For reprint rights, email email@example.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.
To purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, call 213-229-5558.
To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email firstname.lastname@example.org
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright.
It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes
and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission.
Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial
marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
This week, as the U.S. Supreme Court begins its summer recess, Adam Winkler, of UCLA School of Law, will discuss how liberal justices, in what has become a perhaps unexpected trend, helped render a number of pro-business rulings over the past term.
And John Eastman, from Chapman University Fowler School of Law, will walk us through some anticipatory posturing laid out by justices during the term, jurisprudential discursions that, Eastman says, the justices may very well be writing to help bolster their eventual rulings in next term's immigration law battles, among them President Trump's executive order temporary banning travel from certain countries. Eastman will discuss what signals courtwatchers can glean from these various nuances in the court's dicta.
Also, we discuss two state cases drew attention this week, one a divided ruling in the California Supreme Court keeping broad discretion in the hands of judges hearing Prop 36 Three Strikes Reform Act resentencing petitions, and thus rendering resentencing under that Act more elusive, and another a unanimous ruling from Texas questioning whether and to what extent lower courts may be able to narrow the impact of 'Obergefell v. Hodges.'
Is donating to charity surplus class action settlement funds a logical, efficient solution for unclaimed damages, or a Due Process and First Amendment violation that incentivizes collusion and self-dealing? The U.S. Supreme Court will consider the practice next term, reviewing a Ninth Circuit affirmance of a Cy Pres-based settlement. Guests Jeremy Kidd (Mercer Univ. SOL) and Jay Tidmarsh (Univ. Notre Dame SOL) offer differing views on the doctrine's utility, defects, and future.
A new three-step test distinguishing employees from independent contractors stands to tilt worker misclassification suits toward plaintiffs, and reshape many modern, independent contractor-centric business models. Michael Rubin (Altshuler Berzon LLP) and Gina Roccanova (Myers Nave) unpack the new 'ABC Test,' articulated last week by the California Supreme Court, and its implications.
To what extent should the president's statements (on social media, the campaign trail, or in office) bear on judicial review of enacted policy? As SCOTUS weighs the third travel ban, Rory Gray (Sr. Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom) argues the Court shouldn't look past the policy's professed purpose of national security, while Professor Richard Primus (Univ. of Michigan Law School) contends statements hinting at religious animus should be given their full probative weight.
Three guests weigh the implications of Justice Neil Gorsuch's swing vote last week with his more liberal colleagues in an immigration case; John McGinnis (Northwestern SOL) gleans aspects of Gorsuch's 'modern' originalism, Mark Pulliam (contributing editor, Law and Liberty; Misrule of Law blog proprietor) wonders whether the new justice has already 'gone wobbly,' and Eric Segall (Georgia St. Univ. Law) speculates on what extra-judicial influences might prompt another surprise vote from Gorsuch this term.