With last week’s Constitution Day conference behind us (watch it here) — and the release of the 2008-2009 Cato Supreme Court Review — I can finally escape the office where I’ve been holed up all summer. Yes, it’s time to go on the road and talk about all these wonderful legal issues we’ve learned about over the past year, as well as previewing the new Supreme Court term.
To that end, below is my fall speaking schedule so far. All these events are sponsored by the Federalist Society (and in some cases co-sponsored by other organizations) and all are open to the public.
If you decide to attend one of the presentations after learning of it from this blog post, please feel free to drop me a line beforehand, and do introduce yourself after the event.
Sept. 24 at 11:50am – DePaul Law School, Chicago – Debate on the Second Amendment post-Heller
Sept. 24 at 4:30pm – Chicago-Kent School of Law – Panel on Rule of Law in Iraq
Sept. 29 at 5:00pm – University of Cincinnati Law School - Rule of Law and Economic Development
Sept. 30 at 12:00pm – Capital University Law School (Columbus, OH) – Review of October Term 2008/Preview of October Term 2009
Sept. 30 at 3:30pm – Ohio Northern School of Law (Ada, OH) – Debate on Ricci and Affirmative Action in Employment
Oct. 1 at 12:00pm – University of Toledo Law School – Debate on Ricci and Affrimative Action in Employment
Oct. 1 at 5:00pm – Thomas M. Cooley Law School (Auburn Hills, MI) – Immigration and the Constitution
Oct. 5 at 12:00pm – University of Pennsylvania Law School – Debate on the Use of Foreign Law in Constitutional Interpretation
Oct.6 at 5:30pm – Blank Rome LLP in Philadelphia (Federalist Society Lawyers Chapter; small admission fee) – Panel on Rule of Law in Iraq
Oct. 8 at 1:00pm – Penn State-Dickinson Law School (University Park) – October Term 2009 Preview
Oct. 13 at 5:15pm – George Mason University Law School (Arlington, VA) – October Term 2009 Preview
Oct. 26 at 12:00pm – Florida International University Law School (Miami) – Topic TBA
Oct. 27 at 12:30pm – University of Miami Law School – Topic TBA
[Cross-posted at Cato's blog.]
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Use Only U.S. Law to Interpret the U.S. Constitution
This fall, the Supreme Court will hear two cases involving Eighth Amendment challenges to the sentencing of juveniles to life without parole (”LWOP”) – Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida — claims that these types of sentences are “cruel and unusual.” Cato takes no position on the wisdom of these types of sentences, but when evaluating their constitutionality the Court should only consider American law.
That is, regardless of the criminological or moral merits of juvenile LWOP sentences, the Supreme Court ought not consider non-binding provisions of international human rights treaties and customary international law in its analysis (as it has in cases like Roper v. Simmons and Atkins v. Virginia). To that end, Cato joined the Solidarity Center for Law and Justice, the Sovereignty Network, and 10 other groups in a brief urging the Court to limit its constitutional analysis to domestic law and the decisions of U.S. courts.
Our brief argues that the Court should leave to the political branches the decision of whether to transform international norms into domestic law and only allow duly ratified international agreements to override domestic law — in the way the Court has set out in cases such as Medellin v. Texas. It further contends that if the Court believes this is one of the rare cases where international norms are relevant, it should follow the test it laid out in Sosa v. Alvarez Machain, which addressed the (unrelated) Alien Tort Statute: The relevant norm must be widely accepted by the civilized world and as clearly defined as the historic “law of nations” norms regarding safe conduct permits, ambassadorial rights, and piracy on the high seas.
The brief also cautions that reliance on non-binding and indefinite international norms will undermine the democratic process and rule of law, casting considerable uncertainty over many U.S. laws.
More generally, while looking to foreign and international example is prudent when designing constitutions and drafting legislation — or even adjudicating complex international legal disputes — it is simply not relevant to interpreting the nation’s founding document.
[Cross-posted at Cato's blog.]
That is, regardless of the criminological or moral merits of juvenile LWOP sentences, the Supreme Court ought not consider non-binding provisions of international human rights treaties and customary international law in its analysis (as it has in cases like Roper v. Simmons and Atkins v. Virginia). To that end, Cato joined the Solidarity Center for Law and Justice, the Sovereignty Network, and 10 other groups in a brief urging the Court to limit its constitutional analysis to domestic law and the decisions of U.S. courts.
