This Hawaiian Hotelier Hates Airbnb so Much He’s Willing to Destroy the Internet To Kill It

In order to wage war against home-sharing platforms, a former hotel executive and freshman congressman is trying to rewrite one of the fundamental laws which guarantees a free and open internet.

Rep. Ed Case (D–Hawaii) has introduced the “Protecting Local Authority and Neighborhoods Act” which would use federal power to stop websites like Airbnb and HomeAway from including listings that are illegal under local ordinances or state laws—in places like Hawaii, for example, which has some of the strictest laws against home-sharing in the country.

In a statement announcing the bill, Case said his proposal “would end abusive litigation by Internet-based short-term rental platforms like AirBnb, HomeAway, VRBO, Flipkey, and others attempting to avoid accountability for profiting from illegal rentals.”

That supposedly “abusive litigation” those websites are engaging in? It’s nothing more than pointing to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996—otherwise known as the 26 words that created the modern internet. Under the legal framework created by Section 230, online platforms are protected from legal liability for the content hosted on their servers, websites, or apps.

If Airbnb and other home-sharing platforms are pointing to Section 230 to avoid liability for supposedly “illegal” listings, that’s hardly different from a person pointing to the First Amendment as a defense against being prosecuted for saying “hey, if you want to stay in my apartment for a few days, you can. The government has no business regulating how people use their private property in the first place, and it certainly has no business prosecuting anyone for merely advertising that a rental is available.

But that’s what Case wants to do, and he’s willing to tear up Section 230 in order to do it. His bill proposes specifically exempting any online platform offering rental property from Section 230’s protections. To borrow the same analogy, it’s the equivalent of saying Congress should rewrite the First Amendment so that it applies to everyone except my neighbor Bob, because I really don’t like how Bob stands in the middle of the street and yells about how people can rent his spare bedroom.

That would be insane, of course. Furthermore, excluding one group of online platforms from Section 230 would start an avalanche of similarly grievance-based legislation aimed at other corners of the internet. There are already a bunch of proposals floating around Congress—all of them bad ideas—to rewrite or abolish Section 230 so the government can have greater control over online content. Each of them come with promises of protecting children from online predators or saving Americans from the scourge of autoplay videos, but all carry a thinly-veiled threat of making all online content subject to government censorship.

Case says his legislation is meant to help state and local governments that are “updating their land-use laws to more tightly regulate short-term rental activity including liability for the platforms,” but it is pretty obvious that he’s really just doing the hotel industry’s bidding.

To say that Case has close ties to the hotel industry is an understatement. Before getting elected to Congress last year, he was on the American Hotel and Lodging Association’s (AHLA) board of directors. Prior to that, he was a senior vice president for a Hawaiian hotel chain, Outrigger Enterprises Group. Two of Case’s four largest donors, according to federal campaign finance data, are the AHLA and Marriott International.

“These Big Tech rental platforms are invoking a loophole in a federal law to snub their noses at local government leaders across the country, while continuing to profit from illegal business transactions,” says Chip Rogers, president and CEO of the AHLA, in the congressman’s statement announcing the bill. Elsewhere in the same statement, Rogers refers to Section 230 as an “antiquated law.”

The AHLA has been on the front lines of the hotel industry’s fight to stop Airbnb from competing with the Hiltons and Marriotts of the world. They were behind a series of misleading ads blaming Airbnb for harming neighborhoods in Washington, D.C. (even though the group had hired actors to play the roles of concerned residents). More seriously, the AHLA has helped write many of the local ordinances Case says he’s trying to enforce with his bill. “You got to thank all of our friends at AHLA for working as hard as they have been to push legislation across the country really in all these key cities,” Mike Barnello, chief executive of LaSalle Hotel Properties, said during a conference call with shareholders in 2016, before crediting those efforts with keeping prices high at hotel properties in New York City.

Indeed, the bottom line for hotel chains is the bottom line. Restricting home-sharing means artificially higher prices for hotel rooms—particularly when demand surges, studies show. Property rights and “antiquated laws” like the fundamental building block of a free and open internet? Those are lesser concerns.

“This bill creates a moral hazard by letting big hotel chains harass short term rental competitors, just so the big hotels can further increase their room rates,” says Steve DelBianco, president of NetChoice, a trade association of e-commerce businesses. “Weakening Section 230 will damage Americans’ ability to communicate online. The bill empowers Marriott to stop us from lawfully earning rental income on our own homes.”

