On Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump slammed his own picks for the Supreme Court, condemning them as both cowardly and “highly political.” Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett “are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court,” he wrote on Truth Social. “They are merely a shell of their original selves.”

The immediate impetus for that rant was the Supreme Court’s rejection of the Trump administration’s application for an emergency stay. Trump wanted the Court to block a preliminary injunction against implementation of a U.S. Postal Service plan to screen mail-in ballots, the result of an executive order he issued in March. That plan was necessary, he said, as “a solution to our totally CORRUPT and out of control Mail-In voting ‘disaster,’ which is a laughing stock all over the World.” But while he was on the subject of “horrible” Supreme Court decisions, he reiterated his complaints about its rulings against his “emergency” tariffs and his attempt to restrict birthright citizenship.

Trump’s latest tirade against his nominees reflects his general attitude toward judicial review, which he sees as an illegitimate obstacle to his policy agenda and personal whims. As the president tells it, Trump appointees do not rule against him because they honestly disagree with his legal positions. Rather, they are “totally unable to show the courage necessary to save our America” because they “are petrified of these crazed and depraved Democrats.” It is a character defect, as opposed to a careful consideration of the facts and the law, that explains their failure to side with him.

That take is counterintuitive, to say the least. According to Trump, it requires courage for justices to agree with the president who appointed them, while cravenness is the only possible explanation for failing to do so.

“The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the
District Court’s preliminary injunction,” the Supreme Court said on Monday, when it declined to issue a stay in U.S. Postal Service v. California, the mail-in ballot case. “And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court do not favor a stay.”

That brief order was unsigned, but the only dissenters on record were Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Kavanaugh wrote a short concurring statement. Although “there is at least a fair prospect” that the Postal Service would win on the merits, he said, “applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.”

Seven justices, in other words, did not think a stay was appropriate, either because the Postal Service had probably exceeded its legal authority or because trying to implement the rule now would disrupt the elections. But according to Trump, those rationales were disingenuous.

As he explained after the tariff ruling in February, the three Democratic nominees on the Supreme Court “automatically vote no” because they are “against anything that makes America strong, healthy, and great again.” And the Republican nominees who vote against him are, if anything, even more contemptible: They are “fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical-left Democrats.” They “may think they’re being politically correct,” but “they’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.” Or as he put it in Tuesday, they are “bullied and cajoled by the Radical Left into making decisions that have set America back at least a hundred years.”

At the same time, Trump described the order in the Postal Service case as “highly political.” How so? “It is a big loss for Republicans, and America itself,” he said, because it “makes cheating by the Radical Left ‘Dumocrats,’ on Mail-In Ballots, a much easier thing to do.” The implication that the Republican appointees (presumably including Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Trump’s nominees) were eager to facilitate such Democratic chicanery seems inconsistent with the equally implausible claim that they were intimidated into compromising their party’s interests.

For Trump, the main point is that his nominees, regardless of their motivation, have betrayed him, which means they have betrayed their country. “Their horrible decision on Tariffs will be costing the U.S.A., for many years to come, Trillions and Trillions of Dollars,” he said. “Likewise, the Supreme Court’s Decision on Birthright Citizenship is a complete and total disaster for America.”

This Court “will go down as having rendered some of the most destructive, hurtful, and damaging decisions in our Country’s history,” Trump declared. Those “shockingly bad rulings,” he said, are “of such magnitude that it won’t be easily possible for our Country to recover or heal.”

Do Trump’s nominees care? They do not! “The damage done to America is incalculable, and they know this, just as everyone else does,” he said. “It is an irreparable and unrecoverable harm! The Court’s inability and unwillingness to do the right thing for our Country will go down, in a very negative way, in the annals of History.”

It seems unlikely that historians will rank the Supreme Court’s decisions rejecting Trump’s illegal tariffs and his assault on the 14th Amendment alongside Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu v. United States. But they probably will be struck by this president’s open contempt for the crucial role that an independent judiciary plays as a safeguard against tyranny.

The post Trump Again Condemns His Supreme Court Nominees As Too Cowardly To Agree With Him appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/vP1NcRa
via IFTTT

Happy Tuesday, and welcome to another edition of Rent Free. This week, we have two stories on the revenge of rent control.

