Two Years On, the TSA Is Still Not Subject to Law

Two years ago tomorrow, the Transportation Security Administration stopped accepting comments on its proposal to use “Advanced Imaging Technology” for primary screening at airports. The end of the comment period on nude body scanning would ordinarily promise the issuance of a final rule that incorporates knowledge gained by hearing from the public. But this is no ordinary rulemaking. This is an agency that does not follow the law.

It was almost four years ago that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered TSA to do a notice-and-comment rulemaking on its nude body scanning policy. Few rules “impose [as] directly and significantly upon so many members of the public,” the court said in ordering the agency to “promptly” publish its policy, take comments, and consider them in formalizing its rules.

What’s Left at the Supreme Court?

After yesterday’s colorful opinion day – involving raisins, motels, and Spiderman – the Supreme Court announced that it would be handing down more rulings on Thursday and Friday, with Monday also currently indicated as a decision day. So what’s left to decide? (Not to be confused with “why are Court decisions moving left? – a remarkably premature assessment given the cases remaining, not to mention coding issues regarding liberal/conservative.)

Employment-Based Green Cards Are Mostly for Families

The United States’ immigration system favors family reunification – even in the so-called employment-based categories.  The family members of immigrant workers must use employment based green cards to enter the United States.  Instead of a separate green card category for spouses and children, they get a green card that would otherwise go to a worker. 

In 2013, 53 percent of all supposed employment-based green cards went to the family members of workers.  The other 47 percent went to the workers themselves.  Some of those family members are workers, but they should have a separate green card category or be exempted from the employment green card quota altogether. 

Source: 2013 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Author’s Calculations

Driverless Money

Last week I happened to be contemplating a post having to do with driverless cars when, wouldn’t you know it, I received word that the Bank of England had just started a new blog called Bank Underground, the first substantive post on which had to do with — you guessed it — driverless cars.

As it turned out, I needn’t have worried that Bank Underground had stolen my fire. The post, you see, was written by some employees in the Bank of England’s General Insurance Supervision Division, whose concern was that driverless cars might be bad news for the insurance industry. The problem, as the Bank of England’s experts see it, is that cars like the ones that Google plans to introduce in 2020 are much better drivers than we humans happen to be — so much better, according to research cited in the post, that “the entire basis of motor insurance, which mainly exists because people crash, could … be upended.” Driverless cars therefore threaten to “wipe out traditional motor insurance.”

It is of course a great relief to know that the Bank of England’s experts are keeping a sharp eye out for such threats to the insurance industry. (I suppose they must be working as we speak on some plan for addressing the dire possibility — let us hope it never comes to this — that cancer and other diseases will eventually be eradicated.) But my own interest in driverless cars is rather different. So far as I’m concerned, the advent of such cars should have us all wondering, not about the future of the insurance industry, but about the future of…the Bank of England, or rather of it and all other central banks. If driverless cars can upend “the entire basis of motor insurance,” then surely, I should think, an automatic or “driverless” monetary system ought to be capable of upending “the entire basis of monetary policy” as such policy is presently conducted.

And that, so far as I’m concerned, would be a jolly good thing.

Of Raisins and Property Rights

Further to Ilya’s overview of today’s Supreme Court decision in Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture, it should be noted that it’s taken Marvin and Laura Horne over a decade to vindicate their rights in the raisins the government sought to take “for their benefit,” under one of the many economically foolish New Deal and later agricultural marketing schemes Congress has seen fit to enact. But in this lengthy process, the Hornes have helped the Court to settle a fundamental principle, namely, that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause prohibits the government from taking both real and personal property for public use without just compensation.

At the same time, the Court is still confused in its effort to distinguish and adjudicate what have come to be called “physical” and “regulatory” takings. In Horne, the Court held, the government sought to “physically” take 47 percent of the Hornes’ raisins, much as ten years ago, in its infamous Kelo decision, the Court upheld the City of New London, Connecticut’s “physical” taking of Suzette’s Kelo’s little pink house. In other words, the government sought to take title to the Hornes’ property in their raisins.

By contrast, in a regulatory taking, the government, through regulation, takes certain otherwise legitimate uses an owner has in his property. The owner retains the title; but it’s usually a much devalued title. For almost a century, the Court has struggled to fit these regulatory takings under the Takings Clause—ever since Justice Holmes in 1922 wrote that a regulatory restriction that goes “too far” amounts to a taking requiring compensation. The three-part test the Court set forth in 1978 in its Penn Central decision only muddied those waters. In fact, we see that here when Chief Justice Roberts tries to drive home the point that in Horne we have a physical taking. In response to a point made by the dissent he writes that in such cases “‘we do not ask … whether [the taking] deprives the owner of all economically valuable use’ of the item taken”—citing one of the three Penn Central criteria.

Roberts is right: we don’t ask that when title is taken, as here. But in labeling Horne a “physical” taking, and distinguishing it from a taking that “‘deprives the owner of all economically valuable use’ of the item taken,” Roberts opens up a question: Just what does “the item” refer to? Clearly, Roberts means to refer to “the property” in the sense of the whole parcel or the underlying fee. But that is not “the item” that is taken in a regulatory taking. The owner still owns the fee. What is usually taken is certain “economically valuable uses”—but not all such uses. Indeed, in many regulatory cases the owner is entitled to compensation only when all the uses are taken. That was the case in the Court’s 1992 Lucas decision, where the regulatory restrictions left the owner with an effectively worthless title.

