requires proving more than just purposeful discrimination that creates a hostile work environment; plaintiffs' complaint reveals how they intend to recover against the City specifically:

50. By and through their conduct, the Philadelphia Police Department has evidenced a
policy, practice or custom of allowing the use of their computers for a racially hostile purpose, and allowing its employee Police Officers to engage publically in racially offensive and hostile commentary and postings.

 The key words are "policy, practice or custom." As the McGovern case above noted,

In Monell v. New York Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978), the Supreme Court held that a municipality may not be held vicariously liable for the federal constitutional or statutory violations of its employees. See id. at 694. "Instead, it is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent officially policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983." Id.

McGovern at 121.

And that's what's going to pose the greatest challenge for the plaintiffs here. The City and Police Department are not vicariously liable for civil rights violations by their employees. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, unlike in a typical case alleging a constitutional violation -- in which neither the City nor the plaintiff disputes that the defendant was acting in their official capacity when they crossed the line -- it seems unlikely the City would indemnify "McQ" or anyone else for comments made on a website with "no association, official or otherwise, with the Philadelphia Police Department."

That is to say, the City / Police Department are only liable if the plaintiffs can show that the government policy itself inflicted injury on the plaintiffs. Hence the references to the use of "Domelights" in the office as a pejorative term and the use of work computers.

Can they prove that? Ironically, since § 1981 lay dormant for so long, it never really had any "organic" development of case law and precedent. Thus, courts in recent years have simply taken the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), framework for deciding cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and applied it wholesale to § 1981 employment discrimination cases.

The details of such a framework can fill -- and has filled -- shelves of books. For a glimpse, start at page 10 of the Third Circuit model jury instructions. Assuming McQ is right, it appears the core question will likely be if the Philadelphia Police Department should have taken action to stop off-the-job discriminatory remarks by its employees.

That's a tricky question; just ask Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented in the Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143, 154 (2d Cir. 2002) case, in which the New York Police Department fired an officer for off-the-job hate speech. The Second Circuit upheld the termination; Sotomayor would have held the termination violated the officer's free speech rights:

Today the Court enters uncharted territory in our First Amendment jurisprudence. The Court holds that the government does not violate the First Amendment when it fires a police department employee for racially inflammatory speech -- where the speech consists of mailings in which the employee did not identify himself, let alone connect himself to the police department; where the speech occurred away from the office and on the employee's own time; where the employee's position involved no policymaking authority or public contact; where there is virtually no evidence of workplace disruption resulting directly from the speech; and where it ultimately required the investigatory resources of two police departments to bring the speech to the attention of the community. Precedent requires us to consider these factors as we apply the Pickering balancing test, and each counsels against granting summary judgment in favor of the police department employer. To be sure, I find the speech in this case patently offensive, hateful, and insulting. The Court should not, however, gloss over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives because it is confronted with speech it does not like and because a government employer fears a potential public response that it alone precipitated.

As Popehat notes,

Of course in some ways the Pappas case is easier than what’s alleged here.  Pappas’s speech was far more loathsome than the “locker room” casual redneck racism that’s complained of in Domelights.  But in others the Pappas case is harder.  There was no evidence Pappas’s speech was repeated on the job, while the Philly PD allegedly allows officers to post at Domelights from work computers.

This case, if its litigated fully (and it should be, as it presents interesting issues on the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act), may wind up before Sonia Sotomayor one day.  If and when that happens, she may have the opportunity, in the most emphatic way, to reverse her Second Circuit colleagues.

An interesting case to follow.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The WSJ Law Blog spots an interesting development:

In June, as we blogged here, a San Francisco federal judge ruled that convicted terrorist Jose Padilla can sue Yoo, the Bush administration lawyer who authored some of the now famous war-on-terror memos, including one that opined the military can use “any means necessary” to hold suspected terrorists. ...

Yoo has now turned for help to Miguel Estrada, the powerhouse Gibson Dunn appellate litigator who was nominated by Bush to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Estrada’s nomination was scuttled by Democrats, a point repeatedly harped on by Republican senators in the Sotomayor confirmation hearings. (Okay, we can only turn away from Sonia for so long.)

The Justice Department had been defending Yoo in the Padilla suit, but DOJ has agreed to foot the bill for Estrada’s services, according to an article today in The Recorder. Conflicts of interest are behind the change in counsel, ethics experts say.

“The department so far has been able to provide direct representation in this case by arguing that the lawsuit should be dismissed for qualified immunity reasons, and that remains the department’s position,” a Justice spokeswoman told the Recorder. “But as this case moves forward, the defendant deserves the opportunity to retain defense counsel that can make any and all arguments available on his behalf.”

I've discussed qualified immunity before on this blog. In short, as described by Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982):

government officials performing discretionary functions[] generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

For more on the specific ruling in the case against Yoo, see this post by Jonathan Turley. Up until now, the Department of Justice (under Obama) had conducted Yoo's defense, and had angered civil libertarians by requesting the court dismiss Padilla's case on several grounds, including qualified immunity.

It's typical for federal government officials to be represented by the U.S. Attorneys and the Department of Justice, since the United States indemnifies its officials for damages awarded against them for conduct taken as part of their office, including for constitutional violations.

A "conflict of interest" isn't the right way to describe what happened here. The Department of Justice and Yoo have the same interest, which is to dismiss the case promptly or to minimize their liability.

What really happened here is revealed by the bolded quote above. It appears Yoo is going to make arguments on his behalf that the Department of Justice itself is unwilling to support.

That's good news for civil libertarians. Even though the Department of Justice initially sought to dismiss the suit on standard "qualified immunity" grounds, it appears the Department of Justice will not support Yoo's actual constitutional arguments, like how the President is "free from the constraints" of the Fourth Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) even when ordering domestic military action. (If the Department of Justice agreed, there would be no need to withdraw.)

Indeed, the Department of Justice might end up admitting that Yoo's opinions were erroneous and did not accurately state the law. Were I Padilla's lawyers, the first discovery I'd send would be a request for admission to the the United States establishing that.

A important case to watch, and perhaps the only vehicle by which we'll have a legal accounting of what really happened behind closed doors in the Bush years.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

[Update II -- Anne Marie Green of CBS3 (KYW) News Philadelphia also spoke with me about case, particularly the relief available to the day camp members. Video available here.

Update -- Jon Elliott on San Diego 1700AM interviewed me on the incident and the law. List of their podcasts here (I'm "7/10/09 2nd Hour, 07/10/09 4:00pm"), direct link to 36MB MP3 here. Best part is when a spaceship lands in the middle of my interview.]

You've probably heard by now about the Valley Swim Club / Creative Steps Day Camp incident, in which a Huntingdon Valley "private" swim club apparently refused to let 65 African-American and Hispanic children who had paid $1950 for a weekly membership swim in the pool.

For a legal introduction, see my post yesterday, Philadelphia Swim Club Refuses Black Children Because Of Their "Complexion." In short, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act prohibits racial discrimination in "public accommodations" like "swimming pools" unless those entities are "distinctly private." Odds are, the Valley Swim club is not "distinctly private" because the PHRA and the case law imply "distinctly private" applies only to bona fide fraternal organizations that do not let nonmembers use their facilities at all, not the simple paid-your-membership-dues-and-swim system the Valley Swim Club used.

Today let's talk about the upcoming legal procedure, the disputed facts, and the core issues to be resolved.

The Legal Procedure:

Discrimination lawsuits (whether based on race, gender, age, or disability) don't begin like most lawsuits; before filing in court, the victim of discrimination must file a complaint with either the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) or, if related to employment, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Also unlike almost every other field of law, most of which allow plaintiffs one year, two years, or possibly more to file their claim under the 'statute of limitations,' discrimination complaints must be filed within 180 days of the discrimination or they are forever waived. 

Based on a NAACP complaint, the PHRC has already opened an investigation. Typically, these investigations take months, and can take up to a year; by state law, victims of discrimination are prohibited from suing until the investigation is completed or a year from when they filed the complaint, whichever comes first. The PHRC has said they will conduct an "expedited" investigation here.

The PHRC process is flexible and analogous to a police investigation, in that the bulk of the process is not lawyers arguing with one another, but rather a PHRC investigator talking with the complainant, the respondent, and important witnesses. Eventually, the PHRC will either dismiss the case for lack of probable cause (after which a normal lawsuit can be initiated) or:

If probable cause is found in your case, the Commission will attempt to settle the case. The respondent will be asked to stop the discriminatory actions, begin any new programs or make financial payment to settle your case. If this conciliation process is unsuccessful, a public hearing will be held on your case.

At the public hearing, testimony is given under oath and evidence in your case is submitted. If you do not have an attorney, a Commission attorney will represent your complaint. After your case is presented, the Commissioners will vote either to agree that discrimination did occur and approve a settlement, or dismiss the complaint, if they decide discrimination did not occur.

The idea here is similar to small claims court and arbitration of motor vehicle accidents: presumably, if the parties go through the process once and one side clearly loses, this will encourage settlement.

Unfortunately, except where the damages are small, PHRC decisions, like compulsory arbitration decisions, are typically appealed to state court. Unless the Valley Swim Club and the Day Camp can come up with a solution, then, regardless of what the PHRC finds, this case will likely be appealed and litigated in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, since the pool was in Montgomery County.

The Facts That Will Be Disputed:

The core allegations by the plaintiffs are simple: we paid $1950 to swim at a club, got there, heard a number of racist remarks, then, the next day, had our money refunded and told not to come back because of "complexion" and "atmosphere."

The Valley Club has replaced its entire website with:

The Valley Club is deeply troubled by the recent allegations of racism which are completely untrue.

We had originally agreed to invite the camps to use our facility, knowing full well that the children from the camps were from multi-ethnic backgrounds. Unfortunately, we quickly learned that we underestimated the capacity of our facilities and realized that we could not accommodate the number of children from these camps. All funds were returned to the camps and we will re-evaluate the issue at a later date to determine whether it can be feasible in the future.

Our Valley Club deplores discrimination in any form, as is evidenced by our multi-ethnic and diverse membership. Whatever comments may or may not have been made by an individual member is an opinion not shared by The Valley Club Board.

