Interesting Decisions

Post Reply
User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 1048
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:10 pm

Interesting Decisions

Post by ilovesf » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:49 pm

This is a place where we can post new decisions that we find interesting.


I just read this one this morning about tinder charging people over 30 more than younger members. I didn’t even know they did that. http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B270172.PDF

brut
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:49 am

Re: Interesting Decisions

Post by brut » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:56 pm

ilovesf wrote:
Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:49 pm
This is a place where we can post new decisions that we find interesting.


I just read this one this morning about tinder charging people over 30 more than younger members. I didn’t even know they did that. http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B270172.PDF
Accordingly, we swipe left, and reverse.
:lol:

User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 1048
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:10 pm

Re: Interesting Decisions

Post by ilovesf » Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:59 pm

Those judges are so hip

User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 1048
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:10 pm

Re: Interesting Decisions

Post by ilovesf » Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:02 am

Twitter not liable for isis attacks http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/o ... -17165.pdf


User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 1048
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:10 pm

Re: Interesting Decisions

Post by ilovesf » Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:35 am

That was literally my first post, nebby.

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 4814
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: Interesting Decisions

Post by Nebby » Thu Feb 01, 2018 1:49 pm

ilovesf wrote:
Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:35 am
That was literally my first post, nebby.
jfc I'm terrible

TheWalrus
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:20 pm

Re: Interesting Decisions

Post by TheWalrus » Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:48 pm

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/ ... udity.html

5th circuit looking at Louisiana's ban of strippers under 21.

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:46 pm

Re: Interesting Decisions

Post by Borhas » Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:53 am

The CA COA found the CA DMV administrative per se proceedings (revoke DL when driver had excess BAC) to be unconstitutional.

California DUI Lawyers Association v. California Dep't of Motor Vehicles et al B278092 2nd appellate district
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of- ... 90969.html

Issues were standing and whether the statute which exempted DMV hearing officers from being impartial adjudicators violated due process. DUI Lawyers argued tax payer standing under California law. DMV argued that how they handle HO decisions was approved by statute (it was) therefore it was legal and the DUI Lawyers Assoc didn't have standing (lol). In CA the hearing officers are explicitly characterized as both fact finders AND advocates of the state, but even worse their decisions are subject to ex parte review by a DMV supervisor, meaning even if they decide in favor of a driver some DMV supervisor can override the order without any in put from anyone else.

As a DMV Hearing HO (not California), this brings me warm and fuzzy feelings.

User avatar
Adso
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:26 pm

Re: Interesting Decisions

Post by Adso » Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:21 pm

Supreme Court found that SEC ALJs, and by implication hundreds of other federal ALJs, were appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 0_4f14.pdf

This leaves open the question of whether removal protections of ALJs are also unconstitutional. If so, this case is a step forward in dismantling the administrative state.

User avatar
chargers21
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:38 pm

Re: Interesting Decisions

Post by chargers21 » Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:38 pm

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.desmoi ... /645992002

This was a while ago now, but Iowa SC gave Jess Sessions a stroke by ruling most of the major draws of civil asset forfeiture programs unconstitutional (i.e. taking property without having to prove anything)

User avatar
Adso
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:26 pm

Re: Interesting Decisions

Post by Adso » Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:57 am

Adso wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:21 pm
Supreme Court found that SEC ALJs, and by implication hundreds of other federal ALJs, were appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 0_4f14.pdf

This leaves open the question of whether removal protections of ALJs are also unconstitutional. If so, this case is a step forward in dismantling the administrative state.
In response to the decision in Lucia, Trump has issued an executive order placing ALJs in the excepted service, scrapping the civil service examination process for ALJs: www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions ... e-service/

It sounds like SSA is in chaos as it tries to decide how to prevent hundreds of thousands of appeals from being brought back from the dead on the ground that they were decided by unconstitutionally appointed ALJs.

User avatar
stego
Posts: 2248
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: Interesting Decisions

Post by stego » Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:49 pm

Adso wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:57 am
Adso wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:21 pm
Supreme Court found that SEC ALJs, and by implication hundreds of other federal ALJs, were appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 0_4f14.pdf

This leaves open the question of whether removal protections of ALJs are also unconstitutional. If so, this case is a step forward in dismantling the administrative state.
In response to the decision in Lucia, Trump has issued an executive order placing ALJs in the excepted service, scrapping the civil service examination process for ALJs: www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions ... e-service/

It sounds like SSA is in chaos as it tries to decide how to prevent hundreds of thousands of appeals from being brought back from the dead on the ground that they were decided by unconstitutionally appointed ALJs.
Did all the unconstitutionally appointed ALJs lose their jobs? This seems really problematic.

