Dear College and University Presidents: We write in response to the recent protests that have spread across our nation’s university and college campuses, and the disturbing arrests that have followed. We understand that as leaders of your campus communities, it can be extraordinarily difficult to navigate the pressures you face from politicians, donors, and faculty and students alike. You also have legal obligations to combat discrimination and a responsibility to maintain order. But as you fashion responses to the activism of your students (and faculty and staff), it is essential that you not sacrifice principles of academic freedom and free speech that are core to the educational mission of your respected institution. The ACLU helped establish the right to protest as a central pillar of the First Amendment. We have defended those principles for more than a century. The First Amendment compels public universities and colleges to respect free speech rights. And while the…

[Reasonable SWAT mistakes, lying forensic pathologists, and de minimis injuries. ] Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice. New on the Bound By Oath podcast: We get neuroanthropological, philosophical, and just a tad practical – and determine conclusively that property rights are a good thing and property isn't theft. New on the Short Circuit podcast: Special guest Michel Paradis of Columbia Law (among other affiliations) gives us a lesson on secret submersibles and FOIA responses. During the COVID-19 pandemic, three employees at Whole Foods start wearing masks with Black Lives Matters slogans. Corporate policy forbids masks with any slogans, but the employees persist, eventually racking up enough disciplinary infractions to be fired. They sue, alleging they were discriminated against for their pro-Black message. First Circuit: Maybe one of them was; her final disciplinary…

Enlarge (credit: Getty Images | NurPhoto) TikTok owner ByteDance is preparing to sue the US government now that President Biden has signed into law a bill that will ban TikTok in the US if its Chinese owner doesn't sell the company within 270 days. While it's impossible to predict the outcome with certainty, law professors speaking to Ars believe that ByteDance will have a strong First Amendment case in its lawsuit against the US. One reason for this belief is that just a few months ago, a US District Court judge blocked a Montana state law that attempted to ban TikTok. In October 2020, another federal judge in Pennsylvania blocked a Trump administration order that would have banned TikTok from operating inside the US. TikTok also won a preliminary injunction against Trump in US District Court for the District of Columbia in September 2020. "Courts have said that a TikTok ban is a First Amendment problem," Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman,…

[My October 2023 posts on the roots of far-left support for Hamas and the reasons why some "cancellations" are justified remain sadly relevant.] Anti-Israel protest encampment at Columbia University. (AP)  Recent conflicts over anti-Israel protests at college campuses highlight the ongoing relevance of issues I addressed in two posts written back in October, in the immediate aftermath of the horrific October 7 Hamas terrorist attack: "Some Cancellations are Justified," Oct. 15, 2023 "Far-Left Support for Hamas is not an Aberration" Oct. 30, 2023 The first explained why some "cancellations" of people with abhorrent views are justified, depending on the nature of the views, the type of job they are barred from, and whether stigmatization is likely to be an effective tactic in dealing with these ideologies.. I had in mind people who supported the Hamas terrorist attack and others with comparably awful views. which surely includes…

IN THE NEWS President Biden signed a bill into law that requires the Chinese company Bytedance to divest from TikTok within nine months. Under the law, Bytedance must give up its control of the social media app, the app will be banned from U.S. app stores. The Chief Executive Office of TikTok, Shou Chew, stated that the company will be challenging the constitutionality of the law. In the same statement, Chew also explained that the ban was “ironic” because “the freedom of expression on TikTok reflects the same American values that make the United States a beacon of freedom.” The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a final rule banning noncompete clauses—provisions in employment contracts that restrict certain post-employment competitive activities. The rule prevents employers from entering into any new noncompete agreements and prohibits employers from enforcing existing noncompete agreements, except for employees who are senior…

Brian Sheppard (Seton Hall Law School), Andrew Moshirnia (Monash University - Department of Business Law & Taxation), Charles A. Sullivan (Seton Hall Law School), & Brian Christopher Jones (University of Liverpool - School of Law & Social Justice) have posted We Give Laws a Bad Name: An Empirical Examination of How Misleading Law and PAC Names Pollute Legal Perception (Texas A&M Law Review (Forthcoming)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: Journalists and commentators have dismissed acronym-titled laws like the SAFE Act (Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement) and slogan-based political action committee (“PAC”) names like Americans for America as window dressing concocted by uncreative political operatives. Beyond the fact that law titles and PAC names have become punching bags in the press, they share another quality: they both appear with frequency in political ads about ballot initiatives and sometimes appear on ballots, themselves.…

[Reasonable SWAT mistakes, lying forensic pathologists, and de minimis injuries. ] Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice. New on the Bound By Oath podcast: We get neuroanthropological, philosophical, and just a tad practical – and determine conclusively that property rights are a good thing and property isn't theft. New on the Short Circuit podcast: Special guest Michel Paradis of Columbia Law (among other affiliations) gives us a lesson on secret submersibles and FOIA responses. During the COVID-19 pandemic, three employees at Whole Foods start wearing masks with Black Lives Matters slogans. Corporate policy forbids masks with any slogans, but the employees persist, eventually racking up enough disciplinary infractions to be fired. They sue, alleging they were discriminated against for their pro-Black message. First Circuit: Maybe one of them was; her final disciplinary…

First, thanks to the Washington State Bar group that invited me to speak at its midyear meeting last week. I hope everyone enjoyed learning all the vitally important facts I presented. Thanks also to the TSA for not reminding me my driver’s license was expired, which I realized only after landing in Seattle, so I was unable to rent a car; the cab driver who scammed me out of $20 and in doing so made me miss the last bus to the location; the Washington State Bar group again for agreeing to let me appear remotely; and the Doubletree at Seatac Airport for leaving Meeting Room 13 unlocked. (The wifi signal I stole left something to be desired, but otherwise it was a very nice facility.) In other news, Variety reports that the two jokers who sued Universal Studios claiming that a movie trailer misled them into believing Ana de Armas would appear in the film Yesterday have finally dropped the lawsuit. According to the report, de Armas did appear briefly in the trailer…

CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION CASES Vol. 89, No. 4 April 2024 A Report of En Banc and Significant Panel Decisions of the WCAB and Selected Court Opinions of Related Interest, With a Digest of WCAB Decisions Denied Judicial Review CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE Appellate Court Case Not Originating with Appeals Board LexisNexis Online Subscribers: You can link to your account on Lexis+ to read the complete headnotes and court decisions, en banc decisions, writ denied summaries, panel decisions and IMR decisions. JUST CLICK ON THE CASE NAMES BELOW… NorGUARD Insurance Co. v. Velazquez (6th—H050725) Civil Actions—Employer’s Lien Rights—Jurisdiction—Court of Appeal, affirming trial court’s denial of appellant’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion seeking to strike workers’ compensation insurance carrier’s (carrier) breach of contract claim, held that appellant, who filed personal injury action against…

This is another election integrity case. The plaintiff, Eric Coomer, worked for Dominion Voting. A conspiracy theory alleged that he planned to throw the 2020 presidential election against Trump. He sued various conspiracy theory traffickers for defamation. You would recognize several of the defendants’ names as frequent sources of misinformation and lies. The court holds that Coomer’s defamation allegations survive an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. This post focuses only on one corner of the lawsuit. Eric Trump and Donald Trump both tweeted links to materials containing the allegedly defamatory statements. The court says Section 230 protects these tweets. Here is Eric Trump’s tweet: (Today, Twitter strips all metadata about the linked article other than the preview image. In 2020, there would have been more preview information of the linked article. It’s a testament to my dedication to my readers that I braved going to Eric Trump’s feed on…

It took just two years for the idea of an anti-SLAPP statute to go from a grassroots movement in the UK to its realisation in legislation. There are obvious problems with the resulting anti-SLAPP provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (“ECCTA”), and the more general “SLAPPs Bill”, currently at the Committee Stage. Both are overinclusive in their definition of “SLAPPs”, and the burden they place on claimants is likely to lead to problems with access to justice. But what should be done about SLAPPs?  SLAPPs under the existing law It may be thought that recent reforms in defamation law—a favourite action for SLAPP claimants as it immediately puts the defendant on the back foot of having to prove complex factual matters—have effectively addressed the problem of SLAPPs. But SLAPPs need to be addressed early in proceedings before the threat of a costly and protracted trial can have a chilling effect…

A letter co-ordinated by the Anti-SLAPP Coalition to Justice Secretary Alex Chalk seeks an amendment to the anti-SLAPP bill making its way through Parliament. The letter, signed by editors from publishers like The Times, Guardian and Daily Mail, requests that an objective test be used to determine the intent of the claimant, rather than the subjective test currently proposed. The letter argues a subjective test is “notoriously difficult, time-intensive, expensive and uncertain process that would undermine the effective operation of the protections the law provides”. Read the National Union of Journalists summary here. The Press Gazette has more information here. The Media Law Podcast responds to the letter in its latest Newscast episode. On 5 April 2024 Deputy High Court Judge Richard Spearman KC made an order rejecting all applications made by controversial YouTuber Adil Raja and found that Raja had published statements which were seriously defamatory of Rashid…

CHARGES. CALIF LAWMAKERS WILL BE TALKING ABOUT SOME NEW LEGISLATION THIS WEEK THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE USE OF NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS WHEN NEGOTIATING STATE LAWS. TY STEELE IS HERE NOW WITH WHAT’S NEXT FOR THIS PROPOSAL AND EDIE THAT PROPOSAL IS THE RESULT OF OUR REPORTING BY CAPITOL CORRESPONDENT ASHLEY ZAVALA ON HOW NDAS WERE USED IN THE FINAL NEGOTIATIONS OF CALIFORNIA’S FAST FOOD LABOR LAW, ASSEMBLY BILL 2654 WOULD PROHIBIT LAWMAKERS, LOBBYISTS AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES FROM SIGNING, REQUESTING OR DRAFTING NDAS DURING THE LEGISLATIVE NEGOTIATION PROCESS. DOING SO COULD BE A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. REPUBLICAN ASSEMBLYMAN VINCE FONG WROTE. THIS PROPOSAL, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE CHANGING THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1974, THAT MEANS IT WILL NEED A TWO THIRDS VOTE FROM THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR’S APPROVAL. THE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS COMMITTEE WILL HAVE A SPECIAL HEARING ON THURSDAY RIGHT AFTER THE FLOOR SESSION, TO HEAR JUST THIS. BILL AND OUR CAPITOL…

