sandefur, tim
<font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font><div><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ref </font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">yikes Lochner reboot!</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-most-radical-nominee-since-neil-gorsuch-02d1bcabc8e0/">https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-most-radical-nominee-since-neil-gorsuch-02d1bcabc8e0/</a></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Justice Don Willett is charming.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Best known outside legal circles for his Twitter feed, <a href="https://twitter.com/JusticeWillett?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">@JusticeWillett</a>, the Texas Supreme Court justice — and now a Trump nominee to a federal appeals court — tweets largely apolitical commentary about Calvin and Hobbes, his children, and Oxford commas. Many of his tweets are genuinely hilarious, and Willett is equally disarming in person. When I met him a couple years ago at a gathering of the conservative Federalist Society, he was genial, thoughtful, and surprisingly familiar with my work. The man knows how to endear himself to people.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This would all be well and good, if not for one other factor.<b> This charming, intelligent, knowledgeable man also wants to dismantle much of the last 80 years of American law.</b></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In a <a href="http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1008502/120657c1.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">2015 opinion laden</a> with libertarian tropes and selective history, Willett called upon his court to revive a defunct doctrine once used to <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/the-most-chilling-political-appointment-that-youve-probably-never-heard-of-d2b083a153ab/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">strike down minimum wage laws and gut workers’ right to organize</a>. It’s a doctrine that that three of the Supreme Court of the United States’ most conservative members recently <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/chief-justice-roberts-marriage-equality-dissent-has-a-hidden-message-for-conservatives-b4fcbc44ebc8/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">called out as “discredited” and “unprincipled.”</a></font></p><h3 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 2.75rem; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The “<em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em> Era'</font></h3><h3 style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 2.75rem; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">There are a handful of past Supreme Court decisions that belong to the</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> constitutional “<a href="https://thinkprogress.org/george-will-is-the-canary-in-american-democracys-coal-mine-5ecef1264ce7/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">anti-canon</a>” </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">— the pro-slavery decision in </span><em style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit;">Dred Scott</em><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, the Court’s pro-segregation decision in </span><em style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit;">Plessy v. Ferguson</em><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, a 1918 decision </span><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/247/251" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">striking down child labor laws</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. These are the sort of cases that law students are taught never to cite favorably in a brief. When they do come up in litigation, it is typically because one party accuses the other of make an argument reminiscent of an anti-canonical case.</span></font></h3><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Until recently, <em style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/198/45" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">Lochner v. New York </a>— </em>which struck down a New York law providing that bakery workers could not work more than 60 hours a week — was viewed as part of the anti-canon by all but a fringe group of lawyers with little influence. <b>Even Robert Bork, the Reagan Supreme Court nominee denied a place on the Court due to fears he was too rigidly conservative, labeled <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em> an “<a href="https://thinkprogress.org/even-the-late-robert-bork-thought-the-tea-party-was-out-of-its-mind-b8bb8d5e7769/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">abomination</a>” that “lives in the law as the symbol, indeed the quintessence of judicial usurpation of power.”</b></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em> provided the basis for a host of decisions preventing progressive regulation of the workplace. Indeed, the four decade period in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, when the Supreme Court effectively read a <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">laissez-faire </em>orthodoxy into several provisions of the Constitution, is known as the “<em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em> Era” among legal scholars due to this case’s defining role in shaping the decisions of the day.</font></p><div class="related-contentwrapper" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 2rem;"><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/how-conservatives-abandoned-judicial-restraint-took-over-the-courts-and-radically-transformed-3da3115c81c0/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border: none; display: flex;" /><div class="related-contentimage" style="box-sizing: inherit; align-self: flex-start; margin: 0px 1rem 0px 0px; width: 171px;"><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/how-conservatives-abandoned-judicial-restraint-took-over-the-courts-and-radically-transformed-3da3115c81c0/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border: none; display: flex;" /><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/how-conservatives-abandoned-judicial-restraint-took-over-the-courts-and-radically-transformed-3da3115c81c0/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border: none; display: flex;" /><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/how-conservatives-abandoned-judicial-restraint-took-over-the-courts-and-radically-transformed-3da3115c81c0/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border: none; display: flex;" /><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/how-conservatives-abandoned-judicial-restraint-took-over-the-courts-and-radically-transformed-3da3115c81c0/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border: none; display: flex;"><figure class="postfigure postfigure--format-thumbnail" style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; max-width: 100%;"><div class="postthumbnail" style="box-sizing: inherit; overflow: hidden; position: relative;"><picture id="picture-277083" class="wp-image-277083 size-full " data-id="277083" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><source srcset="https://i0.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/0Y9uf_d-2hUOU-NYU.jpg?w=800&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C580px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 1920px)" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><source srcset="https://i0.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/0Y9uf_d-2hUOU-NYU.jpg?w=800&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C580px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 1024px) and (max-width: 1920px)" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><source srcset="https://i0.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/0Y9uf_d-2hUOU-NYU.jpg?w=800&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C580px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 768px) and (max-width: 1024px)" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><source srcset="https://i0.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/0Y9uf_d-2hUOU-NYU.jpg?w=800&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C580px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 512px) and (max-width: 1024px)" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><source srcset="https://i0.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/0Y9uf_d-2hUOU-NYU.jpg?w=768&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C557px&ssl=1" media="(min-width: 512px) and (max-width: 768px)" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><source srcset="https://i0.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/0Y9uf_d-2hUOU-NYU.jpg?w=512&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C371px&ssl=1" media="(max-width: 512px)" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><source srcset="https://i0.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/0Y9uf_d-2hUOU-NYU.jpg?w=768&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C557px&ssl=1" media="(max-width: 768px)" style="box-sizing: inherit;"><source srcset="https://i0.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/0Y9uf_d-2hUOU-NYU.jpg?w=800&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C580px&ssl=1" media="all" style="box-sizing: inherit;">