In the midst of San Francisco’s AI boom, Mayor Daniel Lurie and the Board of Supervisors are proposing a raft of new laws to tighten the city’s rent control policies and prevent evictions.

Meanwhile, in Providence, Rhode Island, incumbent Mayor Brett Smiley, who had vetoed a rent control ordinance earlier this year, lost the Democratic primary to pro–rent control state Rep. David Morales.

One could consider Lurie and Smiley as more moderate liberal mayors of very blue cities. 

It’s notable then that neither has proven capable of stopping the leftward drift of housing policies in their respective jurisdictions. 

In the midst of a cost crisis, Lurie is supporting even more price controls in a city that is already heavily rent-controlled. Smiley attempted to hold the line on good policy and vetoed a rent control ordinance. For his efforts, voters kicked him out of office. 

Other liberal municipal politicians who are undecided on whether to back the next rent control policy in their city may well take an unfortunate lesson away from these two examples. 

Better to play it safe and just support the price controls that most big-city voters say they want, even if it comes with terrible consequences for housing supply and quality. 

---

San Francisco’s Mayor Declares a Rent Emergency 

Headlines about San Francisco housing lately have focused on the upward pressure the city’s AI boom is putting on rents and home prices. Median rents are up 26 percent, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. Newly minted millionaires are having a hard time finding a mansion. 

In response, Lurie has declared a rent emergency and announced, along with members of the Board of Supervisors, a list of policies intended to limit evictions and sudden rent increases.  

“We have lived through booms before—this time, we have an opportunity to build a recovery that is broad-based and lasting, where San Franciscans can put down roots and participate in our city’s success,” said the mayor in a statement on Thursday when announcing his rent emergency reforms. 

On paper, San Francisco already has a lot of policies to suppress sudden rent hikes. 

An estimated 170,000 units (roughly 76 percent of the city’s rental housing stock) built before 1980 are covered by the city’s rent control law, which typically limits annual rent increases to around 2 percent per year. 

A state rent control policy that caps rents at 10 percent for units that are 15 years or older covers another roughly 33,000 units, or 15 percent of the rental housing stock. 

That leaves a little under 10 percent of rental units in San Francisco where tenants could see their rents rise as much as the market can bear. 

Additionally, in 2024, San Francisco became the first jurisdiction in the country to prohibit property owners from using algorithmic software when setting rents and occupancy limits on the theory that landlords were using this software to hoard vacant units and drive up prices. 

Apparently none of that has been enough to constrain prices during San Francisco’s latest economic boom. 

To further suppress rents, the mayor is supporting a long list of new policies. 

He’s backing legislation that would increase the relocation expenses tenants are owed when their landlord takes their unit off the rental market. For rent-controlled units, he’d also cap “banked” rent increases (that is the annual rent increases a landlord saves up to charge at a later date) at 10 percent per year. 

Additionally, Lurie is proposing to spend another $3 million on legal services for tenants facing eviction and supporting a proposal by socialist Supervisor Jackie Fielder to forbid nonpayment evictions when a tenant owes less than one month’s rent. 

All things considered, these are relatively marginal updates to the city’s long list of tenant protections and rental price controls. 

The fact that the tenant protections and rent control policies San Francisco already has in place are not adequately suppressing today’s rent spike would suggest that a marginal tightening of those policies won’t solve the problem either. 

In fact, it could make it worse. 

Traditional economic theory suggests that rent control will drive up the price of uncontrolled units by increasing demand to live in the city and encouraging tenants to hold onto their below-market-priced units. 

In San Francisco, the small 10 percent slice of non-rent-controlled units must absorb most of the upward pressure on rents being generated by the AI boom. 

That’s already resulted in double-digit increases in median rents. If Lurie’s proposed reforms succeed in limiting evictions that bring units back onto the market, reducing rent increases at already rent-controlled properties, or creating new market-rate condominiums, an even smaller share of units will have to absorb the AI-fueled increase in demand.