Plausible, but disputed:

HUNTINGDON VALLEY, Pa. - A suburban Philadelphia swim member tells the AP she didn't see inner-city kids misbehaving at a pool they were later barred from.

Amy Goldman said she's been a member of the Valley Club for two years. She said the pool wasn't particularly crowded and the children from Creative Steps daycare were "well behaved and respectful."

She said there had been black members at the club in the past, though she couldn't remember seeing any this year.

We see hints of a "no good deed goes unpunished" defense in the works:

The statement says the day campers were turned away because they overwhelmed the 110,000-gallon pool.

"We quickly learned that we underestimated the capacity of our facilities, and realized that we could not accommodate the number of children from these camps," the statement says.

A worker at another Northeast Philadelphia day camp that had an agreement to use Valley Club this summer, Storybook Children's Center, said she believed the club's account. Monica Scanlon said she took 25 children of diverse ethnicities to its pool this summer, but the noise had clearly been too much for comfort.

Valley Club president John Duesler apologetically refunded Storybook's money, as he did for Creative Steps.

"He was trying to help us out, because there weren't supposed to be city pools open this year," said Scanlon, who contacted The Inquirer after learning of the controversy.

These sorts of factual disputes are precisely why we have courts and juries and why cases take so long.

What Creative Steps Day Camp Has To Prove And What The Valley Swim Club Has To Explain:

This incident is intriguing, legally, because it asks a basic question that hasn't really been raised in more than forty years: what does a complainant have to prove to show they were the victim of racial discrimination?

Do they have to show that race had some effect in excluding them from a public accommodation? That race was the only factor in their exclusion? What happens if the jury finds that race impacted the decision by the Club but that the Club would have refunded the money anyway for other reasons?

These questions have been answered in the employment context, where they come up all the time, but not in the public accommodation context, where there have been few lawsuits alleging racial discrimination for decades.

Based on the minimal Pennsylvania case law out there, I believe the PHRC and any later court would set a fairly low bar. Back in the 1970s, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized "In trying to eradicate other manifestations of racial discrimination, courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, have recognized that statistics alone can establish racial discrimination. " Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm'n v. Chester Housing Authority, 458 Pa. 67, 80, 327 A.2d 335, 342 (1974).

If statistics alone can prove discrimination, without concrete proof of racial motive or that race was a necessary factor, then odds are the eventual jury that hears this case will only be asked to decide if the Club "den[ied] to any person because of his race" "any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of such public accommodation," just as the Human Relations Act says.

So how do we show denial because of their race?

Let's assume, for the moment, that everything the Club said is true. There's still a big unanswered question: once they realized they were overbooked, how did they choose which money to refund?

The most recent members? Did they do that for individual white members, too? What about predominantly white day camps?

On its face, the Storybrook Day Camp story sounds favorable to the Valley Swim Club's position, but upon closer inspection it's another diverse day camp whose money was refunded after they showed up. Like the "statistics" described by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the presence of another minority Day Camp which was excluded might be very damaging to the Swim Club's defense, unless they can show similar exclusions / refunds of white camps or members.

But I think they've got an even bigger problem: we're having a debate they obviously did not have when they refunded the money. The concern stated at the time was over "complexion" and "atmosphere."

That's not the same thing as their website says, that they "quickly learned that we underestimated the capacity of our facilities and realized that we could not accommodate the number of children from these camps."

And it gets worse:

Apparently, the way Duesler handled it was to refund Wright's check and tell her that the club membership overthrew his decision "by voting to disinvite us," Wright said.

Well, that's news to Valley Club member Jim Flynn. Standing in front of the club - which was padlocked yesterday - Flynn seethed over the way he said Duesler has handled things.

"To my knowledge, the members were not involved in any of the decisionmaking," says Flynn, 41, a Fox Chase resident who pays a $700 membership for a family of four. "As far as I know, all we recommended was to change the time that [the campers] came, from the afternoons to a nonpeak time. We never recommended to disinvite them."

As for Duesler's "complexion" comment, he said, "I couldn't believe he said that. . . . It was insensitive and inflammatory. Look, I'm not naive enough to think that racism doesn't exist here, but I don't want the good people's names at this club to be smeared."

And that's what will probably sink the Swim Club's defense: they can't get their stories straight. At some point, even the most open-minded juror can tell you're just treading water. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (8)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

[You may wish to see my follow-up post, How The Valley Swim Club Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Will Go Down]

NBC Philadelphia says:

More than 60 campers from Northeast Philadelphia were turned away from a private swim club and left to wonder if their race was the reason.

"I heard this lady, she was like, 'Uh, what are all these black kids doing here?' She's like, 'I'm scared they might do something to my child,'" said camper Dymire Baylor.

The Creative Steps Day Camp paid more than $1900 to The Valley Swim Club. The Valley Swim Club is a private club that advertises open membership. But the campers' first visit to the pool suggested otherwise.
 
"When the minority children got in the pool all of the Caucasian children immediately exited the pool," Horace Gibson, parent of a day camp child, wrote in an email. "The pool attendants came and told the black children that they did not allow minorities in the club and needed the children to leave immediately."
 
The next day the club told the camp director that the camp's membership was being suspended and their money would be refunded.

Bad enough. Then comes the kicker:

The explanation they got was either dishearteningly honest or poorly worded.
 
"There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club," John Duesler, President of The Valley Swim Club said in a statement.

Wow.

Refusing access to a public pool because of someone's "complexion" is illegal, a violation of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, specifically 43 P.S. § 955(i)(1):

§ 955.  Unlawful Discriminatory Practices

It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, or in the case of a fraternal corporation or association, unless based upon membership in such association or corporation, or except where based upon applicable security regulations established by the United States or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

* * *

(i) For any person being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any public accommodation, resort or amusement to:
 
(1) Refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person because of his race, color, sex, religious creed, ancestry, national origin or handicap or disability, or to any person due to use of a guide or support animal because of the blindness, deafness or physical handicap of the user or because the user is a handler or trainer of support or guide animals, either directly or indirectly, any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of such public accommodation, resort or amusement.

The key term there is "public accommodation." Does that include a nominally private swim club which leased access to nonmembers then refused to honor it?

The Human Relations Act defines "public accommodation" as:

(l) The term "PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION, RESORT OR AMUSEMENT" means any accommodation, resort or amusement which is open to, accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public, including but not limited to inns, taverns, roadhouses, hotels, motels, whether conducted for the entertainment of transient guests or for the accommodation of those seeking health, recreation or rest, or restaurants or eating houses, or any place where food is sold for consumption on the premises, buffets, saloons, barrooms or any store, park or enclosure where spirituous or malt liquors are sold, ice cream parlors, confectioneries, soda fountains and all stores where ice cream, ice and fruit preparations or their derivatives, or where beverages of any kind are retailed for consumption on the premises, drug stores, dispensaries, clinics, hospitals, bathhouses, swimming pools, barber shops, beauty parlors, retail stores and establishments, theatres, motion picture houses, airdromes, roof gardens, music halls, race courses, skating rinks, amusement and recreation parks, fairs, bowling alleys, gymnasiums, shooting galleries, billiard and pool parlors, public libraries, kindergartens, primary and secondary schools, high schools, academies, colleges and universities, extension courses and all educational institutions under the supervision of this Commonwealth, nonsectarian cemeteries, garages and all public conveyances operated on land or water or in the air as well as the stations, terminals and airports thereof, financial institutions and all Commonwealth facilities and services, including such facilities and services of all political subdivisions thereof, but shall not include any accommodations which are in their nature distinctly private.

A "swimming pool" is thus by definition a public accommodation unless it is "in [its] nature distinctly private."

Though nearly forty years old by this point, one of the key cases before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held a dining hall connected to a fraternal organization was a public accommodation because:

We believe that the Superior Court dissenters were correct in concluding that 'by its practice of opening its dining room to non-members, subject only to the limitation that they be of the Caucasian race and invited by a member, [the lodge] has brought itself within the ambit of a 'public accommodation' as defined by the act.' Having done so, it has also brought itself within the prohibition of § 5, as above set out, at least to the extent of its dining and bar facilities. ... The lodge concedes that any member of the general public who is of the Caucasian race and who is invited by a member of the lodge is welcome in its dining room. As aptly stated by the Superior Court dissenters: 'The interests of privacy and exclusiveness of association which the Act acknowledged by creating its exclusion for fraternal organizations have been compromised by the policies of the organization itself. Any member of the public, regardless of affection or disaffection for the [lodge] and regardless of eligibility for membership (as in the case of women and children) may intrude upon the privacy and exclusiveness of the Moose dining room, so long as there is some member of the Moose who will stand accountable for his conduct while on the premises . . . that is, any Caucasian member of the public.'

...

There is, of course, no question that when the lodge leases its facilities to nonmembers, a place of public accommodation exists and the lodge does in fact follow a nondiscriminatory policy in such circumstances. The opening of the facilities to guests of members is a difference in degree rather than in character, and each constitutes a step beyond the limited area of immunity granted by the Human Relations Act.

Commonwealth Human Relations Comm'n v. Loyal Order of Moose, 448 Pa. 451, 458–59, 294 A.2d 594, 597–98 (1972).

Take a look at The Valley Club's membership applications. There doesn't appear to be any membership "eligibility" issues at all; at most, "membership" is simply paying one's dues. There's good odds a court would say the pool is always a public accommodation, regardless of the "membership."

But they've got a bigger problem than that: as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held, "There is, of course, no question that when the lodge leases its facilities to nonmembers, a place of public accommodation exist."

That's exactly what happened here: The Valley Club leased access to the pool to The Creative Steps Day Camp. There's "no question" they were not permitted to discriminate on the basis of race.

See you in court, guys.

[UPDATE: Two issues have come up since the initial story.

First, the Camp apparently paid $1950 for memberships, so "leasing" isn't the issue. However, as noted above, and unlike the fraternal organizations protected by the Act, the Swim Club doesn't appear to have any "membership" requirements at all -- pay your dues and you're in. As such, they likely "compromised" any "interests of privacy and exclusiveness of association" they may have had as a "distinctly private" entity, and so are a "public accommodation" nonetheless.

