Posted 01 Nov 2016 in Business

Sed accumsan sit amet odio vitae ullamcorper. Nulla sed libero sapien. Mauris feugiat, odio vitae accumsan facilisis, purus ante placerat ex, dapibus sagittis purus nisl in dolor. Duis egestas magna a nulla placerat, vel laoreet quam semper. Pellentesque rhoncus, nunc quis sodales dignissim, mi felis hendrerit libero, nec cursus magna arcu ac eros. Maecenas eget vulputate arcu, ut consectetur dolor. Nullam euismod diam sit amet faucibus dapibus. Vivamus sollicitudin non odio non euismod. Praesent euismod, ligula in suscipit ornare, urna...

Posted 01 Nov 2016 in Business

Sed accumsan sit amet odio vitae ullamcorper. Nulla sed libero sapien. Mauris feugiat, odio vitae accumsan facilisis, purus ante placerat ex, dapibus sagittis purus nisl in dolor. Duis egestas magna a nulla placerat, vel laoreet quam semper. Pellentesque rhoncus, nunc quis sodales dignissim, mi felis hendrerit libero, nec cursus magna arcu ac eros. Maecenas eget vulputate arcu, ut consectetur dolor. Nullam euismod diam sit amet faucibus dapibus. Vivamus sollicitudin non odio non euismod. Praesent euismod, ligula in suscipit ornare, urna...

Posted 01 Nov 2016 in Business

Sed accumsan sit amet odio vitae ullamcorper. Nulla sed libero sapien. Mauris feugiat, odio vitae accumsan facilisis, purus ante placerat ex, dapibus sagittis purus nisl in dolor. Duis egestas magna a nulla placerat, vel laoreet quam semper. Pellentesque rhoncus, nunc quis sodales dignissim, mi felis hendrerit libero, nec cursus magna arcu ac eros. Maecenas eget vulputate arcu, ut consectetur dolor. Nullam euismod diam sit amet faucibus dapibus. Vivamus sollicitudin non odio non euismod. Praesent euismod, ligula in suscipit ornare, urna...

Posted 31 Oct 2016 in Case Notes, Commentary
The Supreme Court keeps on accepting First Amendment cases—perhaps because among the current Court there is much agreement on the First Amendment, so being down a Justice doesn’t matter. This does not bode well for state and local governments, like North Carolina in this case. For better or worse, this case like Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, accepted in September, gives the Supreme Court a chance to refine its holding in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona (2015).

Posted 31 Oct 2016 in Case Notes, Commentary
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide cases accusing federal government officials at the highest levels of mistreating people investigated for possible terrorist connections after 9/11. All Supreme Court qualified immunity cases, including Ziglar v. Turkmen, Ashcroft v. Turkmen, and Hasty v. Turkmen, affect state and local governments. These cases raise issues that frequently come up in run-of-the-mill qualified immunity cases, in particular, whether the court defined the “established law” at a high level of generality instead of considering the specific facts of the case when deciding whether to grant or deny qualified immunity.

Posted 25 Oct 2016 in Case Notes, Commentary
The question the Supreme Court will decide in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman is whether state “no-surcharge” laws that prohibit vendors from charging more to credit-card customers but allows them to charge less to cash customers violates the First Amendment. Here is why this case matters to local governments: An amicus brief filed on behalf of a number of retailers asking the Court to hear this case and overturn the Second Circuit decision argues that the Court should use this case as an opportunity to rule that strict (almost always fatal) scrutiny should apply to restrictions on commercial speech per Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona (2015). In Reed the Supreme Court held that strict scrutiny applies to content-based restrictions on speech. In the Reed opinion, the Court did not extend its holding to the commercial speech context where states and local governments historically have had more latitude to regulate speech.

Posted 19 Oct 2016 in Case Notes, Commentary
McLane v. EEOC is a case only an (employment) lawyer could love. When the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigates allegations of employment discrimination if the employer refuses to provide the information the EEOC requests it will issue a subpoena demanding the employer produce the information. If the employer refuses to comply with the subpoena the EEOC may ask a court to enforce it.