The nub of the matter here is really quite simple, and it was stated by James Madison in his famous 1792 essay, Property: “In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.” In other words, it’s not simply the underlying fee that is our property. All the legitimate uses that go with it are our property as well. Thus, a taking occurs and compensation is due not simply when that last use is taken, which is what the Lucas Court effectively held, but when the first use is taken and the title is accordingly devalued. Those uses—those “items”—are our property too. Perhaps the Court will one day give us an integrated theory of property of a kind that Madison understood—before the rise of the modern regulatory state.

“Leveling the Playing Field Act” Hurts the Broader Economy

The Senate leadership is working hard to find the votes needed to support the trade agenda. Key to progress is passage of trade promotion authority (TPA), also known as “fast track”, which would commit Congress to vote up or down on a trade agreement rather than offering amendments. Opposition to trade liberalization has been a comfortable policy stance for senators beholden to organized labor and to the anti-growth left. Opponents on the right profess concern about the possible loss of national sovereignty and generally are reluctant to give President Obama greater authority of any kind.

Political realities sometimes require offering sweeteners to make a difficult vote more palatable. Trade adjustment assistance (TAA) has been legislated in the past to help workers and firms that are having difficulty dealing with competition from imports. Even though the economic and equity arguments in favor of trade-related unemployment benefits are relatively weak (Why treat people who are unemployed due to international competition differently than those who lose their jobs due to changes in technology, for instance?), the political rationale for TAA at times has been compelling. It’s not surprising that both the House and Senate have been searching for a way to pass both TPA and TAA. The president has expressed his preference to sign them at the same time.

With the outcome of the Senate vote on TPA not yet clear, it’s not surprising that there has been a search for additional sweeteners. The steel industry has pushed to include Sen. Sherrod Brown’s (D-OH) poorly named “Leveling the Playing Field Act” as part of the TAA package.  (My op-ed on the Act is available here.) Given the need to woo as many votes as possible, the Senate leadership has agreed to this request.

It’s not my intention to criticize pro-trade senators who are doing their best to pass TPA. Life can be complex, and political life all the more so. However, it may be worthwhile for free-trade proponents to think carefully about the implications of adding Sen. Brown’s measure as part of this effort to provide the president with negotiating authority.

Here’s the rub: the protectionist provisions of the “Leveling the Playing Field Act” would take effect as soon as the president signs the TAA legislation, but potential trade liberalization (if any ever gets enacted) would not be realized until sometime well in the future. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – the first agreement that might be concluded once the president has negotiating authority – would not begin to be implemented until 2017 at the earliest, perhaps much later. Although details of the agreement are not yet public, restrictions on politically sensitive imports are likely to be phased in over perhaps as many as 20 years. Thus, the United States would be making its antidumping/countervailing (AD/CVD) regime more protectionist immediately in exchange for future liberalization that may or may not ever occur.

If possible, Senate leaders should remove the Leveling the Playing Field Act from TAA and let adjustment assistance be considered on its own merits. If that isn’t feasible, the effective date of Sen. Brown’s legislation should be changed so that it does not become operational until the eventual implementing legislation for TPP also becomes effective. That way there will at least be some growth-promoting liberalization to help offset the reduced economic welfare caused by the Leveling the Playing Field Act.

Patel: Right Result, Wan Rationale

Making short work of the idea that facial challenges aren’t available under the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled today in Los Angeles v. Patel that a city may not require its hotels to turn over their business records without some opportunity for review of the government’s demands. It’s the right result, but the Court was too quiet about its treatment of Fourth Amendment doctrine, and it did not take the opportunity to fully address situations like the case presented, in which the government dragoons private businesses into surveillance on its behalf.

Justice Sotomayor, writing for a 5-4 majority, held: “the provision of the Los Angeles Municipal Code that requires hotel operators to make their registries available to the police on demand is facially unconstitutional because it penalizes them for declining to turn over their records without affording them any opportunity for pre-compliance review.” Justice Scalia led one bloc of dissenters believing it was reasonable to institute this kind of regulation on business owners suspected of no substantive crime because their facilities are sometimes used for crime. Justice Alito dissented as well, arguing that there should be no facial challenge to the statute because constitutional applications of it exist.

Had the stars lined up, the Court might have used the Patel case to address simmering issues around current Fourth Amendment doctrine, as the Cato Institute’s brief for the Court suggested. The Court indeed eschewed the backward “reasonable expectation of privacy” test, which finds that Fourth Amendment interest exists when people reasonably feel that it does. It instead examined whether the government’s scheme was reasonable, which is where the language of the Fourth Amendment focuses courts’ attention. But the Court did not broadcast the inapplicability of “reasonable expectation” doctrine, so most lawyers and lower courts will probably not realize that another in a growing line of cases is applying the Fourth Amendment in a new and better way, by hewing more closely to the text.

Part of the reason the Court didn’t take all the constitutional bait was the unusually narrow challenge the hoteliers brought. They attacked the collection of information by the government, granting for the sake of argument in this case that the government has the power to require them to collect information about their customers for the government’s later use. Had the Court considered the totality of what we called “the warrantless search scheme,” it would have had to assess whether it is reasonable in our constitutional system for private businesses to be dragooned into wholesale, comprehensive surveillance on behalf of the government. That scope might have brought the Court’s conservatives off the sidelines and into defending the degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. (Surely, the government couldn’t have conscripted businesses into mass surveillance of the public at the time of the framing.)

Folks who are paying attention will recognize that the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test continues to recede in importance. We will continue to wait, though, for the case that clearly and articulately applies the right against unreasonable seizures and searches to information as such. While Patel is a technical win, some later case or cases will have to truly address how the Fourth Amendment is to be administered in the modern era.