TORTS TODAY - course materials & news for Torts, Business Torts, Product Liability, and Remedies students of George Conk at Fordham Law School gconk@law.fordham.edu
Tuesday, February 16, 2021
Friday, February 12, 2021
OTHERWISE: Re-reading the Capitol Police Chief's January 6 after action report to Nancy Pelosi
OTHERWISE: Re-reading the Capitol Police Chief's January 6 after action report to Nancy Pelosi: Capitol defended against BLM marchers Capitol police January 6 Former Capitol Chief of Police Steven Sund ten days ago reported to Speake...
Tuesday, February 9, 2021
Dorf on Law: Did the Supreme Court Inadvertently Exempt Movies and Other Secular Expressive Activities From COVID Restrictions?
OTHERWISE: Dorf on Law: Did the Supreme Court Inadvertently Exempt Movies and Other Secular Expressive Activities From COVID Restrictions?:
By Michael C. Dorf (Cornell Law School)
The disparate impact test disparaged for challenges to racial segregation in employment has achieved new life regarding religious freedom, argues Cornell law professor Michael Dorf. The Court has, he notes reserved heightened scrutiny (fatal in fact strict scrutiny) for state actions that "targeted religion for disfavored treatment". But now, he notes, the Court's emergent orders in the South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, Governor of California and other such cases have moved toward s "disparate impact" standard. In such cases the State must prove a "compelling" interest that is served by "narrow" means.
Sunday, February 7, 2021
Elena Kagan - dissenting in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (02/05/2021)
A pandemic Executive Order by the California Governor compelled California churches to meet outdoors. A San Diego congregation protested. The Supreme Court (6-3) blocked the order, tentatively leaving a 25% occupancy limit in place.
Protesting the majority's decision to substitute its own judgment for that of the public health experts informing the Governor, Elena Kagan's conclusion invites discussion of life tenure and the unreviewable power of nine to override expert opinion on control of infectious disease if the court elects to treat it decision as grounded in the Constitution. - GWC
South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (02/05/2021)All this from unelected actors, “not accountable to the people.” South Bay, 590 U. S., at ___ (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring). I fervently hope that the Court’s intervention will not worsen the Nation’s COVID crisis. But if this decision causes suffering, we will not pay. Our marble halls are now closed to the public, and our life tenure forever insulates us from responsibility for our errors. That would seem good reason to avoid disrupting a State’s pandemic response. But the Court forges ahead regardless, insisting that science-based policy yield to judicial edict. I respectfully dissent.
South Bay Pentecostal: Amy Coney Barrett’s surprisingly revealing first opinion - Ian Millhiser - Vox
OTHERWISE: Amy Coney Barrett’s surprisingly revealing first opinion - Ian Millhiser - Vox
By Ian Millhiser
The Supreme Court handed down an unusually messy order Friday night, in a case brought by a church claiming that it should be exempted from several rules California put in place to prevent the spread of Covid-19. The justices split four ways in the case, South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, with members of the Court’s Republican majority divided into three different camps.
Interestingly, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote her first signed opinion since joining the Supreme Court, and her opinion takes a position that is slightly to the left of her most conservative colleagues. Though Barrett’s opinion is still quite conservative, it suggests that there may be some daylight between her views and those of her most reactionary colleagues.
Thursday, February 4, 2021
After Hundreds of Meatpacking Workers Died From COVID-19, Congress Wants Answers — ProPublica
After Hundreds of Meatpacking Workers Died From COVID-19, Congress Wants Answers — ProPublica
A key congressional panel launched an investigation this week into the wave of COVID-19 infections that killed hundreds of workers at meatpacking plants nationwide last year and highlighted longstanding hazards in the industry.
Since the start of the pandemic, the meat industry has struggled to contain the virus in its facilities, and plants in Iowa, South Dakota and Kansas have endured some of the biggest workplace outbreaks in the country.
The meat companies’ employees, many of them immigrants and refugees, slice pig bellies or cut up chicken carcasses in close quarters. Many of them don’t speak English and aren’t granted paid sick leave. To date, more than 50,000 meatpacking workers have been infected and at least 250 have died, according to a ProPublica tally.
The congressional investigation, opened by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, will examine the role of JBS, Smithfield Foods and Tyson Foods, three of the nation’s largest meat companies, which, the subcommittee said, had “refused to take basic precautions to protect their workers” and had “shown a callous disregard for workers’ health.”
The subcommittee is chaired by Rep. James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 Democrat in the House.
In response to the subcommittee's announcement, officials for JBS and Tyson said that the companies had spent hundreds of millions of dollars to implement coronavirus protections and to temporarily increase pay and benefits, and they looked forward to discussing their pandemic safety efforts with the panel. Smithfield said in a statement that it had also taken “extraordinary measures” to protect employees from the virus, spending more than $700 million on workplace modifications, testing and equipment.
Wednesday, February 3, 2021
Supreme Court Cancels Arguments on Border Wall, Asylum Policy
Supreme Court Cancels Arguments on Border Wall, Asylum Policy
The U.S. Supreme Court canceled scheduled arguments over asylum rules and the Mexican border wall after the Biden administration said it is moving to change the Trump administration policies at the center of the disputes.
The court was scheduled to hear arguments Feb. 22 on former President
The other case, which had been set for argument March 1, concerns a policy that has forced almost 70,000 asylum-seekers to stay in Mexico while their applications are being processed. Under Biden, the Department of Homeland Security has stopped adding new people into the so-called Migrant Protection Protocols program, though the administration hasn’t changed the status of previous asylum applicants or lifted pandemic-related restrictions at the border.
To contact the reporter on this story:
| The Republican Argument Against Trying Trump Is Dangerous - Bob Bauer The New York Times
The GOP majority's argument is that a successful effort to stop the coup d'etat deprives the Congress of the ability to bar the leaders of the failed coup from future office holding. As Justice Robert Jackson said in another context - the Constitution is not a suicide pact. - GWC
OTHERWISE: Opinion | The Republican Argument Against Trying Trump Is Dangerous - The New York Times: By Bob Bauer - former White House Counsel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)