When you dig a little, most attempts to rewrite Section 230 are rooted in attempts by one industry to kneecap another. But it’s rare to see such a blatant example of self-serving legislation.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Ibb760
via IFTTT

Corey Lewandowski, House Democrats Clash During Wild Trump Impeachment Prelude Hearing

Former Trump campaign director Corey Lewandowski appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday to answer questions about alleged obstruction of justice, collusion with Russia, and other unethical activity. But a defiant Lewandowski ran circles around frustrated Democrats, and the proceedings were largely a disaster for those who believe President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign should be held accountable for wrongdoing.

This was obvious even to congressional Democrats. Hank Johnson (D–Ga.) said at the hearing that questioning Lewandowski was like “a fish being cleaned by a spoon,” which is not the go-to utensil for cleaning a fish, one gathers.

From CNN:

Democrats were left with a conundrum: how to use televised hearings to tease out damning passages of the Mueller report when Trump and his gang are determined to turn them into a circus.

Their broader strategy of using their House majority to slowly build a pattern of presidential abuse of power and obstruction of justice has yet to reach a critical mass. On the evidence of Tuesday, it may never do so.

It was a great day for the White House, however.

Its strategy of curtailing Lewandowski’s testimony by foreshadowing controversial executive privilege claims appeared to be an attempt to goad Democrats into another protracted court battle that could delay a day of reckoning.

By sunset, Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-New York, warned that Lewandowski risked being held in contempt, for helping a White House “desperate for the American people not to hear the truth.”

Trump’s army of Republican committee members, meanwhile, more eager to catch his eye as he watched on Air Force One than to honor their lawmakers’ duty to constrain the executive, played along with Lewandowski, relishing the chance to grandstand.

“You had a pretty good candidate,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican who’s one of Trump’s closest allies in Congress.

“The best,” the ex-campaign manager replied.

Lewandowski essentially admitted to making false statements to the media, but he said this was justified because “they are just as dishonest as anybody else.” The audience groaned:

This admission did not prevent the media—CNN, specifically—from bringing him on TV Wednesday morning to discuss the hearing.

Trump was apparently thrilled with Lewandowski, who is expected to announce his candidacy for New Hampshire’s senate seat as early as next month.


FREE MINDS

Spending a lot of time on their phones, and on social media, does not increase anxiety among young people, according to a new study.

Candice Odgers, a professor of psychological science at the University of California-Irvine, found “no connection between the amount of time that young people spend online using digital technologies and mental health symptoms like depression, anxiety.” Indeed, kids who sent more text messages tended to have better mental health.

This runs contrary to what some experts—most notably Jean Twenge—argue is a serious mental health crisis among “iGen,” the generation that grew up with smartphones. But Odgers’ findings make perfect sense when one thinks about what kids are actually doing on their phones: interacting with friends. The technology is merely a way for young people to stay more connected to the people who matter to them. We should not be so surprised that doing so makes them happier.


FREE MARKETS

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, unveiled a plan to make college tuition-free for all state residents. According to The New York Times:

The move comes as many American families grapple with the rising cost of higher education and as discussions about free public college gain momentum in state legislatures and on the presidential debate stage. Nearly half of the states, including New York, Oregon and Tennessee, have guaranteed free two- or four-year public college to some students. But the New Mexico proposal goes further, promising four years of tuition even to students whose families can afford to pay the sticker price.

By some measures, the tuition initiative will be the most ambitious in a growing national movement. College costs and student debt have emerged as major issues in the Democratic presidential primary, with two of the leading contenders for the nomination — Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — promising to make all public colleges and universities free. Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has a more limited proposal to eliminate community college tuition.

Making college free and canceling all student debt are important policy proposals for the presidential campaigns of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.). If implemented, they would cost anywhere from $1 to $2 trillion dollars.


QUICK HITS

  • Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) responds to libertarian criticism of his various plans to regulate the internet:

  • Israeli elections are too close to call, but there are some signs that the long tenure of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might be in trouble.
  • Vox lamely criticized Andrew Yang for problematic remarks about Asian Americans’ math abilities.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/303kWxb
via IFTTT

5 Cases Everyone Should Know from the Jay and Marshall Courts

Here is a preview of the 11-hour video library from our new book, An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should KnowThis post will focus on cases from the Jay and Marshall Courts.

Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)

 

 Marbury v. Madison (1803)

 McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

 

 Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

 

 Barron v. City of Baltimore (1833)

 

The book is currently backordered on Amazon. Please order the paperback, and send a signal to our publisher to print more copies! Or, if you are in a hurry, you can download the E-Book or stream the videos.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/31vCoYx
via IFTTT

Corey Lewandowski, House Democrats Clash During Wild Trump Impeachment Prelude Hearing

Former Trump campaign director Corey Lewandowski appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday to answer questions about alleged obstruction of justice, collusion with Russia, and other unethical activity. But a defiant Lewandowski ran circles around frustrated Democrats, and the proceedings were largely a disaster for those who believe President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign should be held accountable for wrongdoing.

This was obvious even to congressional Democrats. Hank Johnson (D–Ga.) said at the hearing that questioning Lewandowski was like “a fish being cleaned by a spoon,” which is not the go-to utensil for cleaning a fish, one gathers.

From CNN:

Democrats were left with a conundrum: how to use televised hearings to tease out damning passages of the Mueller report when Trump and his gang are determined to turn them into a circus.

Their broader strategy of using their House majority to slowly build a pattern of presidential abuse of power and obstruction of justice has yet to reach a critical mass. On the evidence of Tuesday, it may never do so.

It was a great day for the White House, however.

Its strategy of curtailing Lewandowski’s testimony by foreshadowing controversial executive privilege claims appeared to be an attempt to goad Democrats into another protracted court battle that could delay a day of reckoning.

By sunset, Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-New York, warned that Lewandowski risked being held in contempt, for helping a White House “desperate for the American people not to hear the truth.”

Trump’s army of Republican committee members, meanwhile, more eager to catch his eye as he watched on Air Force One than to honor their lawmakers’ duty to constrain the executive, played along with Lewandowski, relishing the chance to grandstand.

“You had a pretty good candidate,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican who’s one of Trump’s closest allies in Congress.

“The best,” the ex-campaign manager replied.

Lewandowski essentially admitted to making false statements to the media, but he said this was justified because “they are just as dishonest as anybody else.” The audience groaned:

This admission did not prevent the media—CNN, specifically—from bringing him on TV Wednesday morning to discuss the hearing.

Trump was apparently thrilled with Lewandowski, who is expected to announce his candidacy for New Hampshire’s senate seat as early as next month.


FREE MINDS

Spending a lot of time on their phones, and on social media, does not increase anxiety among young people, according to a new study.

Candice Odgers, a professor of psychological science at the University of California-Irvine, found “no connection between the amount of time that young people spend online using digital technologies and mental health symptoms like depression, anxiety.” Indeed, kids who sent more text messages tended to have better mental health.

This runs contrary to what some experts—most notably Jean Twenge—argue is a serious mental health crisis among “iGen,” the generation that grew up with smartphones. But Odgers’ findings make perfect sense when one thinks about what kids are actually doing on their phones: interacting with friends. The technology is merely a way for young people to stay more connected to the people who matter to them. We should not be so surprised that doing so makes them happier.


FREE MARKETS

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, unveiled a plan to make college tuition-free for all state residents. According to The New York Times:

The move comes as many American families grapple with the rising cost of higher education and as discussions about free public college gain momentum in state legislatures and on the presidential debate stage. Nearly half of the states, including New York, Oregon and Tennessee, have guaranteed free two- or four-year public college to some students. But the New Mexico proposal goes further, promising four years of tuition even to students whose families can afford to pay the sticker price.

By some measures, the tuition initiative will be the most ambitious in a growing national movement. College costs and student debt have emerged as major issues in the Democratic presidential primary, with two of the leading contenders for the nomination — Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — promising to make all public colleges and universities free. Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has a more limited proposal to eliminate community college tuition.

Making college free and canceling all student debt are important policy proposals for the presidential campaigns of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.). If implemented, they would cost anywhere from $1 to $2 trillion dollars.


QUICK HITS

  • Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) responds to libertarian criticism of his various plans to regulate the internet:

  • Israeli elections are too close to call, but there are some signs that the long tenure of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might be in trouble.
  • Vox lamely criticized Andrew Yang for problematic remarks about Asian Americans’ math abilities.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/303kWxb
via IFTTT

5 Cases Everyone Should Know from the Jay and Marshall Courts

Here is a preview of the 11-hour video library from our new book, An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should KnowThis post will focus on cases from the Jay and Marshall Courts.

Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)

 

 Marbury v. Madison (1803)

 McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

 

 Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

 

 Barron v. City of Baltimore (1833)

 

The book is currently backordered on Amazon. Please order the paperback, and send a signal to our publisher to print more copies! Or, if you are in a hurry, you can download the E-Book or stream the videos.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/31vCoYx
via IFTTT

Imagining a World Without Qualified Immunity, Part III

The Supreme Court has written that “the ‘driving force’ behind creation of the qualified immunity doctrine was a desire to ensure that ‘insubstantial claims’ against government officials [will] be resolved prior to discovery.” The Court presumably believes, then, that eliminating qualified immunity would increase litigation burdens on defendants. But, as I explain in a forthcoming article, excerpted here, all available evidence suggests qualified immunity actually increases the time, cost, and complexity of civil rights cases in which the defense is raised—and that eliminating qualified immunity would decrease the average cost, complexity, and time spent adjudicating civil rights cases.

Litigants and courts spend money and time on qualified immunity in four different ways. First, they spend time and money researching, briefing, writing, arguing, and deciding motions raising qualified immunity. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless a plaintiff can prove the constitutional violation was obvious, or can point to a factually similar case from their circuit or the Supreme Court, or a consensus of factually similar cases, that would put the defendant on notice that his conduct was unlawful. So, for a plaintiff effectively to respond to a qualified immunity motion, she must research factually similar cases holding defendants’ conduct unconstitutional, and then must brief and argue the motion.

Second, litigants spend money and time on appeals of qualified immunity denials. Unlike most other arguments raised in civil rights cases, defendants are entitled to immediate (“interlocutory”) appeals of qualified immunity denials. Attorneys must take time to research, brief, and argue oppositions to interlocutory appeals, and courts of appeals must take time to consider and decide the appeals.

Third, cases can be suspended while qualified immunity motions and appeals are pending. In my study, I found defendants received formal discovery stays—lasting 152 days, on average—in almost six percent of the cases in which qualified immunity was raised at the motion to dismiss stage. Interlocutory appeals were pending for 441 days on average before being decided.

Fourth, apart from the costs and time associated with individual qualified immunity motions, litigants and courts must learn about and stay abreast of the law. Qualified immunity is considered a particularly complex area of civil rights law—what John Jeffries has called “a mare’s nest of complexity and confusion.” The Supreme Court has offered unclear and shifting guidance about which courts’ decisions can clearly establish the law, and how factually similar prior precedent must be to clearly establish the law. Litigants and courts report dedicating significant time and resources to understanding the intricacies of the doctrine.

Qualified immunity increases the cost, complexity, and time associated with civil rights litigation in each of these ways. But qualified immunity might still be shielding government defendants from the burdens of discovery and trial if the motions are raised early—before defendants engaged in discovery—and granted, foreclosing further litigation of the case. Among 1183 federal civil rights cases I examined, neither is true. Defendants most often raised qualified immunity at summary judgment, after litigants had already participated in discovery. And just 8.6% of defendants’ qualified immunity motions resulted in the dismissal of plaintiffs’ cases. In the remaining 91.4% of motions, the parties and courts took the time and money to research, brief, argue and decide the qualified immunity defense without disposing of the cases.

Qualified immunity motions and appeals might not even save litigants time in the rare event that they are dispositive. Thirty-six cases in my dataset were dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. Courts in 35 of those 36 cases held that plaintiffs also had failed to meet their burden of pleading or proof, or expressed skepticism about the merits of plaintiffs’ claims. Absent qualified immunity, it appears that most or all of those 35 cases would have been dismissed on other grounds. If so, the time taken to research and brief qualified immunity in these thirty-five cases was unnecessary.

In one of the 36 cases dismissed on qualified immunity grounds, the court held that a jury could have found the plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated, but granted qualified immunity because those rights were not clearly established. In a world without qualified immunity, the case might have gone to trial. Did qualified immunity save the parties time in this case? Not likely. Civil rights trials—which, in my dataset, were almost always completed within a few days—take far less time than qualified immunity motions and appeals take to resolve.

Some have suggested that qualified immunity might streamline litigation in another way—by encouraging plaintiffs’ attorneys to settle early, while a qualified immunity motion is pending or threatened. But several plaintiffs’ attorneys I interviewed held the opposite view—they believe that qualified immunity delays settlement because defendants do not engage in meaningful settlement negotiations until after summary judgment motions raising qualified immunity have been decided. My study of almost 1200 civil rights cases suggests that both views may sometimes be correct—some cases settled while qualified immunity motions were pending, and approximately the same number settled after qualified immunity motions were denied. So qualified immunity may hasten settlement in some cases, but it may delay settlement in others.

