Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Judge Wood is not happy with Jeff Sessions and other appellees

Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Wood issued a fed-up in-chambers opinion, calling out two appellees, including Jeff Sessions, for inadequate jurisdictional statements. The order called out appellees for failing to state in their briefs that the appellants' jurisdictional summary was both "complete and correct" (both appellees certified only one but not the other) and struck appellee briefs in two cases--one by Sessions (or DOJ) and one by the Airline Pilots Association.

Judge Wood identified routine problems with appellants' jurisdictional statements that appellees waive away; many are common problems  in the jurisdictional statements in district-court pleadings that I discuss in class:

in federal question cases where jurisdiction depends on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , the failure to specify the particular statute or constitutional provision at issue, and in diversity cases, failure to distinguish between citizenship (required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332 ) and residency (irrelevant) and, for organizations such as partnerships, LLPs, and LLCs, the failure to work back through the ownership structure until one reaches either individual human beings or a formal corporation with a state of incorporation and a state of principal place of business.

This is worth sharing with students, who often do not recognize or accept how important these details are. (I also use an Easterbrook opinion, in which he sanctions both sides for botching jurisdictional treatment of LLCs--Update: Per a request, the Easterbrook opinion is Belleville Catering v. Champaign Marketplace from 2003).

Posted by Howard Wasserman on July 12, 2017 at 07:14 PM in Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (10)

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Colllege football coaches and diversity jurisdiction

Here is an interesting diversity jurisdiction puzzle, for anyone looking for one (and you know you are).

Penn State sued Bob Shoop, its former defensive coordinator, to recover close to $ 1 million on the buyout clause, after Shoop left PSU to take a similar job at Tennessee. Penn State filed in Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, then Shoop removed to the Middle District of Pennsylvania, based on diversity. And this confused me. Penn State is a state university. And a "state" is not a "citizen of a state" for diversity purposes; when a state brings a non-federal claim against a citizen of another state to federal court, original jurisdiction rests with SCOTUS (concurrent with state courts). The case thus should not be removable, because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. This looked to me on all fours with a case from about ten years ago--involving West Virginia University's attempt to enforce a buyout clause against its former head football coach--in which the university filed in its state courts and the coach removed, but the district court remanded for lack of jurisdiction because the university was the state.

Continue reading "Colllege football coaches and diversity jurisdiction"

Posted by Howard Wasserman on July 11, 2017 at 10:36 AM in Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (9)

"Positive Pluralism Now": A Review of John Inazu's "Confident Pluralism"

I'm grateful to Rick for the mention of my piece Positive Pluralism Now, a review of John Inazu's fine and very well- and widely-noted book Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving Through Deep Difference. As a book review, my just-published piece suffers from the usual potential SSRN black hole: my experience, at least, is that SSRN is inconsistent in its treatment of book reviews but generally prefers not to put them on the main, searchable "list". What's more, it lacks even a Solum-ready abstract. So I want to offer a summary of the review, which is an attempt to use the book as a vehicle to think about issues that have interested and worried me for some time, both before and after the election. 

First, although this is a critical review of John's book, it's not a dismissive one. I write: 

If a new literature of pluralism emerges in this culture-war cycle, Professor John Inazu’s Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving through Deep Difference is likely to be one of its key texts. Inazu’s book is blissfully short, clearly written, aimed at educated general readers rather than academic specialists, and underwritten by personal experiences that cross standard culture-war lines. Confident Pluralism is necessary reading for anyone who is frustrated by the belligerence and inflexibility of the current discussion and looking for ways for different deeply held perspectives and tightly knit communities to survive and thrive. . . . Confident Pluralism is a good and valuable book. 

What I find especially important about the book is

the fact of Confident Pluralism. Like other expressly pluralist interventions, it comes at a moment, during one of our recurring culture wars, in which debate hardens around the poles and those poles move ever farther apart. The culture-war cycles tend to subside. . . . But they always come back. In or around each cycle, a pluralist intervention also occurs, and these interventions have provided some of the richest and most inspiring literature, offering a welcome alternative to the tedious trading of blows between left and right, even if they have made relatively few converts.

Those are the positives, and they are sincerely meant. I am a strong believer in pluralism not just as a social fact, one to be "managed" as if it were a nice but dangerous demographic incident, but as a good in itself. As the review makes clear, and as my friends Rick and Marc DeGirolami pointed out in tough comments on a draft, whether there is such a thing as pluralism as an end in itself and whether it is a good thing in itself are difficult questions, and I only make some headway on these questions, despite having tried to address it at least once before. This is my stab at it here:

I believe there is something to the possibility of arguing for pluralism as a distinctive positive good rather than a mere “claim of descriptive sociology” to be managed. There is a real difference between an approach that treats equality (or liberty) as the good to be realized, leaving pluralism to be slotted into or reconciled with that master value, and an approach that starts with pluralism as a positive feature of our society and treats liberty and equality as factors to be weighed and considered as means of helping pluralism itself flourish. At the least, it moves away from the “logic of congruence” and an overly state-centered approach to our social and political structure. And it demands suppleness about the different meanings of “liberty” and “equality” themselves, and about the possibility that the “official” legal versions of these values do not apply everywhere or with equal strength or meaning in different legal and non-legal contexts.

That said, I have two questions or criticisms about the book, one specific to John's project and one more general, although the two are clearly related and both are related to current events. The first is substantive. I argue--against my own intuitions and desires, to be sure--that "pluralism as a positive approach—as a good in itself, rather than a descriptive fact or a “technical problem . . . to be managed”—faces serious questions and difficulties. . . . [T]hese questions remain largely unanswered in Confident Pluralism because of Inazu’s strategic refusal to stake out a more distinctive and forceful theoretical position on pluralism itself." On the one hand, that strategic (if I am right to call it that), least-common-denominator approach has been a success: More so than most law professors' books, John's book has received a wide, enthusiastic, and eager reception--although one may worry that it has reached only the kind of "reasonable" audience that already believes in its principles rather than made new converts to pluralism. On the other, it leaves many questions about both the basis for and the application of the "confident pluralism" he describes.

The second question, one that in fairness was beyond his doing, is one of timing. I write:

From an optimistic perspective, Confident Pluralism is perfectly timed, coming when the culture war is at its height and a solution is all the more welcome. A more pessimistic reading of our situation, however, is that the book is already too late. To be effective, pluralist interventions in a culture-war cycle require a very specific hospitable environment. The intervention must come when there is enough heated disagreement to make an alternative to the shouting seem attractive. But it must also occur while both sides agree that there is a war, and think of either side as having a serious chance of winning it, leaving them amenable to compromise and coexistence. That is a pretty small window—and it may already have closed. . . .

 

A big part of this question of timing, and a phenomenon that has wreaked havoc with all general articles about constitutional law and theory written between last summer and this one, is what I call "one final, crucial data point[:] the short-fingered data point whose swift political rise so rudely interrupted our good old-fashioned on- and off-campus culture wars. Its name, of course, is President Trump." Trump, in this view, is both an exemplar and beneficiary of the culture wars and a disruption to the routine course they were taking in locations like university campuses, which might in time have led to the usual drop-off in interest in those fights. Now I am left uncertain about what will happen next, but think it means that however needed Inazu's book might be now, it is less likely to find ready takers:

Trump’s victory suggests . . . [that] the urging of a liberal “hard line” and the rise of an anti-elite conservative populist movement [ ] are closely connected. That victory simultaneously disrupted and entrenched the culture wars. It suggested that neither side was interested in the kind of compromise and coexistence that Inazu advocates, at least as long as victory was in prospect. And now that the pre-election expectations of the elite culture warriors have been upset in ways that might counsel compromise, there is a good chance that both sides will either double down or head to the barricades on other and bigger issues rather than coming together. . . . Inazu’s book thus comes along at a moment when it is simultaneously most needed and least likely to make new converts to the pluralist cause.

There is a lot in the review about culture wars, "political correctness" (and debates over whether it exists), lumping and splitting, the cyclical nature of both culture-wars and pluralism as a response to them, the "meaning" (if any) of Trump's election, and the (short-lived?) recommendation to abandon "defensive crouch liberal constitutionalism." There are very few answers. I hope some of you read it and even enjoy it--and I hope many more of you take a look at John's excellent book.

 

 

 

   

Posted by Paul Horwitz on July 11, 2017 at 09:25 AM in Paul Horwitz | Permalink | Comments (3)

Horwitz & Smith on accommodation, pluralism, religion, and disagreement

Two new (to me!) papers to read this morning:  Here is Paul Horwitz reviewing John Inazu's recent bookConfident Pluralism, and here is Steve Smith's contribution -- "Against Civil Rights Simplism:  How Not to Accommodate Competing Legal Commitments" -- to a conference at Yale last January.

Posted by Rick Garnett on July 11, 2017 at 07:58 AM in Rick Garnett | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, July 10, 2017

Posner on Aging Judges: Again Much More Right Than Wrong

Between more productive uses of my time, I'm hoping to circle back and comment on a few interesting things I read last week. I very much hope to get around to this post by Mark Tushnet on the obligations of those who comment on contemporary political issues. (I am deliberately generalizing from the more specific question addressed in his post.) Like many of Mark's best posts, I consider it interesting, provocative, and well worth reading-- even or especially if I disagree with it, as I do in this case. 

For now, let me discuss another fun item from last week: this dialogue on Slate (sorry!) between judges Richard Posner and Jed Rakoff on the question whether there should be age limits for federal judges.* Posner says yes: "I believe there should be mandatory retirement for all judges at a fixed age, probably 80." (Posner is 78.) Rakoff disagrees, and as the conversation proceeds Posner gets more Posner-y and Rakoff gets increasingly "taken aback" by Posner's musings, so much so that he uses the fierce ejaculation "Jeepers."

A longtime fan of Posner, I have nevertheless (and in keeping with what I think is a proper Posnerian approach; to hero-worship Posner is really a form of anti-Posnerianism) disagreed increasingly with his recent writings, partly in substance and partly as a matter of style and restraint. Indeed, in a close connection to the subject of the Slate dialogue, I have wondered whether Posner himself is not showing recent signs of decline--a question that I suggested is unlikely to be welcome in the legal interpretive community. As Posner has argued elsewhere, the subject of aging and old age itself is often and absurdly treated as "taboo." That's trebly true when applied to particular individuals and when, as with Posner, that figure has of late become a darling of liberals. (The same question is relevant to Justice Ginsburg, given not only her age but her increasing propensity for extrajudicial animadversions; Posner wrote in his book on aging and old age that the aged "have less incentive to conceal egocentrism and to engage in cooperative rather than self-aggrandizing conversation." But she too is treated by some as sacrosanct not a fit subject of the perfectly obvious questions one would ask about a parent or other aging loved one.) Not surprisingly, at least one person who disagrees in part with Posner's comments in the dialogue has suggested that Posner's comments reinforce his point about the need for mandatory retirement. 

I note my own previous questions about Posner's aging because, in my view, Posner is in fine form in this dialogue, and, to paraphrase an earlier post of mine, is much more right than wrong. Conversely and even more so, Judge Rakoff is much more wrong than right. Rakoff offers a number of defenses against mandatory judicial retirement ages. He argues that a number of federal judges "have served with great distinction into their 80s." He writes: "I respectfully disagree that Supreme Court justices don’t improve with age; on the contrary, many of them gain a broader perspective than they had when they went on the bench, and this enables them to pierce through the technicalities of which Judge Posner complains, so they can see the woods instead of the trees. As Justice Holmes so famously said, 'The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.'" He asserts that "in every country of the world, it has been the lawyers who have been in the forefront of confronting despots and promoting liberty." And he winds things up with this: "I’m sorry, Judge Posner, but in my mind, a love of the law and a love of liberty are inextricably intertwined." 