User avatar
Adso
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:26 pm

Re: Interesting Decisions

Post by Adso » Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:48 pm

stego wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:49 pm
Adso wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:57 am
Adso wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:21 pm
Supreme Court found that SEC ALJs, and by implication hundreds of other federal ALJs, were appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/1 ... 0_4f14.pdf

This leaves open the question of whether removal protections of ALJs are also unconstitutional. If so, this case is a step forward in dismantling the administrative state.
In response to the decision in Lucia, Trump has issued an executive order placing ALJs in the excepted service, scrapping the civil service examination process for ALJs: www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions ... e-service/

It sounds like SSA is in chaos as it tries to decide how to prevent hundreds of thousands of appeals from being brought back from the dead on the ground that they were decided by unconstitutionally appointed ALJs.
Did all the unconstitutionally appointed ALJs lose their jobs? This seems really problematic.
In the case of the SEC, the commissioners simply ratified their prior appointments of their ALJs, apparently complying with the Appointments Clause. Lucia didn't explicitly implicate other ALJs, but it's a good bet that Lucia would also affect their appointments too because the duties and discretion of ALJs across the board are comparable. Accordingly, SSA - by far the largest employer of ALJs - also ratified the prior appointments of their ALJs. Other agencies will probably follow if they haven't already.

The lingering elephant in the room is the constitutionality of removal protections for ALJs. The case law suggests that if ALJs must be appointed by the President/Head of Department, they may also be removed by the President/Head of Department. Currently, ALJs enjoy extensive protections from removal. Stripping a good measure of these protections will allow the President and his high level political appointees to not only appoint but remove ALJs with much greater ease.

We can already see the nefarious effects these developments could have in the Board of Veteran Appeals. Recently, new Veterans Law Judges (statutory cousins of ALJs) were appointed based on their political affiliation. Candidates who were Democrat were asked to become independent or Republicans. As a result, all of the new VLJs were Republican or independent. With less protections from removal, it's conceivable that a VLJ could be removed for purely political reasons as well. BVA may very well be a testing ground for the administration's politicizing of ALJs.

User avatar
stego
Posts: 2248
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: Interesting Decisions

Post by stego » Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:23 pm

A big pet peeve of mine is when lay news articles about court cases refuse to cite the case name (at least the named parties). It seems especially egregious when the case is just “Texas v. United States.”

Haven’t read the decision yet, but it seems like a really bad logical leap to me. Like if the individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax, and then it gets turned into a $0 tax, the proper conclusion to me is not “the individual mandate is unconstitutional,” it’s “the individual mandate no longer exists.”

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 4814
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:24 pm

Re: Interesting Decisions

Post by Nebby » Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:27 pm

Oh, and then take it a step further and literally hold the entire thing unconstitutional even though none of the provisions hinge on the mandate and are entirely severable. That judge is a fucking loon (fedsoc bros jumping for joy that pretense in judicial opinions is slowly going out the window)

User avatar
stego
Posts: 2248
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: Interesting Decisions

Post by stego » Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:44 pm

IDK Belgian law so not totally sure what's going on in this case but a Belgian priest got a 1-month suspended sentence for failing to prevent a man from committing suicide. The priest's defense was based on the secrecy of confession. I'm not sure if that means a priest cannot seek help if a confessor tells him he plans to harm himself or what?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-belg ... i0hgzCrZi8

User avatar
ymmv
Posts: 8713
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:24 am
Contact:

Re: Interesting Decisions

Post by ymmv » Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:55 pm

Doesn’t sound all that different from Tarasoff reasoning at a second’s glance.

User avatar
stego
Posts: 2248
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: Interesting Decisions

Post by stego » Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:58 pm

ymmv wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:55 pm
Doesn’t sound all that different from Tarasoff reasoning at a second’s glance.
Right, it doesn't, I'm just confused about if the priest is just arguing that he can't present evidence (which is fair, but not sure how that's a defense if the state can prove he knew the man's intent), or if he's actually arguing that he literally can't do anything to help because of confessional secrecy.

User avatar
Nony
Posts: 3889
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:34 pm

Re: Interesting Decisions

Post by Nony » Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:14 pm

Pretty sure secrecy of the confession(al) means he can’t reveal anything he found out via confession, which could include actually taking action to prevent the guy from committing suicide, as that would reveal what the guy told him. (Like in theory I suppose driving over to the guys house and forcibly restraining him wouldn’t count, but then what? How does he actually take action without having to explain what the guy said?)

User avatar
bvest
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:05 pm

Re: Interesting Decisions

Post by bvest » Mon Dec 24, 2018 3:56 am

Texas's mandatory reporting law for child abuse does not have an exception for clergy/confession. I'm not sure about for things like suicide.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest