The Volokh Conspiracy

Back in the 1980s, some death penalty abolitionists came up with the clever idea to sue the Food and Drug Administration to force the regulation of drugs used for lethal injection. Because drugs used for lethal injection could not be considered “safe and effective” for this use — at least not as far as the recipient is concerned — the advocates hoped this would force the FDA to ban the use of these drugs for lethal injection. It was a clever strategy but, as they say, it was too clever by half. The case worked its way up to the Supreme Court where, in Heckler v. Chaney, the Supreme Court held the FDA Commissioner’s decision not to initiate enforcement proceedings against the use of these drugs for lethal injection.

The current cocktail used for lethal injection includes two drugs, one of which (sodium thiopental) is not produced in the U.S. and must be imported. This gave some death penalty opponents the idea to try again, this time alleging that the FDA violated federal law by allowing the importation of sodium thiopental without first ensuring it is effective. They sued in federal district court, and won. In Beaty v. Food and Drug Administration, Judge Richard Leon concluded that because the FDA had not approved sodium thiopental for lethal injection the agency was required to prevent its importation.

The fight’s not over, however, as the FDA plans to appeal. Some states, such as California, also appear ready to resist the ruling and are refusing to return their supplies to the FDA, likely due to hope or anticipation that Judge Leon’s opinion will be overturned on appeal.

“Poor Ronald Coase.” His famous essay. “The Problem of Social Cost” is the most cited law review article of all time, but it’s also the most mis-cited. “My point of view has not in general commanded assent, nor has my argument, for the most part, been understood,” Coase himself wrote in The Firm, the Market, and the Law. As Robert Ellickson observed, “Coase’s name is consistently attached to propositions that he has explicitly repudiated” or that have little to do with what Coase actually wrote.

A recent essay by Kevin Cave and Einer Elhauge provides a handy example of the misuse of Coase’s work. Cave and Elhauge have sought enlist Coase’s seminal essay in support of the constitutionality of the individual mandate. “A dose of Coase,” they argue, shows that “the issue at stake is not individual liberty, but individual responsibility.” In the process they manage to misapply “The Problem of Social Cost” and misrepresent the law they seek to defend.

Cave and Elhauge start with Coase’s observation that “social costs” are reciprocal. So, for example, where there is a conflict between two neighboring uses, as between ranchers and farmers.

In The Problem of Social Cost, Coase invoked the example of a farmer whose crops are trampled by the neighboring rancher’s cattle. Before Coase, it would have been common to view the rancher as the culprit responsible for imposing costs on the blameless farmer. Coase pointed out that no matter which way the legal rights were allocated, one was imposing costs on the other. If the law forces the rancher to keep his cattle fenced in, the farming imposes fence-building costs on the rancher. If the law gives the rancher the right to let his cattle roam free, then the farmer bears the social cost.

So far so good. Then Cave and Elhauge claim health care costs should be seen in the same way.

it is surprising how little role the core Coasian insight had in the Supreme Court’s recent oral argument about the Obamacare mandate. Much of the discussion seemed to take for granted that this mandate encroaches on individual liberty, depriving individuals of the “freedom” not to purchase health insurance.

But as Coase’s analysis makes clear, framing the issue in terms of individual liberty is deeply misleading. When the uninsured get sick and go to the emergency room for care they cannot afford, someone has to pay the costs. If the law gives the uninsured the right not to buy health insurance, then the costs for their emergency care are imposed on the insured, whose payments must cover the hospital’s costs. If the law instead requires the uninsured to buy health insurance, they become personally responsible for the cost of the care they receive.

In other words, the issue is not whether to have a mandate, but rather on whom the mandate should be imposed. If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, we will simply return to the old mandate, which was imposed on the insured rather than on the uninsured. It is not clear why that mandate would be constitutionally preferable to a mandate that everyone pay his or her own way. It surely does not involve any less of an infringement on liberty.

Where to begin? The reciprocal nature of the conflict between the rancher and farmer arises because the social costs are a consequence of decisions made by both parties. If there are no roaming cattle, no crops get trampled. The same is true if there are no crops. Only if both the rancher and farmer choose their respective courses of action do we have a social cost. In order to see health care costs as reciprocal in the same way we need more than an emergency room visit by an uninsured individual. We also need a requirement that the hospital provide care. Without both pieces, the costs are not reciprocal. That is, we need both the consumption of health care by those unable to pay for it (which, in point of fact, is only a portion of the uninsured) and a requirement that care be provided without regard to ability to pay — and we have both. But what does this have to do with the mandate? Not much. And what does this have to do with the constitutional arguments about the mandate? Even less. Of course the costs of emergency room care can be born either by those who consume such care (through fee-for-service or insurance) or by others, and there are many mechanisms that can be used to achieve either result. Trying to frame the question in Coasean terms does no work toward resolving the underlying legal or policy debate.

Based on their “Coasean” analysis, Cave and Elhauge suggest that the primary purpose and effect of the mandate is to prevent the uninsured from imposing costs on the insured. But this is not so. With or without the mandate, taxpayers will pay for a disproportionate share of emergency room visits. This is because those on Medicaid and Medicare account for the lion’s share of emergency room visits — more than double the proportion of visits by the uninsured. Because the PPACA expands Medicaid coverage, this proportion will only increase — with or without the mandate.

Cave and Elhauge further pretend that imposition of the individual mandate somehow prevents the “insured” from subsidizing the care of others. But this too is false. The point of the mandate is not to reduce public expenditures on emergency room care as much as it is to prevent adverse selection in health insurance markets and force relatively healthy individuals to subsidize insurance for others. In other words, the purpose of the mandate is to offset the predictable consequences of prohibiting medical underwriting (as forthright defenders such as Mark Hall, acknowledge). Insurance companies, in particular, insisted on the mandate to help defray the costs of providing insuring those with preexisting conditions at rates below-expected-cost. So the mandate does precisely what Cave and Elhauge say they are trying to avoid: forcing one group in society be responsible for the health care costs of another. [As an aside, they also try to claim the mandate does not force individuals to buy insurance coverage beyond what they need to avoid imposing costs on others, pointing to high-deductible “bronze” plans, but ignore that even these plans must cover a wide range of services many will never want or need. See Randy's post here.]

But, again, what does any of this have to do with Coase or the questions confronting the Supreme Court? Not much. The reason Coase pointed out that social costs were reciprocal was to show that one could not assume that imposing costs on one party or the other would necessarily increase social welfare. His target was A.C. Pigou, who had argued that the imposition of pollution taxes would maximize the value of production. Coase showed that Pigou was wrong. Specifically, Coase demonstrated that if one assumes transaction costs are zero – as Pigou had – the initial allocation of the entitlement is irrelevant. Coase then went on to show that if one accounts for transaction costs (as Coase urged economists to do) then Pigou’s claim that pollution taxes increase the value of production depends on the particulars of a specific case. In any event, Coase’s aim was to challenge Pigou’s claims about the sorts of policies that would enhance social welfare, not make broader claims about what sorts of policies are desirable, let alone constitutional. Coase’s analysis also has absolutely nothing to say about whether one policy instrument, such as the mandate, is more or less consistent with constitutional constraints than other policy instruments that could produce the same effect, let alone whether a given view of federal power is consistent with the constitutional design. Further, Coase would urge any analysis of this question to engage in a serious comparative analysis that accounts for relevant facts — such as who pays for emergency visits now and how this will actually change under the PPACA and so on — facts of the sort Cave and Elhauge completely ignore.

Coase’s argument was expressly confined to the welfare economics paradigm he was challenging. Yet, as Coase readily acknowledged, most questions of public policy implicate normative questions well beyond what policy is more or less efficient. At the close of his essay Coase explicitly called for the policy debate to be “carried out in broader terms,” recognizing that in such a debate questions of welfare economics would “dissolve into a study of aesthetics and morals.” If Cave and Elhauge want to make the case for the mandate on these terms, all the better, but they should not pretend Coase has anything to do with it, nor claim that “The Problem of Social Cost” somehow shows the mandate is constitutional.

Patterico and Aaron Worthing recount sinister legal and personal harassment as a consequence of their blogging. Worthing and his wife reportedly lost their jobs, but Patterico could have been killed. He woke up to an armed SWAT team at his door as someone spoofed his phone and called the police to his house. Even those who’ve disagreed with Patterico on various issues recognize how unconscionable these tactics are.

These incidents appear to be only the latest and most extreme examples of efforts to silence political and ideological opponents by any means necessary. Comments Jim Geraghty:

Notions like “SWATing” feel like a dangerous escalation of already excessive expressions of ideological rage; once the genie is out of the bottle, then every extremist who feels the ends justify the means will use the tactic against those they hope to harass (or worse). The options for police are truly grim; must they become skeptical or wary about 911 calls describing violent situations?

The only real solution is to catch the perpetrators and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. If I were a prosecutor, and some malcontent was manipulating my city’s police force to be their own tool for harassment, I’d be hell-bent on finding the persons responsible.

One thing I do not comprehend about either story is the apparent reticence of local authorities. I would think local law enforcement would move heaven and earth to uncover who sicced SWAT on Patterico’s home and it is unconscionable the local authorities in Montgomery County, Maryland would sit by and allow the continued abuse of legal process that has victimized Worthing.

UPDATE: RAdley Balko comments:

Dear God. I hadn’t been following all of this. Patterico and I have had some heated, downright ugly exchanges in the past, but let’s be clear on this: What’s happening to him right now is terrifying. It’s an attempt to terrorize political opponents into silence.

A couple commenters here have suggested there’s some sort of lesson in all of this about SWAT teams or police or something or other.

No. There are no lessons here. The sociopaths who are harassing Patterico and the other bloggers involved need to be arrested and charged with about a dozen different crimes.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

Congress violated constitutional standards on legalized bigotry when it denied federal benefits from same-sex spouses and excluded domestic partners of state employees from long-term health coverage, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland was the second by a Bay Area judge this year to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law withholding more than 1,000 federal benefits – such as joint tax filing, Social Security survivor payments and immigration sponsorship – from gays and lesbians legally married under state law.

Wilken also overturned another 1996 law that denied federal tax benefits to long-term health insurance plans for state employees if they included domestic partners.

Specifically, the court found that Section 3 of DOMA “violates the equal protection rights of . . . same-sex spouses.” The opinion is available here.

Conservative writer Michael Fumento explains his discomfort with the “extreme right” in Salon. While I think portions of his essay are overstated, I generally agree. Further, like Professor Bainbridge, I found this passage worth repeating:

Civility and respect for order – nay, demand for order – have always been tenets of conservatism. The most prominent work of history’s most prominent conservative, Edmund Burke, was a reaction to the anger and hatred that swept France during the revolution. It would eventually rip the country apart and plunge all of Europe into decades of war. Such is the rotted fruit of mass-produced hate and rage. Burke, not incidentally, was a true Tea Party supporter, risking everything as a member of Parliament to support the rebellion in the United States.

All of today’s right-wing darlings got there by mastering what Burke feared most: screaming “J’accuse! J’accuse!” Turning people against each other. Taking seeds of fear, anger and hatred and planting them to grow a new crop.

That the other side may or may not have done it first is no excuse. If civility and tolerance are virtues — and I believe they are — than one should be civil and tolerant, without regard to what one’s opponents do. More Fumento:

Incivility is hardly the domain of the new right. American society grows ever coarser. But this is cold comfort. Conservative ideology demands civility of conservatives; demands, yes, self-policing. Let others act as they will, bearing evidence of the shallowness of their positions. It also demands respect for official offices, such as the presidency. When our guy is in office, you give him that modicum of respect – and when your guy is in office, we do the same. The other party is to be referred to as “the loyal opposition,” not with words the FCC forbids on the air.

Fumento also suggests this approach can get in the way of meaningful reforms, and I think he has a point here too.

The new right cannot advance a conservative agenda precisely because, other than a few small holdouts like the American Conservative magazine or that battleship that refuses to become a museum, George Will, it is not itself conservative. Pod people are running the show. It has no such capability; no such desire. I find that disturbing for obvious reasons. But, based on my own conversations with liberals, I think – nay, I know – that if more of these allegedly godless, treasonous people understood real conservatism a lot would embrace many conservative positions.

Thus everybody realizes government spending has lost its airbrakes. But while the new right screams the most about big government, it nonetheless supported President George W. Bush as he presided over the largest expansion of government spending since uber-liberal FDR and left us with a massive debt before President Obama was sworn in. Why? Silly rabbit! Because the left opposed him.

It is often said that politics is the art of the possible. The problem with too many politicians is not that they compromise, but that they have no principles to guide them. The American political system is structured to make dramatic change extremely difficult. Major reforms take time, and must often be achieved step by step. Blind ideological rigidity, such as to an anti-tax pledge that would prevent Congress from repealing ethanol subsidies, is no help, and is certainly not conservative. This is not a call for moderation, but for prudence. One can seek dramatic, even revolutionary, changes in the size and scope of government without resort to the tactics Fumento finds so distasteful.

In today’s WSJ, Stanford law professor and former federal appellate judge Michael McConnell has an op-ed commenting on the tone and content of much liberal commentary on the individual mandate litigation. It begins:

In apparent panic at the tenor of the Supreme Court argument over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare), liberal law professors have exploded with anticipatory denunciations of the court’s conservative justices—claiming that it would be “hypocritical” and “partisan” of them to invalidate legislation passed by Congress when they generally oppose “judicial activism.”

It appears the professors’ idea of sound jurisprudence is that their favored justices are free to invalidate statutes that offend their sensibilities whether or not the words of the Constitution have anything to say on the matter, as in the case of same-sex marriage or partial-birth abortion, and even if the Constitution seems to endorse it, as in capital punishment. But if conservative justices have the temerity to enforce actual limits on government power stated in Article I, Section 8—over liberal dissents—then they are acting as shameless partisans.

It seems unlikely this one-sided definition of “activism” will persuade anyone. Judicial review might be aggressive and it might be deferential, but there cannot be one set of rules for liberal justices and another set for conservatives.

His brief piece goes on to explain how the argument against the mandate is grounded in the bedrock constitutional principle that ours is a federal government of limited and enumerated powers — and that the enumeration of certain powers presupposes powers not enumerated. Opponents have argued that the mandate transgresses the limits of federal power (not, as critics have claimed, that the mandate violates any independent limitation on federal power, such as due process or any enumerated rights). Supporters of the mandate, on the other hand, have failed to offer any principled constitutional theory that would allow for the Court to uphold the mandate without giving Congress a blank check. This failing is what doomed the Gun Free School Zones Act in United States v. Lopez, and it’s what has placed the mandate in jeopardy as well. The Solicitor General and others have tried to explain why health care is “different” but none of these arguments are “grounded in any principle based in constitutional text, history or theory.”

The Hill reports Senate Democrats want to increase air travel fees to make up a shortfall in the Transportation Security Administration’s budget. The stated rationale for the move is that the burden of the TSA should be borne by those who benefit from it, but that’s no reason to charge air travelers.

I’ll be among the guest bloggers for Megan McArdle at TheAtlantic.com over the next two weeks. About half the posts will be on environmental stuff, and the other half on Supreme Court stuff. My first post, on property rights and environmental protection is here.