Second, the Inquirer notes:

Several parents and the camp are looking into possible legal action against the club, said Staci Morgan, a Creative Steps board member and Philadelphia social worker.

Their options depend on whether the state Human Relations Commission has jurisdiction over the club's operations, said Michael Hardiman, a lawyer with the commission. Organizations that are "distinctly private" do not fall under that jurisdiction.

Hardiman would not say whether the Valley Swim Club met the commission's criteria for investigation.

The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission has jurisdiction to investigate the club's operations and to determine for itself if the swim club is "distinctly private." The primary case, ironically, also involves a swim club:

If the Swim Club is a 'place of public accommodation,' it is subject to the Act and within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and it may not deny membership to persons on the basis of their race, color or ancestry. Beyond this, the language of the statute provides little guidance. A swimming pool may be a 'place of public accommodation' if it 'accepts . . . the patronage of the general public' and is not in its nature 'distinctly private.' These references to the general concepts of 'public' and 'private' take on meaning only as applied to specific factual situations. The appropriate body to make such applications is the Commission, which is charged by the Legislature with administering the Act and is empowered not only to promulgate rules and regulations but also to formulate policies to effectuate the provisions and purposes of the Act.

Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm'n v. Lansdowne Swim Club, 515 Pa. 1, 7–8, 526 A.2d 758, 761 (1987).

As I noted above, the Valley Swim Club has likely forfeited whatever interests it had in exclusivity by not actually being exclusive and by taking the Camp's money in the first place.

A simple question that could settle the issue entirely is: does the Club permit members to bring nonmembers with them? If so, then Loyal Order of Moose would hold that, as a matter of law, the Club is a "public accommodation."] 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

UPDATE III: The most thorough critique I've read of Iqbal is Professor Burbank's Senate testimony, available here (PDF). As an empirical matter, Iqbal has had a significant effect, particularly on constitutional rights plaintiffs:

The statistical analysis of 1,039 cases shows that 49% of 12(b)(6) motions were granted (with or without leave to amend) in the cases selected (from May 2005 to August 2009). Further, the rate of granting such motions increased from 46% of motions decided under Conley, to 48% of motions decided under Twombly, to 56% of motions decided under Iqbal. A multinomial logistic regression indicates that under Twombly/Iqbal, the odds of a 12(b)(6) motion being granted rather than denied are 1.5 times greater than under Conley, holding all other variables constant.

Moreover, the largest category of cases in which 12(b)(6) motions are filed was constitutional civil rights. Motions to dismiss in constitutional civil rights cases were granted at a higher rate (53%) than in cases overall (49%), and the rate of granting 12(b)(6) motions in constitutional civil rights cases increased in the cases selected from Conley (50%) to Twombly (55%) to Iqbal (60%).

Personally, I think the powers that be understated the degree to which cases were dismissed before, and now overstate the degree to which Iqbal will increase their likelihood of being dismissed. The odds are indeed worse now, but they're still generally 50/50.

UPDATE II: Judge Posner weighs in, wondering if Twombly and Iqbal are limited to complex cases or those with other compelling interests, such as ensuring high-level officials are not distracted from their duties by suits of doubtful merit. I have a new post referencing Posner's opinion and a separate opinion by Judge Easterbrook that throw cold water on those who believe Iqbal has doomed all but the sharpest of complaints.

UPDATE: The NYTimes has an article on the case as well, also believing it to be a death-knell for plaintiffs, noting that federal judges "have cited it more than 500 times in just the last two months." As I wrote below, citation is not the same thing as impact. The standard is not any different from what courts have been practically applying for years, except to add the word "plausible."

Indeed, you don't have to go far to see the limits of Iqbal; just last month the District Court in Padilla v. Yoo, a similar suit against a high-ranking government official, denied defendants' motion to dismiss, quoting Iqbal as follows:

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. “Where a complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability, it ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (brackets omitted))

To reiterate: the sky is not falling on plaintiffs. They need only plead "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully," something lawyers have been doing for centuries.]

Drug and Device Law points us to an article in Saturday's Wall Street Journal:

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, released in May, will make it harder to bring a lawsuit without specific factual evidence, raising the threshold for moving a case into expensive litigation and possibly saving companies millions of dollars in legal fees. The case was overshadowed by other business rulings on consumer lawsuits, environmental and employment law and other matters in a term set to end Monday, but legal experts said it may be the most important.

"It's the case that will be cited more than any other by a factor of 100," said Tom Goldstein, partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and founder of the Scotusblog Web site. He called the ruling "an unexpected gift for the business community."

In the case, a Pakistani named Javaid Iqbal sued government officials over his detainment after Sept. 11, 2001. The Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Iqbal didn't have sufficient factual evidence to proceed with his discrimination claims.

"While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 5-4 opinion. He cited the 2007 decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, an antitrust case that outlined what plaintiffs must assert to make it through initial court proceedings.

As a result of the Iqbal ruling, businesses may find it easier to fend off lawsuits by persuading courts to dismiss complaints early in litigation.

I disagree. Maybe a handful of cases at the fringes with no factual allegations will be dismissed (most of these cases were already dismissed even prior to Twombly), but that's it. Iqbal's casual reference to pleading standards does not change the narrow focus of the actual opinion, which relates to the very specific issue of how "qualified immunity" applies to high-ranking officials in suits against the federal government for deprivations of constitutional rights.

Tom Goldstein is right that the Ashcroft v. Iqbal opinion will be cited all of the time by defendants' motions to dismiss, and will be cited by court opinions evaluating motions to dismiss, but that doesn't mean defendants will get much mileage out of it.

Rather than argue the details why, let me show you what will probably become my standard draft response to such motions:

Defendant's heavy reliance on Iqbal is misplaced. Iqbal was a Bivens action brought by a Pakistani national who alleged ethnically and racially discriminatory treatment in the post-September 11, 2001, period by numerous federal officials while he was detained for charges of defrauding the United States with regard to identification documents, charges to which he plead guilty, prompting his deportation. Iqbal, 556 U.S. ___; Slip op. 1. There was no dispute that the facts alleged by Iqbal stated a Bivens claim against all individuals directly and indirectly involved in his treatment. Id.

The narrow question in Iqbal was whether Bivens liability -- which indisputably does not extend to supervisors through respondeat superior (see Monell) -- attached where the complaint alleged "a supervisor’s mere knowledge of his subordinate’s discriminatory purpose." Slip op., 13. The Supreme Court reiterated that Bivens creates a unique, disfavored and limited cause of action disconnected from normal tort doctrines and reaffirmed that, "[a]bsent vicarious liability, each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct." Id.

Such a Bivens-specific holding bears no relationship to the business lawsuit sub judice. Importantly, though, and contra defendant's arguments, the Supreme Court reiterated in Iqbal that "a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint" and that a plaintiff need only "state[] a plausible claim for relief [to] survive[] a motion to dismiss." Slip op. 14-15. Plaintiff has clearly done that here; defendants' heavy reliance on an irrelevant Bivens opinion reveals the lack of any support in existing case law for their request to throw plaintiff out of court entirely. The Supreme Court has always instructed, and continues to instruct, District Courts to assume the facts in the complaint to be true, to make reasonable inferences on behalf of plaintiff's allegations, and to deny dismissal where plaintiff has a "plausible" claim.

Finally, again contra defendants, Iqbal was specifically remanded to the Circuit Court to consider whether the plaintiff there should be permitted to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies. Such is consistent with this Circuit's precedent, in which leave to amend is to be freely granted prior to dismissal unless such amendment is clearly futile or inequitable.

So there you go. Iqbal soundly rejects Bivens liability for high-ranking government officials merely potentially aware of misdeeds much further down the chain of command (and it reiterates the appealability of an order on qualified immunity), but that's it.

The sky has not fallen on business plaintiffs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (7)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The American Constitution Society's blog reports:

The Supreme Court ruled today that Arizona public school officials violated the constitutional rights of a teenage girl when they searched her for prescription-strength ibuprofen.

"The issue here is whether a 13-year-old student's Fourth Amendment right was violated when she was subjected to a search of her bra and underpants by school officials acting on reasonable suspicion that she had brought forbidden prescription and over-the-counter drugs to school," Justice David Souter wrote for the 8-1 majority in Safford Unified School District v. Redding. "Because there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwear, we hold that the search did violate the Constitution ...." The justices, however, overturned a federal appeals court decision that found the school official who performed the search could be held personally liable.

Here's the background, from The Blog of the Legal Times:

The case involved Savana Redding, then 13, who attended a public school with a zero tolerance policy toward possession of all drugs. Acting on reports that the girl had prescription-strength ibuprofen pills, an assistant principal ordered the search to be conducted by the school nurse. She was told to strip to her underwear and pull out her bra and underpants to show that she was not hiding individual pills. None were found. Her mother sued the school district claiming a Fourth Amendment violation, and last year an en banc ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found that the search was unconstitutional and the assistant principal was not immune from liability.

I wrote recently about "qualified immunity" in the California Proposition 8 lawsuit, the doctrine which establishes that government agents are not liable for constitutional violations unless the right they allegedly violated was "clearly established" at the time it was allegedly violated. The Supreme Court held today that student's right not to be strip-searched without cause was not previously clearly established, but is now clearly established.

Jonathan Turley highlights Justice Souter writing for the Court (in what is likely his last opinion), showing that he truly understood the core privacy issues:

Savana’s subjective expectation of privacy against such a search is inherent in her account of it as embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating. The reasonableness of her expectation (required by the Fourth Amendment standard) is indicated by the consistent experiences of other young people similarly searched, whose adolescent vulnerability intensifies the patent intrusiveness of the exposure. ... The common reaction of these adolescents simply registers the obviously different meaning of a search exposing the body from the experience of nakedness or near undress in other school circumstances.

Changing for gym is getting ready for play; exposing for a search is responding to an accusation reserved for suspected wrongdoers and fairly understood as so degrading that a number of communities have decided that strip searches in schools are never reasonable and have banned them no matter what the facts may be ...