With all due respect to Rakoff, these statements are classic examples of what Posner likes to call "Law Day rhetoric"--the stirring language and windy invocation of broad but non-specific values that lawyers and judges use when reminding themselves and others of lawyers' vital importance . It's not that there's nothing to such values or statements. Motherhood and apple pie are both good things. But speeches invoking mom and apple pie don't tell us much about either. I would much rather live in a society with whatever "the rule of law" is than in one without it. But I'm not much impressed by general statements of this kind. In every sentence quoted above, I think Rakoff is closer to persuasion by cliche than to serious argument, and the arguments, such as they are, are more wrong than right. 

1) The fact that many judges have served with distinction into their 80s is doubtless true, but unhelpful and rather innumerate. Rakoff starts by citing what are generally agreed to be great judges in the first place, although Posner is right that their greatness is more assumed than proved and is overstated. Rakoff  gives us an imprecise numerator, and no denominator. He does not ask how many previously great judges declined, sometimes precipitously, with age. He doesn't show that those great judges remained great, as opposed to continuing to cast votes viewed by the interpretive community as great. Nor does he ask how much of the great work itself was done by law clerks, particularly in the later stages of those judicial tenures, and whether it might be cause for concern and an argument for retirement if the clerks increasingly did everything besides casting a vote. He says judges who fail are generally and gently removed by the chief judges of their district or circuit, but doesn't prove that this is effective and sufficient, and doesn't distinguish between judges who are clearly senile and more easily removed, and those who have simply declined enough to warrant retirement but might not be the subject of such efforts by chief judges, and might refuse under those circumstances.  

2) The assertion that Supreme Court justices "improve with age" comes not only with no denominator, but no evidence of any kind. I doubt its truth. I especially doubt the notion that they "gain a broader perspective" with increasing age. I think that is definitely true, but only up to a point. A judge may learn a great deal from ten or twenty years on the bench, because of the variety of cases she hears. (And the parties she encounters; but even district court judges are going to hear more from the lawyers than the parties. What parties do the Justices encounter personally?) But there is no reason to think that the learning curve is lifelong, or that it outweighs the eventual effects of decline, which may include fixity of views, tunnel vision, and other deficiencies. And there is something strongly lacking from this picture of judges gaining breadth of "perspective" and, to use the word from Holmes that he quotes, "experience" over time. Other than the variety of cases they hear, judges live cloistered lives; many judges complain in their memoirs and elsewhere about having to give up friends, associations, and other connections to the wider world. And it's a pretty privileged and princely cloister. It didn't take very much time as a law clerk for me to notice the air of deference and insulation from inconvenience that surrounds federal judges: the generous per diems, the potential for flattery from lawyers, law clerks, law schools, and bar associations; the habit of being called "Your Honor" by most of the people around them; the marshals waving them through the fortress of parking gates and detector machines in the courthouse. And that wasn't even at the Supreme Court level, which involves that level of deference, flattery, and insulation multiplied a hundredfold. The idea that judges eventually "see the woods instead of the trees" is dangerous enough on its own, since the trees are sometimes called statutes, precedents, procedural rules, and so on, and the woods sometimes amount to free-ranging views on politics and policy. But it's especially dangerous when combined with decades of relative isolation surrounded by legal courtiers. That's a recipe for hubris and judicial overreach, not "perspective." (Perhaps unfairly after that sentence, I note that Rakoff's relatively recent and now-frequent contributions to the New York Review of Books consist of broad-brush prescriptions for reform of the criminal justice system, the abolition of the death penalty, and so on. The prescriptions are less important than the question whether they should be offered by judges or fought over by politicians and citizens.)  

3) Spending enough time in this kind of environment can instill a tunnel vision about the relative importance of law, lawyers, and courts, as opposed to things like people, voters, and ordinary politics. Of course law and lawyers are important. The question is their relative importance, which can easily be overstated. Rakoff's generalization about lawyers being "in the forefront of confronting despots and promoting liberty" might best be viewed in that light. Posner responds, "I would like to see some evidence for this proposition, which strikes me, frankly, as preposterous." Preposterous? I don't know. Almost certainly vastly overstated? Definitely. And Rakoff's peroration about "a love of the law and a love of liberty" tells us nothing about either, and anyway has nothing to do with the possibility of judicial decline and the advisability of judicial retirement.

Posner has drawn the most heat for this statement in the dialogue: "It’s not true that . . . a decision must be supported by 'reason,' whatever that means exactly, to avoid lawlessness; personally, I prefer common sense to 'reason.'" I don't know whether the criticism counts as ironic, insofar as I see some of the adoring praise for some of his recent decisions as having more to do with their values and outcomes than the actual "reasons." I do think there are good grounds to worry about such a statement, especially from one who was criticized last year for what was taken to be a rather free-wheeling view of constitutional interpretation and followed it up this year with an opinion suggesting a fairly free-wheeling view of statutory interpretation. Without taking a view on any of that, I still think he is far more right than wrong in this dialogue--especially about the actual matter under discussion: the question whether there ought to be a mandatory retirement age for federal judges. But even that sentence is not half as objectionable as its critics suggest. I do think Posner's work on the bench has become too free-wheeling. But I also think that while providing reasons is a fundamental part of the American judicial process, it is easy to turn respect for "reason" into idolatry, to  think the "reasons" themselves do or mean more than they actually do, and to treat "reasons" as necessary while ignoring the question whether they are sufficient. (They are not: common sense is necessary as well, even if channeled through procedural rules, textualism, and other mechanisms, and even carefully elaborated and logical "reasons" are not necessarily reasonable.) 

Given that I've criticized Posner in recent years and suggested, not that he is unfit or hugely affected by age, but that it is not wrong  to ask such questions, I'm happy to find him in such excellent form in this dialogue. 

* As a side note, Posner was slated (so to speak) to be part of Slate's Supreme Court Breakfast Table this year, at least according to the first post. Unless I've missed it, I don't think he ended up contributing anything this year. Since I generally find him the only seriously interesting contributor sitting at the "Table," I was sorely disappointed by his absence. 

Posted by Paul Horwitz on July 10, 2017 at 12:11 PM in Paul Horwitz | Permalink | Comments (15)

Symposium Conclusion: SCOTUS OT 2016

Thanks to all our June/early-July guests for their participation in the End-of-Term Symposium.  I hope to make this an annual event, especially as future Terms prove less quiet and undramatic.

All complete posts (in reverse chronological order) can be found here.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on July 10, 2017 at 09:31 AM in 2016-17 End of Term | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, July 09, 2017

Citizen video and other § 1983 puzzles

In Fields v. City of Philadelphia, the Third Circuit joined the parade of courts of appeals recognizing a First Amendment right to record police in public in a non-interfering way, subject to time, place, and manner limitations. It is now the Fifth, First, Seventh, Eleventh, and Ninth Circuits, with none going the other way (prior to this, the Third Circuit had avoided the issue by twice holding that the right was not clearly established without addressing the merits). The case arose from two separate actions--one by a woman who was physically moved and held to keep her from recording the arrest of a protester, the other by a man who was arrested and charged with obstructing a public passage for recording officers from a sidewalk across the street.

Two thoughts.

In explaining the need for and importance of this First Amendment right, the court included this line: "To record what there is the right for the eye to see or the ear to hear corroborates or lays aside subjective impressions for objective facts. Hence to record is to see and hear more accurately." Recent experience with body cameras and police shootings shows this statement, at least in the absolute form presented in the first sentence, is wrong. Not that recording is not or should not be protected; only that it does not present "objective fact" or eliminate subjectivity. In fact, subjectivity likely is why the police officers involved in the incidents in this case stopped the plaintiffs from recording--they did not want video getting out that could be viewed by the public in an adverse way, even if they might have found a way to explain it away.

Continue reading "Citizen video and other § 1983 puzzles"

Posted by Howard Wasserman on July 9, 2017 at 10:31 AM in Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (1)

Friday, July 07, 2017

The district court's injunction (Updated Twice)

Judge Watson in the District of Hawaii last night refused to rule on the plaintiffs' Motion to Clarify the Scope of the Preliminary in the travel ban case. The plaintiffs, he ruled, were asking him to clarify the meaning of language in the Supreme Court's opinion and order, not his order; that request should be directed to SCOTUS. Ilya Somin criticizes the ruling, pointing out that interpreting and applying the language of rulings from higher courts is what district courts do. Lyle Deniston questions whether there is a procedure for asking SCOTUS to clarify language in the opinion, short of a motion for reconsideration. Michael Dorf is a bit more forgiving, arguing that Watson's ruling is not crazy, given the confusion involved when cases are moving up and down the hierarchical judicial system.

I agree that Judge Watson was wrong, for the reasons all three commentators describe. I want to make explicit one point that I believe is implicit in their posts (and that Remedies guru Doug Laycock made on a listserv): The injunction, albeit as modified by SCOTUS, remains Judge Watson's order and it remains his duty to enforce that modified injunction. And that entails figuring out the scope of the injunction, which means figuring out precisely how SCOTUS modified it, which means figuring out what SCOTUS meant in its opinion. The trial court must do that in the first instance--SCOTUS can reverse that interpretation on appeal if it disagrees. My point is that this goes beyond the ordinary situation of lower courts determining and applying SCOTUS precedent to a new case or even to the same case (for example, applying a new legal standard to evaluate the merits of the claim). This is about a district judge enforcing his own injunction going forward.

The plaintiffs have appealed the denial of the motion, presumably because this is an order refusing to modify an injunction. My best guess is that the Ninth Circuit summarily reverses and tells Judge Watson to determine the scope of his injunction.

[Update, Saturday, July 8: I want to say I was half-right. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because the order did not do anything of the things enumerated in § 1292(a)(1), because it sought a declaration rather than an injunction, and because the plaintiffs could still seek injunctive relief in the district court. The Ninth Circuit added that the district court "does possess the ability to interpret and enforce the Supreme Court's order, as well as the authority to enjoin against, for example, a party's violation of the Supreme Court's order placing effective limitations on the scope of the district court's preliminary injunction." In other words, plaintiffs filed the wrong motion. They should have moved to enforce the district court's injunction-as-modified or to hold the government in contempt of the district court's injunction-as-modified--and in the course of resolving those motions, the district court must decide what the Supreme Court said and meant. Presumably, that is what the plaintiffs will do in the district court. [Second Update, Saturday afternoon: Motion to Enforce, or in the alternative, to Modify]

The Ninth Circuit's was surprisingly rigid. Courts of appeals typically take jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1) if the order is within sniffing distance of an injunction or its enforcement. Plus, it was obvious that the plaintiffs were asking the district court to enforce the injunction according to its proper terms (based on SCOTUS modification) by determining those proper terms. In some sense, the Ninth Circuit did tell the district court it was wrong and that it did have power to decide what SCOTUS meant; the plaintiffs simply captioned their motion incorrectly. This is different than what the district court said, in directing all issues to SCOTUS.]

Posted by Howard Wasserman on July 7, 2017 at 01:09 PM in Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (4)

Thursday, July 06, 2017

Why would a mayor abdicate his own city's powers?

If you are a NYC resident with an interest in local politics, then you know that the City tends to be hamstrung by the tendency of state judges to take an oddly narrow view of the City's legal powers that contradicts sensible readings of state law. Even odder, City leaders themselves sometimes take the view that state law leaves them powerless to act even when the text of the relevant state statutes flatly contradicts such claims of impotence.