</source></source></source></source></source></source></source></source></font></picture></div></figure></a></div><div class="related-contentbody" style="box-sizing: inherit; width: 513px;"><h3 class="related-content__title" style="box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 2rem; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">How Conservatives Abandoned Judicial Restraint, Took Over The Courts And Radically Transformed America]</font></h3></div></div><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">One decision applying <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner </em>held that the law may not to used to compel “any person in the course of his business and against his will to accept or retain the personal services of another, or to compel any person, against his will, to perform personal services for another” — a rule that, had it still been in effect in the 1960s, would have required courts to <a href="http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/23_3_Millhiser.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">strike down the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s</a> bans on employment discrimination and whites-only lunch counters.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In recent years, however, a group of mostly libertarian legal scholars have sought to pull </span><em style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner </em><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">out of the anti-canon (one of the seminal texts of this movement is named “</span><a href="https://networks.h-net.org/node/16794/reviews/17301/kens-bernstein-rehabilitating-lochner-defending-individual-rights" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">Rehabilitating <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em></a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“).</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Combining a mixture of true facts of dubious relevance, <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">ad hominem</em> attacks on <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em>‘s opponents, and doubtful historiography, these scholars seek to restore <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em> to the legitimate pantheon of legal decisions — and even to revive its doctrines.</span></font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Which brings us to <a href="http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1008502/120657c1.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">Justice Willett’s opinion</a> in <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Patel v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation</em>. Willett’s concurring opinion in <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Patel </em>is deeply steeped in the scholarship seeking to revive cases like <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em>. It quotes the Pope, Fredrick Douglass, Shakespeare, James Madison, Adam Smith, and <b>Davy Crockett</b>. And it buys wholeheartedly into libertarian ideas that would dismantle much of American government.</font></p><h3 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 2.75rem; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Don’t Thread on Me”</font></h3><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Patel</em> is a tribute to the increasing sophistication of lawyers fighting to restore cases like <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em>. It involves both an exceptionally dumb law and a <a href="http://ij.org/case/patel-v-tx-department-of-licensing-and-regulation/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">bevy of sympathetic plaintiffs</a>. It’s the sort of case where you very much want the plaintiffs, who were represented by a law firm that specializes in Trojan Horse lawsuits seeking to <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/the-most-chilling-political-appointment-that-youve-probably-never-heard-of-d2b083a153ab/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">launder radical legal doctrines through cases involving real injustice</a>, to prevail even if they don’t have any good legal arguments. It’s the sort of case that tugs at the heart, and that shuts down the part of the brain that makes judges think through the implications of what they are signing onto.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Texas law required eyebrow threaders — a practice where stray hairs are removed by cotton or polyester thread — to <a href="http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1008501/120657.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">undergo a 750-hour training course</a> that included a great deal of material unrelated to threading. It was an extraordinarily dumb law. Any sensible legislator would vote to repeal it.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the fact that a law is ill-advised does not make it unconstitutional. And it does not mean judges should revive long-discredited doctrines in order to take it out.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The issue with </span><em style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> was that it read dubious “rights,” such as a right to enter into labor contracts that called for very long hours and very low pay, into the Constitution itself. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Chastened by this experience, the justices who rejected <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em> many decades ago decided that they <a href="http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/23_3_Millhiser.pdf" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">should not be trusted with such a freewheeling power</a> to invent new doctrines with hardly any connection to the text of the Constitution</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. Thus, the <b>Court held that nearly all laws should be </b></span><a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1808251577400430843&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr#r%5B4%5D" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);"><b>treated as presumptively constitutional</b></a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, with exceptions for laws that violate an explicit provision of the Constitution, that single out certain minorities for inferior treatment, or that harm the democratic process itself.</span></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This presumption of constitutionality ushered in a golden age of American democracy, where courts got out of the business of making economic policy and left these matters to leaders like Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson. It also coincided with the massive expansion of American wealth and power that took place in the later two-thirds of the twentieth century.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Yet, for libertarian scholars, this golden age was an age of perdition, and the original sin was the presumption of constitutionality intended to ward of decisions like <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em>.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><b>The leading scholar arguing this viewpoint is probably Randy Barnett, a Georgetown law professor</b> who believes that most of the twentieth century is unconstitutional. Barnett has <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/how-conservatives-abandoned-judicial-restraint-took-over-the-courts-and-radically-transformed-3da3115c81c0/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">explicitly praised the <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em> decision.</a> He’s even <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124044199838345461" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">claimed that Social Security is unconstitutional</a>.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Barnett’s core claim is that the presumption of constitutionality should be replaced by a presumption of unconstitutionality — courts should presume that most laws are unconstitutional, in Barnett’s view. Yet, being a skilled advocate, Barnett gives his presumption a much more appealing name. He calls it the “<a href="https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10118.html" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">presumption of liberty</a>.”</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Which brings us to this excerpt from Justice Willett’s <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Patel</em> opinion, where the judge rejects the post-<em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em> consensus and restates Barnett’s philosophy:</font></p><blockquote style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; clear: both; margin: 0px 1.5625rem; padding: 0px; position: relative; border-left: 3px solid rgb(87, 87, 206);"><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem; padding-left: 30px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In today’s age of staggering civic illiteracy—when 35 percent of Americans cannot correctly name a single branch of government—it is unsurprising that people mistake majority rule as America’s defining value. But our federal and state charters are not, contrary to popular belief, about “democracy”—a word that appears in neither document, nor in the Declaration of Independence. Our enlightened 18th and 19th-century Founders, both federal and state, aimed higher, upended things, and brilliantly divided power to enshrine a promise (liberty), not merely a process (democracy). . . . This case concerns the timeless struggle between personal freedom and government power. Do Texans live under a presumption of liberty or a presumption of restraint?</font></p></blockquote><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Nor is this passage Willett’s only shoutout to the writers seeking to revive cases like <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em>. Willett also explicitly rejects the argument, made by one of his colleagues in a dissenting opinion, that <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em>ism<em style="box-sizing: inherit;"> </em>is something to be feared. “A wealth of contemporary legal scholarship is reexamining <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em>, its history and correctness as a matter of constitutional law, and its place within broader originalist thought,” he writes.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Willett notes that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the justice who wrote the strongest dissent in the original <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em> case, also penned an odious opinion in <em style="box-sizing: inherit;"><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/200" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">Buck v. Bell</a> </em>holding that the state can sterilize individuals against their will. It’s an <em style="box-sizing: inherit;"><b>ad hominem </b></em>argument that pro-<em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em> scholars often repeat — if Holmes was so wrong in <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Buck</em>, how could his opinion in <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner </em>be right! — but it’s also not a particularly strong argument. <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Buck </em>was an 8-1 decision, joined by many of the Court’s staunchest defenders of <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em>. The biggest lesson to be drawn from <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Buck</em> is that the Supreme Court as a whole was full of terrible people in 1927.</font></p><p style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><b style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Willett also favorably cites fringe libertarian thinkers such as </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Timothy Sandefur, a</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> litigator for the conservative Goldwater Institute who has claimed that </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">courts are required to follow decisions like <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em> <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/if-you-want-to-understand-whats-happened-to-the-supreme-court-you-need-to-listen-to-rand-paul-d2f245be1706/" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none; word-break: break-word; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(144, 141, 255);">even if the Constitution is amended to explicitly reject this view</a>.</span></b></font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Willett’s opinion, in other words, is the picture of a man eager to roll back nearly a century of American law. It is the picture of a judge who believes he has far to little power — and that the people who are actually elected to make laws have too much ability to act. And it is the picture of a judge eager to seize more power and use it to implement doctrines that took America to a very dark place the first time around.</font></p><h3 style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; line-height: 2.75rem; margin: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Fox News of judges</font></h3><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If all of this discussion of legal scholarship and books written by largely unknown lawyers sounds obscure and arcane, that’s because it is. Most lawyers — indeed, most legal scholars and judges — are not familiar with neo-<em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em>ite scholarship, much less the most cutting edge rebuttals to its claims. People like Barnett and <b>Sandefur </b>are influential in Federalist Society circles, but few people outside of the conservative legal community know who they are.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But that does not mean that they can be safely ignored. Much as conservative media outlets like Fox News and Breitbart have created an alternative universe of facts for their consumers, libertarian scholars have constructed an alternative history of the Constitution — some of it based in reality, much of it based in half-truths or outright misrepresentations.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If mainstream lawyers and judges are not familiar with these alternative facts, they will be poorly equipped to rebut them when judges like Willett write them into opinions like <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Patel</em>. The age of the anti-canon, when judges could safely assume that decisions like <em style="box-sizing: inherit;">Lochner</em> were dead, buried, and incapable of resurrection, is coming to a close.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 2.1875rem; line-height: 2.2rem;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Justice Willett is many things. He is radical and deeply conservative. But he is also intelligent, charismatic, and skilled in the arts of persuasion. And he will probably soon be a federal appellate judge. His views can no longer be safely ignored.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font><div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Challenge to California Teachers Association Lands in U.S. Supreme Court</font></div><div>