Doing away with qualified immunity would eliminate the need to spend time and money bringing, defending against, and deciding qualified immunity motions and interlocutory appeals; eliminate lengthy delays while motions and appeals are pending; and make irrelevant a complex, uncertain, and shifting area of the law. Most qualified immunity motions are denied, only adding to the cost of litigation. Even if some cases that would have settled or been dismissed because of qualified immunity instead go to trial, eliminating the defense may still be the most efficient course because trials are often quicker and less complex than qualified immunity motion practice and appeals. Although qualified immunity is intended to reduce litigation burdens, doing away with qualified immunity may actually decrease the average time, complexity, and cost of civil rights cases.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/305p8NL
via IFTTT

Imagining a World Without Qualified Immunity, Part III

The Supreme Court has written that “the ‘driving force’ behind creation of the qualified immunity doctrine was a desire to ensure that ‘insubstantial claims’ against government officials [will] be resolved prior to discovery.” The Court presumably believes, then, that eliminating qualified immunity would increase litigation burdens on defendants. But, as I explain in a forthcoming article, excerpted here, all available evidence suggests qualified immunity actually increases the time, cost, and complexity of civil rights cases in which the defense is raised—and that eliminating qualified immunity would decrease the average cost, complexity, and time spent adjudicating civil rights cases.

Litigants and courts spend money and time on qualified immunity in four different ways. First, they spend time and money researching, briefing, writing, arguing, and deciding motions raising qualified immunity. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless a plaintiff can prove the constitutional violation was obvious, or can point to a factually similar case from their circuit or the Supreme Court, or a consensus of factually similar cases, that would put the defendant on notice that his conduct was unlawful. So, for a plaintiff effectively to respond to a qualified immunity motion, she must research factually similar cases holding defendants’ conduct unconstitutional, and then must brief and argue the motion.

Second, litigants spend money and time on appeals of qualified immunity denials. Unlike most other arguments raised in civil rights cases, defendants are entitled to immediate (“interlocutory”) appeals of qualified immunity denials. Attorneys must take time to research, brief, and argue oppositions to interlocutory appeals, and courts of appeals must take time to consider and decide the appeals.

Third, cases can be suspended while qualified immunity motions and appeals are pending. In my study, I found defendants received formal discovery stays—lasting 152 days, on average—in almost six percent of the cases in which qualified immunity was raised at the motion to dismiss stage. Interlocutory appeals were pending for 441 days on average before being decided.

Fourth, apart from the costs and time associated with individual qualified immunity motions, litigants and courts must learn about and stay abreast of the law. Qualified immunity is considered a particularly complex area of civil rights law—what John Jeffries has called “a mare’s nest of complexity and confusion.” The Supreme Court has offered unclear and shifting guidance about which courts’ decisions can clearly establish the law, and how factually similar prior precedent must be to clearly establish the law. Litigants and courts report dedicating significant time and resources to understanding the intricacies of the doctrine.

Qualified immunity increases the cost, complexity, and time associated with civil rights litigation in each of these ways. But qualified immunity might still be shielding government defendants from the burdens of discovery and trial if the motions are raised early—before defendants engaged in discovery—and granted, foreclosing further litigation of the case. Among 1183 federal civil rights cases I examined, neither is true. Defendants most often raised qualified immunity at summary judgment, after litigants had already participated in discovery. And just 8.6% of defendants’ qualified immunity motions resulted in the dismissal of plaintiffs’ cases. In the remaining 91.4% of motions, the parties and courts took the time and money to research, brief, argue and decide the qualified immunity defense without disposing of the cases.

Qualified immunity motions and appeals might not even save litigants time in the rare event that they are dispositive. Thirty-six cases in my dataset were dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. Courts in 35 of those 36 cases held that plaintiffs also had failed to meet their burden of pleading or proof, or expressed skepticism about the merits of plaintiffs’ claims. Absent qualified immunity, it appears that most or all of those 35 cases would have been dismissed on other grounds. If so, the time taken to research and brief qualified immunity in these thirty-five cases was unnecessary.