Mayor de Blasio's unilaterally surrendering the City's power over its own roads and bridges Provides a case in point. Five years ago, I pushed the idea that New York City had authority under existing state statutes to toll its own bridges and roads as a means of reducing traffic congestion and funding mass transit. The argument is summarized in this op-ed in Crain's by myself, Fritz Schwarz, and Eric Lane: To summarize, the state legislature enacted what is now codified as section 1642(a)(4) of the state's Vehicle & Traffic Law (VTL) in 1957 conferring power on the City the power to "charg[e] tolls, taxes, fees, licenses or permits for the use of the highway or any of its parts, where the imposition thereof is authorized by law." The term "law" here can only be sensibly construed as meaning "either state or local law": Any other reading of the statute turns into into a meaningless tautology providing that state law authorizes tolls when state law authorizes tolls. Moreover, the historical context of the '57 statute indicates that it was enacted in response to a Blue-Ribbon Commission's urging that the City's revenue powers be increased to save the City's transit system. My view of the law has been endorsed not only by Fritz Schwarz (who chaired the charter commission responsible for drafting the City's current form of government) and Eric Lane (who was that commission's director and counsel) but also Richard Briffault (Columbia Law School), Clay Gillette (NYU), and Nestor Davidson (Fordham), all experts in local government law. (You can read the Memo laying out the argument in tedious detail that these luminaries endorsed here).

Yet Mayor de Blasio's Administration adamantly asserts that the City lacks the legal power to toll its bridges as a reason to refuse to study congestion fees. As I argue after the jump, the apparent politics behind a mayor's unilateral surrender of his own city's legal powers suggests that paper law, however plain, is insufficient to overcome a legal and political culture destructive to city home rule.

Continue reading "Why would a mayor abdicate his own city's powers? "

Posted by Rick Hills on July 6, 2017 at 06:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

What is "principled federalism"?

The Washington Post's "Daily 202" has an article praising Republican State Secretaries of State for their "principled" stance in resisting Chris Kobach's demand for voting data. "They are demonstrating ideological consistency in an era of rampant tribalism," gushed the article.

But are they? What exactly does it mean to be a principled federalist? The difficulty posed by this question is that "federalism," like "liberalism" or "conservatism," "equal protection" or "freedom of speech," is an essentially contested concept. There are many different conceptions of such concepts, each with a distinctive ideological spin. Federalism, for instance, comes in a "vote-with-your-feet" free-market promoting variety and a "cooperative federalism," grant-funded variety. The former is libertarian in requiring states to rely on own-source revenues; the latter tends more Left, supporting block grants and general revenue sharing.

Suppose state Republicans "consistently" resist demands for voter data because they generally distrust the feds when it comes to citizen privacy. (One sees a similar attitude of some Red States towards DHS's efforts to standardize drivers' licenses under the REAL ID Act). Suppose that the very same Republican politicians enthusiastically cooperate with the feds on enforcement of immigration laws, entering into section 287(g) agreements to assist DHS in deporting unlawfully present persons. Suppose that they even ban their cities from refusing to honor DHS detainer requests. Are those Republicans just on-again-off-again fairweather federalists, or are they "principled" adherents to a particular vision of federalism in which immigration is said to be an especially "national" issue but citizens' voting, a more "local" issue? Or suppose that a Republican demands that the subnational regulation of guns be limited by SCOTUS on the ground that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is a "national right" but supports the decentralization of abortion regulation on the ground that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause has nothing to say about abortion. Such a stance on decentralization can be given a general theoretical account (i.e., "the definition of 'national rights' is properly centralized"). Does such an account count as "principled" or "opportunist"?

Since no reasonable person supports the decentralization or centralization of all issues, principled politicians must always exercise some sort of selectivity about which issues are decentralized. So here are two non-rhetorical questions, with no post-jump theory providing you, gentle reader, with any guidance on any answer. (1) Given that every theory of federalism must be selective in what it decentralizes, how do we determine whether any particular theory of federalism's selection of decentralized issues is "principled" or not? (2) If one cannot answer (1), then should one simply dispense with "federalism" talk?

Posted by Rick Hills on July 6, 2017 at 01:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Wednesday, July 05, 2017

SCOTUS OT16 Symposium: How to Argue About Personal Jurisdiction

Cassandra’s post below strikes me as basically right: after a long drought, the Court is paying serious attention to personal jurisdiction. So it’s worth looking at the state of the field.

The personal-jurisdiction debates I’ve seen—on blogs or Facebook posts, in email chains or in briefs and opinions—invoke a wide variety of different arguments. What’s striking, at least to me, is a lack of substantial attention to determining what counts as a good argument—what makes particular claims about personal jurisdiction either true or false. (As noted below, this is part of a broader failing in constitutional scholarship, effectively discussed in Chris Green’s work-in-progress on constitutional truthmakers.) In other words, a great many personal-jurisdiction arguments seem to be largely talking past each other, rather than joining issue on something we can resolve.

 

Continue reading "SCOTUS OT16 Symposium: How to Argue About Personal Jurisdiction"

Posted by Stephen Sachs on July 5, 2017 at 11:43 AM in 2016-17 End of Term, Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, Legal Theory | Permalink | Comments (3)

Sunday, July 02, 2017

Libertarians' self-defeating attacks on inclusionary zoning

Over at Market Urbanism, Emily Hamilton lays out the argument that inclusionary zoning violates SCOTUS's Nollan/Dolan standards for exactions. Hamilton has helped write an amicus brief submitted in 616 Croft Avenue v. City of West Hollywood, a case with a cert petition pending before SCOTUS. After the jump, I will explain why I believe that this brief has got the law wrong. But I am much less interested in legal doctrine and much more interested in how these sorts of attacks on inclusionary zoning can, as a matter of politics and economics, be a self-defeating policy if the ultimate goal is to loosen zoning restrictions.

Inclusionary zoning is the practice of demanding that developers rent some percentage of their housing units at below-markets rates as a condition for permitting the developer to build market-rate units. As Bob Ellickson noted thirty-five years ago, such demands can effectively reduce the supply of affordable housing, because those inclusionary requirements may cause developers to build fewer units of market-rate housing, thereby accelerating the upward "filtering" of existing housing (aka "gentrification"). Put simply, if developers do not build new luxury condos in New York City, then buyers who would otherwise bid on those condos will instead bid on existing brownstones, causing the latter's rents to rise even faster.

Using Nollan/Dolan to restrict inclusionary zoning, however, limits the bribes with which state and local governments can induce the neighbors to agree to loosen up zoning restrictions. Neighbors do not give up the limits of their zoning laws lightly. Inclusionary requirements give those local politicians a bit of political cover by making the link between market-rate and affordable housing more apparent. If Emily Hamilton's and her colleagues' brief succeeds in persuading the SCOTUS to apply a higher level of scrutiny to inclusionary requirements, the result will be that local governments will simply impose unconditionally restrictive zoning rules: Federal constitutional doctrine will have obstructed deals that actually made everyone better off relative to a baseline that federal takings doctrine does not affect -- the baseline of unconditionally restrictive zoning.

Why cannot libertarians see that these Nollan/Dolan attacks on inclusionary requirements undermine libertarian goals?

Continue reading "Libertarians' self-defeating attacks on inclusionary zoning"

Posted by Rick Hills on July 2, 2017 at 11:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)

SCOTUS Symposium: The Gorsuch Court (Updated)

Eric Segall reflects on the passing of the moment to instantiate his proposal for an evenly partisan eight-person Supreme Court, which died* with the arrival of Justice Gorsuch. Eric writes that many of the post-Term analyses have described it as a quiet Term, marked by consensus and an absence of late-Term drama.

[*] I suppose the dream remains alive if the next retirement were Justice Kennedy or Justice Thomas.

[Update: New reports are that Kennedy has hired only one clerk for OT 2018 and has told candidates he may not hire more because he may retire (retired Justices have one clerk). That vacancy would come four months before the mid-Term elections in which Democrats hope to retake the Senate. Of course, the chances that Senate Republicans unilaterally disarm in that situation are even less than they were prior to the Gorsuch nomination.]

But that narrative is accurate only until the April sitting, when Gorsuch took his seat for arguments. One could feel a palpable change in the Court; it reflected in arguments, with his dominant and sharp questioning, and in his seven separate opinions. All this offers clear indications that he is pushing his way to the front as a voice on the Court, seniority be damned, and that he is less interested in consensus and compromise than other members of the Court. (Some have suggested that this split with the conservatives more interested in compromise--the Chief and Kennedy--explains the odd result and per curiam opinion in the travel ban case).

Eric argues that the change we have witnessed since April reflects another point in favor of his proposal: "[W]hen five Justices share a common ideology, whether left, right or center, the temptation to impose that ideology is too great for mere mortals to resist." Three months in, and we already are seeing that point.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on July 2, 2017 at 12:31 PM in 2016-17 End of Term, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (6)

Saturday, July 01, 2017

SCOTUS OT16 Symposium: The Future of Personal Jurisdiction

Thanks to Howard and the Prawfs crew for having me as a June guestblogger. I wanted to finish out my month by concluding with a few final thoughts future of personal jurisdiction at SCOTUS. 

After a 20-year hiatus where the Court heard no personal jurisdiction cases, the Supreme Court decided six personal jurisdiction opinions in the last six years. In each case, the Court reduced the scope of personal jurisdiction, and thus reduced the number of forum choices available to plaintiffs.  In most of the cases, there was a surprising level of agreement between the judges.

So what's next? The Court hinted in both BNSF and Bristol-Myers that it was considering whether the 5th amendment placed limits on Congress's power to authorize personal jurisdiction, an issue that Stephen noted in his earlier post on BNSF

That issue is squarely presented in the case of Sokolow v. PLO, and on June 26 the Court called for the views of the Acting Solicitor General. It's a great case to keep an eye on for next term; I think there is a good chance it will be granted. The House of Representatives has already filed an amicus brief in the case, which is not something you see every day. 

Other than potentially hearing the 5th amendment question in Sokolow, I would guess that the Court is likely to take a break from personal jurisdiction and will leave some of the thornier “relatedness” questions to the lower courts for awhile. Interestingly, after the Court issued its Bristol-Myers Squibb opinion, the Court denied cert in TV Azteca v. Ruiz, rather than GVR'ing it in light of Bristol-Myers, as I would have expected. The case arose in Texas, and the Texas Supreme Court allowed a Texas plaintiff to bring a libel suit against a Mexican broadcaster and TV anchor who had broadcast from Mexico (though due to inadvertent spillover, people in Texas along the Mexican border could watch the broadcast). The case raised interesting questions about what is required for purposeful availment, how closely the cause of action must relate to the defendant's purposeful contacts, and the scope of the effects test after Calder. It also had great facts, arising from the story of pop star Gloria Trevi, who was accused of grave misdeeds and spent years in jail before being released for lack of evidence. (And Trevi has some great earworms: Habla-bla-bla is impossible not to sing along with, and Psicofonío is a wonderful story-song about a ghostly love affair). The case shared amici with BSM; petitioner's amici argued that in both cases, the courts had overstepped the bounds of jurisdiction, and asked the Court to consider the cases together. Nevertheless, even after reversing BSM, the Court simply denied cert in TV Azteca rather than issuing a GVR for reconsideration in light of BSM.  

Posted by Cassandra Burke Robertson on July 1, 2017 at 09:10 PM in 2016-17 End of Term | Permalink | Comments (2)

The Cult of Nina Totenberg?

Dahlia Lithwick offers advice to the White House Press Corps. on how to do the job without cameras, now that the White House has barred recording of press briefings. The piece is mainly tongue-in-cheek (she urges TV news organizations to adopt John Oliver's dog-centered visuals), but I want to push back on two of her serious points.

Dahlia urges the press to stop covering the press gaggle, to "cover what happens, as opposed to the spin." I agree that the press should stop covering these briefings, which have become forums for lying and obfuscation, exacerbated by the inability of many reporters to ask effective and direct questions (as opposed to convoluted multi-part questions that enable obfuscation). She likens the press briefings to the "drama and theatrics" of oral argument, which the SCOTUS Press Corps. has learned to ignore in favor of focusing on the opinions as the "work product that emanates from the Court." Two problems. First, the SCOTUS Corps. does not ignore oral arguments, in-depth, as displays of the Justice's personalities and styles and with the attendant tea-leaf reading. Second, I am not sure how practices in covering the Court translate to covering the White House, because much of what happens in the White House never produces concrete "work product" that the reporters can read, parse, and analyze. The alternative to the press briefings is more informal interaction with WH staffers and more speaking with people off the record, as well as more reporting on the President's latest tweets. Which is not a bad thing, as it produces a more honest picture of what is happening.