THIS IS KCRA THREE NEWS AT FOUR. THE PROPOSAL TO BAN NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS DURING LAWMAKING NEGOTIATIONS HAS OFFICIALLY BEEN WRITTEN INTO A BILL AT THE STATE CAPITOL. THE PROPOSAL IS THE RESULT OF OUR REPORTING ON THE USE OF NDAS IN THE MAKING OF CALIFORNIA’S NEW FAST FOOD LABOR LAW, KCRA THREE CAPITOL CORRESPONDENT ASHLEY ZAVALA BROKE THAT STORY. SHE’S BEEN ON IT FROM THE GET GO. SHE’S HERE NOW WITH SOME NEW INFORMATION ON EXACTLY WHAT THE NEW PROPOSAL WOULD DO. AND THERE’S ALREADY SOME UNCERTAINTY. YEAH, THERE’S ALREADY UNCERTAINTY. THERE’S ALREADY OPPOSITION. WE WILL GET INTO THAT MOMENTARILY. FOLLOWING OUR REPORTING LAST MONTH ON ALL OF THIS, REPUBLICAN ASSEMBLYMAN VINCE FONG VOWED TO PUT TOGETHER A PROPOSED STATE LAW PROHIBITING THE USE OF NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS IN THESE LEGISLATIVE NEGOTIATIONS. NOW, THE BILL WAS OFFICIALLY PUT INTO WRITING LAST NIGHT, AND HERE IS SPECIFICALLY WHAT IT WOULD DO. SO AB 2654 WOULD PROHIBIT LAWMAKERS,…

Since nothing in the federal or state constitutions expressly requires the governor of California to act on commutation petitions within a set timeframe, it's fairly clear that the governor can take as long as s/he wants on these petitions -- including, essentially, forever.But to the degree it was unclear before, today's Court of Appeal opinion expressly so holds.I did learn one thing today, however, that I didn't know previously. Apparently, the California Constitution says that the governor can only grant a pardon or commutation to someone "twice convicted of a felony except on recommendation of the Supreme Court, 4 judges concurring." (Article V, Section 8).I'm quite confident that others knew about this quirk in the California pardon scheme, but I didn't. I was more familiar with the federal system, where the president can do whatever s/he wants.Interesting wrinkle.

Last week, New Jersey lawmakers and a variety of stakeholders crammed into a statehouse committee room for a relatively rare legislative hearing. This 2-hour hearing centered on New Jersey’s proposed green amendment, which committee chair Senator Bob Smith described as “a very controversial topic” as he gaveled in the meeting. This green amendment would add a constitutional guarantee to a healthy, clean environment. Advocates have been pushing for such a hearing for years. Dozens of supporters spoke up for the legislation while a handful of corporate lobbyists and executives read statements against the bill. In 2024, these kinds of hearings may take place more and more in statehouses around the country as legislatures warm to the idea of so-called green amendments. At least 10 states so far this year have proposed legislation that would let voters decide in November whether they want the right to a clean, safe environment spelled out in their state…

01 March 2024 See how JMBM’s Global Hospitality Group® can help you.Click here for the latest articles on Hospitality Dispute Resolution. Why Judicial Reference is better than Arbitration for resolving Hotel Management Agreements & Hotel Franchise Agreements. Advanced analysis of Judicial Reference features. Hotel Management Agreements & Franchise Agreements by Mark S. Adams, Hotel Dispute LawyerPartner & Senior Member JMBM’s Global Hospitality Group®   In prior articles, we have looked at the options available to parties in resolving hotel industry disputes. See, Critical considerations for hospitality litigation, arbitration & alternate dispute resolution clauses in hotel contracts. See also, Is Judicial Reference better than Arbitration to resolve Hotel Contract disputes? The basics of Judicial Reference.  The authority for Judicial Reference in California comes from two sources. The first is the California Constitution which…

In Discovery Builders, Inc. v. City of Oakland (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 799, the First District Court of Appeal held an agreement between a developer and the City of Oakland was unenforceable to the extent it prevented the city from imposing new impact fees in the future. The court reasoned such a provision constituted an impermissible contracting away of the city’s police power. Between 2004 and 2005, the city approved a vesting tentative map and final tract maps for a 400-unit housing project. The city’s approval required that the developer satisfy various terms and mitigate various environmental impacts. In 2005, the city and developer entered into a separate agreement (“2005 Agreement”), which set the terms by which the developer would compensate the city for employee services and outside consultants required to satisfy the agreed-upon terms and mitigation requirements. Development of the project began soon thereafter. In 2016, as development was…