Several Catholic dioceses and universities filed suit today against the so-called contraception mandate, the Washington Post reports here and here. In all twelve lawsuits were filed in twelve separate federal district courts. There are 43 separate plaintiffs in these suits, including the Archdioceses of Washington, D.C. and New York, Catholic University, and the University of Notre Dame, where President Obama delivered the commencement address in 2009.

In somewhat related news, Exorcist author William Peter Blatty is suing Georgetown University in Catholic court alleging the school has abandoned its Catholic faith and violating church teaching. According to this report, the “last straw” was Georgetown’s invitation to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to address graduating students.

Today’s NYT reports on the white paper Google commissioned from our host, Eugene (about which Eugene blogged here). I don’t know this area nearly as well as Eugene does, but I found this portion of the article particularly interesting:

there is a bit of a rub for Google, some scholars say. The kind of reasoning Mr. Volokh uses in his paper could come into conflict with one of Google’s policy priorities — the so-called net neutrality rules that call for everyone to get equal treatment on the Internet.

Since Google is not connecting users to the Internet, it is vital for its business that the companies that provide access to the Internet do not play favorites. Yet, if those providers could somehow qualify for First Amendment protection, then the government would have a harder time mandating “net neutrality.”

Mr. Volokh never mentions net neutrality in the paper, but a Duke law professor, Stuart M. Benjamin, who has written an academic paper casting doubt on First Amendment protection for mere transmitters of information like Internet service providers, said he saw a clear connection.

Mr. Benjamin said an Internet provider like Comcast, for example, could offer “a family friendly Web,” which would filter out content considered inappropriate for children; by doing so, “they have now gone to protected speech.”

But he also suggested there was a potential for Mr. Volokh’s reasoning to extend First Amendment protections to transmitters that do even less — for example, those that simply provide faster speeds to companies that pay more money. That is the kind of behavior net neutrality rules are meant to prevent.

The more the First Amendment is applied to how information is transmitted via the Internet, Mr. Benjamin said, the harder it is to regulate. “Whether that is a good or bad thing depends on your political perspective,” he said.

This morning the Supreme Court accepted certiorari in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, which presents the question whether journalists and human rights organizations have standing to challenge the constitutionality of electronic surveillance of international communications without direct evidence their communications have been surveilled. In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held standing could be claimed because the plaintiffs had a reasonable fear of surveillance and undertook “costly and burdensome measures” to protect the confidentiality of their communications. Unsurprisingly, the SG’s office filed a cert petition. Because this decision created a circuit split with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, a cert grant was virtually assured.

Thus far, the Roberts Court has stood pat on standing, neither raising nor lowering the hurdles to Article III standing. In this case, it will be interesting to see whether this trend continues.

Orin also blogged on this case here and here.

Radley Balko reports on fairly severe asset forfeiture abuse in Wisconsin. In short, after a woman’s son was arrested, the police told her she had to pay for his bail in cash (which was untrue). Then, when she showed up with the money, most of which she had just withdrawn from ATMs, the police seized the money under the state’s asset forfeiture law because a drug-sniffing dog detected traces of drugs on the money. Even with the help of an attorney, it took four months for the woman to get her money back. It’s bad enough that this sort of abuse is constitutional. It’s even worse that Wisconsin law enforcement would act this way.

UPDATE: Speaking of asset forfeiture abuse, George Will had a column last week on another disturbing case.

SECOND UPDATE: Given Ilya’s post above, I thought I’d add a slight clarification. When I wrote that asset forfeiture is “constitutional” as currently practiced, I meant this as shorthand for “constitutional under existing Supreme Court doctrine.” Like Ilya, I am quite sympathetic to the dissenters in Bennis v. Michigan, and suspect much civil asset forfeiture would transgress a proper application of the due process clause, though I have not delved sufficiently deeply into this area to have a more fully-formed view on the limits the due process clause places on asset forfeiture. That many current practices are outrageous does not necessarily mean that they are unconstitutional.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has had a home robbed twice in the past three months. First burglars raided his Carribbean vacation home, while Breyer was there with guests. Then, earlier this month, his Washington, D.C. home was robbed too.

This morning, in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The 60+ page opinion for the Court by Judge Tatel (joined by Judge Griffith) begins:

: In Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2504 (2009), the Supreme Court raised serious questions about the continued constitutionality of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 5 prohibits certain “covered jurisdictions” from making any change in their voting procedures without first demonstrating to either the Attorney General or a three-judge district court in Washington that the change “neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(a). The Supreme Court warned that the burdens imposed by section 5 may no longer be justified by current needs and that its geographic coverage may no longer sufficiently relate to the problem it targets. Although the Court had no occasion to resolve these questions, they are now squarely before us. Shelby County, Alabama, a covered jurisdiction, contends that when Congress reauthorized section 5 in 2006, it exceeded its enumerated powers. The district court disagreed and granted summary judgment for the Attorney General. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm.

