PrawfsBlawg

The Free State of Florida

I am getting the hang of this "Free State of Florida" thing, as well as the general Republican status as the party of free speech. It does not undermine freedom (and free speech in particular) to remove books from libraries; to control what teachers say in and out of the classroom; to control what professors write; or to require social-media companies to carry certain speakers and messages on their private sites. And now it does not violate free speech for the head of an executive agency to send a letter to a tv station warning it about legal implications, including criminal prosecution, if it runs a political ad that he insists is false.

For all the Republican talk about Tim Walz spouting fire in a crowded theatre (and I wish he would stop doing that), this line--the right to free speech "does not include free rein to disseminate false advertisements which, if believed, would likely have a detrimental effect on the lives and health of pregnant women in Florida"--is a long-winded way of telling the station it can be punished for doing just that.

And, of course, Oberlin sophomores shouting about a Charles Murray talk constitute the real threat to free speech.

Pete Rose, the Hall, and competing statutory interpretation

Given news that Pete Rose died Monday at age 83, I re-up this post discussing two TV documentaries (one new, one a few years old) about Rose and the Hall of Fame, specifically this point about posthumous Hall induction that has become newly relevant:

Someone (I think long-time Reds announcer Marty Brennaman) says it would be a tragedy for Rose to be inducted posthumously. I wonder. Rose supporters argue that the Hall is a museum that should record the history of the game and its players; Rose deserves a spot because the story of baseball (and certainly not the story of baseball in the 1970s and early '80s) includes Rose. But it also is a shrine, a way to honor, grant a title ("Hall-of-Famer" or "First-Ballot Hall-of-Famer"), and bestow unique privileges to certain players. Perhaps posthumous induction offers the right compromise: Rose becomes part of the baseball story for all time but does not receive the honors and prestige of--and opportunity to monetize**--being a living Hall Member.

But, as I mentioned in the same post, posthumous induction requires some cooperation and compromise between MLB and the Hall. Rose's name remains on MLB's ineligible list, even after death. Under MLB's interpretation of its eligibility rules, ineligibility ends at death (when a person no longer can hold any formal position within MLB or a team); it thus lacks any mechanism for removing a deceased player from the list. But the Hall interprets MLB ineligibility (and thus Hall ineligibility) to continue until MLB affirmatively removes a person from the list. Someone therefore must alter its interpretation--either MLB must create a mechanism for removing deceased players from the list (making them legally, if not practically, eligible) or the Hall must be willing to accept someone as not practically ineligible although his name remains on the list.

I feel as if there is a Chevron analogy at work here.

Fifth Circuit makes a Heck-of-a-mess

I wrote last December about Wilson v. Midland Cty., a § 1983 action by a woman convicted (and given a suspended sentence) two decades ago by a prosecutor who was moonlighting as a clerk for the judge who presided over her trial. The case wades into a circuit split over whether a person seeking damages arising from constitutional violations within a criminal prosecution must show favorable termination under Heck when she is no longer in custody (and thus able to get habeas relief in federal court).

At the time, I wondered whether the plaintiff would seek rehearing on en banc or go straight to SCOTUS; she chose the former. Not only did she lose, but the Fifth Circuit made a hash of Heck.

Judge Oldham wrote for a plurality (9/18) to say that Heck is not about the line between two statutes (§ 1983 and § 2254), as everyone has long understood. Instead, it is about the requirements of common law torts. Citing the Court's most recent decision--which defined favorable termination as an element of a malicious-prosecution claim and which the Court did not decide as a Heck case--the plurality holds that favorable termination is an element of all § 1983 actions challenging violations around a criminal conviction. The unavailability of federal habeas was of no moment, so long as state mechanisms remained open to her. Judge Haynes concurred in part for two, approving of the disposition of the case--dismiss without prejudice so plaintiff can pursue state favorable-termination mechanisms. Judge Willett--who wrote the panel majority while expressing outrage over the result--dissented in even higher dudgeon. Not only does he object to applying Heck to non-prisoners (the result, he argues, of following pure dicta), be he must take on Oldham's nonsense.

Haynes' concurrence actually illustrates the problem with the outcome (and the plurality's analysis). Insisting that he does not argue that Heck imposes a state exhaustion requirement, he argues that Heck includes as a favorable-termination mechanism "the ability to go to the state," includng a state appellate or post-conviction court. That is, he rejects the idea that federal habeas represents the only mechanism for obtaining favorable termination, since Heck itself identifies state mechanisms for obtaining favorable termination.

But that gets everything backwards. The issue is not the availability of state mechanisms to undo a conviction. The issue is what happens when those state mechanisms fail; the text, history, and purpose of § 1983 and § 2254 show that the states cannot have the last word on the validity of the conviction and the rights-holder must have a federal forum at some point. The question is which vehicle. A person-in-custody uses § 2254, which requires state exhaustion anyway. But habeas is not an option for a person not in custody. Under the Fifth Circuit approach, that rights-holder is stuck with the state result, with no option for federal reconsideration. That functions as an exhaustion requirement. And it is inconsistent with what § 1983 is supposed to do.

I cannot believe the Court will not take this case. Lord knows how badly they will botch it.

Tinker and universities

The Sixth Circuit reversed a 12(b)(6) dismissal of a lawsuit by a then-pharmaceutical student who was investigated and dismissed (although the dismissal was reversed) for social-media posts that violated "professionalism" standards. The court found her speech protected and that the right of a university student not to be punished for protected speech clearly established (despite on-point precedent involving a pharmaceutical student and social-media posts about sex and fashion). It also handles some fun Civ Pro stuff about what evidentiary materials a court can use on a 12(b)(6) without converting to summary judgment.

This should be an easy case, at least at 12(b)(6). Her speech was online and off-campus; unrelated to the school, her activities as a student, and her future career as a pharmacist; and violates professional norms only if those norms are unacceptably content- and viewpoint-based.

One problem: The court relied on the "disruption" test developed in high-school speech cases (Mahanoy and Tinker). Circuit precedent requires it, although recognizing that what disrupts a university should be different than what disrupts a high school. Still, the prospect that a university can restrict speech under the quasi-heckler's-veto that prevails in high schools is dangerous. In essence, that is what the school tried here. And I would have preferred a more rousing defense of an adult's free-speech rights.

Procedure Matters, Episode LIX

Kind of a weird one but it illustrates how the rules operate and interact in confusing ways.

Plaintiff brings False Claims Act qui tam action; defendant answers but does not raise the constitutional invalidity of qui tam actions as an affirmative defense; defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings based on constitutional invalidity (qui tam actions violate Article II). The court denied the motion because defendant did not raise the affirmative defense in the answer, so it is not part of the pleadings for FRCP 12(c) purposes. Defendant had to amend its Answer to add the constitutional defense, which might be tricky since the court had set a scheduling order (which heightens requirements for amending).

This is a plausible outcome. But I think the court errs (or at least fails to perform proper analysis) in two respects. Both go to the court's failure to actually decide whether qui tam actions violate the Constitution.

First, the constitutional defense should be a built-in defense--the constitutional validity of the law sued upon should be built into the complaint's allegations of a violation of that law. Defendant could have responded to the complaint with a 12(b)(6) motion raising the constitutional defense, which would have forced the court to decide whether the Constitution permits qui tam actions. If so, a defendant should be able to raise a built-in defense on a 12(c); even if not pleaded in the answer, the affirmative defense is built into a complaint that mentions and includes allegations about the FCA. For comparison, a defendant can raise the statute of limitations on a 12(b)(6) if the complaint includes dates showing the claim is untimely; if the defendant answers without an SL defense and moves under 12(c), the court can still look at the complaint, see that the complaint is untimely, and grant the motion, even if the defendant did not plead SL.

Second, before deciding the defense must be in the answer, the court waves away the constitutional analysis. The court says this (and this is all it says):

Under the present state of the law, Defendants’ separation-of-powers challenge to the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act is insufficient on its own to demonstrate that Relators’ complaint is implausible. Further, even if “[t]he FCA’s qui tam provisions have long inhabited something of a constitutional twilight zone,”and even if it is time to revisit the matter, it is equally true that “lower federal courts should not ‘pass on questions of constitutionality . . . unless such adjudication is unavoidable’ . . . .”

That is a cop-out. If qui tam actions are constitutionally invalid, they do render the complaint implausible--no reasonable inference from the facts taken as true shows plaintiff can recover, given the constitutional defects in the FCA. But the court must decide the open constitutional question to make that plausibility determination. It cannot stop with pointing out that other (non-binding) precedent has gone the other way and thus does not outright preclude the claim or make the claim frivolous.

People will come, Ray

In memory of James Earl Jones, who died Monday. I used a piece of his monologue as an epigram my first piece on fan speech.

 

FIU College of Law seeks tenure-track doctrinal faculty

Florida International University College of Law, South Florida’s public law school, invites applicants for multiple tenure-track positions to begin no later than the 2025-26 academic year. We seek candidates in Environmental Law, Intellectual Property/Technology, and Criminal Law and Procedure, as well as coverage in other first-year and core upper-level courses such as Administrative Law.

FIU Law features a diverse, intellectually vibrant faculty community celebrating scholarly engagement, public service, academic freedom, and transformational teaching. It ranks as the third most diverse law school nationally and graduates more Hispanic lawyers than any other law school. More than a third of FIU Law students are the first in their family to attend college. FIU Law graduates have ranked first among the 12 Florida law schools on the last nine July administrations of the Florida bar exam.  In 2023, more than 90% of FIU Law graduates secured full-time, long-term bar passage required, J.D. advantage, or professional positions.  For more information about FIU Law, visit http://law.fiu.edu/.

FIU is Miami’s public urban research university, offering more than 180 bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral programs in fields such as engineering, international relations, architecture, and medicine.  It ranks as a top-70 public university in U.S. News and World Report’s Best Colleges, and is the fourth-ranked public university, according to the America’s Best Colleges 2024 rankings published on WSJ.com. With nearly $200 million in annual research expenditures, the University has a Carnegie R1 rating (“highest research activity”). A leader in securing performance-based funding for its operational achievements, the University was recently designated by the Florida Board of Governors as a preeminent state research university.  For more information about FIU, visit http://www.fiu.edu/.

Candidates must have a J.D. (or its equivalent), a strong academic record, a record (or the promise) of scholarly achievement, and zest for effective teaching. Rank based on qualifications and experience.  Competitive benefits include excellent insurance options, a defined-benefit plan, defined-contribution plans, and a deferred compensation plan.

Applicants should send a CV, cover letter, and list of references to Appointments Committee co-chairs Eloisa Rodriguez-Dod and Howard Wasserman at [email protected]. Questions about these positions can be directed to Eloisa Rodriguez-Dod ([email protected]) or Howard Wasserman ([email protected]). Review will begin August 20, 2024, and continue until these positions are filled.

FIU is a member of the State University System of Florida and an Equal Opportunity, Equal Access Affirmative Action Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, political affiliation, national origin, disability or protected veteran status.

FIU College of Law seeks legal writing faculty

Florida International University College of Law, South Florida’s public law school, invites applicants for a contract position in Legal Skills and Values, to begin no later than the 2025-26 academic year.

Legal Skills and Values consists of two required courses in the first year of law school and an additional required course by the end of a student’s fourth semester. The eight-credit sequence covers essential legal skills including legal research, objective and persuasive writing, legal analysis, oral communication, client counseling, contract drafting, and negotiation.  We seek collaborative, creative teachers to join our dedicated team teaching in the first-year portions of the program.

FIU Law features a diverse, intellectually vibrant faculty community celebrating scholarly engagement, public service, academic freedom, and transformational teaching. It ranks as the third most diverse law school nationally and graduates more Hispanic lawyers than any other law school. More than a third of FIU Law students are the first in their family to attend college. FIU Law graduates have ranked first among the 12 Florida law schools on the last nine July administrations of the Florida bar exam.  In 2023, more than 90% of FIU Law graduates secured full-time, long-term bar passage required, J.D. advantage, or professional positions.  For more information about FIU Law, visit https://law.fiu.edu/.

