Topic: Law and Civil Liberties

Property Rights at the Supreme Court, Again

It’s being overshadowed by the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case, but there’s an important property rights case before the Supreme Court today. Timothy Sandefur, author of Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st-Century America, writes about the case in Legal Times today.

The case involves a dispute that arose when Harvey Frank Robbins bought some land in Wyoming. The Bureau of Land Management claimed to have an easement on the land, but that wasn’t recorded on the deed. The government demanded that Robbins agree to the easement, and he resisted. Government agents promised him “a hardball education,” and they delivered – harassment, citations for minor offenses, belligerent visits, and criminal charges for interfering with government agents, charges of which he was acquitted after 30 minutes of jury deliberation. Sandefur takes the story from there:

After enduring years of such treatment, Robbins sued, arguing, among other things, that the BLM agents had violated his Fifth Amendment right to exclude others from his property. The trial court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed, but the government asked the Supreme Court to reverse in Wilkie v. Robbins. “No court,” said Solicitor General Paul Clement in his brief, has “ever recognized a constitutional right against retaliation … in the context of property rights.”

This astonishing argument is potentially far more dangerous to the rights of property owners than the notorious Kelo v. New London decision two years ago, which held that government can use eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to another whenever politicians think doing so would be in the public interest.

If the Court rules against Robbins, home and business owners would find it much harder to resist when the government demands their property.

Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe argued the case for Robbins, with the Justice Department defending the BLM. Watch for news stories later today.

Confidentiality

Washington University School of Law professor Neil Richards and George Washington University Law School professor Daniel Solove have an important new law review article out.  Privacy’s Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality is a useful reminder of a dimension of privacy apart from the privacy torts so famously inspired by Warren and Brandeis in their 1890 Harvard Law Review article.

Confidentiality is the idea that you can share information subject to restrictions on further disclosure and use.  There are often implicit understandings about how shared or mutually created information should be treated.  It’s an important point that’s been conveniently forgotten in government arguments for “data retention,” for example.  Confidentiality in the financial services sphere has been eviscerated by the Bank Secrecy Act and the Supreme Court cases that followed it, as well as Smith v. Maryland in the telecommunications context.

Richards and Solove’s work has its awkward turns - they characterize continental Europe’s focus on dignity and America’s focus on liberty as highly individualistic, while suggesting that confidentiality is ”based on the protection of relationships.”  If these characterizations are relevant at all, confidentiality can be seen just as much as a protection of individuals, the difference being that confidentiality is rooted more deeply in contract.  Small matter, though. 

Overall a good work, and an important reminder.

(HT: Schneier)

Cock-fighting and Freedom

It’s not often that you can point to a stirring article about American liberty by a Weekly Standard editor. But Chris Caldwell’s piece in the Financial Times on cock-fighting is a fine read. Yes, cock-fighting. Presidential candidate Bill Richardson doesn’t want the legality of cock-fighting in New Mexico to burden his candidacy as he travels the length and breadth of this great land. So rather than defend New Mexico as the last bastion of American freedom, he chose to sign a law banning it to help his campaign.

Caldwell notes sadly that even the defenders of the practice hardly mentioned liberty. Instead, they mentioned the economic benefits of tourism and the alleged anti-Hispanic bias of the drive to ban a sport popular with Hispanics. The better argument, he thought, would have been liberty: some people want to attend cock-fights, and Americans have been doing so for centuries, so why should “reformers” be able to take a small pleasure away from others? Caldwell deplores the decline of the general presumption of liberty:

It used to be, under the US system, that one could do anything that was not expressly forbidden. Now one is forbidden to do anything one cannot make an explicit case for. The burden of proof has shifted.

It’s especially sad that Bill Richardson, who is not so bad on fiscal issues and is a supporter of medical marijuana, felt that he had to take people’s freedom away for his own political gain.

Missouri Joining the REAL ID Rebellion

The Missouri House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly Thursday to reject the REAL ID Act.

Representative Jim Guest (R- King City) is quoted in the Carthage Press saying,  ‘‘We must not lose what this nation was founded upon.  The Real ID Act is a direct frontal assault on our freedoms.’’

The bill now goes to the Senate.

The Corrosion of Parental Rights

Today in the Oregon newspaper Bend Weekly, Phyllis Schlafly opines that “Congress should restore parental rights in public schools.” In the 35 years since I first heard Schlafly speak, I have rarely agreed with her on anything, but today is one of those occasions.

I certainly don’t believe in the substance of what she finds offensive, but I do agree that parents are being robbed of their rights to educate and bring up their children as they see fit. Of course, the answer is to abolish the public school system altogether, but until then, how do parents maintain even a minimal control over what their children are taught and exposed to in the public schools? 

Two things Schlafly proposes are appealing: She would like Congress to require public schools with human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination programs to offer the vaccine only on a parental “opt in,” not “opt out,” basis and that no public school should be allowed to deny a child entry into school for not being immunized against HPV. She also believes Congress should require that schools get written parental consent before subjecting children to mental health screening.

For once, I hope Schlafly gets her way.