This morning I joined KQED’s Forum to talk about the Friedrichs v. CTA case which the Supreme Court will hear next term. The case involves the question of whether the government may force public employees to subsidize unions against their will. You can listen online here. Later on, I talked with Thom Hartmann about the … ...
On Monday, the Supreme Court ordered three federal appellate courts to reconsider their decisions upholding sign restrictions in light of its recent decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert. The Court emphasized in Reed that government regulation of speech is content-based (and thus presumptively unconstitutional) if the law explicitly “draws dist ...
The Washington Examiner published my opinion-editorial yesterday on the Supreme Court’s disappointing decision in Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. Last week, the Court held that the Fair Housing Act (FHA), Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, encompasses claims for disparate impact. ...
Supreme Court to hear teachers’ union politicking case The Supreme Court announced this week that it will hear Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case filed by the Center for Individual Rights. Presently, all public school teachers must contribute their “fair share” to a teachers’ union in California ...
Article III of the United States Constitution allows federal courts to hear only “cases or controversies,” defined as cases brought by plaintiffs who have suffered actual (not speculative) harm that can be redressed by court action. What if a plaintiff’s asserted injury, however, is nothing more than that the defendant violated a ...
Landowners face an uphill battle when they file a lawsuit, claiming that the government took their property. But even after getting a court to rule in their favor, landowners often face the additional challenge of convincing the court to award the full value of what the government took. For example, in Andress Family Florida, L.P. … ...
As we noted here, PLF is involved in two cases to establish whether Army Corps of Engineer’s’ Jurisdictional Determinations (i.e., wetland delineations) are subject to immediate judicial review in court. In Kent Recycling v. Corps (previously Belle v Corps), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that JDs are NOT subject to immediate ...
Today a Ninth Circuit three-judge panel issued a remarkable legal opinion. The bottom line: Decisions to include areas as part of critical habitat for endangered or threatened species under the ESA are judicially reviewable, while decisions not to exclude areas from critical habitat are not judicially reviewable. It’s one heck of a ...
Backwards laws that stifle our economy deserve fresh scrutiny. In a recent paper called “Low-Hanging Fruit Guarded by Dragons,” Brink Lindsey analyzes the evils of regressive regulation, “policies whose primary effect is to inflate the incomes and wealth of the rich, the powerful, and the well-established by shielding them fro ...