</div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Wed, Jul 1, 2015 -- 9:00 AM</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Download audio (MP3) </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div>
</div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up a case on the constitutionality of requiring public employees to pay union dues Tuesday, as a condition of their employment. Ten California teachers say their free speech rights are being violated because their donations contribute to the union's political agenda. Organized labor groups are closely watching the case, which is viewed as a major challenge to the way public-sector unions finance their operations.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Host: Scott Shafer</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Guests:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">John Myers, senior editor, KQED's Politics and Government Desk</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Laura Juran, legal director, California Teachers Association</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Richard Wolf, supreme court correspondent, USA Today</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Timothy Sandefur, principal attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation; co-author of PLF's amicus brief for Freidrichs v. California Teachers Association</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Principal Attorney</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">PLF National Headquarters</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">(916) 419-7111</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Timothy Sandefur, PLF Principal Attorney</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></span></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Practice areas </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Economic Liberty </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Eminent Domain</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Background</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Timothy Sandefur is a Principal Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation. As the lead attorney in the Foundation's Economic Liberty Project, he works to protect businesses against abusive government regulation, and has won important victories for free enterprise in California, Oregon, Missouri, and other states.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div>
</div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Publications / Achievements</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">He is the author of three books, Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America (2006), The Right to Earn A Living: Economic Freedom And The Law (2010), and The Conscience of The Constitution: The Declaration of Independence And The Right to Liberty (2013), as well as some 45 scholarly articles on subjects ranging from eminent domain and economic liberty to copyright, evolution and creationism, slavery and the Civil War, and legal issues in Shakespeare and ancient Greek drama. His articles have appeared in National Review, The Claremont Review of Books, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Washington Times, and Regulation, among other places. He is an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute and a frequent guest on radio and television programs, including John Stossel, The Armstrong and Getty Show, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, and NPR's This American Life.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Education</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Sandefur is a graduate of Chapman University School of Law and <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Hillsdale College.</span></font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); line-height: 22.500072479248px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Sandefur is a principal attorney at the </span><a href="http://www.pacificlegal.org/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); line-height: 22.500072479248px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Pacific Legal Foundation,</a><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); line-height: 22.500072479248px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> and heads the Foundation’s Economic Liberty Project, which protects entrepreneurs against intrusive government regulation. He has won important legal victories for economic freedom in California, Oregon, Missouri, Kentucky, and other states, and represented the plaintiffs in </span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); line-height: 22.500072479248px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5280506466357734086&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); background: transparent;">Merrifield v. Lockyer</a></em><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); line-height: 22.500072479248px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, a major economic liberty decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In late 2011, he was named “Appellate Lawyer of The Week” for his work challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act. He is the author of three books, </span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); line-height: 22.500072479248px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Cornerstone-Liberty-Property-Century-America/dp/1930865961/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1385429593&sr=8-2&keywords=timothy+sandefur" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); background: transparent;">Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America (2006)</a></em><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); line-height: 22.500072479248px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, </span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); line-height: 22.500072479248px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Right-Earn-Living-Economic/dp/1935308335/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1385429593&sr=8-3&keywords=timothy+sandefur" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); background: transparent;">The Right to Earn A Living: Economic Freedom And The Law</a><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Right-Earn-Living-Economic/dp/1935308335/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1385429593&sr=8-3&keywords=timothy+sandefur" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); background: transparent;"> (2010),</a></em><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); line-height: 22.500072479248px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> and </span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); line-height: 22.500072479248px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Conscience-Constitution-Declaration-Independence/dp/1939709032/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1385429593&sr=8-1&keywords=timothy+sandefur" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); background: transparent;">The Conscience of The Constitution</a></em><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); line-height: 22.500072479248px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); line-height: 22.500072479248px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Conscience-Constitution-Declaration-Independence/dp/1939709032/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1385429593&sr=8-1&keywords=timothy+sandefur" target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); background: transparent;">(2014)</a></em><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); line-height: 22.500072479248px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, as well as some 50 scholarly articles on subjects ranging from eminent domain and economic liberty to copyright, evolution and creationism, slavery and the Civil War, and legal issues in Shakespeare and ancient Greek drama. His articles have appeared in </span><em style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); line-height: 22.500072479248px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, The NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, National Review, The Claremont Review of Books, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Washington Times</em><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); line-height: 22.500072479248px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">, and other places. He is an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute and a frequent guest on radio and television programs, including John Stossel, The Armstrong and Getty Show, and the Jim Lehrer News Hour. He is a graduate of Chapman University School of Law and Hillsdale College.