Author: TSA Press

Mayer Brown is helping a bunch of landlords challenge New York’s rent control laws, which is already an act of cartoonish super-villainy, but they’ve decided to solidify their mustache-twirling by bolstering their filing by pointing out that rent control goes against the very bedrock value of this nation — specifically, that black people are 3/5ths of a human being.

The new rent stabilization and control laws in New York add a bit more heft to a system that’s been in place since just after World War I. If the courts respected precedent as much as Susan Collins pretends they do, this wouldn’t be much of a case. But a group of landlords have decided to take the occasion of tighter regulation to argue that the whole legal regime should be junked as an unconstitutional taking of property.

Mayer Brown is representing the landlords and in a massive, 386-paragraph complaint that would make John Galt blush, leveling all sorts of libertarian nonsense about the tyrannical government stepping on the poor, downtrodden Manhattan landlords. There are definitely abuses of the system — tenants who have no business enjoying the fruits of a system designed to help the poor and elderly amount to infamous anecdotes. But we don’t make sweeping policies based on a handful of anecdotes for a reason and even if there’s a better way to implement it (bring me your “give tenants vouchers” claptrap and I’ll at least listen), the policy has mostly been a success for almost a century.

But then Mayer Brown decided to throw this into its already bloated, self-indulgent pleading:

This protection of property rights is deeply rooted in American history and traditions, and is a fundamental right on which America was founded. See, e.g., Federalist No. 10, at 78 (Madison) (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (describing protection of property rights, especially in land, as “the first object of government”); Federalist No. 54, supra, at 339 (Madison) (government is “instituted no less for protection of the property than of the persons of individuals”).

Oh, it sure was a foundational right! That’s why Federalist No. 54 was written — to explain to worried anti-federalists that the Constitution was a fair compromise because it appropriately recognized slaves as less than human. Just take a gander at some of the paragraph that immediately precedes Mayer Brown’s quote:

Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in truth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants, which regards the slave as divested of two fifths of the man.

Now, there are some who might say that of all the flowery but ultimately empty platitudes to property rights that it amounts to a spectacular research fail to include a damning tribute to America’s slaving past in a filing. On the other hand, for a lawsuit based upon kicking, by and large, poor and minority tenants out of their homes — and to do so in many cases so the landlord can gut the building and gentrify the neighborhood, pushing working people further and further from their jobs and historic communities — perhaps this was the most unintentionally appropriate citation of all.

After all, what better summary of this case could there be than to say that government should serve the interests of higher profits for mostly white, wealthy landholders at the expense of their sub-human minority tenants?

(Full filing on the next page.)

Landlords Strike Back, Suing to Dismantle Rent Regulation System [New York Times]

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

A lot of digital ink will (rightfully) be spilled today memorializing the late Justice John Paul Stevens. The man had a long career on the Supreme Court — 34 years — and penned some landmark decisions. Plenty of commentators will attempt to put Justice Stevens, and his jurisprudence, into properly historical context over the next few days, but this post will do something a little different.

Above the Law has a wide audience of lawyers and law students, and so we want to know what you think was the late justice’s most memorable decision.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
Stevens wrote the incredibly influential Chevron decision which gave administrative agencies deference over their interpretation of ambiguous statutes. The case became an insta-classic that’s been cited a shit-ton by lower courts and is a cornerstone of the modern regulatory regime.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008)
Not every opinion he wrote became a backbone of liberal thought. In this case, he sided with the Republicans and held states can require people to provide photographic identification in order to vote.

Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978)
Another case where Justice Stevens sided with the conservatives. In this case, he held the FCC can regulate indecent content — in this case, a George Carlin comedy routine — without violating the First Amendment.

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)
In a case that’s still relevant today, ahem, Steven wrote for the majority that a sitting president is not immune from civil lawsuits for actions taken before they became president or unrelated to the office.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
Stevens also knew how to launch a blistering dissent, and he did so in this case when the majority opened the floodgates to corporate influence over elections.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Another time that Stevens unleashed on the majority decision in a fantastic dissent, this time when they struck down the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)
A final dissent to consider as the most memorable of Stevens’s opinions. This case decided the fate of the 2000 election, and Stevens was none too happy about the way it all went down.