A more sustainable, long-term approach to housing affordability would be to eliminate regulatory barriers to new construction. Rising rents should, ideally, be a signal to builders to construct more units in the city. 

Under Lurie, San Francisco has adopted a handful of pro-supply reforms. It’s cut the number of affordable units new housing developments must include. The city also passed a citywide upzoning initiative. 

Even so, those deregulatory moves have done little to boost construction. The number of completed homes in the city is in the hundreds this year. 

Pro-supply housing activists have pressed Lurie to go further on supporting new home construction. Some have challenged his rezoning plan in court, alleging that it does not go far enough to satisfy state laws requiring cities to plan for housing. 

Certainly, one shouldn’t expect a few hundred additional units a year to moderate a rent spike driven by a major economic boom. Nor should one expect the list of proposals in the mayor’s rent emergency package to do much good either. 

---

Mayor Who Vetoed Rent Control Defeated By Pro–Rent Control Primary Challenger 

When Smiley vetoed a 4 percent annual rent cap in Providence, Rhode Island, that the city council had approved, he did so on explicitly pro-supply grounds. 

The key to making Providence affordable was building more housing, not imposing more price controls, he argued. 

“Rent control doesn’t lower anybody’s rent,” said Smiley during an August debate against his pro–rent control Democratic primary challenger, Morales. “There are people struggling today. The root cause of that is a shortage of housing.” 

In that debate, Smiley invoked Saint Paul’s disastrous experiment with rent control. After voters approved a very strict rent control policy, developers walked away from projects, and building plummeted. Something similar could happen in Providence, he argued. 

That didn’t prove to be a winning message. On election night this past Tuesday, Morales captured over 52 percent of the vote. He’s vowed to revive the city council’s rent control proposal. 

Read my full take on the election and the dueling arguments it featured over rent control here.

---

Quick Links 

• In New Hampshire, tenants of a federally funded low-income housing provider, Concord Housing and Redevelopment Authority, have sued to challenge the authority’s installation of technology that can monitor for cigarette smoke, noise, and even the number of people in a unit. 
• Mortgage rates rise to a two-year high of 7.17 percent. 
• Airbnb is investing in home construction now.
• Boston Mayor Michelle Wu is proposing tax abatements for already-approved developments whose construction has stalled. How many more projects are not being proposed because of those same taxes?
• A new study on the massive disparities in construction timelines between cities. 

The post Rent Control's Revenge appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/tFuN4Mn
via IFTTT

Last year the Trump administration shut down a national database of misconduct by federal law enforcement officers. Now it’s facing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for refusing to release records about that decision.

A coalition of civil rights and police accountability groups filed a FOIA lawsuit on September 4 after waiting 10 months for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release records about why it pulled the plug on the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database (NLEAD), a nonpublic database tracking misconduct by federal law enforcement officers.

The Justice Department launched NLEAD in 2023 to assist federal agencies with hiring and oversight. However, in one of his first acts after returning to the White House in 2025, President Donald Trump ordered the department to delete it. In a written statement to The Washington Post, the White House said former President Joe Biden’s executive order creating the database “was full of woke, anti-police concepts.”

Before the DOJ scrapped NLEAD, it had logged more than 5,200 incidents of misconduct by federal officers—more than 70 percent of them Bureau of Prisons (BOP) or Customs and Border Protection (CBP) employees.

Anthony Enriquez, vice president of U.S. advocacy and litigation at the Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center and National Immigration Project, says the lawsuit is not seeking the misconduct data itself, but rather records “about how and why the government dismantled its own accountability tool.”

“You can’t build a national misconduct database, watch federal agencies run 10,000 searches against it in eight months, shut it down, and then tell the public that there’s nothing urgent about explaining why,” Enriquez says.

The Kennedy Human Rights Center, along with the National Police Accountability Project, Black Lives Matter D.C., and National Immigration Project, filed a FOIA request last October seeking records concerning the creation, operation, and decommissioning of NLEAD, as well as whether the data was preserved or destroyed.

The Justice Department first agreed to fast-track the FOIA request based on the heightened public interest in the records, but then reversed its decision. The coalition’s FOIA lawsuit says the department has been sitting on their request for 10 months now.