SCOTUSBlog's quick update (I'm sure they'll write more later) takes issue with the vague nature of the new rule:

The ruling in Safford United School District v. Redding (08-479) made clear that, while the Court seriously frowns on strip searches of students, those have not been forbidden totally; it depends, in other words.

The other constitutional rule — searches of public school students’ backpacks, notebooks, other belongings, outer clothing, and pockets are generally allowed if they are based on “reasonable suspicion” — remains as it has for a quarter-century, but with a small amount of refinement, the exact scope of which is not quite clear.

We're guaranteed to see more such Fourth Amendment school lawsuits in the future, particularly in light of the removal of qualified immunity for future defendants. Hopefully, we'll also see better behavior by school administrators.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Am Law Litigation Daily brings us important news:

Last fall, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took a look, en banc, at the Patent and Trademark Office's rejection of Bernard Bilski's application for a patent on a method to hedge risk in commodities trading, Bilski was represented by The Webb Law Firm, a little-known Pittsburgh shop. Bilski lost in a landmark ruling that significantly tightened the standards for so-called business methods patents. But he didn't give up. He brought in new lawyers from the Washington, D.C., IP powerhouse Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner and petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case.

On Monday, Bilski and his new lead counsel, Finnegan partner J. Michael Jakes, learned that the high court had granted their petition for certiorari. (Akin Gump's justly celebrated Scotus Blog has links to all the Bilski documents, including the Supreme Court's order, the Federal Circuit ruling, and briefs from the petitioner, respondent, and amici.) The case, Bilski v. Doll, will center on whether business methods--intangible processes and techniques--are eligible for patents if they're not tied to particular machines or apparatuses and don't transform an article into a new state or thing. Here's Incisive Media Supreme Court correspondent Tony Mauro on the Court's grant of certiorari and here's Joe Mullin of IP Law & Business on hints various justices have dropped on how they're likely to rule.

It's a big deal for the Supreme Court to grant certiorari on a patent case decided by the Federal Circuit, given the Federal Circuit's experience and expertise in patent law. If you're interested in the case, the article linked above is thorough and entertaining.

The news gives us an opportunity to talk about the most important thing a Supreme Court Justice does: agree or disagree to grant the writ of certiorari.

These days, after the Judiciary Act of 1891 (the "Evarts Act"), which created the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal, and the Judiciary Act of 1925 (the "Certiorari Act"), which exercised Congress' constitutional power to control the flow of appeals, the only cases with a right to be heard in the Supreme Court are those specified by the US Constitution as within the "original jurisdiction" of the Court:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.

That is to say, these rare cases can be filed directly with the Supreme Court. Congress further required (by calling it "exclusive" jurisdiction) disputes between States be filed with the Supreme Court.

Thus, for the vast majority of cases, the parties must first complete all of their appeals through state or federal appellate courts, after which they file a "writ of certiorari" with the Supreme Court requesting the Court hear their case. About 8,000 of these writs are filed every year. The Supreme Court grants (through a vote of at least four justices in favor) about 1 or 2% of them.

Why is this so important? Of course, a Supreme Court decision is always a big deal, affecting the livelihood and liberty of millions of people.

But there's another reason, too, one that goes to the heart of debates about "judicial temperament:" the law of unintended consequences.

Just as the best-laid plans of mice and men go oft' astray, so too do Supreme Court decisions:

Appellate judges who don't first serve as trial judges are prone to stupid decisions.  Not because the judges themselves are stupid, of course, but because they literally don't know what they're doing. Example: Scalia insisting that his 2006 Davis decision imposed a constitutional test that was "objective and quite 'workable'." 

After three years, that test has come to mean something different in every state - literally, without exaggeration, different in each of the 50 states.  It produces contradictory results on a daily basis. It's become a constitutional Rorschach test, revealing judges' biases with hi-res fidelity.

So was Scalia lying?  Of course not.  How could he have known enough to be able to lie about what he was doing?  He's never been a trial judge, never practiced criminal law, and hasn't practiced any kind of law since 1967.  He was just guessing.

(via Sentencing Law & Policy)

Since these days actual ideology is off the table in Supreme Court confirmation hearings (everyone claims they don't want to "prejudge" the issue (PDF), even to the extent of neither agreeing nor disagreeing with existing case law), we should at least examining when, how and why a potential Justice would grant the writ.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

JURIST's Paper Chase reports an interesting development:

Former US solicitor general Ted Olson and prominent litigator David Boies [professional profiles] announced [video] Wednesday that they have filed suit [complaint, PDF] challenging California's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive], Proposition 8 [text, PDF], on federal Constitutional grounds. The complaint, filed Friday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website], seeks to enjoin enforcement of the ban on the grounds that California state officials, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Edmund Brown [official websites], would be liable under 42 USC § 1983 [text] for violating the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment [text] if they were to restrict civil marriages to those "between a man and a woman." The complaint alleges that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is a Fourteenth Amendment violation because it stigmatizes gay and lesbian couples by creating "separate but unequal" domestic partnerships designation, and because it "treats similarly-situated people differently by providing civil marriage to heterosexual couples, but not to gay and lesbian couples."

Theodore Olson and David Boies were the respective lead lawyers in a little case called Bush v. Gore. Other links available at Above The Law, including quotes from (understandably) almost speechless liberals activists amazed by Olson's involvement.

The complaint in Perry alleges three claims: due process, equal protection, and "42 U.S.C. 1983." 42 U.S.C. 1983 is a federal statute that provides:

Every person who, under color of any [state law], subjects... any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the [United States] Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress ...

1983 enables plaintiffs to sue "persons" who, acting "under color of" state law, violate rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Note how 1983 doesn't enable plaintiffs to sue states that violate constitutional rights. The Eleventh Amendment and "the structure of the original Constitution itself" recognize the sovereign immunity of the states from suits by private citizens, which Congress can't overcome with merely a statute. See Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999)(holding Congress generally cannot authorize private suits against the state even in state's own courts).

Indeed, the Perry suit does not name the State of California among its defendants, but instead:

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O'CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles[.]

Odd, no? You can sue every office through whom the state acts, from the Governor to the "Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk," but not the state itself? That's the rule laid down by two 101-year-old companion cases, Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) and General Oil Co. v. Crain, 209 U.S. 211 (1908):

It seems to be an obvious consequence that as a State can only perform its functions through its officers, a restraint upon them is a restraint upon its sovereignty from which it is exempt without its consent in the state tribunals, and exempt by the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in the national tribunals. The error is in the universality of the conclusion, as we have seen. Necessarily to give adequate protection to constitutional rights a distinction must be made between valid and invalid state laws, as determining the character of the suit against state officers. And the suit at bar illustrates the necessity. If a suit against state officers is precluded in the national courts by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution, and may be forbidden by a State to its courts, as it is contended in the case at bar that it may be, without power of review by this court, it must be evident that an easy way is open to prevent the enforcement of many provisions of the Constitution … .

In short: A state is immune from suit, but a state officer can be sued for attempting to enforce an "invalid" law. It's a legal fiction: you sue the state by suing the officers.

Except, you can't sue the officers:

Obviously, state officials literally are persons [under 42 U.S.C. 1983]. But a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official's office. Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 471 (1985). As such, it is no different from a suit against the State itself. See, e. g., Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 -166 (1985);

Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989).

So what's the difference between the Young / Crain rule in 1908 and the Will rule 81 years later?

Money.

The Perry suit only seeks an injunction against the officials preventing them from enforcing Proposition 8 to deny same-sex marriage. It thus gets the Young / Crain rule. The Will rule only applies to suits for monetary damage.

Why the distinction? Neither the Constitution nor 42 U.S.C. 1983 draws any distinction between suits for injunctive relief and suits for money damages. 1983 specifically says the person "shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law." The Supreme Court, however, thought it prudent to create such a distinction where none existed.

One more issue then we're done: why not also sue Schwarzenegger and the rest personally to obtain money damages? The problem is suits for money damages against individuals must also overcome the hurdle of "qualified immunity," as described by Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982):

government officials performing discretionary functions[] generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

The right to same-sex marriage is indisputably not "clearly established" -- the Perry case seeks to establish the right. As such, there's no chance of recovering monetary damages, and no use in complicating the case that way.

If the Perry plaintiffs succeed, however, they "may" recover "a reasonable attorney's fee" "in [the court's] discretion." 42 U.S.C. 1988.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Ninth Circuit just decided Barnes v. Yahoo! (link to PDF opinion). Here are the facts, as summarized by Anita Ramasastry at FindLaw:

The facts begin when plaintiff Cecilia Barnes learned that her ex-boyfriend – pretending to be her – had posted nude photos of her on Yahoo, along with her email address, work address and phone number, and an invitation to men to contact her for sexual purposes. The ex-boyfriend had also gone into Yahoo's member chat rooms to direct men to her profile. Soon, as the Ninth Circuit summarized it, "men whom Barnes did not know were peppering her office with emails, phone calls, and personal visits, all in the expectation of sex."

Yahoo's policy provides for the removal of fake profiles if the person making the request provides a copy of her driver's license, which Barnes says she did. However, Barnes alleges that when she contacted Yahoo on several occasions, in an effort to have the profile removed, the site did not remove them. She says that approximately three months after the first of these contacts, a Yahoo representative contacted her and advised her that Yahoo would now put a stop to this unauthorized profile – yet three more months passed, and Yahoo did nothing. Indeed, according to Barnes, Yahoo took no action to de-post the profile until she sued the company.

Unsurprisingly,

The court dismissed Barnes's negligence claim against Yahoo, based on Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA).

Nothing new about that.

However, it held that Yahoo's promises to her that it would de-post could give rise to a claim under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

Interesting! Paul Levy at Consumer Law & Policy filed an amicus and attended the hearing, and fills us in on some context:

The argument also revealed that Barnes’ contention is that Yahoo!’s promise to take down her profiles came on the eve of a television report about her situation, after reporters contacted Yahoo! in an effort to avoid negative press, Yahoo! contacted her “on its own” to promise to take the material down, and that even though she could not have sued Yahoo!, there were other steps that she could have taken to obtain redress.  For example, she claims that, at Yahoo!’s direction, she did not testify before the Oregon Legislature about what had happened to her, because Yahoo! told her it would take the material down.  If Barnes proves such facts, one can see a real case here.