Dahlia also urges WH reporters to be nerds, like the SCOTUS reporters: Ego-free, writing about the opinions, and not striving to be among the "competing cults of personality" that "tower over the news in America." There is no Cult of Jess Bravin (who covers the Court for the Wall Street Journal). But there long has been a Cult of Nina Totenberg (especially during the '90s, when she did double duty at NPR and ABC) and there long was a Cult of Linda Greenhouse--they were as known as much as personalities and commentators as for the cases on which they reported. The journalists who cover the Court do a marvelous job, and I have no reason to doubt that it is a "kind" and "ego-free workplace." But in writing about the Court, they offer not only cold analysis of the case, but opinion and commentary, which makes them as much a part of the story as are WH reporters.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on July 1, 2017 at 08:41 PM in Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (3)

Friday, June 30, 2017

Leave the SCOTUS ghostwriters alone (SCOTUS Symposium)

Rumor has it that when a victorious party is trying to convince the Supreme Court not to grant cert. in their case, they will sometimes hire experienced specialists in Supreme Court practice to write the brief in opposition, but then keep their names off the papers, so it looks as if the case remains unexceptional from the respondent's point of view. I've been giving this practice some thought ever since reading Ian's very smart post earlier this month, arguing that this ghostwriting practice is unethical. (Ian and Dan discuss this at length in the subscribers-only "Patreon" episode of their excellent podcast, First Mondays, but Ian's post and the ensuing comment thread contain the core arguments.)

Ian's argument is simple and powerful, which is that the practice is unethical because it is a form of deceptive concealment from the Court of a material fact. As I understand Dan's position, it's that the Court's rules probably do not reach so broadly, but he would be open to seeing them reformed. Similarly, even some of the skeptical comments on Ian's post profess agnosticism on whether it would be good to reform the rules and forbid ghostwriting.

So I thought somebody should lay out the basic case against regulating legal ghostwriting, and it may as well be me.

Continue reading "Leave the SCOTUS ghostwriters alone (SCOTUS Symposium)"

Posted by Will Baude on June 30, 2017 at 11:54 AM in 2016-17 End of Term | Permalink | Comments (4)

Thursday, June 29, 2017

Treat the Disease or Treat the Symptoms?

I have blogged previously about how interdisciplinary developments in legal scholarship have affected the types of law review articles that are being published.  One of the dimensions of this that I did not address previously is something I want to expand on in this post.

Consider the traditional law review article:  the underlying legal problem to be fixed is identified, with all of the attention of the article then turning to the normative prescriptions.  A different type of article has started to become much more common.  Before turning to normative prescriptions, there is an account of how new, underlying mechanisms have generated the new legal problem.  That new legal problem is then addressed as presenting normative problems undermining generally shared institutional design goals.  While the past article simply identified a problematic situation, the new article also engages with the triggers for that situation as well. 

Continue reading "Treat the Disease or Treat the Symptoms?"

Posted by David Fontana on June 29, 2017 at 02:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

R. Kozel, "Settled Versus Right: A Theory of Precedent"

I'm pleased to share the news that the new book by my friend and colleague, Randy Kozel -- Settled Versus Right:  A Theory of Precedent -- is available now from Cambridge University Press.   (Among other things, the cover is great!).  Here's the blurb:

In this timely book, Randy J. Kozel develops a theory of precedent designed to enhance the stability and impersonality of constitutional law. Kozel contends that the prevailing approach to precedent in American law is undermined by principled disagreements among judges over the proper means and ends of constitutional interpretation. The structure and composition of the doctrine all but guarantee that conclusions about the durability of precedent will track individual views about whether decisions are right or wrong, and whether mistakes are harmful or benign. This is a serious challenge, but it also reveals a path toward maintaining legal continuity even as judges come and go. Kozel's account of precedent should be read by anyone interested in the nature of the judicial role and the trajectory of constitutional law.

It's been a real treat talking with and learning from Randy about these matters over the past few years.  Congratulations!

Posted by Rick Garnett on June 29, 2017 at 09:26 AM in Rick Garnett | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

N.D. Ill. Pilot Program on Discovery Changes

The following was posted by past guest Robin Effron (Brooklyn) at the Civ Pro & Fed Courts Blog, on a pilot program in the Northern District of Illinois requiring parties to engage in mandatory discovery requests and production (beyond FRCP 26(a) disclosure). Here is the Standing Order and here is a "Users' Manual". Thoughts, comments, or predictions?

The Northern District of Illinois launched a mandatory pilot program last month that requires parties to engage in a series of mandatory discovery requests and disclosures.  The FJC reports that this will help them study "whether requiring parties in civil cases to respond to a series of standard discovery requests before undertaking other discovery reduces the cost and delay of civil litigation."

This pilot program could also have an effect on pleading and Twombly-style 12(b)(6) fact motions:  Under the program, parties are required to file answers simultaneously with 12(b) motions unless they show good cause that the court is considering a jurisdictional dismissal.  

A few interesting highlights from the discovery order:

Continue reading "N.D. Ill. Pilot Program on Discovery Changes"

Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 28, 2017 at 08:10 PM in Civil Procedure | Permalink | Comments (3)

SCOTUS OT16 Symposium (Sort Of): Call for Papers on Amending the Constitution

"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." This term may not have been a blockbuster, but there have been plenty of constitutional cases that people disagreed with—sometimes strongly. One way to change them is to change the Court's membership; another way, and often a better one, is to change the Constitution.

With our organizer's kind permission, here's the call-for-papers for a conference on amending the Constitution, to be held at Duke on February 2, 2018. If you have ideas for how to make it better, send them in!

 

Continue reading "SCOTUS OT16 Symposium (Sort Of): Call for Papers on Amending the Constitution"

Posted by Stephen Sachs on June 28, 2017 at 04:22 PM in 2016-17 End of Term, Constitutional thoughts, Symposium | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Same-sex marriage after Obergefell (SCOTUS symposium)

Yesterday the Supreme Court took action in two different cases about same-sex marriage. In one, Pavan v. Smith, the court summarily reversed an Arkansas Supreme Court decision about Arkansas's birth-certificate regime, concluding that because "Arkansas law makes birth certificates about more than just genetics" and sometimes allows spouses who are not biological parents to be listed on the birth certificate, it must extend the same recognition to same-sex couples.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch dissented (joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.). Interestingly, Gorsuch did not quarrel with the correctness of Obergefell, but rather suggested that the case did not meet the standards for summary reversal, which he said is "usually reserved for cases 'where the law is settled and stable, the facts are not in dispute, and the decision below is clearly in error.'" (As an aside, I take it that these criteria are supposed to be necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for summary reversal -- the court certainly does not summarily reverse every case that is a clear error in the application of settled law. And as I've written extensively in "The Supreme Court's Shadow Docket," it is actually quite a parlor game to figure out what, in practice, the criteria for summary reversal really are.)

In the other case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court granted certiorari to consider whether the Constitution exempts a "cake artist" from a law requiring him to make cakes for same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages alike. I should eat a little crow on this one, because for weeks I have been confidently predicting to my colleagues that the court was not going to grant cert in this case (even though I thought that it should). But after a record-setting 14 times being relisted for conference, the case is now on the merits docket.

The underlying legal issues in both cases are quite different, but I see them as sharing a fundamental theme -- the question of what and how much is supposed to be settled by the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell. Was the decision supposed to basically end national debates about the status and rights of same-sex couples, or does it still leave space to debate the narrowing or extension of these rights? To be clear, I am not talking about the fundamental holding of Obergefell, which I suspect is already more secure than the holding in Roe v. Wade, but about the broader message to society -- the music, not the words.

Indeed, this theme makes me wonder if the court's actions in these two cases were actually causally related. As noted above, Masterpiece Cakeshop was relisted over and over and over again, which usually means that a case is not going to be granted. Rather, it looks like somebody was writing a dissent from the denial or cert. that changed a mind or two at the final moment. (If there were four votes to grant once Gorsuch joined the court, it could have been granted as early as April, at least eight relists ago.) I wonder -- and this is rank speculation -- if one of the justices became concerned with the possible maximalist implications of the Pavan summary reversal, and changed his vote to "grant" in Masterpiece Cakeshop.

[Cross-posted at the Volokh Conspiracy.]

Posted by Will Baude on June 27, 2017 at 01:03 PM in 2016-17 End of Term | Permalink | Comments (2)

Sponsored Post: Critical Reading Instruction for Law School Success

The following post is by Jane Bloom Grise, Director of Academic Enhancement and Assistant Professor of Legal Writing at University of Kentucky College of Law, and is sponsored by West Academic.

Scott Turow, the best-selling author of One L, compared reading cases to “stirring concrete with my eyelashes.” Students report getting lost in cases and feeling like “idiots” when they read cases. While reading cases may be difficult for students and even practitioners, critical reading skills are important for success in law school and legal practice. Furthermore, empirical research shows that top law students consistently use different reading strategies than lower performing students.

However, there are two pieces of good news for law professors and law students. First, it is possible to identify the reading strategies of high performing legal readers. While expert legal readers read cases to solve client problems, novices often just memorize case information. While experts read headings and summaries in order to understand the subject of a case before even beginning to read a case, novices start reading without any information about the case topic. Experts understand that cases are structured in predictable ways, while novices sometimes assume that every case is organized differently. Experts understand the significance of procedural references in cases while novices tend to ignore these terms because they simply have not been introduced to procedural concepts.

Continue reading "Sponsored Post: Critical Reading Instruction for Law School Success"

Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 27, 2017 at 09:31 AM in Sponsored Announcements | Permalink | Comments (2)

Monday, June 26, 2017

OT 2016 Symposium: On The Travel Ban The Supreme Court Says: Stay Tuned

Today the Supreme Court resolved the government’s petitions for certiorari and motions to stay the lower courts’ injunctions in the travel ban litigation.  The Court granted the government’s petitions for certiorari, so that the case will be heard on the merits in October Term 2017 (specifically, in October). The Court also granted in part the government’s motions to stay the lower courts’ injunctions against the travel ban.  How the Court disposed of the stay requests may affect what the Court has before it when it actually hears the case in October.

Continue reading "OT 2016 Symposium: On The Travel Ban The Supreme Court Says: Stay Tuned"

Posted by Leah Litman on June 26, 2017 at 07:07 PM in 2016-17 End of Term | Permalink | Comments (0)

The travel ban endgame (SCOTUS Symposium)

Among its other interesting end-of-term work today, the Court issued a per curiam cert. grant/stay in Trump v. IRAP, the travel ban case. As Steve discusses below, the Court stayed the injunctions in part but left them in place "with respect to parties similarly situated" to the plaintiffs. The Court also ordered "a briefing schedule that will permit the cases to be heard during the first session of October Term 2017," noting that "(The Government has not requested that we expedite consideration of the merits to a greater extent.)"

Now here is where I get a little puzzled.

Continue reading "The travel ban endgame (SCOTUS Symposium)"

Posted by Will Baude on June 26, 2017 at 07:00 PM in 2016-17 End of Term | Permalink | Comments (3)

SCOTUS OT16 Symposium: Does the Status-Conduct Distinction in Trinity Lutheran Church lend support to the baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop?

Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, decided today, rests on a status-conduct distinction that bears an uncanny resemblance to a similar distinction in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the case for which the SCOTUS today granted cert. Could this distinction, which favored the Church in TLC, also favor Masterpiece Bakeshop's free exercise claim?