Civil liberties groups have called for the creation of centralized databases of police misconduct because, traditionally, poor information sharing between departments and lax background checks have allowed problem officers to hop from one department to another, leaving a string of misconduct, rights violations, and expensive lawsuits.

“This was about giving people more information to make smart hiring decisions,” Enriquez says. “Just as you always check someone’s recommendations whenever you’re hiring for your department, we want to do that with people who are entrusted with public safety before we put a weapon in the hands of someone and give them the authority to arrest or even use deadly force. We want to make sure that they don’t have a record of abusing that authority.”

Federal law enforcement unions opposed NLEAD, arguing that it included minor administrative infractions and didn’t give officers due process channels to dispute their inclusion.

The decommissioning of the NLEAD database preceded a massive hiring spree by the Department of Homeland Security as part of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign last spring. To reach its recruitment goals, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) fast-tracked training and lowered standards. Public concerns over who ICE is putting on the street with a mask, badge, and gun rose considerably after several fatal shootings by immigration officers.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that ICE is now quietly firing new recruits with red flags in their backgrounds that should have been caught with adequate vetting.

“Not only are we seeing a massive expansion of hiring,” Enriquez says, “but we’re also seeing very high-profile abuses of authority—shootings, killings, of U.S. citizens on the streets by DHS officers—so the urgency for this type of information is greater than ever.”

The post The Trump Administration Shut Down a Police Misconduct Database. Now It's Facing a FOIA Lawsuit appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/XlBUgdN
via IFTTT

The article is here; the Introduction:

In 1909, Urban Walter, a 28-year-old mail clerk, founded a small magazine with large ambitions. According to its masthead, the Harpoon was “a magazine that hurts.” It was founded in pursuit of one goal: to oppose the Post Office Department’s imposition of a “gag order” on any discussion of the train wrecks that killed scores of railway mail clerks annually and maimed many hundreds more. These gag orders, first promulgated by the Postmaster General in the late 19th century and later expanded by executive orders issued by Theodore Roosevelt and William Taft, prohibited civil servants from petitioning or giving information to Congress, or advocating for improved pay or working conditions except through their departmental head. The Harpoon defied the order, promising to give the “fullest publicity” the dangerous conditions—both physical and organizational—of the work.

Walter was frequently ill with respiratory issues, exacerbated by moldy mailbags and the dusty, lamplit conditions on the mail car. To explain why he spent his precious “lay-off” time in a small print shop in Phoenix, Arizona, Walter invoked the highest of constitutional ideals. “No public official is great enough to take away the guaranteed rights of American citizenship,” Walter explained. “The very constitutional rights” of “lesser public servants” were abrogated by an order that, under penalty of swift removal, prohibited a clerk from discussing his working conditions publicly and from complaining to Congress. Under what Walter saw as the pretext of maintaining “efficiency of service,” postal officials had robbed 15,000 railway postal workers of their right to speech and right to petition the government. In so doing, officials had also undermined the public good by keeping Americans ignorant of the conditions under which their mail was delivered.

Urban Walter and the railway postal clerks who read and wrote for the Harpoon understood their fight for speech rights not in individualistic and expressive terms, but as a precondition for public accountability. Because of the transient, hidden nature of railway postal work, disclosure of the clerks’ working conditions was the public’s window into a job that also bore upon public safety. In 1909 alone, 27 railway mail workers were killed, 98 “seriously injured,” and 617 “slightly injured”—the highest number of deaths on record. Under Walter’s framing, the disclosure of dangerous working conditions implicated the “public good,” and not just the narrow interests of an individual worker.

At the same time, Walter and other railway postal workers saw these gag orders not as a blunt instrument of “efficiency,” but as an explicitly anti-union tactic designed to forestall the organization of an effective railway postal workers organization. Walter and other postal clerks fought to affiliate with the American Federation of Labor (AFL) through a breakaway faction of the Department-dominated Railway Mail Association (RMA). Many of those clerks were fired—dismissed for the “good of the service,” or because of their “pernicious activity.” Walter was one such worker. He sent Postmaster General Frank Hitchcock “an advance copy” of Harpoon’s first issue, instructing the economy-minded Taft appointee to “carefully peruse” the enclosure. In response, the Department’s informed him that his (untendered) resignation had been accepted. A clerk sent Walter a dead rat that he had found inside the drinking water of his car. A photo of the rat appeared in the Harpoon. The clerk was also fired. Other supporters of the magazine were threatened with dismissal—which intensified the newspaper’s support, producing a culture of insubordination in defiance of executive orders and in support of public employee speech.