Daniel Solove at Concurring Opinions agrees with the result but looks on the horizon:

One of the potential problems with the court’s holding is that it may deter ISPs and other sites from having an explicit policy for removing tortious material.  Yahoo could be penalized with potential liability and a loss of its immunity by having a removal policy.  An ISP or site that has no such removal policy and that would say “get lost” to people who request takedowns would not be subject to promissory estoppel liability.  Is it fair to penalize those who have such policies?

But, Solove notes, we're not at that point quite yet, since the Court's holding was expressly limited, in that "Yahoo is liable not because it had a general removal policy, but because it made specific promises to Barnes." Evan Brown at Internet Cases sees ISPs changing their behavior nonetheless, in advance of the law:

Smart intermediaries (e.g. website operators) are likely to communicate less now with individuals who feel aggrieved, because the intermediary may fear that anything it says could be construed as a breakable promise putting it at risk for liability.

On a more technical issue, but one with big ramifications for the course of these case, Eric Goldman at Technology & Marketing Law Blog worries (much as Levy did) that the opinion on its face holds 230 immunity can not be raised on a motion to dismiss. That implicates the ISP's First Amendment rights to go about their business and permit online speech without fearing the cost of a long, meritless suit that's eventually dismissed anyway. Yahoo! has petitioned for rehearing on that issue alone.

In my humble opinion, I agree with everyone above. There is a very good reason not to apply section 230 immunity to an ISP interjecting itself into a private dispute to avoid negative publicity. At the same time, it does indeed create a precedent that makes other ISPs shy to intervene at all.

Yet, under section 230 immunity, the ISP already can choose to completely ignore anyone it wants to, and there is no good reason to "protect" Yahoo! for yanking Ms. Barnes' chain to avoid negative publicity. If an ISP promises to remove content, it should do so. If the ISP doesn't want to remove content, it shouldn't promise it will.

Simple enough.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

At The Legal Intelligencer Blog:

State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille, the liaison justice to the First Judicial District who is in charge of appointing administrative judges of the court's divisions, said in an interview Thursday that the FJD may have to sue to secure a necessary level of funding in the next fiscal year.

...

An inadequate level of funding for the courts that sabotages the courts' ability to function could necessitate a lawsuit, Castille said.

"We don't want a constitutional confrontation but that will most likely end up before the Supreme Court," Castille said. "And we'd have to do what's right by the Constitution. And the counties and the state are required to adequately fund the respective judicial systems."

...

If the shortfall between the court's budget request and the proposal from Gov. Edward G. Rendell is not closed, Castille said he might have to tell judges --  who will be elected to new judgeships created, but not funded, by the General Assembly  -- that the court system can't pay them and they'll have to sue the executive and legislative branches in order to get paid.

We've been down this road before.

Until 1987, Pennsylvania state statutory law required counties assume financial responsibility for their own courts, and required those courts be adequately funded. In 1985, the County of Allegheny (home of Pittsburgh, and thus the second largest court system in the state) sued the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, demanding that the Commonwealth, rather than the individual counties, fund the state's trial courts as part of the "unified" system specified in the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed:

While it is true that the 1968 Constitution of Pennsylvania does not specify the manner in which courts are to be funded, the constitution does require that the judicial system shall be unified. It is inconceivable that unity, in any meaningful sense of that word, can be attributed to a court system characterized by management and fiscal disagreements which periodically culminate in litigation in which the various counties and the courts within them are set off against each other as antagonists.

...

Our interpretation of the concept 'unified judicial system' depends, as does virtually all constitutional construction, not only upon a literal meaning of words, but also upon an awareness of the legal and constitutional implications of those words. In addition to the concerns already discussed, two additional matters should be mentioned.

First, the employment of staff. The purpose of a unified judicial system is to provide evenhanded, unbiased and competent administration of justice. The expectation is that cases will be processed as well in one county as another. In order to meet this expectation, however, judicial resources and staffing must be proportionately similar in all judicial districts. There must be uniform hiring practices and standards, and judges must be free to hire competent staff, not merely those referred by local political figures. If the staffing of court-related positions is treated as an opportunity to repay political debts rather than as an opportunity to serve the public by hiring qualified people who are able to make the system work efficaciously, the system will be neither evenhanded nor competent.

A second matter is the public's perception of the judicial system. The citizens of this Commonwealth have a right not only to expect neutrality and fairness in the adjudication of legal cases, but also, they have a right to be absolutely certain this neutrality and fairness will actually be applied in every case. But if court funding is permitted to continue in the hands of local political authorities it is likely to produce nothing but suspicion or perception of bias and favoritism. As the framers of our constitution recognized, a unified system of jurisprudence cannot tolerate such uncertainties. All courts must be free and independent from the occasion of political influence and no court should even be perceived to be biased in favor of local political authorities who pay the bills.

For the foregoing reasons we hold that the statutory scheme for county funding of the judicial system is in conflict with the intent clearly expressed in the constitution that the judicial system be unified. The order of Commonwealth Court is vacated and judgment is entered for the County.

However, because this order entails that present statutory funding for the judicial system is now void as offending the constitutional mandate for a unified system, we stay our judgment to afford the General Assembly an opportunity to enact appropriate funding legislation 2 consistent with this holding. Until this is done, the prior system of county funding shall remain in place.

County of Allegheny v. Commonwealth, 517 Pa. 65, 74–76, 534 A.2d 760, 764–65 (1987).

Unsurprisingly, the General Assembly did not rush to create a new funding system. Unsurprisingly, the Pennsylvania Association of County Commissioners sued to make them do it.

And thus came the sequel:

A lawsuit to compel legislative action normally would be barred by the speech and debate clause. Litigants may not sue in court to compel the legislature to enact a law.

In this case, however, where the legislature has been directed by this court to act in order to remedy a constitutional defect in the scheme which funds the court system, funding of which is necessary for the continued existence of the judicial branch of government, the legislature is not insulated from suit by the speech and debate clause. If it were, this court's duty to interpret and enforce the Pennsylvania Constitution would be abrogated, thus rendering ineffective the tripartite system of government which lies at the basis of our constitution.

...

Because this court has attempted to act cooperatively with the General Assembly and has denied prior petitions for enforcement, allowing the General Assembly a period of nine years to enact a funding scheme which would provide the necessary financial support for state courts, and because the General Assembly has failed to act within this extended reasonable period of time, we now grant petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus. Pursuant to this writ, jurisdiction is retained and by further order a master will be appointed to recommend to this court a schema which will form the basis for the specific implementation to be ordered.

Pennsylvania State Ass'n of County Comm'rs v. Commonwealth, 545 Pa. 324, 331, 681 A.2d 699, 702 (1996).

Former Supreme Court Justice Frank J. Montemuro, Jr., was appointed the special master to resolve the dispute, and he issued a report on July 30, 1997.

Over the past ten years, here's all that's happened, according to the Pennsylvania State Association of County Commissioners:

Only the first phase of the Montemuro report, which involved the transfer of approximately 200 court employees to the state – chiefly court administrators and deputy administrators – was accomplished in 1999. Transfer and funding of other judicial functions such as support staff for common pleas judges and magisterial district justices, court-related row offices, domestic relations, and juvenile and adult probation and parole are among those issues yet to be addressed. For twenty-one years, the state has failed to Court Administration / District Attorney Funding take steps to implement the rulings of the court, and this has been to the detriment of local taxpayers.

In spite of the Allegheny decision and the Montemuro report, county responsibility for court funding has actually increased, including Act 57 of 2005 which makes district attorneys full-time (prior to the law more than half were part time), and requires the commonwealth to fund 65 percent of the cost of those salaries. The 2008-2009 commonwealth budget contained no funding for cover the commonwealth obligation, leaving counties to shoulder the state’s responsibility.

The state currently reimburses counties $70,000 per judicial position for court costs. This amount has not been increased since 1981 and, if adjusted for inflation, the state would need to reimburse counties $166,000 to have the same purchasing power as
the reimbursement had when it was first enacted in 1981.

So the Pennsylvania State Association of County Commissioners is suing again, bringing another writ of mandamus to compel action by the General Assembly.

Philadelphia, however, has not yet joined the new suit, for reasons concisely summed up by the Inquirer:

In 1987, the state Supreme Court ordered that the state government pick up the tab for county judicial costs. The state has not obeyed that order. A legal effort launched in December is trying to force the state to honor the order, but so far the city has not joined the lawsuit. It is unclear how helpful it would be for the city to join the suit, given the level of anti-Philadelphia animosity in much of the state.

Thus, since the case is already proceeding along -- and the case has already been decided on the merits twice in favor of Philadelphia and the other counties -- the question of Philadelphia's First Judicial District joining the lawsuit is one of pure politics, a question of whether Philadelphia's intervention would make it more or less likely the Supreme Court would order relief of the General Assembly would finally provide funding.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This article in The Philadelphia Inqurier raised an eyebrow or two:

A federal appeals court has upheld the Philadelphia Police Department's policy that forbids officers to wear Muslim head scarves on the job.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruling, issued Tuesday, affirmed a lower court's ruling in a 2005 lawsuit filed by Officer Kimberlie Webb of the 35th Police District. Webb, who became a Sunni Muslim two years after joining the force in 1995, contended that the ban on the scarves, known as hijabs, violated her civil rights.

In 2007, a federal judge ruled in the city's favor, and the Third Circuit said accommodating Webb would severely damage the department's appearance of "religious neutrality."