So what do you think was Justice Stevens’s most memorable opinion?

 Loading …

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

There has been much discussion about student loan bailouts recently.  Indeed, some politicians have proposed paying off a certain amount of student debt for every borrower, and other politicians have even proposed completely paying off everyone’s student debt.  Of course, it is unlikely if any of these proposals will ever get passed, since there is not much political will these days to do much of anything.  In addition, many people have already argued that such proposals would be unfair, since many people take scholarships at lower ranked schools or make other sacrifices to reduce their student debt, and this effort would be undermined by a student loan bailout.  Others have also opined about how such proposals would disproportionately affect the wealthy, since individuals with degrees and a higher income potential might realize the most benefits from a bailout.

Along with these points, it is also important to consider the effect that any student loan bailout would have on the legal pubic sector.  As many people know, individuals who work for the government and nonprofits can typically have their student loans forgiven after 10 years.  Many people pursue public sector jobs for the express purpose of obtaining debt forgiveness, and most lawyers know individuals in this situation.  However, if people had their student debt forgiven by the government, they might not have much incentive to work in public interest fields.

For instance, before I started my own law firm, I worked on a case with the most amazing attorney for a municipality that was also being sued in the matter.  Even though my colleague had double the caseload that I had, he brought his “A game” to every brief, argument, deposition, and other activity related to this case.  I remember one time, we were trying to view surveillance files that had been corrupted and were unable to be opened.  In a last-ditch effort, this attorney told me he tried putting the CD of the surveillance files into his Xbox to see if it would somehow work.  As I am sure everyone would agree, this attorney was dedicated!

Years later, I saw this lawyer on a train, and I told him that the firm I was currently working at was looking to hire new associates.  I told my colleague how impressed I was with his work, and I thought my new firm would pay him much more money than he earned as a government lawyer.  This lawyer appreciated my consideration, but he told me that he needed to work in the public sector for at least 10 years to receive debt repayment.  The amount of debt repayment my colleague would receive exceeded the difference in compensation between his current role and the job at my firm.  In addition, my colleague was already well into his 10 years, and he didn’t want to quit working toward debt repayment after all of the effort he had already put into this program.

Without Public Service Loan Forgiveness, my friend would have had few incentives to stay in the public sector.  Some might argue that public sector jobs often afford greater lifestyle benefits and the opportunity to work on matters in ways not possible in private practice.  However, these incentives are not available in a number of public sector roles.  Indeed, my colleague who was employed for a municipality was overworked and underpaid in the public sector, and he could work on the same types of matters at a firm or by starting his own shop.  Of course, some people like to work in the public sector, since they are doing good and serving others.  However, when it comes down to it, there is currently no better incentive to work in public sector roles than the debt forgiveness that is available through Public Service Loan Forgiveness.

Of course, one could argue that it is not fair for lawyers to be shackled to a career simply because they need to pay off student loans.  It could easily be argued that a student loan bailout would empower attorneys to find jobs that bring them fulfillment separate from the need to pay off their student loans.  In fact, it could be argued that a student loan bailout would empower individuals to enter the public sector, since the need to pay student loans might be keeping attorneys from lower-paid jobs in public interest roles.  Ultimately, one positive aspect about a student loan bailout would be that it would allow attorneys and other individuals to pursue passions rather than stay shackled in certain roles.

In any case, I have already seen a number of articles about how a student loan bailout could affect people’s decisions to enter the military, live in certain parts of the country, and make a number of life decisions. However, it is also worth noting that a student loan bailout would have massive implications on the legal public sector.  Since many dedicated attorneys stay in the public sector to receive debt forgiveness, a student loan bailout could impact the legal services provided to governments and nonprofits.

Jordan Rothman is the Managing Attorney of The Rothman Law Firm, a New Jersey and New York litigation boutique. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jrothman@rothmanlawyer.com.