FIU is Miami’s public urban research university, offering more than 180 bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral programs in fields such as engineering, international relations, architecture, and medicine.  It ranks as a top-70 public university in U.S. News and World Report’s Best Colleges, and is the fourth-ranked public university, according to the America’s Best Colleges 2024 rankings published on WSJ.com. With nearly $200 million in annual research expenditures, the University has a Carnegie R1 rating (“highest research activity”). A leader in securing performance-based funding for its operational achievements, the University was recently designated by the Florida Board of Governors as preeminent state research university.  For more information about FIU, visit http://www.fiu.edu/.

Candidates must have a J.D. Lateral candidates should show a demonstrated record of teaching excellence. Entry-level candidates should show commitment to excellence in teaching and significant potential as law teachers. At least five years of experience in legal practice and/or judicial clerkships is preferred.

Applicants should send a CV, cover letter, and list of references to Appointments Committee co-chairs Eloisa Rodriguez-Dod and Howard Wasserman at [email protected]. Questions about these positions can be directed to Eloisa Rodriguez-Dod ([email protected]) or Howard Wasserman ([email protected]). Review will begin August 20, 2024, and continue until these positions are filled.

FIU is a member of the State University System of Florida and an Equal Opportunity, Equal Access Affirmative Action Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, political affiliation, national origin, disability or protected veteran status

AI and oral assessments

Over the years, we have had many posts and conversations about oral assessments. I have written about my oral arguments in Fed Courts and Civil Rights, which now provide the sole end-of-semester assessment (everything else happens in-semester).

A thought this morning: Would oral assessments provide a solution to the Chat GPT/AI problem?

Defending Michael Roth

Not that he needs me to. I agree with Steve--and have said as much, here and elsewhere--that university's discovery of the freedom to offend and to express the idea we hate miraculously appeared only when offense began targeting Jews.

As to Roth*: My instinct is to take him at his word--he intends to apply "no right not to be offended" across the board. He said as much during the parents' convocation last week. Of course, that tells us nothing about how the administrators in the DEI office act on the ground, but I only know so much at this point.

Full disclosure: I have been a fan for many years, since long before the current campus controversies or my kid's interest in going to the school. I saw video of him (from just after the Great Recession, when the bottom dropping out of humanities began accelerating) defending liberal arts and college education being about more than getting a job; I was hooked. That he has (mostly) gotten the speech stuff right--and that my kid decided to go there--only adds to my fanboydom.

Roth said something else to parents I found interesting: That students have a right not to be harassed but no right not to be offended and that the line between them is clear and obvious in most cases. And I think most people in that room agreed--it is clear and obvious. But I expect most would disagree with me (and him) about which side any particular case fell.

"Modest violations of the rules"

Wesleyan (where my son had his first class this morning) President Michael Roth published a NYT op-ed encouraging more political activity on campus this year, arguing that universities exist for the good of the individual and the good of the world, inherently political and public-leaning spaces in which to "practice democracy."

Speaking of last spring's encampments, Roth writes "[s]ince the protest was nonviolent and the students in the encampment were careful not to disrupt normal university operations, we allowed it to continue because their right to nonviolent protest was more important than their modest violations of the rules." Framing long-term encampments as "modest violations of the rules" is a unique take--certainly different from the notion that the encampments represented a sea change from small rulebreaking for a limited time to something "more aggressive, more interfering, and more permanent."

Musk suit proceeds v. Media Matters

So says Judge Reed O'Connor, denying motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim in Twitter's suit against Media Matters and a reporter.

On personal jurisdiction, I wrote at the time Musk filed suit that I did not see the necessary "Texasness" in stories written about a California company by a D.C.-based reporter and published to the world by a D.C.-based entity. The court found that Texasness because two of the "blue-chip" companies Media Matters featured as having ads running next to Nazi content (and who stopped advertising on Twitter) were Oracle and AT&T, both Texas companies located in the Northern District. On one hand, a claim that plaintiff's speech tortiously interfered with defendant's contact and relationship with a Texas company can be seen as directed to Texas or involving Texas conduct. On the other, this seems far more attenuated than stories about forum conduct by forum citizens in the forum; paraphrasing Walden v. Fiore, Twitter suffers the same injury regardless of the location of the companies featured advertising next to offensive content. The same analysis basically resolves venue--a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the Northern District as the location of the businesses interfered with.

On the merits, this suit raises the prospect of businesses using tortious interference to end-run New York Times for broad public speech. The Court has blocked past efforts, as by imposing an actual malice requirement on intentional infliction distress. I think the same thing needs to happen here, although O'Connor did not require plaintiffs to plead those additional facts. The merits discuss was, to coin a phrase, conclusory and failed to show what allegations establish which elements (to say nothing of the fact that MM's statements, as described in the complaint, were true).

While not a final judgment, denials of dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction represent a common use of mandamus in federal court. Query whether Media Matters pursues that course to try to get away from Judge O'Connor as quickly as possible.

Do reasons for non-enforcement matter?

The Eighth Circuit declared invalid a Missouri law that a bunch of federal laws related to firearms "shall be invalid to this state, shall not
be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall not be enforced by this state." No state or local officials possess enforcement authority. And the law creates a private right of action (because Republican lawmakers believe that is the magic bullet to stop everything they do not like) against any public official who enforces the law.

Missouri argued (correctly) that it can refuse to allow its officers to enforce federal law; thus, the reasons for refusing to enforce do not matter. Here, in full, is the Court's response:

That Missouri may lawfully withhold its assistance from federal law enforcement, however, does not mean that the State may do so by purporting to invalidate federal law. In this context, as in others, the Constitution “is concerned with means as well as ends.” Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., 576 U.S. 350, 362 (2015). Missouri has the power to withhold state assistance, “but the means it uses to achieve its ends must be ‘consist[ent] with the letter and spirit of the constitution.’” Id. (quoting McCulloch, 7 U.S. (4 Wheat.) at 421) (alteration in original). Missouri’s assertion that federal laws regulating firearms are “invalid to this State” is inconsistent with both. If the State prefers as a matter of policy to discontinue assistance with the enforcement of valid federal firearms laws, then it may do so by other means that are lawful, and assume political accountability for that decision.

I am a formalist and even I recognize this as utterly mindless formalism. This is not 1833 South Carolina preparing to wield the militia against federal enforcers. There is no meaningful difference between "federal law is illegal in this state and we will not enforce it" and "federal law is stupid and we will not enforce it" and "we don't wanna enforce it just 'cause and you can't make us--nyah." Missouri can reenact the identical law tomorrow and rely on #2 or #3 and land in the same place--no state or local enforcement, private right of action against any officer who attempts to enforce.

Maybe the law could include a preamble or finding saying "We, the legislature, believe these laws are invalid to this state, should not be recognized by this state, should be specifically rejected by this state, and shall not be enforced by this state, but the activist federal judges will not let us say that."

Handball

Like many people every four years, I love team handball. Denmark won the men's Gold and Norway the women's Gold (with Denmark taking the bronze).*

[*] My non-sports-fan niece did a semester in Copenhagen. One day she and some friends encountered a massive crowd celebrating on the streets--turned out they were celebrating some big win by one of the teams. They had no idea why the crowd was out there but they joined the celebration anyway.

I do not understand why handball is not bigger in the United States, at least as a college sport. It fits the U.S. sports mentality--high-scoring, fast-paced, lots of running and jumping, and physical, although without the concussion risks of football and other tackling sports. (For example, it is a penalty and "suspension" to hit the goalie in the face with a shot, even accidentally). It combines elements of sports Americans already play and watch--basketball, soccer, lacrosse, baseball. It could attract good athletes from these sports with the promise of teaching the skills. For comparison, lacrosse (men's and women's) has developed a high profile at the collegiate level, including a fair number of nationally televised games. Many top programs (especially as the women's game developed) began with coaches seeking out good athletes and taking care of the rest. It seems to me the same could and should happen with handball, which involves skills (dribbling, throwing, running, jumping) that players already possess and do not require them to learn to handle a new piece of equipment.

As the host nation for the 2028 Olympics, the U.S. team automatically qualifies for the tournament. The U.S. is nowhere near ready to compete against the best international teams. But maybe a good showing will spark interest in the sport at lower domestic levels. In fact, that was USA Team Handball's plan in the mid-aughts when Chicago vied for the 2016 Games--get a team into the tournament and create interest and passion for a cool game. Maybe it can happen 12 years late.

Not just federal judges

There seems to be problem with judges acting out some skewed version of Scared Straight with people who do not meet their standards of decorum. Lacking life tenure, this guy may suffer consequences--he has been suspended, although only pending "sensitivity training."

Interestingly, the judicial immunity question may be more favorable to the girl, should she pursue a § 1983 action. I described why Judge Benitez was on the line. But as I read this story, Judge King was not presiding or conducting any proceeding when this happened. It was in court and the judge was in his robe, but he was conducting an educational program for a youth group, which should not be a judicial function (the group had watched a trial, but the trial had ended).

Why randomize assignments?

I guess I should have considered this when I answered Gerard's first question, but here goes: What would be the point of randomized assignments? Of all the things Congress can try to bring the Court to heel, why would it want to do this? Is the idea that analysis and precedential effect (if not outcome in this case) might change if Justice Barrett wrote a particular opinion rather than Justice Thomas? Assuming agreement on basic principles and given the collective nature of the writing process, would the final opinion be so different?

And might there be unintended consequences? Unable to get everything he wants, Justice Alito leaves the opinion in a 5-4 and writes separately, eliminating the majority and, to the extent Marks matters, giving more power to his individual opinion without him having to do the work of maintaining a majority. Do we lose something if there is no Justice who becomes the go-to person on some issues (e.g., Ginsburg on procedure or Gorsuch on Indian law).

If it does not do much as a stand-alone change, it might be a cute addition to Sherry's plan--random assignment of that single, unsigned, unenumerated opinion. This creates further distance between individual Justices and case outcomes.

It should be constitutional

In answer to Gerard's question: Suzanna Sherry proposed a system in which the Court issues one per curiam majority opinion, without names or counts. She defends constitutionality by arguing, in essence, that Congress cannot dictate or influence resolution of a case but can control how the Court communicates its decision. I think her argument would support the choice of who communicates the decision for the Court as well as how the Court presents that decision.

Faculty Hiring

Collegiality for collegiality's sake

Steve Vladeck's latest Substack (paywalled) discusses Justice Kagan's remarks at the Ninth Circuit Conference. With respect to collegiality, Steve quotes Kagan and writes the following:

Third, and in a similar vein, in responses to questions about how the justices are getting along internally, Justice Kagan pivoted to a response about why the answer shouldn’t matter that much to the public—not because collegiality is unimportant, but because the issue isn’t whether the justices are friendly; it’s whether their relationships influence their colleagues. As she put it:

“I can’t imagine why the public should care if we go to the opera together, or we can talk about baseball together. What the public should care about is … if the collegiality brings about a certain kind of decision-making process. In other words, if it leads to people listening to each other in talking about the law and in talking about cases and making decisions. If it leads to people being able to step into each other’s shoes and see the world through another person’s eyes or see certain legal issues through a different perspective.

Again, I think there’s some nuance here. The point is not, as some accounts reported it, that the justices’ collegiality is unimportant; it’s that it’s important as means to an end—with a subtle insinuation that there isn’t enough of that kind of camaraderie on the Court today.

I made a similar point years ago when people complained that President Obama and Speaker John Boehner could not sit down and have a beer, comparing them unfavorably with the Scalia/Ginsburg safaris and opera trips. I pointed out that this friendship rarely convinced either person to switch a position or compromise--which is what everyone wanted from Obama and Boehner. We do not want collegiality on multi-member bodies for its own sake, but as a means to a better-functioning multi-member body. (With Kagan pushing the ideal of empathy that Obama proposed but never defended). Media coverage of politics and the Court (stuck in a Sorkin-esque vortex of wanting everyone to get along and agree with one another) cannot see past the former.

