Topic: Law and Civil Liberties

Major Ruling in KPMG Case

In a closely-watched white collar crime case in NY, Judge Kaplan has dismissed criminal charges against 13 defendants because of the federal government’s interference with the constitutional right to counsel.

Excerpt from today’s Washington Post:

Kaplan said the Department of Justice “deliberately or callously” prevented many of the defendants from getting funds for their defense, blocking them from hiring the lawyers of their choice.

“This is intolerable in a society that holds itself out to the world as a paragon of justice,” Kaplan said, adding that he reached his conclusion “only after pursuing every alternative short of dismissal and only with the greatest reluctance.”

Previous coverage here.

Last year Cato published Trapped, which examines the problems in this area of the law.  The author, John Hasnas, spoke about his thesis here.

DC Government to Petition Supreme Court

The Mayor of Washington DC just announced that the city will ask the Supreme Court to reverse a landmark Second Amendment ruling from the DC Court of Appeals.

This is great news–as the whole idea of this lawsuit has been to get a good case up to the Supreme Court.  Had DC officials not filed an appeal, they would have had to amend DC’s 30 year ban on guns, but they could have kept the case out of the Supreme Court.  By filing an appeal, DC officials are hoping that the lower court will be reversed, but the risk is that the High Court will rule otherwise.  For opponents of the DC firearm ban, it is nice to have a favorable precedent from the DC Court of Appeals–but it is even better to have a favorable precedent from the Supreme Court.

The ball is now with the Supreme Court.  DC has decided to appeal but review by the High Court is hardly automatic.  The Supreme Court declines to hear hundreds of cases every year.   To hear a case, four justices must agree that a particular case ought to be heard.  We will likely learn whether this case, Parker v. District of Columbia, will be reviewed when the Court reconvenes in early October, after its summer recess.

Background on the lawsuit here.  Cato’s Second Amendment work is here.

Should We Execute Bad Regulators?

I just sent this letter to the editor of the Washington Post:

The lack of outrage about China’s horrific execution of a corrupt food and drug regulator in a recent editorial [“Rough Justice,” July 14] was itself outrageous.
 
Zheng Xiaoyu was put to death for (allegedly) taking bribes that enabled unsafe products to reach the market. The death toll thus far is hundreds of lives lost in China and Panama.
 
Dr. David A. Kessler was commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 1991 through 1996. In 1988, researchers at Harvard University had demonstrated that widespread use of aspirin at the onset of a heart attack and daily for 30 days afterward could save 5,000 lives per year in the United States. Yet Dr. Kessler’s FDA refused to let aspirin manufacturers advertise that extremely important information until 1996. That policy resulted in as many as 30,000 unnecessary deaths during Dr. Kessler’s tenure. No one has ever accused Dr. Kessler of taking bribes. But he surely benefited personally from his position and from his aggressive regulatory policies, going on to be named dean of Yale University’s medical school.
 
If Dr. Kessler’s political opponents in the U.S. government had put Dr. Kessler to death for his actions as a regulator, I think the Post would denounce his execution as barbaric. But then why be so blithe about an equally barbaric execution in China?

I’m used to people valuing the lives of the FDA’s Type I victims more than the lives of its Type II victims. But valuing the lives of Type I victims more than the lives of the regulators themselves is a new one by me.

Hearing on the Drug Enforcement Agency

This morning there is a congressional hearing about the DEA’s campaign against pain doctors.  The drug war is a disaster in so many ways–but this aspect of the war is particularly cruel.  Siobhan Reynolds of the Pain Relief Network will give members of Congress an earful as to what the government is actually doing.

For Cato work on this DEA campaign, read this and this.

Anti-Money Laundering Laws Impose Heavy Costs, yet Do Not Hinder Crime and Terrorism

The Associated Press reports that financial institutions in North America are paying 71 percent more over the past three years to comply with government anti-money laundering rules and regulations. Even supporters of the current approach admit that the costs are enormous, totaling about $7 billion yearly (and that estimate is three years old). This steep burden might be worthwhile if it led to a reduction in crime and/or terrorism, but as I have explained elsewhere, there is scant evidence that anti-money laundering laws reduce underlying criminal/terrorist behavior. Indeed, because law enforcement resources are being used to spy on everybody rather than targeted at those who want to harm the country, it is possible that the misallocation of resources required by anti-money laundering policy actually makes America less safe:

Complying with anti-money laundering laws has been much more expensive than banks anticipated, and some still aren’t meeting all requirements, a new survey says. …Among the six regions surveyed, North American banks saw the highest percentage cost increase, with costs rising 71 percent over the last three years. …Many governments require that banks take steps to prevent money laundering. Money laundering involves making certain financial transactions to hide the source, nature or destination of illegal funds. The United States has the Bank Secrecy Act, which was passed in 1970 and amended by the USA Patriot Act of Oct. 26, 2001. It has since been used increasingly to stop the flow of financing to terrorist organizations.

A First Amendment for Broadcasting

Bill Monroe, who was moderator for NBC’s Meet the Press for about 10 years, is a longtime advocate of extending the First Amendment to broadcasting. Actually, I’m sure he thought that the First Amendment did cover all forms of the news media — but he knew that Congress and the courts didn’t see it that way, so he wanted an explicit amendment to make that clear.

Because his articles on this topic were published in the pre-Internet Dark Ages (yes, children, there are great ideas not online), I can’t link to any of them. But he briefly reprised the argument in the letters column of the Washington Post today, concluding:

Broadcasters are also open to government pressure through the Federal Communications Commission, whose members are appointed by the president. Newspapers are specifically protected against government interference by the granite wall known as the First Amendment.

When the present form of broadcast regulation was set up early in the previous century, nobody understood what powerful instruments of news and information would evolve from the primitive radio stations of that day. Now that we do understand it, we can repair that historic mistake. We can extend the clear, stirring language of the First Amendment to equal protection for freedom of the electronic media. The problem of allocating broadcast licenses does not have to cost the American people the benefit of free broadcasting.