I returned this weekend from a glorious time in the Land of Enchantment after speaking to the New Mexico Conclave in Albuquerque of federal, state, and tribal judges and lawyers. I stayed an extra day to hike in New Mexico, an area of unique and breathtaking trails. After looking forward for weeks to my planned hikes, I was crushed to fly into Albuquerque over a raging forest fire. In watching the massive fire from the plane I thought that my hiking plans were shot. I then learned that the temperatures would be in triple digits. Nevertheless, I was able to do two magnificent hikes and look a lot of pictures.
This Supreme Court term, there is something for everyone in the remaining decisions the Justices will deliver in the next few days. I would argue this term there are more “big” and mid-level cases that will affect the widest and most diverse audience of stakeholders in years: women, immigrants, college applicants, (alleged) drunk drivers, police, and skeptical voters. The issues challenged in these cases spotlight timeless debates over states’ rights, political corruption, and the limits of executive action. These topics cut across scores of different constituencies, and the decisions – assuming the Court avoids splitting 4-4 – will significantly impact Americans on both national and state levels.
If you know about the first three big cases it’s likely because those are the ones that got the most media attention. And while immigration, affirmative action, and abortion undoubtedly impact millions of people, so do the last three. Ask anyone if they think low voter turnout has something to do with distrust of elected officials, if they’re afraid of police encounters, or if they know someone who’s been pulled over for suspicion of or received a DUI? Likely they’ll answer “yes” to one, two, or all three. These cases aren’t glamorous. They’re not the ones protesters come out for. But they highlight pedestrian cases that most people have or will experience at some point in their lives, or, if nothing else, care deeply about when watching Law & Order.
A nine-year-old Moses Lake, Washington boy who fell victim to a hit and run driver found some new friends in the city police department.
Last Tuesday Christian Brokke was walking his bicycle in a crosswalk when he was allegedly struck by a 2004 Ford Escape driven by Suzette Brown. Brown reportedly ran a stop sign and struck the boy with enough force to tear the license plate from the vehicle.
Witnesses to the collision reported that Christian remained sprawled on the hood of the car while Brown attempted to flee the scene, falling to the street after fifteen to thirty feet. She then dragged the bicycle under the car for a block before leaving the area.
EMS transported Christian to a local hospital. He suffered head trauma and was later transferred to Sacred Heart Medical center in Spokane for additional treatment.
Fortunately, Christian recovered from his injuries. Officers from Moses Lake decided to go a step further than simply investigating the collision and together bought Christian a new helmet and something every nine-year-old boy wants–a new bicycle.
Disney is facing what would seem to be an overwhelming case for liability in the death of 2-year-old Lane Graves who was killed in a shallow lagoon near his family’s resort rental. The failure to adequately warn tourists and take reasonable steps to address the danger of alligators was clearly negligent in my view. While the last thing that Matt and Melissa Graves will want to think about is liability (and they have at least a year under the statute of limitations), they should sue Disney for the loss of their son.
We have been discussing the arrest of people in other countries for participating in protests to boycott Israel and other measures. These actions raise serious free speech issues. Some states have created laws barring contracts with companies that join the boycott of Israel. Now, a controversial measure has passed the New York Senate that bars the funding of any student groups that encourage boycotts of Israel and other allies as well as those groups involved in “hate speech” and “intolerance.” However, the bill introduced by New York state Senator Jack M. Martins (R-Nassau County) is so ambiguously worded as to defy definition of the underlying violations — a critical flaw under first amendment analysis. However, over the objections of various groups, the bill has garnered growing support among politicians.
I am in Albuquerque, New Mexico today to speak to the 2016 Conclave of state, tribal, and federal judges and lawyers. There is an interesting forum being held nearby at the University of New Mexico where students and faculty are debating the change to the school’s seal which features a Spanish conquistador and a frontiersman. The Native American group The Red Nation have declared the seal to be offensive. Critics are calling the seal a celebration of colonization. The seal is approaching its 50th anniversary at the school. It was adopted in 1969.
Today I will have the honor of speaking to the New Mexico Conclave, an annual conference with New Mexico judges and lawyers in conjunction with the University of New Mexico School of Law. Also speaking at the conference is my old friend Sam Donaldson from ABC News. I will be speaking on the history and reform of the Supreme Court.
The University of Missouri (MU) has been struggling in the aftermath of its Black Lives Matter protests, including the reported plunge in students and applications. It appears that even a vigil for the dead in Orlando at Mizzou inevitably leads to a confrontation over race. The conflict arose in a vigil held in front of Boone County Courthouse in Columbia, Missouri. MU graduate Tiffany Melecio appeared and expressed discomfort over speaking before a group with so many white people. When a gay couple objected to introducing divisive race issues, MU Multicultural Center Coordinator Stephanie Hernandez Rivera defended the comments and denounced the gay couple objecting to the introduction of race into the vigil.
Early this morning, we hit 29,000,000 views. It is an impressive milestone for our blog and its achievement is due to this entire virtual community at RIL. We continue to rank in the top legal blogs in the world and we are continuing to see a growing international readership. We often use these milestones to look at the current profile of the blog and its supporters around the world.
I have previously written about a large number of law firms on retainer to bring these actions and artists and companies that do little to limit them. The greatest problem is the success of this lobby in getting Congress and the Obama Administration to push through virtually any legislation that they demand — criminalizing violations, approving warrantless searches, and allowing for obscene awards. Every year it gets worse as companies claim ownership over common phrases and images — reinforced by these legal factory operations of bullying lawyers. We recently discussed the claim of Citigroup to ownership of “ThankYou.” Now in an all-too-rare ruling, The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld an $81,000 sanction against three lawyers — John Steele, Paul Hansmeier and the late Paul Duffy — for being little more than legal trolls in harassing and threatening people into giving them money for downloading pornography. These three lawyers operated “Prenda law” which was little more than a disgraceful shakedown operation.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit handed down a major tort ruling in throwing out the $1.8 million judgment awarded to former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura. Ventura alleged that he was defamed in the late author Chris Kyle’s bestselling book “American Sniper.” The court cited various errors at trial, including a faulty instruction on the actual malice standard for defamation and the misuse of unjust enrichment as a basis for the damages. The trial showed clear and frankly surprising errors by both Ventura’s counsel and the trial judge.
London’s new mayor, Sadiq Khan, has signaled early in his term that he will continue the state regulation of speech and images that have ravaged free speech in England. He announced an end to the appearance of what he calls “body shaming” advertisements in London’s public transport, advertisements featuring skinny bodies viewed as unrealistic for most women. While some publications have suggested the that move reflects Khan’s Muslim background (he is the first Muslim mayor of London), in my view it reflects a long and disturbing trend in Europe (and particularly England) to regulate and criminalize speech. What some people may view as unrealistic or even demeaning for women, others view as artistic expression in advertising. While this may be the only way I could end up a Benetton model, I have long opposed such rules, which puts the government in the position of policing images to determine what is not demeaning for women.