Not reporting v. accurately reporting

In citing Jay Rosen and Tom Nichols in this post, I expressed concern for the media's hyper-focus on certain narratives (Hillary's emails in 2016, Biden's age and mental acuity until a few weeks ago) to the exclusion of others. I have never advocated for not reporting what Trump says (and Nichols has been a big "show Trump in all his insanity" advocate) or for withholding negative stories about Biden, Harris, and other Democrats.

I have different criticisms of the media; Paul may disagree with these, as well, but they are different than what Rosen and Sullivan seem to have been pushing. I criticize inaccuracy and imbalance in the name of objectivity (and fear of accusations of bias). I criticize the media being worked. I criticize media  ignoring or cleaning up Trump's incoherent ramblings. I criticize the media allowing a narrative to take hold--usually the one Republicans have pushed--and allowing that narrative to color what they publish and how they present it.

Jordan Chiles and the Jurisprudence of Sport

Jamie Fox (Stetson) offers an interesting Twitter thread on the brouhaha over the bronze medal in the women's floor exercise illustrating  the jurisprudence of sport--the conflict (without a clear correct answer) among finality, substantive fairness, procedural fairness, formalism, justice, etc. He offers the thread to incoming law students to give them a sense of what they are about to encounter (and that it is not necessarily over the day's great moral dilemmas).

As things stand, the USOC plans to appeal the  Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling, although it is not clear what higher court would hear such an appeal--whether  Switzerland's highest court or the European Court of Human Rights. And why should the ECHR care or have anything to say about the judging in a gymnastics competition?

One remedial piece to this, according to this report: In its appeal, Romania asked that the IOC award multiple medals--to give Ana Barbosu what she earned in the competition without humiliating Chiles by making her return the medal. This is an attempt at equity. But the case is complicated and I can see why, given its rules, IOC and FIG rejected it (not agreeing--just understanding). FIG sets its rules to avoid multiple medals, except as a last resort;  judges use the execution score and then the difficulty score as tie-breakers. They award multiple medals only in the (unlikely) event of deadlock in all three scores. Barbosu and Romanian teammate Sabrina Maneca-Voinea had identical total scores, but Barbosu initially won bronze on the execution tiebreak. Moreover, this is not a simple case of flipping third and fourth. Chiles finished fifth in the initial scoring, below Barbosu and Maneca-Voinea--the judges' inquiry giving her an additional .1 point jumped her into third andvacating that decision removed that .1 and dropped her back to fifth. To give Barbosu a medal and allow Chiles to keep her initial medal requires that Maneca-Voinea also receive a medal. Romanian proposed doing that, likely because the additional medal would go to a Romanian. But I can see FIG not wanting to award three bronzes.

Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe, and the Hall of Fame

Charlie Hustle & the Matter of Pete Rose is a four-part HBO Max documentary telling three stories at once--Rose's playing career, Rose's ban and the years that followed, and his current life. Daniel Fienberg offers a lukewarm review. The central issue, as with everything Rose, is whether he should be enshrined in the Hall of Fame. While writing this post, I came across Backstory: Banned for Life, a 2020 ESPN program (paywalled--need an ESPN+ subscription) about Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson and their status on the permanent ineligible list.

There are many pieces to the "Rose in the Hall" question, which Charlie Hustle describes but does not fully unpack.

1) The Hall and MLB--independent entities making independent decisions--play an interesting game of hot potato as to who is responsible for keeping Rose out. MLB placed Rose on the permanent ineligible list in 1989 (with eligibility to seek reinstatement). The Hall two years later enacted a rule that those on MLB's ineligible list are ineligible for Hall induction; the change largely responded to Rose's looming Hall eligibility (1992 would have been his first year on the BBWAA ballot). It has become known as the "Pete Rose Rule," although it came amidst a groundswell for putting Jackson  in the Hall following the movies Field of Dreams in 1989 and Eight Men Out in 1988. Charlie Hustle then includes a clip of a  MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred kicking the can back to the Hall, stating that nothing requires the Hall to retain its rule linking Hall eligibility to MLB eligibility; in other words, those who want Rose in the Hall should take the case to the Hall, not to him.

According to ESPN, in 2020 MLB announced that it interprets its ineligible list to limit employment and other involvement with MLB and its team; ineligible status ends when the person dies and he can have no further involvement in the game. The Hall responded by interpreting its rule to apply to anyone on the ineligible list, living or dead. This creates a genuine catch-22 with respect to a dead player. The Hall says the player remains ineligible unless MLB takes affirmative steps to remove the person from the list; MLB says it cannot do anything once the person dies and the effects of ineligibility end.

2) Both shows discusses the Steroid Era and Houston Astros sign-stealing, showing that MLB never punished any of the involved players, to say nothing of punishing them as severely as it punished Rose (or Jackson). But this misses the key point. Gambling on baseball remains the game's cardinal sin, a prohibition (and punishment) posted on every clubhouse and antithetical to baseball operating as a legitimate competitive enterprise and not professional wrestling. PED use and sign-stealing are milder violations that many within the game regard as part of a longstanding search for competitive advantage. Moreover, the BBWAA has served as MLB's enforcer--Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and other steroid-linked players never received more than 65 % support and nowhere close to the necessary 75 % on writers' ballots.*

[*] This reflects another way in which Selig failed as MLB commissioner.

3) Rose may not be the BBWAA's call, which Charlie Hustle discusses. Players can appear on the writer's ballot up to ten years after first eligibility (a player falls off the ballot if he received less than 5 % the prior year); after that, the Veterans' Committee (comprised of Hall members, executives, and historians) considers these players. So if Rose becomes eligible for the ballot (whether through actions of MLB, the Hall, or both), does he begin on the writers' ballots, since he has never appeared on the ballot and thus the ten-year clock has not begun? (Bob Costas suggests this). Or does he jump to the veterans, since it has been more than ten years since Rose would have appeared on the ballot? Given how the writers approached players with steroid connections, I cannot imagine Rose getting to 75 %, although it would be interesting to see whether his support would grow (as happened with Clemens, Bonds, et al), who reached mid-60s by their final years. In Charlie Hustle, one journalist says he voted for Clemens and Bonds every year and would vote for Rose if his name appeared on the ballot. On the other hand, Rose's strategy has been to cultivate support from Hall members (Charlie Hustle features Hall members Tony Perez, Mike Schmidt, and Reggie Jackson expressing support). This affects the goal of getting Rose into the Hall while he is alive (he is 81); chances drop if he has to go through the motions of up to a decade before the writers.

4) Someone (I think long-time Reds announcer Marty Brennaman) says it would be a tragedy for Rose to be inducted posthumously. I wonder. Rose supporters argue that the Hall is a museum that should record the history of the game and its players; Rose deserves a spot because the story of baseball (and certainly not the story of baseball in the 1970s and early '80s) includes Rose. But it also is a shrine, a way to honor, grant a title ("Hall-of-Famer" or "First-Ballot Hall-of-Famer"), and bestow unique privileges to certain players. Perhaps posthumous induction offers the right compromise: Rose becomes part of the baseball story for all time but does not receive the honors and prestige of--and opportunity to monetize**--being a living Hall Member.

[**] Which has been at least part of the ick factor with Rose over the years, although he defends his need to make a living.

5) Charlie Hustle never mentions Shoeless Joe, other than to explain the Black Sox (and the irony that they threw the 1919 World Series to the Reds, Rose's team) and the origins of the gambling prohibition. In particular, it does not address how arguments about Rose affect Jackson. (It includes the segment, described above, comparing non-punishment of steroid use and sign-stealing, but does not mention the genuinely comparable gambling case). This is a problematic omission, because you can discuss Rose' induction without discussing Jackson's--if Rose can be forgiven and allowed into the Hall, why should Jackson not be forgiven and allowed in? Some (including Rose in Banned) distinguish the cases because Rose apparently never bet against the Reds. But that argument misunderstands three points of the gambling rules. First, gambling affects games over a season, those bet on and not bet on. Second, the gambling rule reflects the ideal of the player seeking to win for the team that pays him and for the competition, not for some outside gains. Third, and most important, the gambling rule is prophylactic. It seeks to avoid any hint or risk that gambling might affect outcomes, play, or decisionmaking in games; it avoids the scent of gambling's effects, irrespective of actual effects. The rule therefore cannot distinguish betting on one's team from betting against one's team from taking money to tank becauseall cause the harms--the risk of the appearance of impropriety--MLB seeks to prevent.*

[*] On Banned, the host too readily concedes to Rose that what Jackson did is worse, ignoring the underlying rationales for barring gambling.

Banned shows that the links between Rose and Jackson are more extensive than I realized:

    • In early 1989, the South Carolina legislature petitioned MLB Commissioner Bart Giamatti to consider reinstating Jackson, part of a broader groundswell of renewed support for Jackson following his sympathetic portrayal in the two movies. Giamatti asked former federal prosecutor John Dowd to make the case for Jackson, which he did (TL;DR: Jackson played well in the Series and received no due process prior to his suspension). Giamatti was considering it--then stopped when the Rose case blew up a few months later; he could not reinstate (or even consider reinstating) Jackson while also investigating and potentially punishing Rose for similar misconduct. Giamatti also hired Dowd to conduct the investigation into the Rose allegati0ns. Dowd sits for interviews; he does not like Rose.

    • The Hall's 1991 rule change affected Jackson, short-circuiting some momentum among Hall members and the public following the movies. This can lead to two conclusions: 1) Despite its name, it did not target Rose but reached two similarly situated players or 2) Rose screwed Jackson, because the immediacy of dealing with Rose imposed unintended consequences on Jackson.

    • Former MLB Commissioner Fay Vincent (who worked with Giamatti, became commissioner when Giamatti died, and served until Bud Selig and the owners shanked him to set-up the 1994-95 strike) relays a conversation with Ted Williams in which Williams expressed support for Jackson. Vincent said if they let Jackson back in, Rose comes with him; Williams bascially said "no, fuck that guy," views supposesly held by Hall of Famers of Williams' era.

Interesting stuff. I remain in the no-Hall camp. But I am coming around to the idea of posthumous induction for both, with plaques detailing their bans in addition to their accomplishments.

12(b)(6), summary judgment, and conflicting video

I think the Fourth Circuit reaches  the right place--further proceedings required. A trial court can consider a video on a 12(b)(6) if "(1) the video is 'integral' to the complaint and its authenticity is not challenged, but (2) only to the extent that the video 'clearly depicts a set of facts contrary to those alleged in the complaint,' or 'blatantly contradicts' the plaintiff’s allegations, rendering the plaintiff’s allegations implausible." The district court should have denied dismissal because the video did not blatantly contradict the allegations in the complaint.

But I think it gets there via two mistakes, sounding in the general problem of conflating 12(b)(6) and summary judgment, especially in civil rights actions: 1) Expanding what the court can look at on 12(b)(6) and 2) conflating 12(b)(6) and summary judgment when dealing with conflicting information.

1) A court on a 12(b)(6) is limited to the allegations within the four corners of the complaint plus documents attached as exhibits. FRCP 10(c), 12(d). Courts have extended that plus to include documents that the complaint mentions or relies on, which makes sense on a rule of completeness--if the complaint refers to something (e.g., a contract or a magazine article), a rule of completeness dictates that the court treat the entire thing as part of the complaint. Otherwise a plaintiff could selectively and inaccurately quote pieces of a broader thing to create a false impression. Courts have further extended this to videos.

The 4th Circuit does not explain what "integral" to the claim means--whether it includes complaints that identify the video as a source or otherwise expressly rely on the video or whether it includes any set of facts describing events for which publicly available video may be found. If video cases are not to subsume 12(b)(6), it should not extend as far as the latter. That is, if the complaint includes factual allegations X, Y, and Z and there happens to be video evidence of those facts that the complaint does not mention, discuss, or rely upon, the video should not be treated as part of the complaint.

The court does not explain which side the case falls. The complaint alleged a bunch of facts; defendant's 12(b)(6) introduced the video, emphasizing that it was "publicly available" and "integral to" and "apparently relied on" in the complaint. Publicly available should not matter (unless it is part of a public record and a subject of judicial notice). And I do not know how the complaint "apparently relie[s]" on the video--either it does or does not. Unfortunately, plaintiff did not object to the court considering the video and used the video to argue it meaning in opposing the motion, effectively waiving the 12(d) argument. The court therefore did not resolve the "not entirely clear" question of whether the video qualifies as integral to this complaint.