</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</font></div><div><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Alan Merrifield, Urban Wildlife Management of California</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Websites<a href="http://www.urban-wildlife.com/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> Urban Wildlife Management of California</a><a href="http://www.b9birdcontrol.com/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> B9 Bird Control</a></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">More About Alan Merryfield</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; line-height: 18px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Read these</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; line-height: 18px;"><a href="http://www.skinnymoose.com/wildlifepro/2009/01/09/david-beats-goliath/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">David Beats Goliath-Landmark Decision In The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals</font></a></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 12px; padding: 0px; line-height: 18px;"><a href="http://www.skinnymoose.com/wildlifepro/2009/01/20/champion-of-entrpreneur-rights/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Champion of Entrepreneur Rights</font></a></p><span style="line-height: 19.6000003814697px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">- See more at: http://www.skinnymoose.com/wildlifepro/category/california-law/#sthash.6BaU7bOO.dpuf</font></span></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">---</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></font></font></font></div><div>
</div><div>Alan Merryfield</div><div>
</div><div>Alan Merryfield of B9birdcontrol.com will be on hand and tell us all about his bird control products and his own companies solutions to handling bird conflicts.</div><div>
</div><div>Alan is the Owner of Urban Wildlife Management, Inc. providing animal damage and pest bird control in the San Francisco Bay Area.</div><div>
</div><div>He is Founder/Past President of California Nuisance Wildlife Control Operators Association (CNWCOA).</div><div>Defender of WCO’s constitutional rights and economic liberty (see Merrifield v. Lockyer 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals);</div><div>Certified Wildlife Control Professional (NWCOA);</div><div>Inventor/Liscensor of the Birdblaster California Electronic Scarecrow System (www.b9birdcontrol.com)</div><div>
</div><div>The two previous sessions are available from the Wildlife Pro Network</div><div>
</div><div>Resolving Difficult Bird Jobs #1 –> go here</div><div>
</div><div>Resolving Difficult Bird Problems #2 go here –></div><div>
</div><div>Date: 25 Jan 2009</div><div>
</div><div>- See more at: http://www.skinnymoose.com/wildlifepro/category/california-law/#sthash.6BaU7bOO.dpuf</div><div></div><div><div id="title" class="element" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 480px; font-family: Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 19.2000007629395px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 4px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 18px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-stretch: normal; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><a href="http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=icwdmother" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Merrifield, Urban Wildlife Management Inc., and California Nuisance Wildlife Control Operators Association, <i style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">v.</i> Lockyer and California Structural Pest Control Board: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 05-16613</a></p></div><div class="clear" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; clear: both; line-height: 0; position: relative; height: 10px; float: none; list-style: none; overflow: hidden; visibility: hidden; width: 0px; font-family: Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><div id="authors" class="element" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; width: 480px; line-height: 19.2000007629395px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><p class="author" style="margin: 0px; padding: 8px 4px; border-width: 2px 0px 1px; border-top-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(102, 102, 102); border-bottom-color: rgb(102, 102, 102); outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 15px; font-stretch: normal; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><a href="http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/do/search/?q=author_lname%3A%22O%E2%80%99Scannlain%2C%22%20author_fname%3A%22Diarmuid%22&start=0&context=52045" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); text-decoration: none; display: inline-block; max-width: 380px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><strong style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: underline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain,</strong>, <em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit</em></a><br style="line-height: 24px;" /></p></div><div class="clear" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; clear: both; line-height: 0; position: relative; height: 10px; float: none; list-style: none; overflow: hidden; visibility: hidden; width: 0px; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><div id="publication_date" class="element" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.2000007629395px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><h4 style="margin: 0px; padding: 4px 4px 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 15px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Date of this Version</h4><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 4px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 15px; font-stretch: normal; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">9-16-2008</p></div><div class="clear" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; clear: both; line-height: 0; position: relative; height: 10px; float: none; list-style: none; overflow: hidden; visibility: hidden; width: 0px; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><div id="abstract" class="element" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 19.2000007629395px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><h4 style="margin: 0px; padding: 4px 4px 0px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 15px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Abstract</h4><p style="margin: 0px; padding: 4px; border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 15px; font-stretch: normal; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding. Argued and Submitted August 16, 2007—San Francisco, California. Filed September 16, 2008, Before: Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Michael Daly Hawkins, and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge O’Scannlain; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Hawkins
Timothy Sandefur, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, California, argued the cause for the plaintiffs-appellants and filed briefs; Meriem L. Hubbard, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, California, was on the briefs. Diann Sokoloff, Deputy Attorney General, Oakland, California, argued the cause for the defendants-appellees and filed a brief; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General for the State of California, Alfredo Terrazas, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Wilbert E. Bennett Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Oakland, California, were on the brief.