Being a federalism-inclined law prof when it comes to religious freedom (and most other topics as well), I would deplore such a move. But I could see a reasonable justice's inferring that, if Missouri is constitutionally entitled to discriminate on the basis of religion to avoid being dragooned into supporting the "conduct" of religious education with tax dollars, the Masterpiece Bakeshop ought to be entitled to avoid being conscripted into supporting the "conduct" of same-sex weddings with cakes. Put another way, if facial neutrality of a school voucher program does not suffice to protect a state's taxpayers from the "appearance" of supporting religious education, then then why should the facial neutrality of an anti-discrimination law suffice to save the bakeshop from the analogous appearance of supporting a same-sex wedding ceremony? Calls for "federalism all the way down" invite such analogies between the powers of states and the rights of private organizations, suggesting the devolution of powers enjoyed by the former to the latter in the name of decentralization writ large.

Of course, the SCOTUS might just reiterate that Smith allows all facially neutral laws to be enforced against any employer, at least if the hiring of "ministers" or Yoder-style hybrid rights are not at stake. There is an analogous and equally obvious argument based on Rumsfeld v. FAIR for freedom of speech claims. But suppose that there are five votes to narrow Smith and FAIR. If so, TLC's status-conduct distinction provides coordinates for a surgical strike on facially neutral anti-discrimination laws that could leave standing these laws' prohibition on "status"-based discrimination. To the extent that five justices worry that these sorts of "complicity-based" claims could gut anti-discrimination laws, the status-conduct distinction provides a tempting way to limit the damage but even the score for religious believers.

Continue reading "SCOTUS OT16 Symposium: Does the Status-Conduct Distinction in Trinity Lutheran Church lend support to the baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop?"

Posted by Rick Hills on June 26, 2017 at 05:07 PM in 2016-17 End of Term | Permalink | Comments (1)

A Small But Important Aspect of OT16: Resisting "Brilliant" First Amendment Arguments

Allow me to offer one discrete and fairly mundane observation about the Court's treatment of the First Amendment this Term. Last week, I thought the most important sentence in the Slants case, Matal v. Tam, was this one: "This brings us to the case on which the Government relies most heavily, Walker [v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.], which likely marks the outer bounds of the government-speech doctrine" (emphasis added). To that I would add a passage from today's decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, in which the Court distinguishes its earlier decision in Locke v. Davey. Neither of these moves is extraordinary, dazzling, innovative, or anything of the sort. Both are very much the stuff of standard case-crunching. But I think they're both noteworthy moves, in two respects.

1) Both of those cases, and especially Walker, are the subject or basis of efforts by some First Amendment scholars, particularly those of an expressivist and/or strongly egalitarian bent, to find brilliant new ways to apply and extend (their understanding of) the First Amendment. On this reading of the legal issues raised in cases like Walker, government would have an enhanced regulatory ability to avoid perceived "endorsement" of various values, or even a constitutional obligation to avoid "endorsing" or being seen as endorsing various values seen as anathema to particular social/constitutional values. One might see Locke as the basis of similar expansive efforts in the Establishment Clause area. On this reading, Locke gives ammunition for a broader argument that government can, or even must, regulate more aggressively, despite claims of equal access to funding or programs by religious individuals or groups, in order to avoid being seen as in any way "endorsing" religion or religious values. As my friend Marc DeGirolami summarizes this line of argument, "government conduct that is motivated by even the possibility that somebody might perceive religious endorsement (even if nobody actually has) is itself justified and validated by the Establishment Clause." Both cases are thus tools for creative, even brilliant, readings of existing First Amendment law and principles in a way that would give government considerable discretion, or even a positive obligation, to avoid "endorsement" of values that are actually or purportedly contrary to the (actual or aspirational) Constitution.

Of course I mean "brilliant" as both a sincere compliment and an expression of concern. The skill of some of this scholarship is great and it makes for thought-provoking reading. But there is now a long post-Daniel Farber tradition of recognizing the limits, dangers, and sometimes hubris and overreaching quality of "brilliant" arguments in constitutional law. However I might feel about it in scholarship, on the whole I would just as soon not have courts go in for "brilliant" extensions of First Amendment doctrine and "values." There is no particular reason to think judges or law clerks have the wisdom or skill or forethought about consequences to engage in these brilliant extensions wisely or well. There is little reason to think government will be wise in its use of such "nonendorsement" principles either; but at least those applications are subject to some political control and capacity for revision. Constitutionalizing the principles and turning them, more or less, into judicial mandates would eliminate that safeguard. I am not defending current doctrine; and for that and other reasons, I find much to think about, and therefore admire if for no other reason, in some of these brilliant arguments. But I think we would on the whole be better off if judges did not pay too much attention to them. Both Tam and Trinity Lutheran show little interest in these kinds of brilliant extensions, and some interest in foreclosing them. That, I think, is noteworthy in and of itself.

(On the other hand, I am perfectly amenable to smart and provocative scholarly arguments for fairly radical revision of constitutional doctrine in this and other areas. But I prefer such suggestions to be put explicitly as radical revisions, which are harder to put over quietly and thus require more debate and discussion before doing so. That is better than the strategic approach of treating clever or brilliant arguments for radical revisions as if they are implicit in existing doctrine, and thus are either already required or need just a little modest judicial work to achieve. The latter approach is much more elitist and anti-democratic than the former.)

2) These signals from the Court (if that's what they are) are also important for the Supreme Court's relationship with lower courts. In some of these areas, in my view, the lower courts have been much more receptive to brilliant arguments of this sort, and much more willing to apply them, despite and sometimes in fairly obvious if implicit disregard of the Court's own opinions and direction. The passages that I've identified in Tam and Trinity Lutheran show that these kinds of innovations won't find a Court that is eager to adopt them. I don't expect the lower courts to stop pushing their own visions just because the Court sends signals like this, or even stronger ones. The Supreme Court only takes so many cases; it only decides them so clearly and leaves lots of room for clever readings and exploitation of open spaces; there are many smart, driven, and politically committed lower court judges; and courts and judges, like the rest of the nation, reflect political and societal fissures. Lower courts do not have to read tea leaves if they do not want to, and sometimes it suits them not to do so. So I don't mean to overemphasize the importance of the signals here. But I do think both passages make clear that the Supreme Court won't give a friendly reception to lower court innovations in these areas.     

 

Posted by Paul Horwitz on June 26, 2017 at 12:07 PM in 2016-17 End of Term, Paul Horwitz | Permalink | Comments (1)

SCOTUS OT16 Symposium: The Travel Ban Injunctions and 23(b)(2)

Today's ruling in the travel ban cases highlights some of the procedural questions that Howard, Sam Bray, and others have raised. The Court narrowed the existing injunctions, but not all the way: it left them in place "with respect to parties similarly situated" to the plaintiffs.

That "similarly situated" phrase echoes the language often used in class actions. But, as Justice Thomas pointed out, these suits have not been certified as class actions: they're on behalf of particular named plaintiffs, though the remedies sought are more typical of a class.

That's why the Court, in framing this "similarly situated" group, was itself forced to work through some of the issues ordinarily handled by class action doctrines:

The facts of these cases illustrate the sort of relationship that qualifies. For individuals, a close familial relationship is required. A foreign national who wishes to enter the United States to live with or visit a family member, like Doe’s wife or Dr. Elshikh’s mother-in-law, clearly has such a relationship. As for entities, the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading EO–2. The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity. So too would a worker who accepted an offer of employment from an American company or a lecturer invited to address an American audience. Not so someone who enters into a relationship simply to avoid §2(c): For example, a nonprofit group devoted to immigration issues may not contact foreign nationals from the designated countries, add them to client lists, and then secure their entry by claiming injury from their exclusion.

(Edit: As Justice Thomas also points out, the defendants will have to work out the same reasoning, "on peril of contempt.")

Here's my question. Suppose that none of these cases had ever been brought. Instead, one of the named parties had brought a class action under 23(b)(2), seeking only injunctive relief, and defined the class as containing "all foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." Would such a class be certified?

Class action practice isn't my area of expertise, so I can't really be sure (though my suspicion is no). What I'm more sure of is that the district court would have had to analyze a number of questions at length: Is this class definition proper? Are the named plaintiffs were typical of the class and adequate to represent them? Does the class contain members with interests adverse to the named plaintiffs, or to each other? Would a judgment describing such a class be sufficiently precise under 23(c)(3)(A) to determine its preclusive effect on individual litigants in future cases? And so on.

And it also strikes me that these inquiries have been short-circuited by the plaintiffs' obtaining an injunction that covers more people than are actually parties to the case. Why does Rule 23 impose so many barriers to making absent people into parties, if we can get the same ruling without those people before the court? Why have the judge appoint class counsel under 23(g), if any old lawyer can walk into court and get an order with exactly the same breadth?

Others have made this point before -- and again, class actions aren't my specialty, so I'm happy to be corrected. But it strikes me that this sort of injunction is at the very least in tension with the existing framework of Rule 23. And if they're good ideas nonetheless, then we should recognize that formally: by proposing new amendments to Rule 23, to tell us when the Rule's requirements should and shouldn't be relaxed.

Posted by Stephen Sachs on June 26, 2017 at 11:34 AM in 2016-17 End of Term, Civil Procedure | Permalink | Comments (4)

Religious Status versus Religious Conduct: Free Exercise Federalism survives by a hair in Trinity Lutheran Church

Although I was disappointed by the result in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, I was hardly surprised. After oral argument, it seemed pretty obvious that Missouri was going to lose and that federalism for free exercise doctrine was going to take a hit. The interesting question was whether Locke v. Davey was going to survive or be shaved into oblivion. Locke v. Davey, I am relieved to say, survives by a hair.

The Court distinguished Locke with the good old' status-conduct distinction. "Davey was not denied a scholarship because of who he was," Roberts wrote, but "was denied a scholarship because of what he proposed to do —- use the funds to prepare for the ministry. Here there is no question that Trinity Lutheran was denied a grant simply because of what it is -- a church." States, therefore, still remain free to carve church schools out of voucher programs that pay for (among other things) religious education. As if to reassure federalists, Roberts dropped a footnote that Justices Thomas and Gorsuch refused to join: "This case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination." Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, concurring in everything but footnote 3, plainly would overrule Locke and institute simple strict scrutiny across the board for all classifications that single out religious organizations for any disabilities.

What follows is my federalist's plea to Gorsuch and Thomas (or, at least, encouragement to Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, and Kagan) to stick with the federalist course of Locke. You might ideally want strict scrutiny for anti-religious classifications, just to bring the Free Exercise clause into line with the Equal Protection clause's simple framework for suspect classifications. But are you willing to strictly scrutinize all pro-religious accommodations?

Continue reading "Religious Status versus Religious Conduct: Free Exercise Federalism survives by a hair in Trinity Lutheran Church"

Posted by Rick Hills on June 26, 2017 at 11:13 AM in 2016-17 End of Term | Permalink | Comments (1)

SCOTUS Symposium: Packingham and Fact-Checking the Supreme Court

Last week’s decision in Packingham v. North Carolina is getting a lot of attention in part because of this fact checker column in the Washington Post.  Packingham involved a challenge to a North Carolina law that severely restricted the ability of registered sex offenders to access various websites, including Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.  All eight participating Justices agreed that the law violated the First Amendment because it was unable to satisfy intermediate scrutiny.  Although the Court acknowledged that protecting children from sex offenders was a legitimate government interest, the law burdened more speech than was necessary to further that legitimate interest.  

Justice Alito wrote separately to criticize the majority for including “undisciplined dicta” in its opinion.  Justice Alito’s concurrence included the following paragraph:

Repeat sex offenders pose an especially grave risk to children. “When convicted sex offenders reenter society, they are much more likely than any other type of offender to be rearrested for a new rape or sexual assault.” McKune, supra, at 33 (plurality opinion); see United States v. Kebodeaux, 570 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2013) (slip op., at 8–9).

The paragraph appeared in the portion of his opinion that concluded the North Carolina law “easily satisfies” the legitimate government interest prong.  It was this paragraph that the Washington Post decided to fact check.  Interestingly, the Post did so after first noting that it does not normally fact check the Supreme Court, but then explaining: “the topic of sex offender recidivism is worth clarifying because it is often misconstrued, so we found Alito’s claim newsworthy. And this specific claim is an assertion of fact, rather than the justices’ actual opinion.”

Continue reading "SCOTUS Symposium: Packingham and Fact-Checking the Supreme Court"

Posted by Carissa Byrne Hessick on June 26, 2017 at 10:10 AM in 2016-17 End of Term | Permalink | Comments (6)

SCOTUS Symposium: Lee v. United States and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

As we wait for today’s decisions, I wanted to make a few quick comments about last week’s decision in Lee v. United States. Lee involved an ineffective assistance of counsel challenge.  Petitioner was a lawful permanent resident who had been indicted on drug charges.  His defense attorney negotiated a plea bargain for him that would have permitted Petitioner to serve less jail time.  Petitioner sought reassurance from defense counsel on multiple occasions that the plea deal would not result in deportation.  Despite defense counsel’s repeated reassurances to the contrary, the charges that Petitioner pleaded guilty to triggered mandatory deportation.

The question presented in Lee was whether Petitioner could get relief for his defense attorney’s ineffective assistance.  There was no dispute that defense counsel failed to provide constitutionally adequate assistance—misunderstanding relevant law and failing to investigate are basically the only attorney errors that satisfy the “deficient performance” prong of the ineffective assistance test. The other prong of the test is whether the defendant was prejudiced—namely whether, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.  Here, the Sixth Circuit concluded that Petitioner could not satisfy the prejudice prong because the evidence against him was overwhelming.  If the Petitioner would have been convicted at trial, the court reasoned, then the outcome would not have been “different”—Petitioner would have been convicted, imprisoned, and then deported.

Continue reading "SCOTUS Symposium: Lee v. United States and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel"

Posted by Carissa Byrne Hessick on June 26, 2017 at 09:47 AM in 2016-17 End of Term, Criminal Law | Permalink | Comments (0)

SCOTUS Symposium: Perry v. MSPB

I wrote an analysis for SCOTUSBlog of Friday's opinion in Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board. My post-argument prediction that Justice Gorsuch would dissent was correct, although I predicted a solo dissent and he got Justice Thomas to come along. I describe the opinion as Gorsuch announcing his presence with authority on statutory interpretation. This is a minor case, but it portends some sharp divisions in the coming years.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 26, 2017 at 07:49 AM in 2016-17 End of Term, Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (1)

Federalists do not know how to party: Why Federalism is a Boring but Vital Idea

Stephen Marche complains in yesterday's Sunday NY Times that "Canada doesn't know how to party," because Canadians are unenthusiastic about celebrating the British North America Act of 1867, the statute that created the modern Canadian state. It is not that Canadians dislike the BNA. It is just that the BNA is boring -- "the single most boring object ever produced by human consciousness," in Marche's words. It is a long, technical document largely designed to accommodate Anglophones' and Francophones' mutual desire to be left alone. Since 1982, when the BNA was "repatriated" to become Canada's Constitution, it has been gussied up with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but even this addition is qualified by section 33's "notwithstanding" clause allowing provinces to opt out of Canada's bill of rights.

As a mere federal framework for mutual non-interference, Canada's Constitution has a whiff of the dull drudgery of a good-enough marriage. (The BNA begins with this soporific preamble: "Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion...."). And yet, as Marche notes, the absence of celebration is a pity, because Canada's success as an extraordinarily peaceful, prosperous, multi-national state owes a lot to this dull, "go along to get along" document.

Marche's piece could be generalized as posing the essential dilemma faced by the idea of federalism. Because it is a boring and merely territorial compromise, federalism can be effective at defusing otherwise intractable partisan or ethnocultural disputes that resist resolution through national theories about the Good and the Just. But precisely because it is boring, the federal idea is hard to enforce when it conflicts with one's more passionate commitments. The result is that each side is tempted to bail from a federal commitment when disputed rights are at stake, causing the entire system to unravel. Of course, one might rationally realize that one's passionately felt right is one's opponent's passionately felt wrong and that winner-take-all nationalism might leave one with nothing when that opponent controls the national government. But such dry, rational argument is easily brushed aside when one has the reins of national power in one's own hands and can end, once and for all, [fill in your own pet cause]. Against the cautious federalist who wonders whether the policy in question really is a necessarily national policy about which reasonable people cannot disagree, the nationalist brusquely offers the Reductio ad Brownum ("So would you safeguard Jim Crow with federalism?"). It turns out that, when one has a congressional majority, every policy with which one disagrees, from Sanctuary Cities to Clear & Convincing Proof standards for college campus sexual assault hearings, looks as bad as Jim Crow.

The problem with federalism is, in short, that we Federalists do not know how to party -- which is a shame, because there is actually a lot to celebrate in a robust federal regime.

Posted by Rick Hills on June 26, 2017 at 06:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, June 25, 2017

SCOTUS Symposium: The final week

We enter the final week of June and the final week of the Term. Six cases remain, with Monday the final scheduled opinion day, so expect a flurry. I am most interested in Hernandez v. Mesa, which could produce either further contraction of Bivens or further expansion of qualified immunity. Plus, the Court  has full briefing on the travel ban cases. Plus, rumors of Justice Kennedy's retirement are heating up. Or maybe it is Justice Thomas.

So as we enter the final week and the wrap-up to our End-of-Term Symposium, let's talk about everything that happens on Monday, as well as some broader lessons, conclusions, criticisms, praise, and perspectives from the Term as a whole, and some predictions about what might happen in OT 2017.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 25, 2017 at 10:28 PM in 2016-17 End of Term, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (2)

Does Article VII's Up-or-Down Process Weaken the Case for Constitutional Textualism (i.e., New Originalism")??

In constitutional interpretation, the "New Originalism" (nicely described by Larry Solum, among other places, here) bears an uncanny resemblance to the old statutory textualism of the mid-1990s and early 2000s. The focus of New Originalists on the original public meaning" of the Constitution's text is essentially (at least so far as I can tell) just constitutional version of the idea that the law is to be found not in the law-makers' intentions or even the law's apparent Big Purpose but instead in those textual details that reflect the compromises necessary to enact the law.

The analogy between the New (Constitutional) Originalists and the old statutory textualists, however, breaks down in one possibly important respect. In the context of statutory interpretation, statutory textualists justified textual primacy with the idea of the Statutory Compromise: The little details of text reflect a the vector of forces in the legislature both for and against a statute. To quote John Manning, "courts risk upsetting a complex bargain among legislative stakeholders if judges rewrite a clear but messy statute to make it more congruent with some asserted background purpose." Choosing between series qualifiers and last antecedents, fly-specking contemporary dictionaries (or now, for the cognoscenti, "corpus linguistics"), arguing about the application of Latinate "intrinsic aids" are all just ways to decipher the legislative bargain, because the various interests in the legislature allegedly talk to each other through such arcana. By respecting the text, you respect the deal hammered out between equals, thereby protecting best evidence of what We the People, in our quarrelsome, squabbling collective soul, really want (and don't want).

None of this reasoning about statutory bargains, however, applies very well to the "take-it-or-leave-it" constitutional text presented by the Federalist-dominated Philadelphia convention to state ratifying conventions. The state conventions had to approve or disapprove that text through seriatim up-or-down votes without any chance to amend the proposal. As Romer and Rosenthal noted almost 40 years ago, monopoly power to set the agenda with an unamendable proposal allows the agenda-setter to press through measures that the voters might actually dislike much more than many plausible alternative taken off the table. The Anti-Federalists understood Romer's and Rosenthal's insight without needing any graphs and equations: They repeatedly and bitterly complained that they had no chance to fine-tune the proposal by modifying powers, craft compromises, or multiply rights.

Why, then should anyone take the textual details of this take-it-or-leave-it text to reflect some normatively attractive vector of interests? At the very least, the normative argument routinely deployed on behalf of statutory textualism -- textual details reflect a fair compromise among legislation's supporters and opponents -- seems out of place with the New Originalism. "Purposivism" rather than textualism, therefore, might, therefore, be the most appropriate interpretative stance for our Constitution. With such a Constitution as opposed to statutes, we ought to be skeptical about textual certainty and willing to find ambiguity justifying non-semantic "constitutional construction. To paraphrase McCulloch, we must never forget that it is a take-it-or-leave-it text that we are expounding.

Posted by Rick Hills on June 25, 2017 at 06:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)

Friday, June 23, 2017

A Half-Hearted Two Cheers for the Victory of Federalism over Property Rights in Murr v. Wisconsin

Legal scholars like Ilya Somin who share my own libertarian inclinations are mourning the defeat of federally protected property rights in Murr v. Wisconsin. I am not ready to don black. While I agree with Ilya that there should be more robust protection for property rights, I am also pretty sure that the SCOTUS's interpretation of the federal Constitution's Fifth Amendment is the wrong institution to deliver such protection. The problem with relying on the federal judiciary to define "property" is that the federal courts are neither able nor willing to derive a comprehensive system of federal property rights from the dozen words of the Fifth Amendment "just compensation" clause. Instead, SCOTUS's takings doctrine tends gingerly to elevate particular aspects of state property law to constitutionally protected status, using these privileged parts of state law to trump other state regulations by declaring that the latter "takes" property by negating the former.

This enterprise of federalizing discrete parts of state law to safeguard "property" is, I think, a doomed enterprise. I prefer that state courts and state legislatures pull the laboring oar in defining and protecting private property. So, despite my fondness for private property, I offer a couple half-hearted cheers for Murr as the SCOTUS's wisely choosing the better part of valor. More vigorous efforts by the federal courts are likely to backfire either legally or politically, to the detriment of lasting protection of private property.

Continue reading "A Half-Hearted Two Cheers for the Victory of Federalism over Property Rights in Murr v. Wisconsin"

Posted by Rick Hills on June 23, 2017 at 05:13 PM in 2016-17 End of Term | Permalink | Comments (3)

The exodus of high-band LSAT students

This is an extraordinary graph.

It describes the big decline in applicants in the high band of LSAT scores.  Of course, these are the students who would be admitted to top law schools and/or strong performing law schools with significant merit scholarships.  In short, the most sought after students are saying "no thanks" to law school.  

This is one of the two big, and often neglected, stories in contemporary law student enrollment & recruitment.  (The other is the spiraling discount rate resulting from the increasing arms race among reasonably well-resourced law schools for a smaller pool of students).

The AALS has embarked on an ambitious "before the JD" study to explore how college students and graduates are thinking about law school and the prospects for success (on many relevant measures) in the profession.  Presumably other investigations, some empirical, some more speculative, are underway.  Without claiming that the high band exodus is more important to consider than other phenomena at work in applicant and enrollment patterns, it is an interesting question nonetheless.  How do students who would, ceteris paribus, come to law school with less debt and/or more professional choice still move away from law school toward other options, educationally, professionally, or otherwise?  It his a story about obstinate law schools? About the success of greater transparency or, if you want to see it this way, anti-law school invective?  Or about the state of the legal profession?  

These are questions which obviously loom large for those leading and working in law schools.  Yet they are also relevant if and insofar as one believes that a robust legal profession and a continuing commitment to the rule of law and access to justice depends upon very accomplished college graduates seriously considering legal education.  Even if one is highly critical of students choosing law school, we should better understand why students do or do not make this choice.  Plenty of folks have a dog in this fight and so we need not feign pure objectivity.  But we can agree that data and empirical analysis is warranted and timely so ask to illuminate these important issues.