Certainly not the first religious discrimination case raised against the government. Some background:

Congress initially enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993 to counter the Supreme Court's decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S. Ct. 1595, 108 L. Ed. 2d 876 (1990), which held that neutral and generally applicable laws are not susceptible to attack under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution even if they incidentally burden the exercise of religion. RFRA provided that any legislation imposing a substantial burden on religion would be invalid unless it was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling state interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 117 S. Ct. 2157, 138 L. Ed. 2d 624 (1997), struck down RFRA as it applied to the States because it exceeded Congress's remedial power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Lighthouse Inst. for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253, 261 (3d Cir. 2007). In addition to the Constitutional / First Amendment claims, last year the Third Circuit pointed out that, even if the federal RFRA was struck down, there are still numerous protections:

Although there are differences among the various federal and state religious protection statutes, most contain, at their core, the same fundamental structure and purpose. They recognize that neutral laws of general applicability may burden religious exercise as significantly as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise. The federal statutes, Pennsylvania's [Religious Freedom Protection Act (RFPA)], and a majority of the state statutes also acknowledge the government need not justify every action having some effect on religious exercise. Under those statutes, only substantial burdens trigger heightened scrutiny. RFPA's four definitions of 'substantially burden' emphasize the importance of this threshold. See 71 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2403 ('significantly constrains or inhibits'; 'significantly curtails'; 'denies . . . a reasonable opportunity to engage in activities . . . fundamental to the person's religion'; 'violates a specific tenet of a person's religious faith.') (emphasis added).

Combs v. Homer-Center Sch. Dist., 540 F.3d 231, 261–62 (3d Cir. 2008).

The problem in the Webb case just decided is that, apparently, plaintiff's constitutional, state religious freedom, and sex discrimination claims were all waived. As noted by the opinion,

On October 5, 2005, Webb brought suit against the City of Philadelphia,2 asserting three causes of action under Title VII—religious discrimination, retaliation/hostile work environment, and sex discrimination—and one cause of action under the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act (RFPA), 71 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2401. ...  The District Court granted summary judgment on all claims, finding Webb failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for the Title VII sex discrimination claim, failed to meet the statutory notice requirements for the RFPA claim, and failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact for the Title VII religious discrimination and retaliation/hostile work environment claims.

Webb appeals only the adverse judgments on the religious discrimination and sex discrimination claims. She also raises, for the first time on appeal, certain constitutional claims.

The Third Circuit affirmed on all counts, which is to say, except for the religious discrimination claim, all of plaintiff's claims were dismissed for procedural reasons, either because they were initially filed the wrong way or were not raised until appeal.

It is easy to blame the lawyers for the outcome here, but the fault really lies with the roadblocks raised by federal and state statutes for the primary purpose of making it harder to file these claims. Each type of claim that could be raised here -- Federal free speech, Title VII discrimination (of two different types), Pennsylvania discrimination, and Pennsylvania religious freedom -- must be filed in a different way.

A federal free speech claim is a lawsuit brought under 28 U.S.C. 1983, filed directly with the District Court. Each Title VII discrimination claim, however, must first be raised specifically in a complaint (generally drafted on-site without the assistance of an attorney) to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The same is true of state discrimination claims before the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. The Pennsylvania RFPA, in turn, has its own independent statutory requirements for suing the government, requiring that the plaintiff

give written notice to the governmental entity by certified mail, informing that agency of all of the following:

(1) The person's free exercise of religion has been or is about to be substantially burdened by an exercise of the agency's governmental authority.

(2) A description of the act or refusal to act which has burdened or which will burden the person's free exercise of religion.

(3) The manner in which the exercise of the governmental authority burdens the person's free exercise of religion.

Webb v. City of Philadelphia, No. 05-5238, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11762, at *11–12 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 20, 2007).

Got all that? Making matters worse, often times the EEOC will send you to the PHRC, and vice versa, depending on how overburdened they are.

In that context, it's not surprising to see plaintiffs inadvertantly waive claims -- that's just what the system was designed to do.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal included an editorial by Dan Slater (who runs the WSJ Law Blog) called "The Debate Over Who Pays Fees When Litigants Mount Attacks," suggesting reconsideration of the “English Rule,” in which unsuccessful litigants are required to reimburse their opponent's legal fees and costs (a/k/a the “loser pays” system), as contrasted to the “American Rule,” in which each party bears their own legal expenses: 

Legal experts think a loser-pays system cuts down on frivolous suits. Those clearly hurt the U.S. The nation's tort system cost $245.7 billion in 2003, amounting to about 2.2% of total gross domestic product, according to a report from professional services firm Towers Perrin. The percentage of GDP spent on litigation was at least twice those in the U.K. and Germany.

At the same time, say experts, the insurance helps mitigate the pitfalls of a loser-pays system. "Insurance does move in to fill the gap for those suits that might not otherwise be brought in a loser-pays system," says Paul Lomas, a London-based litigator at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.

Initially, a few factual corrections are in order.

First, the Towers Perrin study claiming that litigation costs amount to 2.2% of total gross domestic product has been roundly criticized as being baseless and inflated. For example, the study unfairly lumps together actual litigation costs, like attorneys fees, with the routine functioning of our torts and insurance system. As the Wall Street Journal itself noted over two years ago,

But here's the problem: critics of past years' studies -- and there are many -- say the number and the projections that come with it are deeply flawed. For instance, they include payments that don't involve the legal system at all. Say somebody smashes his car into the back of your new SUV and his insurance company sends you a $5,000 check to fix the damage. That gets counted as a tort cost in Tillinghast's number. Critics say it's just a transfer payment from somebody who wasn't driving carefully to somebody who has been legitimately wronged. How is that evidence of a system run amok?

"It's just so inflated," J. Robert Hunter, the director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America and a former Texas insurance commissioner, says of the Tillinghast figure. Critics also argue that other insurance-industry costs that aren't the fault of a burdensome tort system -- such as the salaries of insurance-industry CEOs -- show up in its calculations.

"Math Divides Critics As Startling Toll of Torts Is Added Up," By LIAM PLEVEN, March 13, 2006; Page A2.

Second, plaintiff’s lawyers are in no sense “accustomed to being the exclusive financier of litigation.” The primary "financier" of litigation in America is the insurance industry, turning its good hands into boxing gloves when injured parties seek more than nominal compensation. Even in the context Slater is thinking about – the plaintiff's side of personal injury tort suits – there are hundreds of companies willing to loan money to plaintiff’s firms and/or plaintiffs for a piece of the eventual recovery. Ordinary business banks also loan to firms after performing the same due diligence they would with an company.

All of these companies, however, have the same restriction that would have to be imposed in a loser pays insurance system: the financier has absolutely no say as to whether the case will be settled or not. Such limitation is appropriate to ensure uncompromised decision-making and is analogous to similar barriers on the defense side, in which the defendant, with limited exceptions, retains control over whether to settle and where the defense lawyer nominally represents only the defendant and not the insurance carrier as well, so as not to divide the lawyer's loyalties and prejudice the defendant.

Third, most states already recognize a form of “loser pays” in the claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings, which permits the victims of frivolous lawsuits to recover damages caused by such frivolous lawsuits. It has bite here in Pennsylvania -- the "Dragonetti Act" has resulted in multi-million-dollar outcomes.

There's also, of course, the "loser pays" already at the heart of contingent fee cases: if I lose a case, I get nothing. No reimbursement for my time. No reimbursement for my expenses. Nothing. A total loss.

Which brings me to my primary objection to the loser pays system. I would not object to receiving a guaranteed income like my brethren of the defense bar instead of bearing the risk that years of effort and tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands – of dollars will be spent in vain, but I would object, on grounds of fairness, to penalizing a party that brought a valid claim merely because they did not meet their burden of proof.

Consider a typical medical malpractice case. Most of the facts are uncontested. The dispute centers on whether the physician-defendant breached the standard of care, whether such breach caused any harm, and what damages resulted.

In all states of which I am aware, the first two elements require expert medical testimony. To even start a lawsuit here in Pennsylvania, I need a certificate of merit from a qualified physician establishing those two elements. To prevail at trial, obviously, I need in-court credible testimony from a qualified physician establishing those elements to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

No expert testimony, no claim. Period. That is to say, by law the first two elements are matters entirely outside the understanding of any plaintiff except for physicians who happen to be victims of malpractice in the specialty they currently practice or teach.

If, in good faith, my client and I believed our qualified expert's opinion on matters the law says are beyond our understanding, why should we be punished if a jury accepts the defendant’s version instead of our's?

Deterrence? Of what? Claims a qualified expert physician thought were valid? Should I be deterred merely because the defense found someone to say otherwise? In medical malpractice, there's always some doctor somewhere willing to say that my client coincidentally suffered a heart attack or stroke or spontaneous decapitation regardless of the record or the probabilities.

Why would we want to deter valid claims? Isn't the point of a civil justice system to offer people the opportunity to present their claims in fair and open court?

I'm wary, too, of considering the lower litigation costs in Europe as a positive sign of judicial health (if, indeed, they are lower, given the inflated numbers of the US study). Many European countries routinely apply legal doctrines we consider abhorrent in the United States, such as the onerous standards applied to publishers in libel cases in the United Kingdom, standards incompatible with First Amendment principles of free speech.

When all is said and done, the effective result of loser pays, whether insured or not, is to change the civil system from one in which a plaintiff must convince a jury of the rightness of their cause with the preponderance of the evidence to one in which a potential client must convince a lawyer and/or insurance company of the rightness of their cause beyond a reasonable doubt. The client must convince the lawyer/insurer not only that their case is worth their damages, but that their case is worth well beyond their damages, to mitigate the direct loss the lawyer or insurer will incur if they lose.

The practical effect, then, would be to intimidate plaintiffs' lawyers like me into rejecting the vast majority of legitimate cases because, even though I may feel they have a strong likelihood of prevailing, I simply can't afford to test my luck with anything other than the handful of cases I'm sure will win.

UPDATE: Dan Slater got plenty of email, as he relates on the WSJ Law Blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Above The Law refers us to Newsday's coverage of the ugly mess that has become of the Martin Garbus, Esquire vs. Samantha Ronson vs. Perez Hilton suits, which now stand a good chance of becoming far more embarrassing for Lindsay Lohan than the blog post which prompted the original defamation suit.

Here are the facts in the underlying dismissed Ronson vs. Perez suit:

At the bottom of the failed libel suit and the pending malpractice action is a one-car crash: Lohan's Mercedes-Benz versus some shrubs in Beverly Hills on May 26, 2007. Police reported finding a small amount of cocaine in her car. The actress eventually entered rehab and pleaded guilty to driving under the influence.