Senior Judge Williams dissented. His opinion begins:

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act imposes rather extraordinary burdens on “covered” jurisdictions—nine states (and every jurisdiction therein), plus a host of jurisdictions scattered through several other states. See Voting Section, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Section 5 Covered Jurisdictions, http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/covered.php (last visited May 9, 2012) (listing the covered jurisdictions). Unless and until released from coverage (a process discussed below), each of these jurisdictions must seek the Justice Department’s approval for every contemplated change in election procedures, however trivial. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. Alternatively, it can seek approval from a three-judge district court in the District of Columbia. See id. Below I’ll address the criteria by which the Department and courts assess these proposals; for now, suffice it to say that the act not only switches the burden of proof to the supplicant jurisdiction, but also applies substantive standards quite different from those governing the rest of the nation.

Section 4(b) of the act states two criteria by which jurisdictions are chosen for this special treatment: whether a jurisdiction had (1) a “test or device” restricting the opportunity to register or vote and (2) a voter registration or turnout rate below 50%. See 42 U.S.C. § 1973b(b). But § 4(b) specifies that the elections for which these two criteria are measured must be ones that took place several decades ago. The freshest, most recent data relate to conditions in November 1972—34 years before Congress extended the act for another 25 years (and thus 59 years before the extension’s scheduled expiration). See id. The oldest data—and a jurisdiction included because of the oldest data is every bit as covered as one condemned under the newest—are another eight years older. See id.

Of course sometimes a skilled dart-thrower can hit the bull’s eye throwing a dart backwards over his shoulder. As I will try to show below, Congress hasn’t proven so adept. Whether the criteria are viewed in absolute terms (are they adequate in themselves to justify the extraordinary burdens of § 5?) or in relative ones (do they draw a rational line between covered and uncovered jurisdictions?), they seem to me defective. They are not, in my view, “congruent and proportional,” as required by controlling Supreme Court precedent. My colleagues find they are. I dissent.

Next stop, the Supreme Court.

Adam White finds Jeffrey Toobin re-writing history in his much discussed New Yorker article on Citizens United. As Toobin set up the story, Citizens United was a little case, involving a “narrow” statutory question. According to Toobin’s New Yorker article, “There did not see to be a lot riding on the outcome.”

White finds Toobin’s account “preposterous.” As White notes, the day before the argument the NYT editorial page inveighed against the “wide array” of “sweeping” and “dangerous” claims made by Citizens United. Likewise SCOTUSBlog’s Lyle Denniston noted CU was asking the Court for “a sweeping rejection of congressional authority to regulate campaign spendingby corporations.” A CNN analyst named Jeffrey Toobin made the same point, opining the day of the oral argument that CU has “a pretty good case” and that the Court could “either say you have to come up with another way to regulate or this kind of regulation is simply unconstitutional.”

On Monday, a federal district court struck down a new National Labor Relations Board rule that would have accelerated the pace of union certification elections. According to the court’s opinion the NLRB lacked a quorum when it adopted the rule. The opinion begins:

According to Woody Allen, eighty percent of life is just showing up. When it comes to satisfying a quorum requirement, though, showing up is even more important than that. Indeed, it is the only thing that matters – even when the quorum is constituted electronically. In this case, because no quorum ever existed for the pivotal vote in question, the Court must hold that the challenged rule is invalid.

On December 22, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board published a rule that amended the procedures for determining whether a majority of employees wish to be represented by a labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining. Two of the Board’s three members voted in favor of adopting the final rule. The third member of the Board, Brian Hayes, did not cast a vote. Because Hayes had previously voted against initiating the rulemaking and against proceeding with the drafting and publication of the final rule, the Board nevertheless determined that he had “effectively indicated his opposition.”

In this suit, Plaintiffs – the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Coalition for a Democratic Workforce – challenge the final rule on myriad grounds. The Court, however, reaches only their first contention: that the rule was adopted without the statutorily required quorum. Absent limited circumstances not present here, the Board must muster a quorum of three members in order to act. Because Member Hayes did not participate in the decision to adopt the final rule, Plaintiffs argue, the other two members of the Board lacked the authority to effect its promulgation. The NLRB, on the other hand, maintains that all three members participated in the rulemaking in the relevant sense and, accordingly, that the quorum requirement was satisfied. The agency has now filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and an Alternative Partial Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.

Plaintiffs are correct. Two members of the Board participated in the decision to adopt the final rule, and two is simply not enough. Member Hayes cannot be counted toward the quorum merely because he held office, and his participation in earlier decisions relating to the drafting of the rule does not suffice. He need not necessarily have voted, but he had to at least show up. At the end of the day, while the Court’s decision may seem unduly technical, the quorum requirement, as the Supreme Court has made clear, is no trifle. Regardless of whether the final rule otherwise complies with the Constitution and the governing statute – let alone whether the amendments it contains are desirable from a policy perspective – the Board lacked the authority to issue it, and, therefore, it cannot stand. The Court, consequently, will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion and deny Defendant’s.

A new study suggests those who drink coffee live longer, even if they stick to decaf. Time for another cup.