2) If the video is part of the complaint, I do not think the "blatantly contradicted" standard should apply. Blatant contradiction comes from Scott v. Harris, where the Court disregarded the plaintiff's deposition testimony of what happened during a high-speed chase (specifically whether he was a threat to persons and property) by watching video of the chase and concluding that the video was capable of one reasonable interpretation. The Court therefore need not accept plaintiff's version of events or draw reasonable inferences for the non-movant plaintiff ("I was driving fast but safely") when his evidence was "blatantly contradicted" by the video whose one true meaning ("he was a threat'") the Court can divine by watching.

Putting aside the correctness of Scott and the idea that the video shows one obvious thing rather than being subject to interpretation, the approach makes some sense on summary judgment. Opposing parties offering competing evidence, stories, and versions of events; the court decides whether the evidence each offers sufficiently conflicts as to show a factual dispute requiring jury resolution. "Blatant contradiction" gets us to the place of the defendant offering the video, the plaintiff offering no evidence (as is his burden of production), leaving no disputed facts requiring jury resolution. I do not agree with the standard, but it is consistent with the inquiry on summary judgment.

But 12(b)(6) is supposed to be different. The court hears one side--what the plaintiff offers; it hears no facts or evidence from the defendant. The court takes everything the plaintiff alleges as true and considers whether the plaintiff can win if everything he says is true. Where the complaint contains adverse allegations or facts, the court can consider those and rule against the plaintiff--we say plaintiff has pleaded herself out of court. Where the complaint includes contradictory allegations, the court need not resolve that conflict or decide which is true; it accepts everything true and decides if the plaintiff loses under either of those sets of facts. Consider Craig v. Rich Township High School. A fired school counsleor alleged that he published his book (the speech for which he was fired) outside of work , but the book (which he attached to the complaint) included content connecting to his counselor job. The court could consider that fact in the Pickering balance on a 12(b)(6) because the facts showing connectedness were in the complaint. The court did not disregard contrary facts; it took all facts as true, some of which showed why the plaintiff lost under controlling law. Or imagine a hypo I use in class--a Black non-attorney brings a race-discrimination claim against the law firm that denied him a job, with allegations that he was told he was not hired because he is not an attorney and because he is Black. The court would not unpack or reconcile the facts; it would take both allegations as true, with one fact (not hired because not an attorney) defeating the claim.

So how should this case have come out? Where (as it seems to have been in this case) there is ambiguity whether the complaint relies on the video, the court should treat it as not having relied and not treat the video as part of the complaint. The court therefore should have either refused to look at the video and denied the 12(b)(6) or converted  to summary judgment; the latter moves allows the court to consider whether the plaintiff's testimony is "blatantly contradicted" by the video as a competing piece of evidence. But if the video is clearly part of the complaint, then the court should review the video and decide if it plausibly shows a violation, without regard to other allegations in the complaint. If the video defeats the claim, we would say the plaintiff pleaded herself out of court by including adverse facts for the court to take as true. Blatant contradiction never comes up, because the plaintiff is on the hook for the effects of all the facts she includes in the complaint.

A civ pro puzzle

Something I was thinking about while listening to several papers on personal jurisdiction at SEALS last week. It shows how the analysis has shift under us:

Imagine the facts of World Wide Volkswagen in 2024: Defective car sold in New York by two New York companies (distributor World Wide and dealer Seaway) and two non-New York companies (Audi from Germany and VWA from New Jersey), accident occurs in OK.

Before 2011, we mostly agreed on the following:

    1) No jurisdiction over WW and Seaway in OK

    2) General "doing business" jurisdiction over Audi and VWA in OK (although this was the subject of the Twitchell/Brilmayer debate)

    3) General jurisdiction over all defendants in New York--Audi and VWA on "doing business" and WW and Seaway because they are incorporated there.

In 2024, I think we have the following:

    1) No jurisdiction over WW and Seaway in OK

    2) Specific jurisdiction over Audi and VWA in OK under Ford, because they serve the OK market for the same cars (although not the car in the accident). Not general jurisdiction because neither is at home and Daimler/Good Year reject doing business.

    3) General jurisdiction over WW and Seaway in NY because each is "at home" there.

    4) Specific jurisdiction over Audi and VWA, although the theory depends on where Audi and VWA designed, manufactured, and sold the car to World Wide for distribution:

        • If any of that happened in New York, then specific jurisdiction because the case "arose" in New York because something about the defective product occurred there.

        • If all of those things happened outside New York (i.e., Audi sold the car to WW in New Jersey), specific jurisdiction would require the "related to" analysis of Ford--they serve the NY market for the same cars as the one at issue in the case, even if their NY activities did not involve the car at issue.

Aaron Sorkin out-Aaron Sorkins Aaron Sorkin (Several Update)

Update: This aged well. See if the Romney-for-VP thing catches on. (Further Update: To be clear, I do not expect it to catch on. I find interesting the prospect of a Harris/Shapiro ticket, under which the First Gentleman, VP, and Second Lady would be Jewish--sparking complaints about the power behind the throne).

I have written about the insufferability of Aaron Sorkin. But we find ourselves in a Sorkinian moment, as a successful Democratic president wrestles with whether, in light of recently exposed health concerns, he should leave the election and not seek a second term. One can imagine Joe Biden--also a devout Catholic--wandering the National Cathedral shouting at God in Latin and telling him "You get Harris!" In fact, some have urged a Sorkinian solution by proposing that Harris select a Republican as VP--names include Mitt Romney (who, by the way, is 77) or Adam Kitzinger, a former GOP congressman who twice voted to impeach Trump.

Realizing that everyone is stealing his insipid thunder, Sorkin outdoes himself in today's Times by descending to outright stupidity: The Democrats should nominate Romney as President. Never mind that Romney is 77, so you are offering a super-annuated person to replace a candidate who is struggling because of his age. Never mind that Romney disagrees with just about every meaningful position in the Democratic Party platform and every ideal that the mean liberal Democratic voter (to say nothing of the progressives) believes in. Policy does not matter; only politics and getting to 270. Of course, I am not sure why Sorkin (or anyone else) believes Romney can get to 270. There are not so many Never-Trump Republicans (to whom Romney appeals as a policy matter), especially to overcome the many Democrats who would stay home.* And why is Romney better than any non-Biden Democrat--except in his appeal to Republicans. In other words, Sorkin's proposal reduces to "Democrats must sacrifice everything to bail out the Republicans who went off the rails."

[*] And perhaps not wrongly. It is one thing to tell young progressives to show up for Biden (or any non-hard-left Democrat) because he will get you some of what you want on some timeline, even if not everything or as fast. It also is one thing to tell Republicans to show up for a Democrat when their party has abandoned them. It is something entirely different to tell Democrats to surrender any policy preferences by choosing a less-offensive Republican over another Republican.

Although, I guess if a well-known playwright was going to go off the rails, it could be worse.

Why is this jurisdictional?

Hunter Biden moved to dismiss his indictment for lack of jurisdiction arguing that special prosecutor David Weiss' appointment is constitutionally invalid under the Appointments and Appropriations clauses, in light of Thomas' Trump concurrence and Judge Cannon's decision to dismiss the documents case.

I leave to others the constitutional merits. My question: Why is this a jurisdictional defect? The motion describes this as an indictment "brought by an unauthorized prosecutor" and concludes that this means the court lacks jurisdiction, citing Trump and a 1991 9th Circuit case treating a challenge to a special AUSA's authority as going to the court's jurisdiction. But the cited portion of Trump does not use the word jurisdiction and the 9th Circuit case came a decade before the Court righted the ship on the jurisdictional label.

I focus on civil cases and perhaps criminal cases are different. But I think this comes back to conflating types of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction (i.e., "authority" or "authorization") problem is one of executive or prosecutorial authority--the official pursuing the prosecution lacks the constitutional authority to pursue the case. But the absence of executive jurisdiction to act should not strip the court of adjudicative jurisdiction, just as the absence of legislative jurisdiction to enact the law being enforced does not strip the court of adjudicative jurisdiction. Both require the court to exercise its power and grant judgment for the defendant on the merits.

Is there something different about criminal law and the prosecutorial power that changes this analysis?

More on Rankin's revenge

I was a bit glib and non-specific in this post. But it now appears more than a few teachers out there have made comments on social media to the effect that they wish Thomas Matthew Crooks had better aim; Libs of TikTok and Moms for Liberty have found and identified many of those teachers and their posts and are demanding scalps; and attention-starved and/or craven public officials are making noise about firing and/or decertifying those teachers. So let me try the fuller analysis here.

The leading, and factually similar case, is Rankin v. McPherson. A clerical worker in the sheriff's office had a conversation with her co-worker/boyfriend after hearing news of the attempted assassination of President Reagan, in which she said something to the effect of "if they attempt to shoot him again, I hope they get him." SCOTUS held that her firing violated the First Amendment. Her statement was on a matter of public concern and was not a threat or otherwise unprotected. And the Pickering balance--employee interests in commenting on matters of public concern against interests of the government employer in promoting workplace efficiency--favored the employee. The statement was made in a private conversation (albeit one in the workplace) and did not affect her co-workers, workplace relationships, performance of anyone's job, or overall functioning of the agency. As a clerical employee, she did not have contact with the public as part of her job and did not affect the office's law enforcement functions.

Ironically, Twitter exchanges I have seen fail to mention or discuss Rankin, which is a somewhat forgotten case (as so many Marshall opinions are) even among the First Amendment crowd.

In thinking about Pickering, it is worth remembering that the case involved a teacher, fired over a teacher over his letter to the editor criticizing the school board's funding priorities. Criticism of the school board did not per se affect the functioning of a school in terms of his classroom duties, his harmony with fellow teachers, or the ability of his superiors to control and discipline him. And the Court would not presume that the teacher brought his negative views into the classroom.

So what happens if schools fire or discipline teachers because of these social-media posts? As with the statements in Rankin, expressing hope outside the workplace that a political leader would be assassinated (whether as a wish for a future shooter or regret for a past shooter's failure) is non-job speech, touches on a matter of public concern, and is not a threat or incitement or otherwise unprotected. Everything thus turns on Pickering. These teachers spoke entirely outside the workplace to the public at large rather than at work to a colleague. The statements lack even a remote connection to their jobs or to their employers, because they were not talking about the school district or education (contra Pickering). Teachers are public-facing employees. But schools cannot assume that teachers will bring their personal political views into the classroom as to allow them to fire teachers who express views that school administrators find offensive or contrary to the values of the school. Absent some evidence that the teachers will attempt to convince their students that Crooks should have bought a better scope or otherwise that assassinating Donald Trump would be a good thing,* the school cannot argue that the teacher's publicly expressed political views that never find their way into the school or curriculum undermine discipline or the efficient educational operations.

[*] Which would constitute a fireable offense because elementary and secondary teachers exercise less control over their classroom speech.

The problem may be actual or anticipated parent reaction--a school might be able to argue that functions have been disrupted or undermined if parents complain or object to their children being in one of these teachers' classes. While that sounds like a heckler's veto, lower courts have rejected the idea that Pickering's disruption prong constitutes such a veto--as the Second Circuit put it, parents are not outsiders to the speech and speaker but participants in public education whose cooperation is required for the system to work.

Cases in which teachers have lost on Pickering tend to involve statements that go towards children and the teachers' possible interactions with children--a guidance counselor publishing a sexist relationship-advice book; a school counselor indicating an unwillingness to handle trans kids as the school deems fit; a teacher with a membership in NAMBLA; or a teacher who blogs critically about her students. Nothing that these teachers said bears on their students or on what they teach. Indeed, if these teachers can be fired for these obnoxious statements about world events, it seems to follow that schools could fire teachers for holding or expressing an array of obnoxious beliefs on an array of matters of public concern. Something I thought Libs of Tik Tok and Moms for Liberty decried as cancel culture . . .

When motive matters

Orin Kerr has a Twitter thread* on whether Thomas Matthew Crooks' motive matters.