Posted by Dan Rodriguez on June 23, 2017 at 10:05 AM in Daniel Rodriguez, Life of Law Schools | Permalink | Comments (9)

Thursday, June 22, 2017

The Nine Lives of Bivens (SCOTUS Symposium)

In Ziglar v. Abbasi, the Court ruled against plaintiffs seeking relief from allegedly unconstitutional discrimination and abuse in the wake of 9/11. Perhaps the largest flashpoint in the case concerned the Court’s treatment of Bivens, a landmark ruling from 1971 that created a cause of action for damages for Fourth Amendment violations by federal officers.

Over the pasts few days, critics of Abbasi have argued that Bivens is now “all but overruled” and “all-but limited … to its facts.” But similar claims have been made before—and will likely be made yet again. If Bivens has nine lives, it seems to have two or three left to go.

Continue reading "The Nine Lives of Bivens (SCOTUS Symposium)"

Posted by Richard M. Re on June 22, 2017 at 08:30 AM in 2016-17 End of Term | Permalink | Comments (6)

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

SCOTUS Symposium: A Pair of Posts on Abbasi's Flawed Historical, Analytical, and Theoretical Foundations

I'm embarrassingly late to the non-stop party that is the Prawfs end-of-Term symposium, but thought I should at least flag here a pair of posts I've written elsewhere about Monday's decision in Ziglar v. Abbasi, why I think it's the clubhouse leader for most important ruling of the Term, and why that—and it—should bother all of us (a lot).

On Monday, over at Just Security, I wrote a post about "the four key analytical moves Justice Kennedy makes in laying the groundwork for the holding that courts shouldn’t recognize such 'Bivens' claims here (or in most other contexts), and break down why each of the moves is independently problematic." In a nutshell, the Abbasi opinion (1) ignored the rich history of common-law damages remedies against federal officers; (2) refused to grapple with the (potentially constitutional) implications of the Westfall Act, which has been read to foreclose previously available state-law remedies for federal constitutional violations; (3) accepted the deeply problematic analogy to the role of courts in implying statutory causes of action; and (4) held out habeas petitions as a meaningful alternative remedy for the constitutional violations alleged by the plaintiffs.

Today, I have a post up at Lawfare that more directly confronts the normative claim at the heart of Justice Kennedy's opinion—that judge-made remedies for constitutional violations, especially in national security cases, represent an undue intrusion into the prerogatives of the political branches (and more so than claims for prospective relief). As today's post suggests, 

[T]here are three different defects in his normative case against Bivens: First, it rests on a view of the intrusive effect of Bivens that is not just wholly unsubstantiated but also internally inconsistent as a logical matter. Second, it incorporates into Bivens concerns about undue intrusion that other doctrines already account for in more nuanced, sophisticated ways. Third, and most importantly, it assumes that damages actions represent a greater intrusion into the function of the political branches in general (and in national security cases, specifically) than does prospective relief (like injunctions, habeas, etc). That’s a theory of the separation of powers that, frankly, makes no sense. Certainly one can reasonably be opposed to an aggressive judicial role in national security cases in general, or in cases seeking prospective relief, specifically. But the idea that judicial recognition of an after-the-fact damages suit represents a greater threat to the separation of powers than judicial imposition of an injunction against ongoing national security policies (ranging from the 1973 bombing of Cambodia to military detention at Guantánamo to the travel ban) is, for lack of a better word, nuts.

Anyway, since neither Just Security nor Lawfare allows comments (directly, at least), I thought I'd flag these contributions here in case they provoke further discussion...

Posted by Steve Vladeck on June 21, 2017 at 04:32 PM in 2016-17 End of Term, Constitutional thoughts, Steve Vladeck | Permalink | Comments (4)

Beckman v. Chicago Bears

Russell Beckman is a Green Bay Packers fan who holds season tickets with the Chicago Bears only so he can attend the Bears-Packers game. Season-ticket holders earn points allowing them to purchase "experiences," including going onto the field during pre-game warmups. But the Bears prohibit these fans from going onto the field in the opposing team's gear; they would not let Beckman participate during the Bears-Packers game last season, and, he alleges, will not let him do it at the game next season. Beckman has sued the Bears, alleging that the no-opposing-team-gear rule violates the First Amendment and seeking an injunction against enforcement of the policy. Beckman is appearing pro se (he and I exchanged emails about the situation a few weeks ago).

The Bears play at Soldier Field, which is owned by the Chicago Parks District and rented to the team for its use. That, I believe, raises the possibility the Bears act under color. If the case involved the Bears stopping fans from wearing opposing-team gear in the stands, this would be an easy case, with the Bears subject to Burton's symbiotic relationship test, just as the New York Yankees were at the old Stadium. But I have been reluctant to say that teams playing in publicly owned arenas act under color for all purposes, as opposed to for the limited purposes of operating expressive fora (the stands, press access, etc.). A team should retain leeway in its organization and operations, including its interactions with customers. Playing at a publicly owned arena would not stop the Bears from being viewpoint-discriminatory in, for example, deciding what people could wear or who could attend a Lake Michigan cruise for ticket holders. The question is where the playing field (ordinarily not part of the expressive forum) falls on the spectrum. I am not sure I know the answer to that question.

Interestingly, the Yankee Stadium lawsuit was brought by the NYCLU in conjunction with NYU's Civil Rights Clinic. It is surprising (telling?) that neither the Illinois ACLU nor a Chicago-based clinic would take this on. Did Beckman never ask around? Does it say something about how that state-action question will be resolved when we move from the stands to the field?

Or are Green Bay Packers fans less popular in Chicagoland than Nazis?

Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 21, 2017 at 11:58 AM in First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Sports | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Resolved, not moot

In Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, SCOTUS held that a case does not become moot when the defendant makes an unaccepted offer of judgment. The Court expressly did not decide "whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount." In Fulton Dental v. Bisco, the Seventh Circuit said the result is not different, that a defendant can no more force a settlement by putting money in the court under FRCP 67, unaccepted by the plaintiff and with no judgment from the court, than offering the money and having the plaintiff reject the offer under FRCP 68. (H/T: Alert reader Asher Steinberg).

The Seventh Circuit tried to push back against characterizing this as mootness, saying it was more like the affirmative defenses of payment or accord and satisfaction. But the court was limited because SCOTUS discussed Campbell-Ewald as a mootness concern, rather than following the position urged by the S.G. that this is a merits concern. Like Campbell-Ewald, Fulton involved an action for damages for past harm incurred; such a case cannot become moot because the past injury remains and never goes away. Mootness should be limited to claims for prospective relief, where the plaintiff's injury is ongoing and something stops the injury.  The payment and acceptance of money as settlement of a case over a past injury means there should not be further litigation between these parties over this transaction-or-occurrence. But that is because the case was resolved, not because it became moot.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 20, 2017 at 03:10 PM in Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (0)

CFP: Idaho Law Review Symposium: Terry v. Ohio at 50

CALL FOR PAPERS OR PRESENTATIONS

The University of Idaho College of Law’s 2018 Idaho Law Review symposium issue will study the impact of Terry v. Ohio, a decision nearly 50 years old.  The symposium will be held on April 6, 2018 at the Idaho Law & Justice Learning Center, the College of Law’s Boise location. We invite original paper submissions for presentation at the symposium, as well as panel proposals.

Continue reading "CFP: Idaho Law Review Symposium: Terry v. Ohio at 50 "

Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 20, 2017 at 12:31 PM in Article Spotlight | Permalink | Comments (0)

SCOTUS: Partisan gerrymandering case from Wisconsin

Two cheers for the Court's decision to hear this closely watched case.

First in Davis v. Bandemer in the 80's, and later in Vieth, the Court has flirted significantly with a big ruling limiting the power of state legislatures to engage in reapportionment for what is plainly partisan political motivations.  The caution has stemmed, broadly speaking, from two concerns:   First, the meta-question of whether a political motivation, one which generates results that lock in partisan results is inconsistent with our constitutional democracy, and in a way that can be located in a responsible interpretation of the Constitution's text and judicial precedent; second, the question which loomed so large for the Court before Baker v. Carr and articulated so memorably by Justice Harlan's remark in Colegrove about this "political thicket," and that is the matter of remedy and redress.

A slender majority of the Court, and surely a much larger majority of academic commentators, view the first question as answerable in the affirmative.  The line of cases from Baker and Reynolds summarizes the basic theoretical underpinnings of this reasoning.  It is tempting to see this, sharpened eloquently by influential scholars such as Rick Pildes, Sam Issacharoff, Pam Karlan, and so many others, as a salutary antidote to partisan lock-ups and what I would call, clumsily, bad partisanship and deleterious polarization.  Yet, what seems to drive the Court's cautious foray into this thicket is not a comprehensive, or even coherent, view of partisanship and democracy, but a borrowing from the Court's Voting Rights Act jurisprudence and, in particular, a sharp focus on dilution and the fundamental right to have one's vote adequately influential.

Into this conceptual lacuna comes the shrewd and timely contribution of Nick Stephanopoulos and Eric McGhee in the development of the "efficiency gap" measure for unacceptable partisanship, the details of which are nicely summarized by the Brennan Center here.  

What remains incomplete, however, despite a generation's worth of important scholarship on this complex subject is the big picture of how partisan gerrymandering's vote dilution is the same threat to equal protection as articulated in the "one-person-one-vote" cases.  We know well from the "efficiency gap" argument that there is dilution and it can be measured effectively; but we need to know why this kind of dilution is objectionable on a rationale which sounds in equal protection, and as articulated by Justice Brennan and the Warren Court in the heyday of this jurisprudence.  True, the analogy between dilution here and in the VRA context is a strong one; yet, the VRA has a different history.  Racial spoils and Jim Crow undergirds its history; political spoils and strategic partisanship has a different history, and it takes a stretch to connect the two by anything other than an analogy.

And, of course, the matter of the remedy looms especially large -- indeed, perhaps too large to sway Justice Kennedy in the end.  We knew what to do in Reynolds; and the VRA gives us a template for how to think about remedying unacceptable discrimination.  But can we truly get our arms around a constitutional jurisprudence that sorts and separates good from bad politics?  Can this coexist with our system of federalism in which the fundamental choices are made locally and by elected politicians who are, for better or worse, ambassadors of partisan advantage and party leadership?

We will be watching closely for sure! 

 

 

Posted by Dan Rodriguez on June 20, 2017 at 11:22 AM in 2016-17 End of Term, Constitutional thoughts, Daniel Rodriguez | Permalink | Comments (8)

Monday, June 19, 2017

SCOTUS Symposium: Happy talk and revolutions of historic proportions

I am going to discuss the two free speech cases--Matai v. Tam and Packingham v. North Carolina--together as unanimous, broad reaffirmations of a libertarian, highly protective model of free expression.

A couple of interesting points:

Continue reading "SCOTUS Symposium: Happy talk and revolutions of historic proportions"

Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 19, 2017 at 07:59 PM in 2016-17 End of Term, First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (3)

SCOTUS OT16 Symposium: Bristol-Meyers Squibb and More Work for Lawyers

Following up on Howard’s and Stephen’s posts about Bristol-Myers, I think the best thing that can be said about the case is that it creates work for more lawyers in more cases.

It’s not so great, on the other hand, for plaintiffs--or for judicial efficiency.  The Court tells us that class actions plaintiffs will have two options. They can sue in the defendant’s home state--which may work well in a single-defendant case, but will be problematic in a multi-defendant case and especially problematic when the defendant is a foreign corporation. Or the plaintiffs residing in a single state can file a class action where the plaintiffs live and/or suffered harm. The economics of class actions might make this difficult for plaintiffs. I would think that it would also make it difficult for defendants, who would presumably not want to face 50 separate class actions. However, at least the bloggers at the Drug and Device Law Blog don’t seem to be too worried about that, but instead conclude that the case made for “[a] very good day for the right side of the “v.” – and not very good for those on the wrong side.”