Yesterday, in Gagne v. Booker, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit splintered along unusual lines over the application of Michigan’s rape-shield statute to exclude evidence relating to the complaining witness’ prior sexual conduct with the defendant. Lewis Rodney Gagne was accused of gang raping his ex-girlfriend and sought to introduce evidence that she had consented to rough, group sex with Gagne and other men on at least one prior occasion. The trial court refused to admit this evidence due to Michigan’s rape shield law. In his habeas petition, Gagne claimed the trial court’s decision violated his constitutional right to present an effective defense. The distrcit court granted Gagne habeas relief and a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit affirmed (then with an amended opinion). Sitting en banc, the Sixth Circuit reversed, 11-5.

What makes this decision particularly interesting is the procedural posture of the case, the appeal of a denial of a writ of habeas corpus, as the Sixth often splits along ideological lines in habeas cases. Here, however, the judges did not split along traditional ideological lines. Chief Judge Alice Batchelder delivered the opinion of the court denying habeas relief with an opinion for a seven judge plurality. Judges Boggs, Gibbons, Sutton, Cook, McKeague, and Griffin joinedthe Chief Judge. Judge Moore concurred in the judgment only, joined by Cole and Clay, as did Judge White. Judge Kethledge dissented, joined by Judges Martin, Norris, Rogers and Stranch.

When it’s pushed by the Republican leadership, is located in a politically important state, and is carefully written to avoid the official definition of an “earmark.” (HT: Instapundit)

The National Law Journal reports that the White House is largely to blame for the high number of vacancies on the federal bench.

Democrats have held conference calls and hosted activists from around the country to say the reason fewer federal judges have been confirmed during the last three years is clear: Republicans in the Senate have used their powers to stall most of the president’s nominees, even the noncontroversial ones.

But as a window appears to be closing at least temporarily to send any new judicial nominees to Capitol Hill, law professors and advocacy groups say Obama could have had more judges confirmed to the bench had he simply made more nominations over his first three-plus years in office.

Since Obama took office, he’s had a chance to make nominations for 241 federal judgeships. Some of them — 55 — were vacant slots held over from the Bush administration. Obama has nominated 188 judges, and the Senate has approved 147 of them. That leaves a current total of 94 vacancies — 77 vacant slots and 17 held by judges who have said they plan to retire. (The president can nominate a new judge before the position becomes vacant.)

At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had nominated 220 judges for 236 positions, and Bill Clinton had nominated 231 out of 260, according to a report by the Alliance for Justice, a left-leaning court advocacy group.

And despite filibuster threats and other behind-the-scenes delaying tactics, senators have confirmed Obama’s judicial picks at the same rate — roughly three out of four — as during the Clinton and Bush terms.

This is not a new observation, but it’s worth repeating. Without question Republicans have made it difficult to move judicial nominees, much as Democrats did when Presidents Bush and Bush were in the White House. Republicans have also resorted to the filibuster, prompting some on the other side to reconsider its use for judicial nominations. GOP opposition may have prompted more careful and extensive vetting and discouraged the naming of controversial nominees. In any event, obstruction of nominees is now the norm — and this norm is unlikely to change unless there is a pre-election deal, perhaps like the one I outlined here. Until such a deal can be made, judicial nominees will get slow-walked to the bench no matter which party is in charge.

Yesterday Common Cause and several members of Congress filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the filibuster. According to various reports, the suit is largely based upon the theory outliend in this article by litigator Emmet Bondurant, which maintains that the filibuster is a historical accident and violates the constitutional principle of majority rule. Where the Framers wanted a super-majority requirement for legislative action, they wrote such requirements into the Constitution. Further, Bondurant argues, the filibuster is entrenched in the Senate rules and must therefore be challenged in court.

Ezra Klein thinks Bondurant makes a “strong case.” I don’t, and I don’t think this suit will go anywhere. The first obstacle is standing. The failure of the Senate to pass a bill is not a legally cognizable injury, even if that bill appears to have majority support. The second obstacle is the political question doctrine. This obstacle is particularly large given that the Constitution expressly gives each house of Congress the power to set its own rules, so there is a textual commitment of this question to a coordinate branch. All of the cases upon which Bondurant relies to establish justiciability involved challenges to legislation or other acts that passed Congress and altered pre-existing rights and obligations, so they offer little support for Common Cause’s claims. Even were a court to get beyond these justiciability concerns, the suit would likely fail on the merits. If the Constitution authorizes the Senate to set its own rules, there’s no reason why the Senate cannot opt to include supermajority rules in its procedures.

The problems with this legal challenge are further magnified by Common Cause’s decision to challenge the use of the filibuster to block substantive legislation. The argument that the use of filibusters violates some unstated-albeit-enforceable constitutional norm is stronger with regard to items on the executive calendar (such as nominations) than it is with legislation. One could argue that the Senate’s obligation to “advise and consent” presumes an obligation to act — specifically, an obligation to hold an up-or-down vote — and that the filibuster prevents the Senate from fulfilling this duty. It is much harder to argue that the Senate must hold follow rules that allow for substantive votes on legislation. While it’s likely a challenge to nomination filibusters would also be found non-justiciable, it is more plausible than the claim Common Cause filed.

I’m sympathetic to the view that the filibuster is overused, particularly for nominations, but quite skeptical of any lawsuit claiming the filibuster is unconstitutional.