[*] On Gerard's post on leaving Twitter: In one sense, I was never "on" Twitter because I never posted; I only got an account when Twitter stopped allowing people to read without joining. But I regularly read those law profs, lawyers, and journalists--including Orin--who continue to blog there and highlight new cases and issues that I may write about here, use for my own work, or use in class. Even if fewer people do this, I think it is enough to keep checking and keep reading. Still have not posted and never will.

Orin posits three possible reasons: 1) Crooks was insane; 2) Crooks was a lefty who believed the "Trump is a threat to democracy" of Mother Jones and Rachel Maddow; 3) Crooks was hard right and believed Trump too moderate. Orin asks how much the actual reason matters to understanding what happened or to how to respond.

I would argue it matters whether it was # 2 because of Republican efforts, aped and aided by the media, to use this to silence sharp (if accurate) criticism of Trump. If we know he is not a lefty, then the narrative of "violent rhetoric from the left" cannot (or at least should not) take hold or be given credence. But that is, to this point, the most consequential effect of the event (along with, I suppose, the BS "Trump has changed narrative").

On-point precedent (Updated)

The latest target of Libs of Tik Tok has on-point precedent on her side. Maybe there is a difference between a special-ed teacher and a clerical police employee, although I doubt it. The school would have to show some risk that she has brought or will bring her heinous political views into the classroom. Unless cop-porn has changed the legal landscape.

Update: Seems to be spreading and escalating. A teacher in Oklahoma City posted "[w]ish they had a better scope" and the state superintendent announced that he was coming for her license, insisting that "[n]o one in Oklahoma education system will support the assassination of @realDonaldTrump. It will not be tolerated. Ever!" Interesting response--query whether it extends to those supporting the assassination of anyone else (suppose Crooks decided to shoot at Biden--new reports suggest he picked his target at random). Or to those who, for example, insist that Derek Chauvin was justified in killing George Floyd. Otherwise, this guy gave himself a viewpoint-discrimination problem, atop everything else.

Ballots, bullets, and media narratives (Updated)

Donald Trump won reelection when that bullet whizzed past him on Saturday. This means neither that I wish Trump had been killed nor that the shooting was the Reichstag Fire. Rather, the shooting will affect media coverage of the race in a way that I believe will affect a significant number of voters and that I do not believe Biden can overcome.

First, Trump's reaction--to adorn t-shirts and history books for years to come--reinforces the narratives of Trump as a "fighter" and of Trump as younger and more vigorous and tougher than Biden. It is no longer just that Trump and stand and scream for hours (even if what he says is nonsensical and/or frightening). It is that Trump leaped to his feet after getting shot in the ear. MAGA types had long trafficked in strange images of Trump as muscle-bound strongman. Now a real example feeds that image.

Second, the media narrative will make impossible the accurate Democratic argument that Trump is an authoritarian who undermines and threatens the constitutional order. Any criticism of Trump or discussion of Trump's dangerousness will be criticized by MAGA and reported by the media as the left inciting and calling for more violence against Trump (with constant reminders of the shooting). Biden and Democrats cannot make the core argument against Trump's election without being criticized for raising the temperature and setting the stage for more violence. At the same time, the media will play up (as it has begun to do) the narrative of Trump as a "changed man," seeking to unite rather than divide and finally become President of the whole United States. Anything Trump says at this week's RNC and beyond will be framed around and reported as reinforcing that supposed change and desire to unify, regardless of its substance and as the things he pursues remain inherently divisive. The media has long been unwilling or unable to accurately report what Trump says and does, trapped by what some have called the bias towards normalcy. The shooting and its aftermath offer a different bias through which to launder the danger.

Third, these narratives have developed before we know the shooter's motives, whether this was politically motivated, and whether the narrative of "Trump is dangerous and must be stopped" (even if in context every sane person knew that meant the ballot box) had anything to do with the shooting. The narrative is that it did and thus Democrats must change their message and stop criticizing Trump.

Finally, this from David Frum: "Nobody seems to have language to say: We abhor, reject, repudiate, and punish all political violence, even as we maintain that Trump remains himself a promoter of such violence, a subverter of American institutions, and the very opposite of everything decent and patriotic in American life." I would add that even if some people had that language, the media could not and would not present it to the world.

Update: Tom Nichols, also in The Atlantic. He blames bad-faith GOP partisans more than the media for engaging in what Ed Luce calls “an Orwellian attempt to silence what remains of the effort to stop [Trump] from regaining power.” But if the move comes from partisans, it "seems to be working" with the media--MSNBC canceling Morning Joe on Monday and The Times apologized for an op-ed, published before the assassination, calling Trump unfit for office. But I think this confirms my original point that it is on the media. Political leaders are going to political leader, especially bad-faith actors such as Rick Scott and Mike Collins. Things fall apart when the media cannot or will not stand up to that bad faith. As journalism professor Jay Rosen puts it, the trust-in-media problem is that the media do not trust themselves.

More on the continued usefulness of Younger

A third post on the 11th Circuit and rethinking Younger:

The Volokh Conspiracy's weekly Short Circuit roundup includes the case, along with a link to an Institute for Justice amicus brief. IJ offers a slightly different argument than Judge Rosenbaum for rethinking Younger. Pre-enforcement offensive litigation has expanded since the 1970s when the Court decided Younger and its early progeny, because the Court has developed a greater willingness, especially in First Amendment cases, to find the threat of prosecution sufficiently imminent. In this case, that means a "phonebook's worth" of similarly situated PACs and organizations could sue Georgia in a pre-enforcement challenge to these laws. Abstention in this case therefore does not serve Younger's stated purposes: Someone else can bring the federal court into the mix via pre-enforcement action, leaving state courts and agencies no room to operate, just not the plaintiffs with the most concrete injuries (the ones facing actual rather than threatened enforcement).

An interesting argument, although it might prove too much. Constitutional litigation is atomized, with different cases challenging a particular law as to different rights-holders. So there is nothing inconsistent if some cases involving some rights-holders must remain in state court while other cases involving other rights-holders can be in federal district court. Maybe a case such as this one, involving general campaign-finance regulations, is different.

JOTWELL: Bookman on Dickinson on state courts and democracy

The new Courts Law essay comes from Pamela Bookman (Fordham) reviewing Gerald S. Dickinson, Judicial Laboratories, ___ U. Pa. J. Const. L. ___ (forthcoming 2025), exploring state courts' unique powers and unique roles in preserving and promoting democracy.

More on Younger--Exhaustion and the limits of defensive litigation

I am thinking through some points in my post about 11th Circuit Judge Robin Rosenbaum's call for rethinking the scope of Younger, at least in electoral speech cases.

Rosenbaum argues that "Younger has evolved to allow states to impose a state-exhaustion requirement on those trying to exercise core First Amendment rights." This is a bit nit-picky, because I agree with her basic criticism. But it is inaccurate to say Younger imposes an exhaustion requirement. An exhaustion delays federal litigation by requiring the plaintiff to pursue other procedures before going to federal court. But the plaintiff should get to federal district court eventually. On the other hand, when the federal court abstains under Younger, that plaintiff will never return to federal district court in a § 1983/EpY action. The rights-holder remains in state administrative and judicial proceedings, with the possibility of a federal forum through SCOTUS review of the state's highest court. Rather than creating exhaustion, Younger limits offensive pre-enforcement § 1983/EpY litigation and compels defensive litigation on important free speech issues. Still potentially problematic, depending on one's views of the lines between offensive and defensive litigation. But not as inconsistent with the text and purpose of § 1983.

The key to Rosenbaum's argument is an objection to Younger's application to state administrative proceedings (at least in First Amendment case), which delay access to state courts. She identifies two arguable problems. First, while Younger perhaps fairly presumes parity between state and federal courts in willingness to vindicate federal rights, that presumption should not apply to state administrative agencies, even with eventual state judicial review. Second, delaying access to state court may delay the first meaningful opportunity to raise federal issues--a rights-holder has an adequate opportunity so long as he can raise issues in some state proceeding, even if it does not come until several steps down the line. That is, if the PAC cannot raise First Amendment issues before the hearing board, it is enough that it can appeal the board's decision to a state appellate court and raise the First Amendment there--regardless of how long it takes to get to that second level of review.

On the other hand, the upshot of Younger is to push rights-holders out of federal district court and into state proceedings that must run their (state-determined) multi-level course. It is not clear why the first level must be judicial rather than administrative. Nor is it clear why the opportunity to raise federal issues must come at the first stage of the multi-level process, if that process must run its course before those rights can be vindicated. That is, why does it matter whether the rights-holder can raise and prevail on his federal rights at the first stage if the state will appeal that decision in any event and force completion of those proceedings.

The answer to that goes to preliminary relief, available in offensive federal litigation but not in defensive state litigation. A rights holder (such as the PACs in the Georgia case) can obtain a preliminary injunction in federal court, allowing it to engage in political speech pending resolution of the constitutional questions. From a defensive posture, especially within an administrative process, the rights-holder must remain silent and ride out the proceeding. That, ultimately, becomes the real issue with Younger's push into defensive litigation.

The Triangle of Lawyer Movies

Interesting theory from (non-lawyer) Albert Burneko at Defector (with many comments from lawyers).

Cheering speech in context

Protection for cheering speech--fan speech during sporting events--depends on context. Different sports employ different norms and practices, which affect what is acceptable fan speech. Obviously, the constant thunder of a basketball game at Duke's Cameron Indoor Stadium does not carry over to Wimbledon, where fans cheer between points but are expected to remain silent during play.

That works well enough in trying to define the rules for fans in those stadiums in which First Amendment rules apply and in which the stands can be seen as some kind of public forum. But tennis also apparently has norms limiting what fans cheer for or against and how. Two cases in point from Monday.

Novak Djokovic was upset with the Wimbledon crowd during his victory over Holgar Rune for disrespecting him by shouting "booo" at him; he rejected the idea that it was Rune fans supporting their player by chanting his name ("Ruuuuune"). Alexander Zverev had a long conversation with American Taylor Fritz when they met at the net following Fritz's five-set victory, apparently angry at how loudly some in Fritz's box cheered, especially when it was obvious that Zverev was injured. It probably did not help that Fritz's girlfriend made several (since-deleted) Instagram posts about women supporting Fritz, perceived as referencing several accusations of domestic abuse against Zverev. Indeed, Zverev clarified that Fritz's coaches and trainer were respectful, so it it was someone else being disrespectful--do the math.

So it is ok to cheer for Player A but not against Player B. And do not cheer too loudly. And do not cheer (at least not overly hard and loud) for Player A if Player B is injured. Strange.

The source of the complaints should not surprise. Djokovic cannot get the fans to love him despite being the unquestioned G.O.A.T., so he somewhat leans into the villain role. And Zverev is poster-child for the ATP's perceived unwillingness or inability to hold players accountable for off-court misconduct.

Rethinking Younger

Interesting Younger case from the 11th Circuit. The Georgia AG pursued a state administrative action against a PAC associated with Stacey Abrams for failing to register and file various reports. The state commission found reasonable grounds and referred the case to the AG, which referred the matter to the state administrative hearing body. Between those events, the PACs filed a § 1983 action to enjoin the state proceedings. The court held that the district court should have abstained from the federal action.

Judge Newsom wrote another Fed Courts treatise for the panel. Although the PACs filed the federal action before the hearing body received the referral to commence its proceeding, the court applied the piece of Younger under which the court must abstain if the state proceeding commences after the federal proceeding but before any "proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place in federal court." The plaintiffs had filed a complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction and the court had handled some case-management motions. But the court had not ruled on the PI motion or otherwise engaged with the merits in the few weeks before the state proceeding commenced.* And the fact that the state conducted a thorough multi-year investigation of the PACs undermined the suggestion that the case falls within the bad-faith exception.

[*] The court rejected the district court's reliance on its "experience managing cases" in defining the point at which the state action is too late.