* A divided House of Representatives voted to “strongly condemn[] President Donald Trump’s racist comments” that were recently lodged against four Democratic congresswomen of color “that have legitimized and increased fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color.” [NBC News]

* Plaintiffs in the census citizenship case are seeking sanctions against the Department of Justice for committing “fraud on the court” after allegedly hiding the truth about the case’s origins during trial. This should be interesting, considering the Supreme Court seemed to agree… [Reuters]

* Which Biglaw firms are playing host to 2020 Democratic presidential candidates? Quite a few, actually! From Milbank to Kirkland to Paul Weiss, these politicians are getting cozy with their future lawyers. [American Lawyer]

* Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner has Pennsylvania Supreme Court to declare the death penalty unconstitutional because he claims it’s arbitrary and racially biased. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

* Salary news you can use: If you’ve got a law degree and you work in a compliance role, you can expect to make more money than your colleagues without JDs at each and every stage of your career. [Corporate Counsel]

* Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, the former leader of the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, RIP. [New York Times]

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

Despite the large number of large-scale projects being announced or tendered over the past years and the recent introduction of a net metering scheme for rooftop solar, Zimbabwe had only 11 MW of installed solar capacity at the end of December 2018, according to the latest statistics released by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

Why Law Firms Are Moving to the Cloud

Why Law Firms Are Moving to the Cloud

Clio

SCOTUSblog has confirmed the sad news, on Twitter:

Justice Steven served on the Supreme Court until 2010, when he was succeeded by Justice Elena Kagan.

For lawyers, Stevens will be best known for writing the opinion in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Writing for a unanimous court, Stevens wrote what would come to be viewed as the proper deference courts should give to the statutory interpretation of administrative agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency. It is a key pillar of modern constitutional law, so of course it’s something that Justice Neil Gorsuch evidently wants to tear down.

For non-lawyers, Stevens will be best known for his scathing dissent in Bush v. Gore. When the Supreme Court, along partisan lines, decided to choose the President of the United States, Stevens called a thing a thing:

The [majority opinion] can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

Though he retired in 2010, under a not insignificant amount of pressure that then 90-year-old Justice might not survive should President Obama lose his bid for re-election and end up being replaced by a Republican President, Stevens still had a lot left in the tank. His latest book: The Making of a Justice: Reflections on My First 94 Years, was published in May of this year.

Now that everybody knows that retired Justice Stevens is not the same person as current Justice Stephen Breyer, we can all reflect on the life and career of the man.

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

In totally unsurprising news, Attorney General and Trump Bather William Barr declined to bring charges against Daniel Pantaleo, the NYPD officer who choked Eric Garner to death in broad daylight.

To come to this conclusion, Barr had to overrule the recommendation of the Civil Rights division at the Department of Justice, according to two DOJ officials.

Again, none of this is actually surprising. America is a racist country and, within her borders, it is more or less legal for cops to murder black people, so long as that murder is not somewhat obviously premeditated. The prosecutors that Barr went with said that they couldn’t prove the case that Officer Pantaleo “willfully” intended to choke the life out of Garner. Even though Pantaleo placed Garner in an illegal choke-hold, a move banned SINCE 1993 precisely because it leads to death.

Saying you can’t prove an officer strangled another man on purpose even when you have video showing the officer using an illegal strangulation move is like saying you can’t prove gravity exists as you throw black people off a plane, because you can’t see them hit the ground.

But Barr angering his white supremacist president and his white supremacist supporters by prosecuting an officer who merely killed a nonwhite person was never going to happen. Barr can’t even stand up for the rule of law when the Supreme Court orders him to. There was no chance he was going to seek justice on behalf of a black person in America.

In related news, James Alex Fields, the man who killed white woman Heather Hyer, was sentenced to a second life sentence in Virginia today. The judge called Fields’s actions, “an act of terror.”

NYPD officer in Eric Garner’s chokehold death won’t face federal charges [NBC News]

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

According to the ABA, what state massively expanded its roster of attorneys, with a whopping 62 percent more attorneys in the 2019 ABA National Lawyer Population Survey over 2018’s numbers?

Hint: As you might imagine, it takes a smaller state to see a boost that big.

See the answer on the next page.