The court must decide whether a state regulatory scheme violates the equal protection rights of pest controllers. Alan Merrifield appeals from a grant of summary judgment denying his request for a permanent, prospective injunction of California’s structural pest control licensing requirements. He engages in <b>“non-pesticide animal damage prevention and bird control” (“ADP & BC”), which includes installing spikes, screens, and other mechanical devices in or on buildings and other structures so as to remove vertebrate pests—e.g., skunks, raccoons, squirrels, rats, pigeons, starlings, bats—or to keep them away from structures. </b>California law requires all persons engaged in structural pest control to obtain licenses, with certain statutory exemptions.<b> Merrifield argues that the applicable licensing requirement is intended for pesticide-based pest control, and that he should be exempt from such requirement because he does not use pesticides.</b></p></div></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">547 F.3d 978 (2008)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Alan MERRIFIELD, an individual; <b>Urban Wildlife Management Inc., a California corporation </b>individually as a successor in interest to Alan Merrifield dba Urban Wildlife Management; California Nuisance Wildlife Control Operators Association, a California<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> non-profit</span> corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants,</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">v.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Bill LOCKYER, Attorney General, Defendant, and</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Kelli Okuma, Registrar of the California Structural Pest Control Board; Gretchen A. Brigaman, Protest Officer of the California Department of Transportation; Jean Melton, Member of the California Structural Pest Control Board; Bill Morris, Member of the California Structural Pest Control Board; Michael Roth, Member of the California Structural Pest Control Board; Mustapha Sesay, Member of the California Structural Pest Control Board; Thurman, Member of the California Structural Pest Control Board;<b> Kenneth L. Trongo, Member </b>of the California Structural Pest Control Board, Defendants-Appellees.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">No. 05-16613.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Argued and Submitted August 16, 2007.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Filed September 16, 2008.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Amended October 22, 2008.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">979979 Timothy Sandefur, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, CA, argued the cause for the plaintiffs-appellants and filed briefs; Meriem L. Hubbard, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, CA, was on the briefs.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Diann Sokoloff, Deputy Attorney General, Oakland, CA, argued the cause for the defendants-appellees and filed a brief; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General for the State of California, Alfredo Terrazas, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Wilbert E. Bennett Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Oakland, CA, were on the brief.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Before: DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and KIM McLANE WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Opinion by Judge O'Scannlain; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">980980 ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND AMENDED OPINION</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">ORDER</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Appellants' motion for clarification is GRANTED.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The opinion filed in this case on September 16, 2008, 2008 WL 4210586, slip op. at 12915, is amended as follows:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">At slip op. at 12942, second to last paragraph, lines 4-5: Delete "and shall enjoin the Board from denying him a Branch II license to engage in his chosen profession".</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc remains pending. Subsequent petitions for rehearing will be entertained.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">OPINION</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">We must decide whether a state regulatory scheme violates the equal protection rights of pest controllers.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">I</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">A</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Alan Merrifield appeals from a grant of summary judgment denying his request for a permanent, prospective injunction of California's structural pest control licensing requirements. He engages in "non-pesticide animal damage prevention and bird control" ("ADP & BC"), which includes installing spikes, screens, and other mechanical devices in or on buildings and other structures so as to remove vertebrate pests — e.g., skunks, raccoons, squirrels, rats, pigeons, starlings, bats — or to keep them away from structures. California law requires all persons engaged in structural pest control to obtain licenses, with certain statutory exemptions. Merrifield argues that the applicable licensing requirement is intended for pesticide-based pest control, and that he should be exempt from such requirement because he does not use pesticides.[1]</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Persons who engage in structural pest control without a license in California face misdemeanor convictions punishable by fines of up to $1,000 and six months imprisonment per violation.[2] Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code ("Code") § 8553. The state Structural Pest Control Board ("Board") enforces the licensing requirements. The record includes correspondence between Merrifield and Board officials making clear that his bids for a government project to birdproof the Trans Bay Terminal in San Francisco would not be considered unless he had a "Branch II" license. On February 21, 1997, the Board warned Merrifield to comply with the licensing statute. After quoting the text of the licensing requirement, the letter stated:....</font></div></div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">MORE FROM TIMOTHY SANDEFUR</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Commentary</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Do We Really Want a Passive Judiciary? No.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Reason.com. February 10, 2015.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Businesses Should Have the Right to Make Their Case</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">National Law Journal. May 1, 2013.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Book Review: Rights at Risk: The Limits of Liberty in Modern America</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">California Lawyer. December 1, 2012.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">MORE COMMENTARY</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Blog Posts</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Industry Groups Cloaked with State Power Shouldn’t Get Antitrust Immunity</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">August 7, 2014.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">D.C. Circuit Rules that Obamacare Is a “Tax” but Not a “Bill for Raising Revenue”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">July 29, 2014.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The Latest Obamacare Case on Appeal</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">October 24, 2013.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Articles</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">In Defense of Substantive Due Process, or the Promise of Lawful Rule</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Vol. 35. No. 1. Winter 2012.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><b>Public Filings</b></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Rosebrock v. Hoffman</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Legal Briefs. February 23, 2015.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Legal Briefs. August 7, 2014.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">U.S. Department of Health & Human Services v. Florida</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Legal Briefs. February 13, 2012.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">MORE PUBLIC FILINGS:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><p class="text-large experts-more-h" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 2px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 1.23077em; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: DroidSerif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-style: italic; line-height: 19.2000102996826px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/rosebrock-v-hoffman" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 16.0000095367432px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); background: transparent;">Rosebrock v. Hoffman</a></p><p class="text-sans" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Legal Briefs. <span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2015-02-23T08:52:00-05:00" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">February 23, 2015</span>.