Judge Rosenbaum concurs to call on the courts to "reconsider just how far Younger should extend." Rosenbaum fears Younger in a case involving core political and electoral speech; that speech has achieved greater protection than it had at the time of Younger. Whatever the merits of abstention in 1970s actions involving communists, nude dancing, and "Deep Throat" (speech which the Burger Court was backing away from protecting), Citizens United and other recent campaign-finance cases vault such speech into a unique First Amendment core demanding the "strongest protection." (A cute rhetorical move in a case in which a Republican AG was going after a Democratic PAC). She complains that two of the Middlesex factors--state interest and adequate opportunity to raise federal issues--invariably favor abstention and the exceptions are too narrow to offer help. This imposes an exhaustion requirement for those wishing to engage in core political speech during and around an election. And she identifies the "Goldilocks" problem in Younger--plaintiffs must hit the sweet spot between state enforcement being sufficiently imminent to warrant standing but before that state enforcement has begun.

Recent criticisms of Younger--especially in the work of Fred Smith (Emory)--focus on efforts to challenge proceedings within the criminal justice system, such as bail or the corrupt mess in municipal courts in Ferguson and elsewhere. The argument is that federal courts should not defer to broken state systems that the federal action challenges. Rosenbaum focuses on one area of substantive law that abstention disparately effects, in a way that undermines the substantive purposes of that law.

More on collateral order review of presidential immunity

The latest episode of Divided Argument with Will Baude and Dan Epps explores Trump. Baude praises Barrett's conception of presidential immunity  as an as-applied constitutional challenge to the law. So conceived, however, Baude questions Barrett's conclusion that denial of the defense is immediately reviewable. Immunities receive immediate review, as they protect the person from having to stand trial or stay in litigation for too long. Constitutional defenses--e.g., a separation-of-powers defense to the CFPB (Barrett cites Seila Law as an example) or a First Amendment defense to a flag-burning law--do not, as they protect the person from liability. I want to unpack what I wrote about this.

COD appealability should not turn on labeling something as "immunity" or as a "right not to stand trial." Barrett's point is that immunity is never a distinct concept; it is shorthand for the argument that a law does not apply to the defendant's conduct.* And it is not obvious what makes something a right not to stand trial as opposed to a defense to liability, beyond the label--every defense can be characterized as one or the other.  There is no obvious reason that double jeopardy and qualified immunity are immunities according a right not to stand trial while preclusion and the FTCA judgment bar are defenses to liability.

[*] Justice Alito has said the same about MLB's antitrust immunity--he describes it as a judicially interpreted exclusion of MLB from the scope of antitrust laws and the application of those laws to MLB's conduct

Justice Souter tried to wrangle this issue in two unanimous COD opinions--Will (FTCA judgment bar) and Digital Equipment (private covenant not to sue). Reviewability should turn on the systemic import of the interests sought to be vindicated by immediate review and that would be lost by "rigorous application of a final judgment requirement." Thus, "it is not mere avoidance of a trial, but avoidance of a trial that would imperil a substantial public interest, that counts when asking whether an order is 'effectively' unreviewable if review is to be left until later." This analysis considers the source of the asserted right (Constitution, statute, common law, contract) and who and what the right protects (individual or systemic interests). Unfortunately, Souter's approach has been lost in favor of simple labels.

Back to Barrett and presidential immunity. Her conception of a constitutional defense to a prosecution places presidential immunity on the same footing as the separation of powers and First Amendment defenses above. So why is the first immediately reviewable and the other two not? She never explains. Souter's considerations about underlying interests provide a way out. Although all derive from the Constitution, the latter two (and certainly the third) protect individual liberty interests; the first protects broad systemic interests of the presidency and the ability of the President to act within the constitutional system. That distinction may be wrong. Separation of powers in Seila Law serves structural interests of preserving the President's removal power; one could argue individual liberties serve structural interests of limiting government power. Maybe Barrett's position, taken seriously, explodes the COD or forcse the Court to make absurd distinctions to ensure COD remains a "small class of claims."

But Barrett's position about presidential immunity is not necessarily wrong or inconsistent with COD--if we accept Souter's position that COD turns on the underlying interests and policies at issue and begin the analysis there.

Presidential immunity, Speech-or-Debate, and evidentiary privilege

An email exchange with Lee Kovarsky (Texas)--who has great analysis of the immunity decision on Twitter and in a Seattle University Law webinar --offers a possible justification for treating presidential immunity different from Speech-or-Debate immunity in terms of anevidentiary privilege. Lee concedes this may not justify the criticism or differential treatment--maybe both should include the evidentiary privilege. But it is the first possible distinction anyone has presented to explain unique complaints about the evidentiary privilege and to explain why the majority had to do more to defend it.

My mistake was in thinking about the evidentiary privilege as downstream from immunity simpliciter rather than as downstream from the underlying textual and policy bases for immunity. The issue is not "both are incidents of absolute immunity." The issue is "whether this is properly an incident of the underlying basis for that immunity." They are not the same. Summarizing (not quoting) Lee's argument:

Under the Speech-or-Debate Clause, members "shall not be questioned in any other place." That is a uniquely broad framing; it has a "what happens in the House stays in the House" flavor to it. An evidentiary privilege fits the core of that language--to use legislative acts in court in any manner is to "question" such acts in another place. Presidential immunity rests on policy--ensure "bold and unhesitating action." An evidentiary privilege may be less core to that policy--it is less obvious that using presidential actions as evidence to prove other, non-immune misconduct causes the President to be less bold or more hesitating in his official actions.

Take bribery as the paradigm. Offering evidence in court of a corrupt floor speech or vote as evidence of a bribery scheme questions that act in another place, something the text precludes. Offering evidence of one corrupt pardon to prove a bribery scheme does not run afoul of any textual limitation and does not obviously cause the President to be less unhesitating in offering pardons.

I will add one more piece to this--None of the other policy-based immunities--for example, absolute prosecutorial and judicial immunities under § 1983--includes an evidentiary privilege. Thus, an evidentiary privilege is not inherent to immunity. Something makes Speech-0r-Debate unique among all other immunities--its grounding in far-reaching text.

The counter to this argument is that the Framers (according to James Wilson) included the Speech-or-Debate Clause to "enable and encourage the Representatives of the public to discharge their trust with firmness and success." So legislative and presidential immunities serve similar policies, albeit at different levels of remove.

At the very least, however, this requires analysis and explanation on everyone's part. The majority needed to explain why this evidentiary privilege was essential* to the underlying policies justifying the immunity it established; Justice Barrett needed to explain why it is not essential to an immunity she agreed with, in light of Speech-or-Debate's evidentiary immunity; and the dissent and everyone else criticizing the evidentiary piece needed to identify and work through the distinction Lee came up with.

[*] In that Seattle Law webinar, Steve Vladeck suggested it was not within the QP.

Questioning prosecutorial immunity

Justice Sotomayor respecting (although not dissenting from) denial of cert in Price v. Montgomery County questions prosecutorial immunity--its origins (including noting Alex Reinert's article that Congress abrogated all common law immunities when it enacted § 1983); the misalignment of its scope compared with its policy goals; and the inadequacy of alternative means of remedying prosecutorial misconduct. She does not argue the Court should have granted cert. She argues that the cert denial should not be read as tolerance of the prosecutor's conduct (the Court denies cert for many reason); that the Court may need to step in; and that lower courts must keep immunity with "'quite sparing'" bounds.

Jurisdictionality and presidential immunity

On top of everything else that was bad in Trump, the majority and Justice Sotomayor use language that could be read to suggest that this immunity is a limit on the court's adjudicative jurisdiction rather than a defeat on the merits.

Discussing the first bucket of presidential conduct (conclusive and preclusive), Roberts quotes Youngstown that this bucket "'disables the Congress from acting upon the subject'" and Marbury that "the courts have 'no power to control [the President's] discretion'" and that discretion "cannot be subject to further judicial examination." He repeatedly speaks in the same breath of what Congress and the courts cannot do--"Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions;" Congress "may not criminalize the President's actions . . . Neither may courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution;" or the removal power "may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts." Justice Sotomayor does the same in arguing against immunity, as by insisting that "'common tribunals of justice should be at liberty to entertain jurisdiction of the offence'"  or stating that "'judicial action is needed" such that "the exercise of jurisdiction is warranted.'"

To be fair, some of this comes from quoting old sources (Marbury and Story's Commentaries) or cases from before the Court grew more careful about using the word jurisdiction or speaking about courts exercising judicial power (Nixon v. Fitzgerald). But it would be unfortunate if the language causes courts (such as Judge Chutkin and the DC Circuit on remand) to backslide. Trump recognizes a disability on Congress and its legislative (or prescriptive) jurisdiction--Congress cannot enact criminal statutes that regulate certain presidential conduct. It is not a limit on the court's adjudicative authority, except in dictating how the courts must resolve any future attempt to prosecute a president and likely dismiss such a prosecution, if attempted.

Justice Barrett's distinct framing of immunity--as a challenge to the constitutional validity of the statute as applied to the President's conduct--also understands immunity as merits rather than jurisdictional limitation. Where the would-be statute of conviction is constitutionally invalid as-applied, the court is not stripped of adjudicative jurisdiction; it rejects the prosecution on the merits due to a defect in the congressionally enacted substantive law.

The penumbra of Trump v. US

I don't have a lot to add to the discourse over presidential immunity from people who know more about this. So let me highlight some incidental points from reading it.

• The majority repeatedly suggests that "speaking to and on behalf of" the public and on matters of public concern is a non-core/official function. This might affect future applications of Lindke and when public officials can block the public from web and social-media sites. To act under color, an official must possess actual authority to speak on the government's behalf. I argued that Knight Foundation (holding that Trump and his aides acted under color in blocking readers from his Twitter feed) would come out differently, because the President lacks formal speaking authority about much of the stuff on social media. But this case suggests I may have been wrong about that--in part because the majority cites Lindke to support this broad presidential power to speak to the public. I wonder if that power to speak holds for the "chief executive" of other governments (e.g., the chairman of the county legislature). If so, Lindke may not be as narrow as I thought.

• It seems to me that Justices Barrett and Jackson take a similar approach to criminal law. Both reject the idea of of "immunity" in favor of a defense to prosecution under the statute. Jackson argues immunity lifts someone from the obligations of the law, as opposed to an individual defense to a prosecution under a particular statute. While agreeing there are limits on prosecuting a former president, she sees that immunity at the statutory level--does the particular statute reach official acts and would allowing prosecution pose a danger of intrusion on presidential authority and function. This sounds similar to a defense as Jackson defines one--it is a constitutional defense to the application of that statute to the president and his conduct.

• Barrett makes explicit what is implicit in the majority--a trial court decision allowing the prosecution to proceed is subject to immediate appeal. The Article II defense is separate from the merits of the criminal charge and making him wait to challenge the decision would undermine the executive authority and affect the President's decisions in office. This has two interesting consequences for the collateral order doctrine.

First, Midland Asphalt v. US says that collateral-order immunity in criminal cases applies to "explicit statutory or constitutional guarantees that trial trial will not occur;" that includes arguments over excessive bail, double jeopardy, and Speech-or-Debate immunity. Lower courts have applied Midland to deny immediate review of denial of a defense of judicial immunity in a criminal case--although that issue is immediately reviewable in a civil action--because no constitutional or statutory provision creates that immunity. The majority makes clear that presidential immunity is atextual, but Barrett does not attempt to connect her argument to Midland's seemingly off-hand dicta. Maybe that means Midland does not limit COD to explicit rights (as suggested in Sell v. US, allowing COD review of an order to involuntarily medicate a defendant to render him competent).

Second, if what we label presidential immunity is an as-applied constitutional defense, it seems to me that COD should apply to other as-applied constitutional defenses to prosecution, such as the First Amendment. It rests on the same idea--the argument that Congress cannot criminalize the alleged conduct (because of the First Amendment rather than Article II, but still) is separate from and collateral to the merits of the prosecution (whether the defendant violated the statute). I imagine it turns on unreviewability on appeal from final judgment, which considers the broad public policy and interests lost by delaying review. The individual importance of the defendant's First Amendment rights differs from the structural importance of presidential independence and authority.