About a week later, according to the libel suit, Hilton, whose real name is Mario Lavandeira, posted an item on his blog linking to a juicy story on an another blog called Celebrity Babylon. Citing unnamed sources, Celebrity Babylon reported the cocaine belonged to Ronson. Additionally, according to the suit, the story said Ronson "has accumulated a substantial side income taking her pal in front of paparazzi cameras for money."

"With friends like Samantha Ronson, Lindsay doesn't need enemies," Hilton blogged. Two weeks later, he posted a picture of himself on perezhilton.com wearing a sweatshirt emblazoned with "Blame Samantha" and referred to her as a "lezbot dj", according to the libel suit.

There's fodder there for a defamation suit, but not much. Hilton didn't post the original defamatory facts, he linked to them with some of his own comments. As a journalist -- and Hilton absolutely is a journalist, he reports more than full-time with substantial resources for investigation -- Hilton has some duties to assess in his own mind the likely veracity of the story, but he doesn't have to confirm it's entirely true unless he gives the story's facts his own stamp of approval. As far as I can tell, he didn't, he linked to it. (In an affidavit, he asserted his own good faith in linking to the story based upon dozens of reports he had received of Ronson's drug use).

"Blame Samantha" sure is obnoxious, but it's hard to see what defamatory facts are implied there given the context of Hilton publishing the story as coming from a separate source.

First, a word on the unusual and apparently excessive fees here. I typically represent defamation plaintiffs on a contingent fee basis; doing so presents a substantial risk of losing money given the nature of defamation cases (more on that later), but it's also par for course. Ronson hired Garbus at $750 an hour. Based on the little bit that comes through the article, Garbus seems to have billed her at least $142,000 without even getting to the anti-SLAPP hearing (part of California's preemptive strike against wrongful use of civil proceedings) or taking Perez Hilton's deposition.

Which is to say, Garbus charged her a boatload for nothing, as he did not even get past the very first hurdle in the case, the anti-SLAPP hearing, the equivalent of a motion to dismiss in other state courts.

Garbus also allegedly promised the whole case would cost $75,000; I suppose that's possible at $750 an hour (i.e., 250 hours once you consider that an associate at half the price will be doing two-thirds of the time) if you streamline the process and the other side doesn't go crazy with motions or discovery. Given the parties and issues here, I don't see how that would have been possible. Obviously, Hilton's lawyers are going to go straight to the drug use and will do their best to dig into Ronson and Lohan's personal lives (as Garbus himself is now doing). For comparison, Hilton's attorneys made it up to $85,000, or at least that's how much Ronson was ordered to pay for Hilton's attorneys' fees.

Second, what did Garbus and Ronson, respectively, expect to happen? Perez Hilton did not originate the story, Celebrity Babylon did, and Ronson was arguably at least a limited-purpose public figure (and/or Lohan was with regard to the source of the cocaine found in her car), making it much harder to prove the requisite intent ("malice") to get by First Amendment protections.

So it was a tough case from the start, which Garbus should have known and should have told Ronson. Given Hilton's hearsay repetition of the actual defamatory facts, odds were high he'd get out on anti-SLAPP, which Garbus should have told Ronson. Moreover, Ronson should have been told that, even if she had "won," she could have "lost" once Hilton started digging into her personal life and, perhaps worse, Lohan's personal life.

Maybe Garbus did tell her all of that. Yet, in the article, Hilton's lawyer is quoted as saying that Garbus' anti-SLAPP motion response was garbage. There are also references to Garbus not "worrying" about Ronson's case until Hilton's lawyers filed their motions. If true, those cast doubt on Garbus' whole story, since he should have recognized the anti-SLAPP problems from the start and should have been preparing for that from the start. If I had pursued Ronson's case here in Pennsylvania, from day one I would have been working on my First Amendment arguments.

But let's give Garbus the benefit of the doubt and assume that the truth lies somewhere in the middle between Garbus and Ronson's allegations. If so, there still seems to be a fundamental problem that Ronson, no matter what she was told, did not recognize just how tenuous the case against Hilton was. Nothing else explains her conduct, even if she was at times out of touch or hard to reach.

Which brings me to the main point here: defamation cases present a unique problem in client relations for trial lawyers, as they are among the hardest cases to win and usually involve the most emotionally-invested clients.

Defamation cases frequently lose. Indeed, sometimes even when they win, they lose, in the form of lost privacy or nominal jury verdicts.

Did Ronson know that? Regardless of what Garbus told her, the facts strongly suggest that she didn't get it, and that this whole mess could have been avoided if she had a better understanding of the issues and the case from the start. That presents a lesson for all of us trial lawyers -- do your clients really get what's going on?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

FYI:

Cozen complains that Treasury has not supplied it with documents relating to entities that were listed on its request but were not designated until after the request was made. Treasury has no obligation to produce documents that were not responsive at the time the request was made. See Bonner v. U.S. Dep't of State, 289 U.S. App. D.C. 56, 928 F.2d 1148, 1152 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

An agency does not have a continuing duty to update its previous response to a FOIA request. McGehee v. CIA, 225 U.S. App. D.C. 205, 697 F.2d 1095, 1103 (D.C. Cir. 1983). A document's status is determined at the cut-off date. Bonner, 928 F.2d at 1153. A subsequent decision that changes the status of the document does not render it improperly withheld. Id. This is consistent with the notion that an agency is not required to produce documents that were exempt at the cut-off date but subsequently became nonexempt after the agency fully responded to the FOIA request. See Ashfar v. Dep't of State, 226 U.S. App. D.C. 388, 702 F.2d 1125, 1137 n.18 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (noting that although the government declassified requested documents after the cut-off date, remanding the case to take into account that change would be contrary to FOIA's goal of speedy and final resolution of FOIA requests); McGehee, 697 F.2d at 1103. In these circumstances, the requester may submit another FOIA request. Bonner, 928 F. 2d at 1153.

An agency is expected, however, to update the FOIA request when it has improperly withheld information in its prior responses or has not responded fully to the FOIA request. See id. An inadequate search renders the initial cut-off date as suspect. Dayton Newspaper Inc. v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 510 F. Supp. 2d 441, 452 (S.D. Ohio 2007). Therefore, when a search has been found to be inadequate and another search must be conducted, the date of the supplemental search can serve as the cut-off date. Id. at 451; Wilderness Soc'y v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt, No. 01-2210, 2003 WL 255971, at *7 n. 18 (D.D.C. 2003).

Cozen O'Connor v. United States Dep't of Treasury, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97941 (December 3, 2008, Savage, J.)(emphases supplied).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

At the WSJ Law Blog:

This just in: A federal jury on Monday cleared Chevron Corp. of responsibility for any human rights abuses during a violent protest on a company oil platform in Nigeria a decade ago. Click here for the recent AP story; here for a longer takeout on the case from the WSJ’s Russell Gold.

Human rights groups had sued the company under the Alien Tort Claims Act, which allows foreigners to file lawsuits in U.S. courts alleging international law violations.

I highlight these defense-verdict cases not because I think the jurors were right or wrong -- I have no idea how I would interpret the evidence, I only know press reports on this case -- but to point out that a San Francisco jury, begged for relief by sympathetic, impoverished plaintiffs, sitting in judgment of an immensely profitable defendant that's part of a hated industry, in consideration of facts that turn the stomach and inflame the passion, nonetheless still held in favor of the defendant.

Keep that in mind the next time some says that dumb jurors just take rich people's money and throw it at sympathetic plaintiffs. If anyone's rich, it's an oil company. If anyone's sympathetic, it's an impoverished worker attacked by their own government.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)
• Share Link

So far I've seen three legal blogs pick up on Senator Hillary Clinton's "Emoluments" problem if she's appointed to serve as Secretary of State: Adam B at DailyKos, Jack Balkin at Balkinzation, and Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy. Great work by all three.

The situation is tailor-made for a first-year ConLaw exam. By Executive Order dated January 4, 2008, President Bush enacted cost-of-living adjustments ("COLA") for a wide variety of Executive Branch employees, including members of the uniformed service, judges and justices, administrative law judges, the employees of Veterans Affairs and, importantly, the Cabinet.

The latter is the problem for Clinton, who on January 4, 2008, was in the middle of a Senate term set to end in 2012. Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution states:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

[sic for "encreased"]. Andrew Malcolm at the LATimes reads this clause, shall we say, strictly:

We're not lawyers. But we do speak English. And to our eyes that constitutional clause doesn't say anything about getting around the provision by reducing or not benefiting from the increase of said "Emoluments."

It flat-out prohibits taking the civil office if the pay has been increased during the would-be appointee's elected term. Period. Which it has.

It depends on what you mean by "English," "reducing" and "increased."

Starting with "English," as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote (while interpreting another separation of powers issue under Article I) "we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding." McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 407 (1819). It's not a dinner menu; everything must be interpreted in context, with an eye to the multiple balances of powers and interests reflected by the Constitution's text as well as past interpretations and future consequences.

Moving on to "reducing," there's nothing wrong with a Constitutional "fix;" indeed, there's every reason to believe that's just as the Framers, who themselves drafted a compromise document, would want. Reducing salary is also how we fixed the issues arising from this clause three times in the past, like with the "Saxbe fix," named after Nixon's last Attorney General, for whom the Congress specifically reduced his pay back to where it was prior to his term in the Senate. (You can see the notes to 5 U.S.C. 5312 littered with all three prior "Compensation and Emoluments" fixes). If Obama wanted to "fix" this situation by rescinding the COLA adjustments for the Secretary of State, that would fit within the purposes of the clause, as described below.

As for "increased," that's not nearly as clear as Malcolm believes, because of the complexities of government. Bush's Executive Order did not arbitrarily increase emoluments -- instead, the Order merely published the new numbers required on an annual basis by a statute most recently amended in 1990. See notes to 5 U.S.C. 5303. The "increase" for Constitutional purposes thus arguably occurred back in 1990; Bush did nothing more than carry the existing numbers through the method established there, hardly the same thing as a deliberate increase in salary.

In sum, there's a strong argument that's there is no emoluments problem -- the emoluments at issue here were increased in 1990, long before Clinton's term.

Let's go back to the purposes of the clause itself.