Our brief argues that the Court should leave to the political branches the decision of whether to transform international norms into domestic law and only allow duly ratified international agreements to override domestic law — in the way the Court has set out in cases such as Medellin v. Texas. It further contends that if the Court believes this is one of the rare cases where international norms are relevant, it should follow the test it laid out in Sosa v. Alvarez Machain, which addressed the (unrelated) Alien Tort Statute: The relevant norm must be widely accepted by the civilized world and as clearly defined as the historic “law of nations” norms regarding safe conduct permits, ambassadorial rights, and piracy on the high seas.
The brief also cautions that reliance on non-binding and indefinite international norms will undermine the democratic process and rule of law, casting considerable uncertainty over many U.S. laws.
More generally, while looking to foreign and international example is prudent when designing constitutions and drafting legislation — or even adjudicating complex international legal disputes — it is simply not relevant to interpreting the nation’s founding document.
[Cross-posted at Cato's blog.]
Monday, September 21, 2009
Prosecutors Should Not Be Allowed to Fabricate Evidence
In 1977, county attorney David Richter and assistant county attorney Joseph Hrvol worked side by side with police to investigate and “solve” the notorious murder of a former police officer in Pottawattamie County, Iowa. The prosecutors fabricated evidence and used it to charge and convict Curtis McGhee and Terry Harrington, sending them to prison for 25 years.
After the convictions were overturned for prosecutorial misconduct, McGhee and Harrington sued the county and prosecutors. The defendants in that civil suit invoked the absolute immunity generally afforded prosecutors to try to escape liability. After the Eighth Circuit ruled against them, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.
On Friday, Cato joined the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the ACLU on a brief supporting the men unjustly imprisoned. We argue that prosecutors should be responsible for their role in manufacturing a false “case,” just as police officers would be under the same circumstances. As the Court has held, prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity only during the prosecutorial phase of a case, not its investigatory phase. Were prosecutors to receive absolute immunity here, citizens would have no protection from or recourse against prosecutors who frame the innocent by fabricating evidence and then using that evidence to convict them.
To read Cato’s brief in the case of Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, see here.
[Cross-posted at Cato's blog.]
After the convictions were overturned for prosecutorial misconduct, McGhee and Harrington sued the county and prosecutors. The defendants in that civil suit invoked the absolute immunity generally afforded prosecutors to try to escape liability. After the Eighth Circuit ruled against them, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.
On Friday, Cato joined the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the ACLU on a brief supporting the men unjustly imprisoned. We argue that prosecutors should be responsible for their role in manufacturing a false “case,” just as police officers would be under the same circumstances. As the Court has held, prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity only during the prosecutorial phase of a case, not its investigatory phase. Were prosecutors to receive absolute immunity here, citizens would have no protection from or recourse against prosecutors who frame the innocent by fabricating evidence and then using that evidence to convict them.
To read Cato’s brief in the case of Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, see here.
[Cross-posted at Cato's blog.]
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
"We Don’t Put Our First Amendment Rights In the Hands of FEC Bureaucrats"
I (and several colleagues) have blogged before about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the latest campaign finance case, which was argued this morning at the Supreme Court. The case is about much more than whether a corporation can release a movie about a political candidate during an election campaign. Indeed, it goes to the very heart of the First Amendment, which was specifically created to protect political speech—the kind most in danger of being censored by politicians looking to limit the appeal of threatening candidates and ideas.
After all, hard-hitting political speech is something the First Amendment’s authors experienced firsthand. They knew very well what they were doing in choosing free and vigorous debate over government-filtered pablum. Moreover, persons of modest means often pool their resources to speak through ideological associations like Citizens United. That speech too should not be silenced because of nebulous concerns about “level playing fields” and speculation over the “appearance of corruption.” The First Amendment simply does not permit the government to handicap speakers based on their wealth, or ration speech in a quixotic attempt to equalize public debate: Thankfully, we do not live in the world of Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron!
A few surprises came out of today’s hearing, but not regarding the ultimate outcome of this case. It is now starkly clear that the Court will rule 5-4 to strike down the FEC’s attempt to regulate the Hillary Clinton movie (and advertisements for it). Indeed, Solicitor General Elena Kagan — in her inaugural argument in any court — all but conceded that independent movies are not electioneering communications subject to campaign finance laws. And she reversed the government’s earlier position that even books could be banned if they expressly supported or opposed a candidate! (She went on to also reverse the government’s position on two other key points: whether nonprofit corporations (and perhaps small enterprises) could be treated differently than large for-profit business, and what the government’s compelling interest was in prohibiting corporations from using general treasury funds on independent political speech.)