• The majority pretty obviously believes  that everything Trump is alleged to have done--speaking with cabinet officials, speaking with state officials, speaking to the public about the electoral process and how it violated federal law, speaking to the VP--is official conduct. That the President has no role to play in state selection of electors or in the electoral counting is of no matter, because everything that happens in the country on every level is a matter of presidential concern (because he may be asked about it) and thus within his official functions. Other than lying about having sex with an intern and maybe shooting someone himself on Fifth Avenue (as opposed to ordering Seal Team 6 to do it), I am not sure what the President does that is not official. Although it does not conclusively say so, the majority opinion places a thumb on the scale on remand or shows its hand when the case inevitably (if Trump loses the election) returns to SCOTUS.

• I continue to look for a good explanation for why this immunity, once recognized, should not include an evidentiary component. If Speech-or-Debate immunity prevents the prosecution in a bribery case from offering evidence of a legislative act (e.g., a floor speech or vote), it seems to me that this presidential immunity prevents the prosecution in a bribery case from offering evidence of an official presidential act (e.g., granting a pardon or firing his attorney general or urging a state official to do something). I am not arguing that either situation is normatively good or correct. But if both immunities exist (as Barrett believes), why should they have different scopes? Someone please help me with this.

The Court's craven view of politics and other thoughts

• The Court holds a craven view of "ordinary politics"--everyone abuses power for their personal self-interests and gain and that exchange of self-interest defines the political game. The legal problem thus is not that self-interest or abusing power but the supposed efforts of legislatures and overzealous prosecutors to criminalize such self-interest and abuse-that is, to criminalize ordinary politics. That explains the Court's efforts to limit anti-corruption laws or SOX's obstruction provision--gratuities and gifts and outsiders' efforts to affect official proceedings are part of the political process and the criminal laws should not be interpreted to stop that. I think the same view explains presidential immunity. Of course the President needs immunity for everything he does in office because of course the President will abuse his office for personal gain--that is just how the political process works and Congress cannot criminalize it or allow an over-zealous prosecutor to prosecute it. Stated differently, Trump using the levers of office to stay in power or for other personal gain does not create a problem--that is the game. Prosecuting one's successor creates the problem.

• Richard Primus on Twitter: Fundamentally, the problem is the same as it has always been: the system is not built to withstand a Holmesian Bad Man as president. I agree. But it seems to me the Court believes the Holmesian Bad Man is our typical (if not ideal) public official.

• I re-up this exchange between Gerard and Paul about why we succeeded as to Nixon and Watergate and have failed as to Trump and January 6. Today's decision took judicial action and criminal law off the table. But the exchange is relevant because I read the decision to repudiate all of Watergate. Under this opinion, it seems to me Nixon could not have been prosecuted for the key actions that got him in trouble--the taped conversations with Haldeman and pushing the CIA to obstruct the FBI investigation--and that Ford's pardon was unnecessary.

• I am surprised by the many people surprised that the Court extended immunity to include a privilege against evidentiary use of immune acts. Legislative Speech-or-Debate immunity has long included such an evidentiary privilege--government cannot use immune legislative acts (e.g., a floor speech or vote) to prove a bribery case.* If the President enjoys a similar absolute immunity from prosecution for "presidential" functions, it seems logical that immunity would extend to evidentiary use. I am not agreeing with the Court's decision to create a speech-or-debate analogue from whole cloth, with the existence of either evidentiary privilege, or with the principle that presidential immunity, lacking a similar textual basis, must be co-extensive with legislative immunity. My point is that if an evidentiary privilege is inherent in one immunity, it is not surprising that it is inherent in the other. And so I am curious why Justice Barrett, who appeared skeptical of immunity during oral argument, drew that as her line and declined to join that portion of the Roberts opinion.

On that note, by the way: I would love to hear from people who study this issue why that textualist point never arose in this case. The framers included the Speech-or-Debate Clause because they did not believe the Article I vesting clause sufficient to establish legislative immunity. No one argued that the Article II vesting clause is not sufficient to establish presidential immunity. Why not?

[*] The court applied this in the prosecution of NJ Senator Bob Menendez, excluding from evidence certain texts referring to Menendez's actions in delaying or not delaying aid to Egypt.

Thoughts on NetChoice

I decided to begin the day with NetChoice, the case about which I would have something to write. Then I can read about how the framers, 11 years removed from a revolution against a king, created a monarch (more powerful than the one it replaced) who is selected and serves for a few years at a time but otherwise can do no wrong.

Anyway, NetChoice. The argument somewhat previewed the result, but the internal dynamics may have been messy.

• The Court is unanimous on the disposition of this appeals--vacate both lower courts and tell them to do the analysis over, because this is a facial challenge. Justice Kagan writes for six (the Chief, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson) to explain a proper approach to facial challenges and to trace the Court's editorial-judgment jurisprudence (Tornillo, PG&E, Turner, Hurley, Pruneyard, and FAIR). She writes for five (loses Jackson) to explain how that jurisprudence applies to render the core provisions of the laws constitutionally invalid and to highlight how badly the Fifth Circuit messed up. Justice Barrett concurs to complain about the complexities of facial challenges and to suggest plaintiffs would have an easier time with a narrower as-applied challenge. Justice Jackson does not join the parts of Kagan's opinon (III-B and C) that explain how that jurisprudence ought to apply to these laws, deeming it premature. Justice Thomas concurs in the judgment to explain why facial challenges should not be allowed. Justice Alito concurs in the judgment for three (Thomas and Gorsuch) to explain why the Court should not have opined on the First Amendment questions and then to offer a contrary First Amendment analysis.

• This will be lost in the procedural mud and the news of the day, but: Five-and-a-half Justices offered a strong vision of First Amendment protection for curators of all kinds and of the limits of government trying to balance the market in ways it deems proper or in ways that will help the speakers and speech it likes.

• Justice Jackson's choice is odd. She joins Kagan's summary of the jurisprudence (III-A) but not its application (III-B and C). But Kagan completes that summary with three general points--1) the First Amendment protects curation of third-party speech; 2) that does not change when the compiler allows most speech or only excludes a small amount of speech; and 3) the government does not have an interest in balancing the expressive marketplace. Those three principles imply the resolution as to the core provisions--the sites have a First Amendment right to do this and Florida and Texas cannot rely on the only interest either has offered for these provisions. So if Jackson believes the statement of legal principles (with their obvious implications) is proper, I am not sure why she departed from the actual application.

• Justice Thomas explains everything that is wrong with facial challenges, including that they enable universal injunctions. But this is wrong, as Dick Fallon has argued. A declaration of facial invalidity is a statement about the law that has preclusive effect on the parties and precedential effect on future parties. It does not disappear the law, it does not adjudicate the rights of non-parties, and it does not stop future enforcement against non-parties. Although facial resolution from SCOTUS dictates the outcome of that future enforcement as a matter of precedent, that is how precedent is supposed to work. Perhaps apprehensiveness about facial challenges is of a piece with the idea (observed more in the breach) that the Court should decide no more than necessary to decide the case. But that is a prudential rule, not grounded in Article III or separation of powers. Of course, the Court could get to the same place if it did not insist on judicial supremacy, on it having the final word on the constitutional question that binds all other actors.

• The Court limits (majority view) or rejects (Thomas view) facial challenges as a way to keep the Court from wielding too much power at the expense of the other branches, where those branches would be stymied by the Court's pronouncements on the Constitution to make or enforce the laws against non-parties in the future. But the Court would not need that limit if it did not assume that a declaration of facial validity binds the executive in the future.

• Murthy v. Missouri held that states and users lack standing to challenge the Biden Administration's jawboning of social-media sites, reflecting the Court's distaste for "massive kitchen-sink, lots-of-plaintiffs/lots-of-defendants/lots-of-bad-conduct constitutional claims." Something similar might be at work here. These laws have core provisions raising constitutional problems (limits on curation and notice requirements) for specific actors (Facebook and YouTube) for specific conduct (their home pages or news feeds). Litigation by a trade association challenging all provisions of the law goes too far. Again, that limit might have cross-ideological effects.

• It will be interesting to see what happens going forward. Might it be worth it for NetChoice (or just Facebook and YouTube) to rework this as an as-applied challenge to the moderation and notice provisions (which a majority of the Court said violate the First Amendment) and leave the rest for another day? There is an argument (Ilya makes it) that the invalidity of these core provisions is sufficient to create the necessary overbreadth compared with any legitimate sweep of the law (such as Gmail or Uber reviews).

• Florida AG Ashley Moody took to Twitter to announce that the Court unanimously sided with it--"We are pleased that SCOTUS agreed with Florida and rejected the lower court’s flawed reasoning—invalidating our social media law. While there are aspects of the decision we disagree with, we look forward to continuing to defend state law." This is impressive in its understatedness and in its cynicism that my fellow Floridians will not read the opinion or get their news from an accurate source. "Aspects of the decision we disagree with"--the Court rejected the entire First Amendment edifice on which Florida relied. Kagan's opinion sees "the First Amendment issues much as" the Eleventh Circuit did in Judge Newsom's excellent opinion. Moreover, in emphasizing the Fifth Circuit's wrongness, the Court impliedly announced the Eleventh Circuit's correctness as to the constitutional invalidity of the core provisions.

Law faculty life

Two items on law teaching:

1) Orin Kerr posts a Twitter poll (with all the usual caveats) asking about school culture: Spend time at school; teach-and-go-home; somewhere in the middle. Only about 30 % of respondents answered, with teach-and-go-home narrowly edging middle and both doubling up spend time at school. I am a bit surprised that the teach-and-go folks were honest and did not choose middle to try to sound better. There likely is a gap--real or perceived--between what an individual faculty member would say about herself and what she says about the school's culture (the question asked). I think it is easy for an individual to make herself sound better than the general culture. Orin speculates that the move from presence began with the internet and never returned after COVID and that it varies in urban and non-urban schools.

2) As recruitment-and-hiring season nears, I saw a discussion somewhere about how soon after callbacks schools do or should notify those people who will not be hired. People believe schools have at least a courtesy obligation to notify rejected candidates relatively soon after the callback. I see the point, especially for people trying to figure out whether to accept an offer from another school or what their next steps will be. But it is worth noting that different universities, especially public, operate under different rules. Some universities have rules that a candidate is not rejected until the search closes and the search does not close until the job is filled. So while it might be courteous for schools to notify failed candidates soon after it is obvious they will not be hired, it is not always possible.

Separation of powers and judicial aggrandizement

Interesting piece in the Yale Journal of Regulation: Notice and Comment on Justice Sotomayor's  Jarkesy dissent accusing the majority of judicial aggrandizement. The idea is that the Court has aggrandized its power to become the arbiter determining the scope and separation of everyone else's powers, ignoring that the judiciary is an interested actor in the inter-branch dance and dialogue.

I make a similar point in Fed Courts about standing--separation of powers cannot serve as the "single basic idea" supporting standing doctrine, at least in statutory cases. When Congress authorizes a statutory cause of action for judicial resolution and the Court declares that invalid, the Court aggrandizes to itself the power to control the terms of the separation of powers debate. True, standing limits reflect the Court aggrandizing in the name of surrendering and minimizing its future power--judicial aggrandizement in the name of judicial limitation--whereas Loper and Jarkesy aggrandize in the name of adding to the power courts exercise in the future at the expense of the executive. Framed differently, however, judicially imposed standing limits aggrandize the judicial power to stop Congress from telling the courts what to do and when to do it.

Another entry in the jurisprudence-of-sport canon (Updated)

Fischer v. U.S. wins the prize for "decision likely to gain media attention out of all proportion to its actual effect." The Court per the Chief (for Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Jackson) holds that § 1512(c)(2) (enacted in Sarbanes-Oxley) is not a general obstruction statute but is limited to obstruction via doing something to things used in the proceeding, as in § 1512(c)(1). Because Fischer is a January 6 defendant, NBC News interrupted local programming to announce the decision, then say they have no idea how it will affect Trump or any other defendants. According to Ryan Goodman at Just Security, it affects at most 6 % of cases (many of whom may not push the issue) and it does not affect Trump.

Two points about the decision.