</p><p class="text-sans" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">vie<span style="font-family: DroidSerif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16.0000095367432px; line-height: 28px;">tnam vet Robert Rosebrock is 72 years old, but he’s still got enough fight in him to stand up for what he believes in. The Veteran’s Administration of Greater Los Angeles (VAGLA) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit would prefer his fight to be in vain. Rosebrock’s fight here is a protest against VAGLA’s use of a parcel of land deeded to the U.S. government for the care of homeless veterans for purposes other than that purpose. For example, VAGLA leased parts of the land to a private school, an entertainment company, and a soccer club, and occasionally used it for hosting events. Every Sunday for 66 weeks, Rosebrock hung at least one and as many as 30 U.S. flags from a border fence on the VA property that he believed was being misused. After seeing a celebrity gala event on the property one Sunday afternoon, Rosebrock started hanging flags with the stars down, signifying dire distress to life and property—the distress faced by LA’s homeless veterans. At this point, VAGLA started enforcing its policy against “displaying of placards or posting of materials on bulletin boards or elsewhere on [VA] property.” When Rosebrock continued, believing his First Amendment rights would protect him, he was issued six criminal citations. He then stopped hanging his flag upside down but was later allowed to hang it right-side-up—a clear if unusual example of viewpoint-based speech discrimination that violates the First Amendment. That part of his case was a slam-dunk; the difficulty came in making the violation matter. Rosebrock turned to the courts asking two things: an order that would stop VAGLA from discriminating against him in the future and one that would allow him to display his flag stars-down for an amount of time equal to how long he had been denied the right to display it. The district court found that because the VAGLA associate director sent an email to the VA police that the “no signs” regulation should be enforced precisely, Rosebrock’s requested remedies were denied as moot—meaning, basically, that because VAGLA said it would play by the rules, the Court wouldn’t order them to. This is known in legal circles as “voluntary cessation”. Not long after the district court’s dismissal, the VA police disregarded the email and allowed Iraq War veterans to protest in violation of the regulation. Rosebrock raised this fact when he appealed to the Ninth Circuit, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the ruling without even addressing the continued discriminatory enforcement. To paraphrase, the appellate panel held that although there is a great burden for parties seeking to prove mootness through voluntary cessation, we should trust that the government will do what it says. Robert Rosebrook said, “no thanks,” and is petitioning the Supreme Court to hear his case. Cato agrees, and has joined the Pacific Legal Foundation and Institute for Justice in a brief supporting the petition. We point out that the federal appeals courts are split on this mootness/voluntary cessation issue, that it’s an issue that arises all the time, and that there’s no reason that government entities should be given a benefit of the doubt while everyone else has to prove “it is absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” The Supreme Court should take this case and tell the lower courts what we know, what Robert Rosebrock knows, and what everyone else in the country should already know by now: it doesn’t always make sense to take the government at its word.</span></p><p class="text-large experts-more-h" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 2px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 1.23077em; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: DroidSerif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-style: italic; line-height: 19.2000102996826px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/north-carolina-board-dental-examiners-v-federal-trade-commission" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 16.0000095367432px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); outline: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); background: transparent;">North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission</a></p><p class="text-sans" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Legal Briefs. <span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2014-08-07T00:00:00-04:00" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">August 7, 2014</span>.</p><p class="text-large experts-more-h" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 2px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 1.23077em; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: DroidSerif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-style: italic; line-height: 19.2000102996826px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/us-department-health-human-services-v-florida" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 16.0000095367432px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); background: transparent;">U.S. Department of Health & Human Services v. Florida</a></p><p class="text-sans" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Legal Briefs. <span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2012-02-13T00:00:00-05:00" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">February 13, 2012</span>.</p><p class="text-large experts-more-h" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 2px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 1.23077em; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: DroidSerif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-style: italic; line-height: 19.2000102996826px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/florida-v-us-dept-health-human-services-1" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 16.0000095367432px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); background: transparent;">Florida v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Services</a></p><p class="text-sans" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Legal Briefs. <span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2012-01-17T00:00:00-05:00" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">January 17, 2012</span>.</p><p class="text-large experts-more-h" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 2px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 1.23077em; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: DroidSerif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-style: italic; line-height: 19.2000102996826px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/locke-v-shore" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 16.0000095367432px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); background: transparent;">Locke v. Shore</a></p><p class="text-sans" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Legal Briefs. <span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2011-10-20T00:00:00-04:00" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">October 20, 2011</span>.</p><p class="text-large experts-more-h" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 2px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 1.23077em; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: DroidSerif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-style: italic; line-height: 19.2000102996826px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/sevensky-v-holder" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 16.0000095367432px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); background: transparent;">Seven-Sky v. Holder</a></p><p class="text-sans" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Legal Briefs. <span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2011-05-23T00:00:00-04:00" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">May 23, 2011</span>.</p><p class="text-large experts-more-h" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 2px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 1.23077em; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: DroidSerif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-style: italic; line-height: 19.2000102996826px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/skilling-v-united-states" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 16.0000095367432px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); background: transparent;">Skilling v. United States</a></p><p class="text-sans" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Legal Briefs. <span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2009-12-17T00:00:00-05:00" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">December 17, 2009</span>.