Ted Olson, arguing for Citizens United, quickly recognized that he had his five votes, and so pushed for a broader opinion. That is, the larger — and more interesting — question is whether the Court will throw out altogether its 16-year-old proscription on corporations and unions spending their general treasury funds on political speech. Given the vehement opposition to campaign finance laws often expressed by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, all eyes were on Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, in whose jurisprudence some have seen signs of judicial “minimalism.” The Chief Justice’s hostility to the government’s argument — “we don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats” — and Justice Alito’s skepticism about the weight of the two precedents at issue leads me to believe that there’s a strong likelihood we’ll have a decision that sweeps aside yet another cornerstone of the speech-restricting campaign finance regime.
One other thing to note: Justice Sotomayor, participating in her first argument since joining the Court, indicated three things: 1) she has doubts that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals; 2) she believes strongly in stare decisis, even when a constitutional decision might be wrong; and 3) she cares a lot about deferring to the “democratic process.” While it is still much too early to be making generalizations about how she’ll behave now that she doesn’t answer to a higher Court, these three points suggest that she won’t be a big friend of liberty in the face of government “reform.”
Another (less serious) thing to note: My seat — in the last row of the Supreme Court bar members area — was almost directly in front of Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold (who were seated in the first row of the public gallery). I didn’t notice this until everyone rose to leave, or I would’ve tried to gauge their reaction to certain parts of the argument.
Finally, you can find the briefs Cato has filed in the case here and here.
[Cross-posted at Cato's blog.]
After all, hard-hitting political speech is something the First Amendment’s authors experienced firsthand. They knew very well what they were doing in choosing free and vigorous debate over government-filtered pablum. Moreover, persons of modest means often pool their resources to speak through ideological associations like Citizens United. That speech too should not be silenced because of nebulous concerns about “level playing fields” and speculation over the “appearance of corruption.” The First Amendment simply does not permit the government to handicap speakers based on their wealth, or ration speech in a quixotic attempt to equalize public debate: Thankfully, we do not live in the world of Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron!
A few surprises came out of today’s hearing, but not regarding the ultimate outcome of this case. It is now starkly clear that the Court will rule 5-4 to strike down the FEC’s attempt to regulate the Hillary Clinton movie (and advertisements for it). Indeed, Solicitor General Elena Kagan — in her inaugural argument in any court — all but conceded that independent movies are not electioneering communications subject to campaign finance laws. And she reversed the government’s earlier position that even books could be banned if they expressly supported or opposed a candidate! (She went on to also reverse the government’s position on two other key points: whether nonprofit corporations (and perhaps small enterprises) could be treated differently than large for-profit business, and what the government’s compelling interest was in prohibiting corporations from using general treasury funds on independent political speech.)
Ted Olson, arguing for Citizens United, quickly recognized that he had his five votes, and so pushed for a broader opinion. That is, the larger — and more interesting — question is whether the Court will throw out altogether its 16-year-old proscription on corporations and unions spending their general treasury funds on political speech. Given the vehement opposition to campaign finance laws often expressed by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, all eyes were on Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, in whose jurisprudence some have seen signs of judicial “minimalism.” The Chief Justice’s hostility to the government’s argument — “we don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats” — and Justice Alito’s skepticism about the weight of the two precedents at issue leads me to believe that there’s a strong likelihood we’ll have a decision that sweeps aside yet another cornerstone of the speech-restricting campaign finance regime.
One other thing to note: Justice Sotomayor, participating in her first argument since joining the Court, indicated three things: 1) she has doubts that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals; 2) she believes strongly in stare decisis, even when a constitutional decision might be wrong; and 3) she cares a lot about deferring to the “democratic process.” While it is still much too early to be making generalizations about how she’ll behave now that she doesn’t answer to a higher Court, these three points suggest that she won’t be a big friend of liberty in the face of government “reform.”
Another (less serious) thing to note: My seat — in the last row of the Supreme Court bar members area — was almost directly in front of Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold (who were seated in the first row of the public gallery). I didn’t notice this until everyone rose to leave, or I would’ve tried to gauge their reaction to certain parts of the argument.
Finally, you can find the briefs Cato has filed in the case here and here.
[Cross-posted at Cato's blog.]
Friday, September 4, 2009
What Is "Unreasonable" Compensation? And Who Gets to Decide?