In one of the 36 cases dismissed on qualified immunity grounds, the court held that a jury could have found the plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated, but granted qualified immunity because those rights were not clearly established. In a world without qualified immunity, the case might have gone to trial. Did qualified immunity save the parties time in this case? Not likely. Civil rights trials—which, in my dataset, were almost always completed within a few days—take far less time than qualified immunity motions and appeals take to resolve.

Some have suggested that qualified immunity might streamline litigation in another way—by encouraging plaintiffs’ attorneys to settle early, while a qualified immunity motion is pending or threatened. But several plaintiffs’ attorneys I interviewed held the opposite view—they believe that qualified immunity delays settlement because defendants do not engage in meaningful settlement negotiations until after summary judgment motions raising qualified immunity have been decided. My study of almost 1200 civil rights cases suggests that both views may sometimes be correct—some cases settled while qualified immunity motions were pending, and approximately the same number settled after qualified immunity motions were denied. So qualified immunity may hasten settlement in some cases, but it may delay settlement in others.

Doing away with qualified immunity would eliminate the need to spend time and money bringing, defending against, and deciding qualified immunity motions and interlocutory appeals; eliminate lengthy delays while motions and appeals are pending; and make irrelevant a complex, uncertain, and shifting area of the law. Most qualified immunity motions are denied, only adding to the cost of litigation. Even if some cases that would have settled or been dismissed because of qualified immunity instead go to trial, eliminating the defense may still be the most efficient course because trials are often quicker and less complex than qualified immunity motion practice and appeals. Although qualified immunity is intended to reduce litigation burdens, doing away with qualified immunity may actually decrease the average time, complexity, and cost of civil rights cases.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/305p8NL
via IFTTT

Introducing ConLaw.us

Randy Barnett and I are pleased to launch ConLaw.us. We built this interactive site as a a supplement to our new book, An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know. We built four innovative new features to teach about constitutional law.

100 Supreme Court Cases

First, we developed an interface to display our 100 cases both chronologically, and by topic. This feature allows students to quickly scroll through two centuries of Supreme Court decisions, or to study the leading cases within each of the 15 topics in the book.

https://ift.tt/2AuLmtc
https://conlaw.us/cases/by-topic/
https://ift.tt/2Qcw2w2

The Justices

We developed a graphical interface to view all of the Justices. They are sorted by the appointing President.

Annotated Constitution

This feature allows students to quickly read the entire Constitution, and see what cases are associated with a particular clause.

Constitutional Places

Constitutional Places allows students to see what cases arose in a particular state. They can also check what Justices called that state home. Here, we localize constitutional law.

We will have more exciting features to announce shortly.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2AuZp1S
via IFTTT

Introducing ConLaw.us

Randy Barnett and I are pleased to launch ConLaw.us. We built this interactive site as a a supplement to our new book, An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know. We built four innovative new features to teach about constitutional law.

100 Supreme Court Cases

First, we developed an interface to display our 100 cases both chronologically, and by topic. This feature allows students to quickly scroll through two centuries of Supreme Court decisions, or to study the leading cases within each of the 15 topics in the book.

https://ift.tt/2AuLmtc
https://conlaw.us/cases/by-topic/
https://ift.tt/2Qcw2w2

The Justices

We developed a graphical interface to view all of the Justices. They are sorted by the appointing President.

Annotated Constitution

This feature allows students to quickly read the entire Constitution, and see what cases are associated with a particular clause.

Constitutional Places

Constitutional Places allows students to see what cases arose in a particular state. They can also check what Justices called that state home. Here, we localize constitutional law.

We will have more exciting features to announce shortly.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2AuZp1S
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Bad Medicine

When Shanelle Dates became pregnant, she asked her doctor if she would be able to continue taking part in Pennsylvania’s medical marijuana program. He told her she could and also that the other drugs she had been using before she joined the program—for severe gastrointestinal issues, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder—would be even more risky for her baby than the marijuana. Her ob/gyn and mental health counselor also recommended she continue to use marijuana. But the day she arrived home from the hospital after giving birth, a local Children and Youth Services caseworker showed up at her door. While the agency hasn’t said why they sent a caseworker, Sabrina McCloe Smith, head of a nonprofit that aids medical marijuana users, says it is common for mothers who use medical marijuana to be investigated. In 2018, lawmakers required healthcare providers to report all prenatal exposure to drugs, even if the mother was using the drugs as prescribed by a physician.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2V2c6e5
via IFTTT