</p><footer class="byline" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 14px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-family: DroidSerif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-style: italic; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div id="pub-authors" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">By <a href="http://www.cato.org/people/timothy-sandefur" typeof="foaf:Person" property="foaf:name" rel="foaf:publications" html="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); background: transparent;">Timothy Sandefur</a>, <a href="http://www.cato.org/people/tim-lynch" typeof="foaf:Person" property="foaf:name" rel="foaf:publications" html="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); background: transparent;">Tim Lynch</a>, and <a href="http://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro" typeof="foaf:Person" property="foaf:name" rel="foaf:publications" html="1" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); background: transparent;">Ilya Shapiro</a></div><div class="field-date" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2009-12-17T00:00:00-05:00" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">December 17, 2009</span></div></footer><div class="article-body body-text dropcap-detail-text" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 30px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); outline: 0px; font-size: 1.23077em; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; font-family: DroidSerif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 28px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="field-body" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 16.0000095367432px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><b>Following Enron’s downfall, the federal government charged company CEO Jeffrey Skilling with “honest services fraud” connected to the alleged manipulation of Enron’s market value (and other securities irregularities).</b> This charge — also at issue in two other cases before the Court this term — is based on a statute which states, in its entirety: “For the purposes of this chapter, the term ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’ includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” Skilling was convicted, and his conviction was upheld by the Fifth Circuit. The Supreme Court agreed to review the application of the “honest services fraud” statute to Skilling (as well as the issue of potential jury bias stemming from pretrial publicity in Houston). Cato, joined by the Pacific Legal Foundation, filed an <b>amicus brief supporting neither party, arguing simply that vague statutes such as the one at issue here offend due process. </b>We take no position on whether the “honest services fraud” statute can be construed in a way that satisfies due process principles, or whether Skilling in particular violated that statute<b>. Instead, we argue that the Court should clarify that the constitutional prohibition on vague laws protects sophisticated and unsophisticated defendants alike in the realm of economic regulation, as well as in criminal law. The due process requirements of fair warning and definiteness apply equally in the contexts of white collar business crimes, business torts, and civil regulations.</b> Vague laws involve three basic dangers: First, they may harm the innocent by failing to warn of the offense. Second, they encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement because vague laws delegate enforcement and statutory interpretation to individual government officials. Third, because citizens will take extra precautions to avoid violating the law, vague laws inhibit our individual freedom.</div></div><p class="text-large experts-more-h" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 2px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 1.23077em; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: DroidSerif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-style: italic; line-height: 19.2000102996826px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/mcdonald-v-city-chicago" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 16.0000095367432px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); background: transparent;">McDonald v. City of Chicago</a></p><p class="text-sans" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Legal Briefs. <span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2009-11-21T00:00:00-05:00" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">November 21, 2009</span>.</p><p class="text-large experts-more-h" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 2px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 1.23077em; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: DroidSerif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-style: italic; line-height: 19.2000102996826px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/jones-v-harris-associates" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 16.0000095367432px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); background: transparent;">Jones v. Harris Associates</a></p><p class="text-sans" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Legal Briefs. <span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2009-09-04T00:00:00-04:00" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">September 4, 2009</span>.</p><p class="text-large experts-more-h" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 2px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 1.23077em; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: DroidSerif, Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-style: italic; line-height: 19.2000102996826px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/powers-v-harris" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 16.0000095367432px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(186, 35, 57); text-decoration: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 94, 153); background: transparent;">Powers v. Harris</a></p><p class="text-sans" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 25px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', 'Lucida Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Legal Briefs. <span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2004-12-01T00:00:00-05:00" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">December 1, 2004</span>.</p></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Cato Reviews & Journals</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Reining in Antitrust Immunity</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Regulation. Fall 2014.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">PPACA’s Corrupting Lawlessness</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Regulation. Winter 2013 - 2014.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Returning to the True Spirit of the First Amendment</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Regulation. Spring 2013.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">MORE REVIEWS & JOURNALS</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Events</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">14th Annual Constitution Day</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">September 17, 2015. Conference.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Beyond the Individual Mandate: <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The Obamacare “Tax” Is Still Unconstitutional</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">May 8, 2014. Policy Forum.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">January 30, 2014. Book Forum.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">MORE EVENTS</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">BOOKS</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">November 2013</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The Right to Earn a Living</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">September 2010</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">CORNERSTONE OF LIBERTY: Property Rights in 21st Century America</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">June 2006</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">MULTIMEDIA</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Timothy Sandefur discusses his book, The Conscience of the Constitution, at the Mobile <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Federalist Society</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">June 1, 2015</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> Timothy Sandefur discusses Hilary Clinton's private email controversy on FBN's Kennedy</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Timothy Sandefur discusses Hilary Clinton’s private email controversy on FBN’s Kennedy</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">March 5, 2015</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> Timothy Sandefur discusses the judge's injunction on Obama's immigration plan on FBN's Kennedy</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Timothy Sandefur discusses the judge’s injunction on Obama’s immigration plan on FBN’s Kennedy</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">February 17, 2015</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Timothy Sandefur discusses his book, “The Conscience of the Constitution”, on Dial Global’s The Jim Bohannon Show</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">November 27, 2014</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> Timothy Sandefur discusses his book, "The Conscience of the Constitution", on VCT Access 27 TV</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Timothy Sandefur discusses his book, “The Conscience of the Constitution”, on VCT Access 27 TV</font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">==</font></div></div></div></div></div>