The Founders' Constitution has all the primary sources you could want. In short, the clause was enacted to prevent legislators from creating officers (or making them more lucrative) and then appointing themselves (or forcing the Executive to appoint them), a form of above-board corruption that had been prevalent in the British Parliament and in the Virginia Legislature. Some of the Constitutional Convention, like George Mason, wanted a complete bar on members of the Legislature serving in the Executive Branch, while others, like Rufus King, felt any such prohibition would be "chimerical" and would prevent talented, qualified leaders from proper service. As with many issues, James Madison proposed a compromised which carried the day.

The situation with Senator Clinton seems to have proved Rufus King right. Over the past few years there have been no limits to the revolving-door, back-scratching system in which members of Congress routinely engaged in direct and indirect self-dealing against the public interest. Many of those not taking money explicitly (like Rep. Cunningham and Sen. Stevens) are nonetheless more than happy to spend the public's money on special interests to secure lucrative jobs for themselves after their time in Congress. Adding insult to injury, there's no suggestion that Senator Clinton's rumored appointment would be part of a self-patronage maneuver to enrich her or anyone else. Indeed, she never voted on the increase, as it was an executive order, and not even one designed to increase salaries, just to keep pace with inflation and generalized costs.

The emoluments clause thus is the "chimera" warned of at the Constitutional Convention that has done nothing to thwart corruption in generations (perhaps ever) and has now, for the fourth time, impeded the appointment of a qualified candidate who indisputably did not seek or take the job for pecuniary reasons. Yet, the language is still there in our Constitution and we must not disregard it out of political convenience -- few actions are worse for our democracy than establishing or condoning a disregard for the Constitution.

Which is why, the above analysis notwithstanding, I think on January 20, 2008, then-President Obama should reverse the Executive Order as it pertains to the Secretary of State and then appoint Senator Clinton. It wouldn't surprise me if he did exactly that; if he didn't want to spend political capital and attention dealing with Sen. Lieberman or Sec. Gates, I doubt he'd want to do it over a couple thousand dollars of Hillary Clinton's salary.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

From America's Finest News Source:

WASHINGTON—In a landmark decision Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled to uphold the Bill of Rights, the very tenets upon which American society is based. "After carefully considering the relevance of the 10 inviolable rights that comprise the ideological foundation on which our nation is built, the court finds that these basic freedoms remain important for the time being, and should not be overturned," read the majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who cast the tie-breaking vote. "Until such time as it can be definitively proven that citizens no longer require the protections provided by the Bill of Rights, it shall remain the principal legal guidance for the United States of America." The Supreme Court's latest decision comes on the heels of last month's 6-3 ruling to abolish the pursuit of happiness from the three inalienable rights guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This time in New Jersey, as described at Electronic Discovery Law:

State v. M.A., 954 A.2d 503 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008)

In this case of first impression in New Jersey, defendant argued that personal information found on his work computers should be suppressed because his employer had no authority to consent to the search. ...

Rejecting his arguments as “implausible”, the court found ownership properly resided with the employer in light of several facts, including, among other things, the employer’s payment for the computers, the placing of the laptop on the depreciation schedule of the employer’s corporate tax returns and the specific instruction to defendant that all computers were company property.  Accordingly, the court upheld the validity of the warrantless search and denied the defendant’s motion to suppress.

Not the first such holding and certainly not the last.

It bears repeating again and again: if you keep non-work materials on your computer, or send/receive "personal" e-mail on your work servers, you are taking a risk of either waving attorney-client privilege or consenting to a warrantless search.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

California, intent on proving it has too much democracy, has bought itself some tricky legal questions.

First, did the voters just revise or amend their constitution (and does that matter)? LATimes reports:

Lawyers for same-sex couples argued that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision -- not a more limited amendment, as backers maintained -- because it fundamentally altered the guarantee of equal protection. A constitutional revision, unlike an amendment, must be approved by the Legislature before going to voters.

The state high court has twice before struck down ballot measures as illegal constitutional revisions, but those initiatives involved "a broader scope of changes," said former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin, who publicly opposed Proposition 8 and was part of an earlier legal challenge to it. The court has suggested that a revision may be distinguished from an amendment by the breadth and the nature of the change, Grodin said

Still, Grodin said, he believes that the challenge has legal merit, though he declined to make any predictions. Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen called the case "a stretch."

Second, was it (and could it) be retroactive? As  WSJ Law Blog reports:

 Voters in California seem to have spoken clearly: under the state’s constitution, marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman. One result that’s far from clear, however: what happens to all those same-sex couples who rushed to wed prior to the election?

It’s hard to say, reports the LA Times — but a “legal chaos” could follow. Seven legal scholars recently interviewed by the Times were largely divided over which side the law favors. “There is no clear answer,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine Law School. “This is ultimately going to have to be litigated by the courts.”

“Until it is litigated, every same-sex couple with a marriage license is going to be hanging in limbo,” added Glen Lavy, senior counsel to the Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes gay marriage.

...

Still, other scholars cite a long tradition of courts making constitutional amendments retroactive only if the authors clearly intended them to be so. “I would think both under federal and state constitutional principles you can’t have a retroactive application that would result in a removal of what had been recognized and protected as a fundamental right,” said UC Berkeley family law professor Joan Holloway.

Maybe. Fact is, there's no consensus at all about how to interpret these referenda. Here's an example discussion from "Taking State Constitutions Seriously," by Marvin Krislov and Daniel M. Katz, published in the Spring 2008 Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy (17 Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 295):

What role should the courts play in interpreting ballot measures? Legal scholars have debated the question of differential treatment - whether courts should take a "hard look" at direct democratic initiatives that they would not employ for legislation passed by a deliberative body. The late Professor Julian Eule argued that courts should look more closely when the voters enact a law without a complementary legislative action, particularly where minority interests are implicated. His famous "hard judicial look theory" suggests a more aggressive approach to judicial review for this set of direct democratic measures. Professor Eule asserts that it is unlikely that state courts will rule that popular enactments, either statutory or amendatory, violate existing state constitutions. Professor Eule finds it especially unlikely that searching review will occur in the sixteen states that are the focus of this article - where constitutions can be amended directly without legislative review or  veto. According to Eule, in these sixteen states, "sovereignty truly vests in an electoral majority." Since state courts, particularly in those sixteen states, will likely defer to the voters, federal courts step into the role of actively arbitrating democratically-enacted laws.

Other scholars have attempted to create rules for interpreting democratically enacted measures. In her study of state court decisions from 1984 and 1994 concerning the interpretation of legislative initiatives, Professor Schacter focuses on the difficulty of courts determining popular "intent." Ultimately, she argues for a different method - a set of "metademocratic" rules. These rules guard against two distinct problems of popular democracy - lack of information by the voters, and inequity or lack of clarity in the initiative process. To address the information gap, she proposes liberal rules for amicus participation and intervention. When the process appears biased or the language confusing, she proposes construing the language narrowly.

Professor Frickey contends that one should combine Professor Eule's focus on federal constitutionality and Professor Schacter's focus on statutory interpretation by relying on a quasi-constitutional interpretive approach. In balancing both popular sovereignty and constitutional values, Professor Frickey imports interpretive canons - 1) avoiding constitutional invalidation, 2) narrowly construing propositions when there is a conflict with existing law, and 3) paying more attention to established canons of law (such as the rule of lenity) where direct democracy is involved.

By contrast, Professor Tushnet rejects the notion of "differential standards of review." He argues that the three reasons proffered for reviewing direct democracy differently than legislative action - lack of deliberation, the bifurcated decision (and lack of logrolling), and structural  or political concerns - do not support more aggressive judicial review.

Simple, huh? Of course, keep in mind there's no legislative history upon which the courts can rely, as they would for a normal legislative statute or constitutional convention. At best, the courts can dive right into the politics and campaigning to ascertain the meaning, which is the very last thing any court wants to do.

The great irony: the question of interpretation falls to the California Supreme Court, which issued the ruling later apparently rejected by the voters.

If I may be so bold, perhaps "constitutional rights" should not be left up to simple majority ballot referenda. Can you imagine if Loving v. Virginia had been on the ballot in 1968 when Nixon was swept in by the South?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If you're looking for contact information, please go to my Contact page.

The Beasley Firm's main website also profiles our Areas of Expertise.

The Beasley Firm typically represents plaintiffs in civil litigation and trials in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and, on occasion, Washington, DC, and New York City. We take difficult plaintiffs' cases and see them all the way through investigation, filing, pleadings, discovery and trial, and through appeal and re-trial, too.

The Beasley Firm is a full-service civil litigation and trial law firm with a forty-year history of excellence. Our reputation as trial lawyers is unparalleled, with multiple record-setting verdicts, and the record (held by the founder) for million-dollar verdicts by a single attorney. Slade McLaughlin and I set a new verdict record -- for punitive damages in a Pennsylvania medical malpractice case -- in May of 2008.

The Beasley Firm is unique in that it has many attorneys who specialize in particular areas like automobile accidents or medical malpractice, multiple appellate attorneys, and many general practitioners who focus on cases that don't fit the normal pattern, all under one roof that retains the nimble energy of a boutique firm where everyone knows each other and bounces ideas off one another. We adapt as the case demands; if a case needs a dozen attorneys and assistants, it gets them.

Most firms put up lists of the types of cases they work on; it's hard to do that for us. In the past year we've worked on automobile accidents, aviation accidents, breach of contract breach of fiduciary duty, business torts, civil rights, commercial litigation, copyright infringement, defamation, dram shop, employment discrimination, fraud, insurance coverage / bad faith denials, medical malpractice, private equity / shareholder disputes, personal injury, product liability, wrongful death, and wrongful use of civil proceedings / abuse of process cases.

We use alternative dispute resolution methods like mediation frequently and have experience in commercial arbitration, including large, complex commercial disputes.

My practice is largely unlimited -- at any given time, I generally have multiple cases representing people who have been physically injured in accidents or through medical malpractice, and multiple cases representing people and businesses who have been financially injured through breaches of contract, breaches of fiduciary duty, or downright fraud.

If you think you have a case, please contact our offices for a case review. We don't charge to review cases and we generally represent plaintiffs on a contingent fee, where our fee depends upon our success. Please see the Contact page for contact info.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link