• The majority relies on two canons of construction--ejusdem generis (interpret a general catch-all term by reference to the specific terms preceding it) and noscitur a sociis (give a word more precise content by the neighboring words associated with it). I agree with Justice Barrett's dissent (for Sotomayor and Kagan)--neither applies to distinct provisions as opposed to a catch-all word at the end of a list within one provision. But what about in pari materia, requiring that distinct provisions on the same subject be read together? Wouldn't that provide a basis to understand the broad language of (c)(2) in light of the limitations in (c)(1)?

• The case adds a new entry into the jurisprudence-of-sport canon--and perhaps demonstrates the problems when judges talk about sports.

The Chief introduces the following rule in football: A player may not "grab, twist, or pull a facemask, helmet, or other equipment with the intent to injure a player, or otherwise attack, assault, or harm any player.” The Chief insists the "otherwise" clause cannot reach a linebacker trash-talking and hurting the feelings the quarterback, as the otherwise clause must be understood in reference to the dangerous conduct in the prior provision. Justice Jackson concurred to add that the rule cannot reach conduct at the other extreme--a player murdering or poisoning the quarterback would not violate the rule because such conduct is for the criminal law, not the rules of football.*

[*] I think this is wrong. If the linebacker shoots the quarterback, the game would stop and the linebacker would be arrested. But when the game resumes some time later, I would expect the refs to penalize the linebacker's team under this rule, as he did "otherwise attack, assault, or harm" another player. In a less absurd example, imagine the linebacker repeatedly punches the quarterback to the point of unconsciousness. The refs would apply the "otherwise attack, assault, or harm" rule to penalize him as part of the game in the moment, then the criminal law would step in following the game. (This is how it has worked in the rare cases in which states have brought criminal charges for on-field conduct).

Barrett has the better argument on this. The connection between the two provisions of the football rule is closer than between (c)(1) and (c)(2). The football rule reaches all physical conduct directed at and injurious of a player--the first part prohibiting conduct against the player's equipment and the second prohibiting other physical conduct against the player. Section (c)(1) targets objects in the proceeding while (c)(2) targets the proceeding itself.

Barrett then offers her own football rule (she did teach at Notre Dame, after all) and does a better job of it by coming up with a football rule that mirrors § 1512(c):

Any player who:

    (1) punches, chokes, or kicks an opposing player with the intent to remove him from the game; or

    (2) otherwise interrupts, hinders, or interferes with the game,

shall be suspended.

The first clause deal with attacks on the player (which would interfere with the game) while the second deals with acts other than attacking an opposing player that also interfere with the game, such as tackling a referee. Similarly, § (c)(1) deals with attacks on documents that interfere with the proceeding while (c)(2) deals with other acts interfering with the proceeding.

Again, maybe judges need to stop talking about sports.

Update: A reader points me to the opening scene of The Last Boy Scout with Bruce Willis, in which a running back shoots the defenders trying to tackle him as he carries the ball. I added the video after the jump.

 

Admin Law and Fed Courts

A colleague asks how the new administrative-law decision--Loper Bright (overruling Chevron) and Jarkesy (securities fraud claims for civil penalties must be in Article III courts with a jury)--will affect my Civ Pro or Fed Courts courses. Given the siloing of the curriculum, the answer is not much.

For my purposes, Jarkesy is a bigger deal. I spend time on non-Article III tribunals (with a "take Ad Law" admonition), including the public-rights doctrine. Jarkesy represents the first time the Court has rejected public rights as to claims involving the U.S. as sovereign. So last year was relatively easy, as reflected in Sotomayor's dissent--public rights apply to disputes involving the U.S. as sovereign and to private claims intimately tied to a statutory scheme involving public benefits. (Alternatively, I like this framing from John Golden and Thomas Lee). Whatever the uncertainty about the latter category's boundaries, Congress could direct disputes involving the U.S. outside of Article III. Jarkesy destroys that certainty, if the claim (and remedy) can be described as "legal" in some sense. I also will have to introduce something of the Seventh Amendment into that mix.

I do not know enough ad law to comment on how Loper Bright and eliminating Chevron affects Article III courts. Perhaps they will see more cases challenging agency decisions, to the extent Chevron deference deterred some plaintiffs from pursuing more-difficult cases. And obviously the briefing and decisionmaking in those cases will change (as it will in the agencies themselves). It will not affect my course. I leave to others predictions about its effects of both cases on different pieces of the administrative state of non-Article III decisionmaking.

A quick note on the debate

Before I dive into today's opinions:

I did not watch it because I knew how it would go: Trump would not answer the actual questions asked and would ramble and lie; Biden would sound and appear old and occasionally stumble over his words; and the media narrative would focus entirely on the latter while ignoring (or at worst downplaying) the former. From what I have read, the difference is one of degree rather than kind--Biden sounded much worse than anticipated, allowing for the additional narrative of "Biden should drop out" (five NYT op-eds make this point) as another reason to ignore Trump doing exactly what everyone expected him to do.

The law of "Midnight Run"

Midnight Run is a great movie--a buddy/road trip/action-comedy with a surprising heart and amazing performances. It features Robert DeNiro in his first comedy role, Charles Grodin in his career-defining role, and great supporting performances from Yaphet Kotto, Joe Pantoliano, and Dennis Farina. It has a bunch of great quotations and one-liners, including the line that I use to close class ("See you in the next life, Jack.").

"The Duke" (Grodin) is an accountant who embezzles $ 15 million in mob money and donates it to charity; he is arrested in California, then skips on his bond. Jack Walsh ("DeNiro") is a bounty hunter. Moscone (Pantaliono), the bail bondsman who put up a $ 450,000 bond on the Duke, hires Walsh to bring the Duke back from New York to California in three days or he forfeits the bond. Also looking for the Duke are FBI agent Alonzo Mosely (Kotto) who wants him to testify against Jimmy Serrano, the wiseguy from whom he stole, and Serrano (Farina), who wants to kill him for stealing from him and to keep him from testifying. Hijinks ensue.

The latest episode of the Blank Check podcast features an in-depth (almost 3-hour) discussion of the film. Around the 1:25 mark, they attempt to unpack the underlying legal issues and processes driving the plot. As often happens when non-lawyers discuss procedure, it does not go well--including insistence that the "Ninth District" includes California and Nevada and has its home in California where federal crimes are charged. So let me try to unpack the underlying legal process and ask the crim-law folks a few questions. Spoilers, but the movie is 36 years old this summer.

Legal process first, as the case has a quiet federalism theme: The Duke was arrested in California on state embezzlement charges; he lived and worked there and that is where he took the money (although the money belonged to Serrano in Vegas). Moscone needs the Duke to appear in California state court to avoid forfeiting the bond. Mosely wants to get Serrano on federal charges and he wants the Duke in federal custody (and eventually witness protection) to testify against him, without interference from (what he regards as) pissant state charges. Serrano wants to kill the Duke. It creates a narrative triangle--Moscone loses his money if the Duke does not appear because he is killed or taken into federal custody; Mosely loses his federal case against Serrano if the Duke is killed or gets back to California; and Serrano is in federal trouble if the Duke  is taken by the feds and pissed if the Duke gets away with stealing from him. Meanwhile, the Duke fears that Serrano will kill him in any of those situations; only Walsh setting him free and leaving him to his own devices keeps him safe.

So the dueling prosecutions that drive the plot make sense. Nevertheless, the plot raises some legal questions that perhaps crim law readers can answer:

    • Would Moscone forfeit the bond if the Duke does not appear because he is murdered or taken into federal custody as a witness? It seems hard to believe a bondsman loses his money if the bailee is murdered or taken into federal custody. Federal prosecutors should be able to work out the latter with the state court. Anyway, why did Moscone have no collateral to cover all or part of the bond? It makes sense that Moscone needs the Duke to appear and cannot have him on the lamb; it makes less sense if he is worried about Serrano or the feds stopping the Duke from appearing.

    • Put aside whether a state would spend its resources prosecuting an accountant for embezzling from the mob and donating to charity. I do not see why the Duke defending himself in California undermines the Duke serving as a witness in any federal prosecution. The state case should not prevent the feds from pursuing a federal cases against Serrano, as Mosely suggests. There may be timing and administrative concerns, but courts and prosecutors handle those all the time. Maybe the Duke is somehow more vulnerable to Serrano's people in state custody than in federal custody. Again, however, state and federal officials should be able to work out the best way to do this, in terms of timing and security.

    • The movie ends with Walsh tricking Serrano into going to the Airport-formerly-known-as-McCarran to trade the Duke (whom his goons had caught) for incriminating evidence on THE DISKS and with the plan of killing the Duke and Walsh. The idea being that coming to the airport to take the disks (even though they had nothing on them) was an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Plus bringing the Duke to the airport was interstate kidnapping; having armed goons at the airport was conspiracy to commit murder; and doing this in the airport was interstate transport in aid of racketeering. Is that all bullshit?

    • Walsh lets the Duke go at the end, causing Moscone to lose the $ 450k. Would that get Walsh in trouble with the feds? Do the feds need Walsh and/or the Duke to testify as to these particular charges? (I would think he would need the Duke for the kidnapping charge).

Because we never see a courtroom, I do not regard this as yet another movie getting the law wrong. Plus, it's too much fun. But we do have some open questions.

Oops (Updated and Moved to Top)

Final Update: The Court released the opinion Thursday.

SCOTUS [on Wednesday] inadvertently posted the opinion in the EMTALA case, dismissing the writ as improvidently granted and lifting the stay of the district court injunction prohibiting enforcement of the law. (Bloomberg has the story behind a paywall). Bloomberg says the vote was 6-3 (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch dissenting) as to the DIG and stay, although it also says Jackson wrote to say she would not have dismissed (which sounds like a dissent, if the disposition is a DIG).

The upshot is that the district court's preliminary injunction prohibiting Idaho from enforcing its abortion ban remains in effect pending continuing litigation.

Let the conspiracy theories of how this happened bloom.

Update: Bloomberg posted an oddly formatted draft. If it is authentic, here is the deal:

    • Six Justices vote to DIG and lift the stay of the district court injunction. Three vote not to DIG but to keep the stay in place. Jackson votes to keep the stay in place but not to DIG.

    • Kagan concurs with Sotomayor to argue that the Court never should have taken the case and with Sotomayor and Jackson to respond to Alito's dissent, especially his stupid argument (which he previewed during arguments) that the reference to protecting an unborn child means EMTALA does not require abortions.

    • Barrett concurs with the Chief and Kavanaugh to argue the DIG is appropriate because the case changed between the grant of cert and now--both from the U.S. positions as to federal law (especially as to conscience objections) and from Idaho as to the scope, meaning, and application of state law. Given these changes and the "difficult and consequential" argument that the Spending Clause cannot preempt state criminal law, the Ninth Circuit should consider the new issues in the first instance.

    • Jackson argues the Court should decide the case--having taken it, heard argument, and distorted the litigation process, the Court should decide rather than delay the issue. In particular, she criticizes Barrett's view that Idaho's legal representations before SCOTUS have changed state law or how state law will affect doctors in ERs, such that the supposed injuries to Idaho that justified intervention have gone away.

    • Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, explains why EMTALA does not require abortions as a matter of text and the special rules for finding preemption from a Spending Clause enactment. Gorsuch does not join the portion dissenting from the vacatur of the stay.

This clearly illustrates the theory of a 3-3-3 Court. So speculation on what happened at conference and what changed between conference and now? Was the Chief/Kavanaugh/Barrett planning to go with Thomas/Alito/Gorsuch, then Kagan/Sotomayor/Jackson got them to cool their heels for now? Were they willing to delay knowing: 1) President Trump makes this issue go away in 2025 and 2) the DIG leaves in place a Fifth Circuit decision that EMTALA does not preempt, pending the Ninth Circuit creating a true circuit split worthy of review? Did that group not want to hand conservatives another defeat by joining with Sotomayor/Kagan/Jackson, knowing they could wait (see the prior ¶?)? Something else?

To be clear, Justice Jackson is not happy here: "Today's decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is a delay." It gives "a few months--maybe a few years--during which doctors may no longer need to airlift pregnant patients out of Idaho."