MDL practice may also provide another possibility for consolidating litigation nationwide. But the Court left open the same question that Stephen Sachs pointed out was not decided in BNSF—“whether the Fifth Amendment imposes the same restrictions on the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a federal court.” I suspect this question will be the topic of a great deal of litigation in the near future.

This case also didn't raise the question of whether states can require that companies registering to do business consent to jurisdiction in their courts. I think this question will also continue to be litigated, and I think it depends on what is most important to the Court. Is it the effect (narrowing jurisdiction)? If so, then perhaps such a requirement would be struck down.  But the Court also gave significant lip service to the concepts of state sovereignty and respect for territorial boundaries—which might suggest that, as a matter of federalism, states should be allowed to be make such a requirement—at least in those cases where there is a clear state interest in hearing the case.

As Professor Rocky Rhodes and I discuss in a recent piece, the Court’s focus on a narrow conception of jurisdiction makes the problem of jurisdictional discovery much more salient. Unfortunately, however, the recent amendments to the discovery rules make the jurisdictional discovery process harder. But the more the Court narrows the grounds for jurisdiction, the more important such jurisdictional discovery will become.

And finally, a note in response to Stephen’s point about “what's ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’ about jurisdiction is whether a particular government is fairly empowered to decide the case.” I would offer a friendly amendment to substitute “claim” for “case.” I think it matters in this context.  I would have preferred to think in terms of “cases,” which I think gets to the question about the court’s power of the defendant in general—can this court hale this defendant before it?  But the Court’s opinion today offered a narrowed conception, focusing on individual claims rather than cases. Can this court hale this defendant before it as to this particular claim by this particular plaintiff? This narrower view seems to move away from what I see as the importance of personal jurisdiction (haling an unwilling defendant into court at all), and moves toward something that looks more like venue—except with a constitutional dimension. I suspect that this means the Court will not be particularly sympathetic to the idea of pendent personal jurisdiction. But the question, like so many others left open, will still need to be litigated.

Posted by Cassandra Burke Robertson on June 19, 2017 at 04:54 PM in 2016-17 End of Term | Permalink | Comments (1)

"In an appropriate case, we should reconsider our qualified immunity jurisprudence." (SCOTUS Symposium)

Today was a busy and newsworthy day in constitutional law at the Supreme Court, and one reason was the Court's constitutional remedies decision in Ziglar v. Abbasi. In Ziglar, a short-handed, six-Justice Court blocked a set of constitutional claims brought against government officials arising out of harsh detentions in the wake of 9/11. The Court's ruling implicated several different procedural doctrines, and may prove to be the ultimate cap on almost all "Bivens" suits for damages against federal officials (as Steve Vladeck discusses in this thread and as Howard posted here earlier).

But along the way, the decision provoked some promising skepticism from Justice Thomas about the doctrine of qualified immunity (A doctrine which protects government officials from liability for unconstitutional conduct, and which I've previously posted about here and here). Here is Justice Thomas, writing separately:

As for respondents’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), I join Part V of the Court’s opinion, which holds that respondents are entitled to qualified immunity. The Court correctly applies our precedents, which no party has asked us to reconsider. I write separately, however, to note my growing concern with our qualified immunity jurisprudence.

Continue reading ""In an appropriate case, we should reconsider our qualified immunity jurisprudence." (SCOTUS Symposium)"

Posted by Will Baude on June 19, 2017 at 04:35 PM in 2016-17 End of Term, Constitutional thoughts, Judicial Process | Permalink | Comments (1)

SCOTUS OT16 Symposium: Jurisdiction and Power in Bristol-Meyers Squibb

I read the Court's opinion in Bristol-Meyers Squibb somewhat differently than Howard does. This doesn't strike me as a purposeful availment case; neither "purposive" nor "avail" (nor derivatives thereof) even show up until Justice Sotomayor's dissent. The majority accepts that BMS has various contacts with California, but denies that those contacts are related to the claims at issue, or that there's "any adequate link between the State and the nonresidents' claims." That looks like an argument devoted to the second prong of the specific jurisdiction test, not the first. (Though he's critical of the Court's holding, Adam Zimmerman apparently agrees on this point.)

Given that the modern three-prong test is largely of the Court's own invention, and not part of the preexisting law of personal jurisdiction, it's hard to say that one concept of "related to" is self-evidently correct. But there are four points on which I think the Court's opinion got it right.

  1. In Part II-B, the Court correctly reiterates that jurisdiction is about power, not fairness. Or, to put it another way, what's "fair" or "unfair" about jurisdiction is whether a particular government is fairly empowered to decide the case. What matters isn't the geography of the courthouse or the expense of putting lawyers and witnesses on a plane; a case might be properly heard in Manhattan but thrown out of court right across the bridge in New Jersey. What matters is who gets to decide. (So the majority properly, albeit silently, throws the contrary language in Insurance Corp. of Ireland under the bus.)

  2. On this view of jurisdiction, the ultimate outcome makes some sense. BMS makes allegedly defective pills in New Jersey and sells them in California and Kansas. Let's grant that California can determine whether those California sales were lawful. But where do its officials get power to make the same decision about the Kansas ones? Who put them in charge? Why should BMS have to obey the pronouncements of a California judge, appointed by California officials and retained by California voters, using California rules on procedure, discovery, evidence, or jury trial? Maybe what BMS did in Kansas was okay, maybe not. But why do Californians get to decide? "Why not Bill Gates, or the Pope?"

    The plaintiffs note that BMS sold the same pills in both places, so it's already made itself subject to the liability determinations of California courts. But in an adversary system like ours, the California courts aren't deciding what really happened; they're deciding who made the better showing in a particular legal proceeding, conducted according to particular rules. (That's why our preclusion doctrines have a variety of internal conditions or exceptions; even a favorable California judgment doesn't mean the Kansans would automatically win in Kansas.) So the power to decide whether BMS injured California plaintiffs doesn't automatically confer a power to make the same decision as to Kansans.

    (Note, by the way, that the Court has never really reconciled its holding on out-of-state damages in Keeton, or for that matter its relaxed standard for choice of law in Allstate, with the state-by-state restrictions it came up with in BMW v. Gore. I'm not sure how it would do that if it wanted to, or what the right answer would be.)

  3. The Court is also probably right that its ruling doesn't sound a death-knell for nationwide small-dollar actions. Plaintiffs could have sued BMS where it actually designed and manufactured the pills, or wherever it's incorporated or headquartered. True, they may not be able to sue all of the relevant defendants there. And there'll be many cases that of necessity are spread across multiple states. But that's not really a criticism of the Court's view of sovereign authority. If modern economic relations are so spread among the states that no one state has authority to determine the whole, isn't that an argument for, rather than against, dividing up the cases?

  4. Importantly, the Court explicitly reserves the question of how to handle these cases in federal court. I've argued before that most hard personal jurisdiction cases really belong in federal court; the United States government has undoubted authority to tell the parties what to do, and Article III enables jurisdiction over diversity cases for a reason. This doesn't happen today because Rule 4(k)(1)(A) unwisely forces federal courts to pretend that they're state courts for personal-jurisdiction purposes. As cross-border transactions grow ever more extensive, it'd be better if the energy now focused on the law of state personal jurisdiction were instead focused on reforming the rules for federal courts.

Posted by Stephen Sachs on June 19, 2017 at 03:38 PM in 2016-17 End of Term, Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts | Permalink | Comments (1)

SCOTUS Symposium: Setting fire to House Bivens

"If you're cold, put on a sweater, perhaps an overcoat, perhaps also turn up the heat, but do not  set fire to the house." So said Justice Breyer in dissent in Ziglar v. Abbasi, in which the Court rejected Bivens claims against high-level executive officials brought by mistreated post-9/11 detainees (although left a small glimmer of hope for a claim against the warden), and in the process may have limited Bivens to claims against line officers for immediate violations of a small group of rights. In other words, the majority may have set fire to the House of Bivens.

 Some thoughts after the jump.

Continue reading "SCOTUS Symposium: Setting fire to House Bivens"

Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 19, 2017 at 03:04 PM in 2016-17 End of Term, Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, Howard Wasserman, Law and Politics | Permalink | Comments (0)

SCOTUS symposium: The Freedom of Speech

It's a "Captain Obvious"-level obvious point, but the Court handed down two cases today -- Matal v. Tam and Packingham v. North Carolina -- that seem entirely consistent with the Justice-Kennedy-era Court's highly libertarian, regulation-skeptical approach to the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech.  Although there were some concurring opinions, it's striking that, at the end of the day, the free-speech claimant won in both cases unanimously. It strikes me as plausible that the justices are sending signal to those who have been suggesting recently that the First Amendment does not protect offensive, hurtful, divisive, or "hateful" speech and, perhaps, mean to shape the debate about speakers, speech, protests, etc., on public-university campuses.   Justice Kennedy wrote, in his concurring opinion (joined by three of the Democratic appointees):

The danger of viewpoint discrimination is that the government is attempting to remove certain ideas or perspectives from a broader debate. That danger is all the greater if the ideas or perspectives are ones a particular audience might think offensive, at least at first hearing. An initial reaction may prompt further reflection, leading to a more reasoned, more tolerant position. Indeed, a speech burden based on audience reactions is simply government hostility and intervention in a different guise. The speech is targeted, after all, based on the government’s disapproval of the speaker’s choice of message. And it is the government itself that is attempting in this case to decide whether the relevant audience would find the speech offensive. 

As many Prawfs readers will know, groups of law professors weighed in on both sides of the case (see, e.g., here and here).

Posted by Rick Garnett on June 19, 2017 at 02:47 PM in 2016-17 End of Term | Permalink | Comments (1)

SCOTUS Symposium: Narrowing specific jurisdiction

The post-2010 revival of personal jurisdiction in SCOTUS (after a two-decade absence) has been defined in part by narrowing general jurisdiction, including last month in BNSF. In Bristol-Meyers Squibb v. Superior Court, an 8-1 Court (per Justice Alito) turned the screws on specific jurisdiction. The Court held that there was no jurisdiction in California over claims by non-residents for non-forum injuries, even when caused by the same nationwide conduct. Justice Sotomayor again dissented alone, as she has been in the general-jurisdiction cases, continuing to play the Justice Brennan role of finding personal jurisdiction in almost every case. She criticized the decision as the "first step toward a similar contraction of specific jurisdiction." 

Continue reading "SCOTUS Symposium: Narrowing specific jurisdiction"

Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 19, 2017 at 12:39 PM in 2016-17 End of Term, Civil Procedure, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (1)

SCOTUS Symposium: Busy Day

SCOTUS came into today with seventeen remaining cases and two weeks to do. The Court cut a big chunk of that out on Monday, with five opinions, four of which were on cases I have been trying to follow:

Matal v. Tam: Declaring invalid under the First Amendment the disparagement provision in the trademark laws.

Packingham v. NC: Declaring invalid under the First Amendment a North Carolina statute prohibiting convicted sex offenders from using social media.

Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court: Rejecting an assertion of personal jurisdiction in a mass-tort action.

Ziglar v. Abbasi: Severely limiting Bivens, certainly in the national-security context and perhaps for everything beyond claims against line police officers. This one forces me to rewrite the Bivens chapter in my civil rights book.

McWilliams v. Dunn: Granting habeas relief and overturning a death sentence for failure to provide mental-health experts to the defense.

Our team of bloggers will be weighing in throughout the week. I will try to hit the procedure cases today and the speech cases tomorrow.

In addition, the Court announced that Thursday will be an opinion day.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on June 19, 2017 at 11:20 AM in 2016-17 End of Term, Howard Wasserman | Permalink | Comments (0)