UPDATE: Common Cause’s Bob Edgar explains the suit here. Ian Millhiser likes the argument but doesn’t think the suit is justiciable. Gergory Koger is more circumspect.

The Monkey Cage has an interesting guest post from Georgia State University’s Gregory Lewis examining why initiatives to prohibit same-sex marriage succeed at the polls when public opinion surveys suggest reasonably strong support for same-sex marriage. Among the key points is that support for same-sex marriage varies quite widely by state.

Yale Law School’s Jonathan Macey places JP Morgan’s $2 billion loss in perspective. His article begins:

Regulators, politicians and news reporters are hysterical at the news of J.P. Morgan’s recent $2 billion trading loss. The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating to see whether laws were broken.

We appear to be on the verge of making it a crime for a business to lose money. The truth is that nobody should care about J.P. Morgan’s loss—nobody except J.P. Morgan stockholders and a few top executives and traders who will lose their bonuses or their jobs in the wake of this teapot tempest. The three executives with the closest ties to the losses are already out the door.

After the $2 billion in losses, J.P. Morgan still had $127 billion in equity. This means that J.P. Morgan could lose another $100 billion and creditors would still have an equity cushion that could absorb 10 times the losses that the bank suffered on this trade. The trading loss wasn’t close to apocalyptic even for shareholders. J.P. Morgan’s shares dropped 9.28% in the wake of the loss. A shareholder with a $100,000 investment in J.P. Morgan would see the value of his investment reduced to $90,720, hardly a financial Chernobyl.

The $2 billion loss also resulted from trades designed to hedge against the threat of even bigger losses. Macey also explains why JP Morgan’s loss is not a justification for additional government regulation.

The real lesson of what J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon has called the bank’s “egregious failure” in risk management is that hedging is far more difficult to do in real life than it appears to be in theory—because the real world is a complicated place. The trades that J.P. Morgan made were extremely complex, and it certainly appears that they did not work the way that they were supposed to. But the reason that markets work better than central planning is because market participants learn from experience, and they learn fast and thoroughly because they suffer significant losses when their investments, whether they be hedges or not, turn out badly.

Thus, far from serving as a pretext to justify still more regulation of providers of capital, J.P. Morgan’s losses should be treated as further proof that markets work. J.P. Morgan and its competitors will learn from this experience and do a better job of hedging the next time. They will learn because they have to: In the long run their survival depends on it. And in the short run their jobs and bonuses depend on it.

The latest New Yorker has an extensive excerpt of Jeffrey Toobin’s forthcoming book, The Oath: The Obama White House vs. the Supreme Court, focusing on the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The story, “Money Unlimited: How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision,” is everything you’d expect from a Toobin piece. It’s engaging and informative, with exclusive behind-the-scenes reporting of how the decision came to be. This stuff is catnip for court watchers. Yet the article also contains plenty of subtle (and not-so-subtle) spin in service of Toobin’s broader narrative of an out-of-control conservative court. As a consequence, Toobin paints a somewhat misleading picture of the case and the Court.

The heart of Toobin’s article tells the story of how Citizens United metastasized from a narrow case about the application of federal campaign finance law to an obscure conservative documentary to a significant decision vindicating the First Amendment rights of corporations. As Toobin tells the tale, after the case was first argued Chief Justice Roberts drafted a narrow opinion that would have held for Citizens United on statutory grounds, but leaving the statutory regime intact. The vote would still have been 5-4, but it would have been a far less significant case. Justice Kennedy was not happy with this result, however, and authored a concurrence calling for a broader holding that would rest on First Amendment grounds. Kennedy’s concurrence apparently swayed enough of the court’s conservatives that Roberts initially acquiesced. Such a broad ruling would be improper, the court’s liberals complained, as the broader First Amendment questions had not been briefed and were not properly before the Court. Yet as there was no interest in a narrower holding, the Court ordered a reargument with supplemental briefing that would place the First Amendment question front and center.

Toobin dwells on Justice Stevens’ complaint that the Court’s broad holding in Citizens United was unnecesary, as the Court could have held for the petitioners on narrower, statutory grounds. Yet as Toobin’s own reporting confirms, no one other than Chief Justice Roberts had any interest in resolving the case on such grounds. Even when the case was first argued, not a single liberal justice was prepared to side with Citizens United, in no small part because the statutory argument was so weak.

Toobin criticizes the Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart for a concession at the first oral argument that may have sealed the government’s fate.

Since McCain-Feingold forbade the broadcast of “electronic communications” shortly before elections, this was a case about movies and television commercials. What else might the law regulate? “Do you think the Constitution required Congress to draw the line where it did, limiting this to broadcast and cable and so forth?” Alito said. Could the law limit a corporation from “providing the same thing in a book? Would the Constitution permit the restriction of all those as well?”

Yes, Stewart said: “Those could have been applied to additional media as well.”

The Justices leaned forward. It was one thing for the government to regulate television commercials. That had been done for years. But a book? Could the government regulate the content of a book?

“That’s pretty incredible,” Alito responded. “You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?”