A fired worker is dangerous, a fired worker with access to a printing press doubly so. No longer facing a gag, Walter devoted himself full-time to the job of gadfly publisher and labor advocate. Less than three years after the Harpoon’s founding, Walter himself appeared before Congress, urging the passage of a single bill that would repeal the gag orders and protect the organizing rights of postal workers—speech goals that were to be linked legislatively as they had been in Walter’s protest. In his testimony, Walter accused the Postmaster General of “misinforming the committee” outright on the age and safety of mail cars. Because clerks were prohibited from disclosing information to Congress, legislators remained ignorant. The committee was thus forced to confront its own powerlessness in the face of executive branch orders. As Samuel Gompers, the president of the AFL, was quick to observe, a decade of executive orders prohibiting federal employees from disclosing information to Congress “may just as well have been an inhibition to the Members of Congress … to ask for this information.”

With the institutional prerogatives of Congress and the material interests of organized labor aligned, the Lloyd-La Follette Act became law in 1912. The Act had four discrete provisions: “no person in the classified service of the United States shall be removed therefrom except for such cause as will promote the efficiency of said service”; a requirement that a fired civil servant be furnished with written charges and an opportunity for responding to them; protection against removal or retaliation for postal employees who belonged to societies, associations, or unions—so long as the organization imposed no “duty to strike”; finally, the Act affirmed civil servants’ right to petition Congress “either individually or collective” and to “furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof.” This latter provision constituted the first statutory protection for whistleblowers, later expanded by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989.

But taken together, the Act’s provisions reflected organized labor’s view of the value of speech, Congressional oversight, and government service. While not requiring the examination of witnesses or a trial-type hearing, the Act still afforded new tenure protections for hundreds of thousands of government employees, moving government employment firmly away from an at-will model. Though paltry in comparison to later procedural safeguards, the requirement that government employees be provided with reasons for their dismissal and an opportunity to contest those reasons nonetheless reflected both a skeptical view toward the state and an adversarial view toward management. This due-process culture that defined private sector organizational governance in the second half of the 20th century was first imagined, in thin form, by civil servants and their labor advocates. And, of course, the affirmation of the right of postal employees to unionize—also subtly suggested by the right to petition Congress collectively—is testament to labor’s vision of public employee speech. In the early 20th century, a person may have possessed no constitutional right to be a postal worker, to paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes. But once he became one, Congress created a modest protection for him to air his dissatisfactions—and to belong to worker organizations that incubated and emboldened complaint.

The purpose of this essay is twofold: I seek to contextualize the passage of the Lloyd-La Follette Act, a curiously understudied piece of legislation. In so doing, I situate the Act within the history of the civil service and the development of an increasingly powerful presidency. Secondly, I highlight the labor origins of whistleblowing. The AFL was an early opponent of the gag orders that silenced civil servants. It was responsible for drafting the Act itself, and even approved its only substantial amendment—a prohibition on membership in unions that required a strike. Institutionally, it was a beneficiary of the law, as tens of thousands of postal workers joined unions affiliated with the AFL in the latter half of the 1910s. The labor history of the Act has been obscured by its modern-day admirers, who view it primarily as an embodiment of the separation of powers. Understanding this earlier history of struggle for speech in the federal workforce can help scholars and citizens appreciate the role that labor organizations have played in safeguarding core democratic values like transparency and accountability.