As could be expected, the effects of the financial crisis — and people’s reaction thereto — are starting to make their way to the least political branch of government, the judiciary. The Supreme Court this term will be hearing several cases that could have serious repercussions on our economic recovery, one of which led us to file an amicus brief. Here’s the situation:
The Investment Company Act of 1940 places on investment advisers a fiduciary duty with respect to the compensation they receive for the services they provide their clients. In the case of Jones v. Harris Associates, shareholders in various mutual funds contend that their adviser fees were excessive and violated the ICA. The Seventh Circuit, the federal appellate court based in Chicago, affirmed the judgment of the district court that the fees were not excessive but also expressly disapproved of the methodology for evaluating such claims used by the Second Circuit (based in New York). Judge Frank Easterbrook’s opinion explains that the ICA creates a fiduciary duty but does not act as a rate regulator, and that judicial price-setting does not accompany fiduciary duties. Judge Richard Posner, writing for five judges, dissented from the denial of an en banc rehearing. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case to settle the circuit split.
Our brief supports the investment adviser and makes three arguments:
The Investment Company Act of 1940 places on investment advisers a fiduciary duty with respect to the compensation they receive for the services they provide their clients. In the case of Jones v. Harris Associates, shareholders in various mutual funds contend that their adviser fees were excessive and violated the ICA. The Seventh Circuit, the federal appellate court based in Chicago, affirmed the judgment of the district court that the fees were not excessive but also expressly disapproved of the methodology for evaluating such claims used by the Second Circuit (based in New York). Judge Frank Easterbrook’s opinion explains that the ICA creates a fiduciary duty but does not act as a rate regulator, and that judicial price-setting does not accompany fiduciary duties. Judge Richard Posner, writing for five judges, dissented from the denial of an en banc rehearing. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case to settle the circuit split.
Our brief supports the investment adviser and makes three arguments:
- All persons have a fundamental human right to whatever compensation their contracting partners freely and honestly choose to pay them.
- Courts have no power to second-guess the reasonableness of any salary or compensation agreement honestly and freely signed by both contracting parties.
- The ICA’s fiduciary duty requires only fair dealing, not any particular outcome.
Thanks to Cato adjunct scholar Tim Sandefur for spearheading this effort, and to Cato intern Matthew Aichele for helping with much of the attendant busywork.
[Cross-posted at Cato's blog.]
Beach v. Florida
Cato Adjunct Scholar and Pacific Legal Foundation Senior Staff Attorney Tim Sandefur published an excellent op-ed in the National Law Journal this week on the upcoming Supreme Court case Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection:
It is well-worth a full read here.
Despite the dreadful decision in the Kelo case several years ago, the fight to maintain the fundamental right to private property continues in our courts and legislatures. Tim and PLF have been doing yeoman’s work in the fight for property rights, and I am proud to team Cato up with them and the NFIB Legal Center in filing an amicus brief on behalf of the rightful property owners in this case. You can download the PDF of the brief here.
[Cross-posted from Cato's blog.]
The case involves a Florida statute determining the boundaries of
oceanfront property. Under a 1961 law, the state drew a brand-new line
separating public and private land on certain beaches, meaning that some land
that would have been privately owned would belong instead to the state. A group
of property owners filed suit, arguing that the law deprived them of property
without just compensation, violating the state and federal
constitutions.
Last December, Florida’s highest court rejected their arguments. It held
that, while the new boundary gave the state ownership of the beach land, the
former owners actually had no such right to begin with. Despite more than a
century of Florida law to the contrary, the court announced that the owners
actually only had a right to “access” the ocean, and because the state promised
to allow them to keep crossing the land to reach the water, it actually hadn’t
taken anything away when it seized the land itself.
Thus, by simply reinterpreting state property law, the court allowed the
state to take property without compensation with a mere stroke of a pen. Yet the
U.S. Constitution forbids states from confiscating property – even through legal
legerdemain – without payment.
[...]
[T]he U.S. Constitution also guarantees every American’s right to due
process of law and to protection of private property. If state judges can
arbitrarily rewrite a state’s property laws, those guarantees would be
meaningless. More than four decades ago, Justice Potter Stewart warned that,
without a constitutional limit on the states’ power to determine the nature of
property, states could “defeat the constitutional prohibition against taking
property without due process of law by the simple device of asserting
retroactively that the property it has taken never existed at all.”
It is well-worth a full read here.
Despite the dreadful decision in the Kelo case several years ago, the fight to maintain the fundamental right to private property continues in our courts and legislatures. Tim and PLF have been doing yeoman’s work in the fight for property rights, and I am proud to team Cato up with them and the NFIB Legal Center in filing an amicus brief on behalf of the rightful property owners in this case. You can download the PDF of the brief here.
[Cross-posted from Cato's blog.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