“I’m not saying it could be banned,” Stewart replied, trying to recover. “I’m saying that Congress could prohibit the use of corporate treasury funds and could require a corporation to publish it using its—” But clearly Stewart was saying that Citizens United, or any company or nonprofit like it, could not publish a partisan book during a Presidential campaign. . . .

Stewart was wrong. Congress could not ban a book. McCain-Feingold was based on the pervasive influence of television advertising on electoral politics, the idea that commercials are somehow unavoidable in contemporary American life. The influence of books operates in a completely different way. Individuals have to make an affirmative choice to acquire and read a book. Congress would have no reason, and no justification, to ban a book under the First Amendment.

Yet here it is Toobin who is wrong, not Stewart. The statutory provision at issue was limited to broadcast, cable and satellite communications, and the film at issue was to be shown as a cable on-demand program, but the government never sought to defend the law on the basis that it was limited to electronic media. After all, the point of the was to limit the role of money in campaigns, not limit television advertising. The position the government was defending was that Congress could limit corporate expenditures related to campaigns, not that it could regulate TV. Under this theory, a corporate-funded book with impermissible campaign-related content would receive no more First Amendment protection than a corporate-funded video or film, just as Stewart said. If this is an incredible proposition, that says more about the position the government sought to advance than it does Stewart’s oral argument. Campaign finance activist Fred Wertheimer made the same concession when pressed by the NYT. It’s true that Solicitor General Elena Kagan would back away from this position when it was her turn to argue the case at the second oral argument, but not without first acknowledging that the statute’s language could apply to “full-length books” and that there would, in the government’s view, be no problem with banning corporate-funded pamphlets.

Like many of the decision’s critics, Toobin suggests Citizens United is best seen as the product of the “aggressive conservative judicial activism” of Chief Justice Roberts and the court’s conservative majority.

Citizens United is a distinctive product of the Roberts Court. The decision followed a lengthy and bitter behind-the-scenes struggle among the Justices that produced both secret unpublished opinions and a rare reargument of a case. The case, too, reflects the aggressive conservative judicial activism of the Roberts Court. It was once liberals who were associated with using the courts to overturn the work of the democratically elected branches of government, but the current Court has matched contempt for Congress with a disdain for many of the Court’s own precedents. When the Court announced its final ruling on Citizens United, on January 21, 2010, the vote was five to four and the majority opinion was written by Anthony Kennedy. Above all, though, the result represented a triumph for Chief Justice Roberts. Even without writing the opinion, Roberts, more than anyone, shaped what the Court did. As American politics assumes its new form in the post-Citizens United era, the credit or the blame goes mostly to him.

As Toobin tells the tale, Citizens United is emblematic of the current Court’s assault on precedent and the prerogatives of the political branches. It’s a nice story, but it’s not true. “Judicial activism” is a notoriously malleable charge, but if “judicial activism” is shorthand for striking down federal statutes and overturning judicial precedents, the Roberts Court is the least “activist” court of the post-war period. As a New York Times analysis showed, the Roberts Court strikes down statutes and overturns Court precedents at a slower rate than any of is post-war predecessors, and it’s not even close. “Activism” is also a peculiar charge to make about this case, as the dissenting justices were just as reluctant to embrace a narrow statutory holding and were just as willing to overturn precedent as those in the majority. They just sought to move the law in the opposite direction. If Citizens United is supposed to be evidence of unprecedented “activism,” it’s not clear what “activism” means.

The most interesting parts of Toobin’s article are those that disclose how Citizens United was handled inside the Court. This is great stuff, and testament to Toobin’s skill as a reporter, but I still have some misgivings. We don’t know the identities of Toobin’s sources, and some of his claims are difficult to check. His story may reflect how some justices or clerks saw the case, but there may well be another side, and we won’t know until such time as the relevant court documents are released. I also cannot help but wonder whether some of Toobin’s sources, such as former Supreme Court clerks, may have violated their own ethical obligations in disclosing portions of the Court’s internal deliberations. Even if Toobin’s sources were sitting or former justices, there is something unseemly about the selective disclosure of what went on inside the Court on such a recent case.

In any event, the article is still worth reading — as I am sure Toobin’s book will be as well. Some portions will just go down better with a healthy dose of salt.

UPDATE: Tom Goldstein has a similar reaction to Toobin’s narrative about Chief Justice Roberts:

The theme of the piece is that Chief Justice Roberts orchestrated the case’s metamorphosis from a narrow ruling about statutory construction to a much broader constitutional decision with sweeping implications for campaign finance.

I should disclose that I am naturally inclined towards that reading of the history. I think that the Chief Justice is quite conservative and a brilliant tactician, including in undoing significant pieces of the legacy of the Court’s O’Connor era. I also disagree with the Citizens United decision.

But despite that, while the article is a fascinating and full accounting of the case and the background of the Court’s rapid movement to the right, the facts reported by Toobin don’t seem to support his conclusions about the Chief Justice.

The Washington Post reports that former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger got a full pat down by the TSA at Laguardia. Maybe one of the TSA agents had been reading Christopher Hitchens.

UPDATE: Kissinger told James Taranto there was “nothing untoward” about his search and that the patdown was necessary because of his leg brace.