Despite its significance to the history of the civil service and democratic accountability, the Lloyd-La Follette Act is surprisingly understudied by historians. Scholars of American political development who have studied the Act and its politics have understood it largely in terms of what it revealed about the relationship between Congress and the executive branch for control of the administrative state. Little attention has been paid to the underlying speech-related grievances of gagged civil servants. Part of this lacuna lies in the fact that labor historians, as a rule, have tended to focus on the private sector at the expense of the public—particularly in studies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But even a study of public sector unionism like Joseph Slater’s Public Workers begins with a historiographical lament at the marginalization of public employees within labor history before moving swiftly to the Boston police strike of 1919. Attention to the history of labor agitation within the railway mail service reveals the centrality of public employee speech and petition rights to the overall political vision of the AFL at the turn of the century.

Legal historian Laura Weinrib has argued that the labor movement has played a neglected role in the development of civil liberties consciousness. Civil liberties, and especially the right to speech, were linked to a “right to agitation”—an economically redistributive vision that “sought to counter the consolidation of capital with organized power of their own.” Weinrib’s study, particularly her focus on the free speech commitments of the political left in the years before the First World War, has shaped my own. The quest for civil servant speech—a right that labor partisans framed as constitutional, rejecting any distinction between rights and privileges or public and private employment—was part and parcel of labor’s vision of the First Amendment as a weapon of the weak against the powerful in the class war. By speaking and organizing without fear of reprisal, organized government employees could also enlist noncombatants into the fight, as Americans might also come to understand their own health, safety, or timely receipt of the mails as implicated by conditions within the railway mail service. This labor history of public employee speech sensitizes us to organized labor’s role in envisioning, expressing, and safeguarding the public’s right to hear information that bears on matters of public concern.

The ideas and language ultimately enshrined in the Lloyd-La Follette Act were developed in response to the constitutional interpretation implied by a decade of gag orders and directives from the Postmaster General. The railway mail service of the early 20th century sheds light on scholarly debates on “administrative constitutionalism,” or the ways that agency officials implement and interpret constitutional rules and norms. The Post Office has long been recognized as a site where officials exercised broad authority over policies with constitutional dimensions—such as suppression of abolitionist literature and a “virtually unreviewable” discretion to censor “obscene” materials. Regulation of speech by postmasters and postal inspectors—in other words, administrative censorship—was pervasive well into the 20th century. Working conditions within the postal service—an instance of a bureaucracy’s “internal rules,” to use Mashaw’s formulation—reveals the Postal Department’s power in attempting to determine the meaning of speech rights in practice. With no input from courts, advocacy by railway mail clerks and their allies in the AFL also refashioned ideas about speech, due process, and separation of powers in the early 20th century.

The Lloyd-La Follette Act also represented a vindication of Congressional prerogative. The history of the gag orders issued under such self-consciously “strong” presidencies as Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft illustrates the perils of presidentialism. Indeed, an important goal of the orders was to maintain “tranquility” in the government’s relationship with railway companies by keeping the public ignorant. Civil service unions have furthered democratic accountability by protecting workers who transmit information to Congress. The twinned history of speech and labor rights suggests that a unionized civil service can serve as a check on presidential power. The flip side of this coin is that a diminution of labor rights and speech rights within the civil service redounds to the benefit of the executive at the expense of democracy.

I begin by sketching the relationship between civil service reform and organized labor in the late 19th century. Reform of the spoils system reshaped the postal service more than any other division of the federal bureaucracy, and by the late 19th century the Railway Mail Service (RMS) was the most important and prestigious branch within the postal system. It was also the most dangerous, spurring clerks to invigorate worker organizations and, eventually, to attempt to affiliate with the AFL. I then turn to the promulgation of agency and executive gag orders intended to suppress the dissemination of grievance, prevent disclosure of information to Congress, and, eventually, to thwart union organizing amongst the clerks. Next, I examine the organized response to the gag orders, as well as the Postal Department’s weaponization of its bureaucracy to ferret out and fire dissident clerks—a move that backfired, resulting in still more unrest and publicity. Finally, I examine Congressional support for the speech rights of postal workers, which culminated in the passage of the Lloyd-La Follette Act, legislation that braided together the interests of railway mail clerks, organized labor, and Congress itself.

The post Journal of Free Speech Law: "Gags and Grievance: The Labor Origins of Whistleblowing," by Sarah Milov appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/Qx05H4O
via IFTTT