The New York Court of Appeals did what it said it wouldn’t.

[W]e agree with Janice R. that any change in the meaning of “parent” under our law should come by way of legislative enactment rather than judicial revamping of precedent.

A wise sentiment, that lasted all of six years until Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam wrote the opinion that undid the bright line rule of the 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which held that a person who was neither the biological nor adoptive parent of a child had no standing to seek custody or visitation of a child.  And replaced it with a steaming pile of feelz.

In Matter of Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A. C.C., the Court gave in to social justice and gave away the protection of children. Continue reading →

The reason why cops are allowed to moonlight is simple: it’s a job perk going back to the days when police, like most public employees, were underpaid relative to those in the private sector, and allowed to make some extra money on the side. The same was true for 20 and out pensions, another gimme to compensate for lower current wages that kicked the cost down the road enough for current politicians to proclaim what a great job they were doing saving the taxpayers’ money. It was more palatable than paying them adequately in the first place, or paying them today rather than later.

But then, for many cops, most notably those in cities who enjoy strong unions, those days aren’t even a memory. Pay is comparable to, if not better, than what they could make in the private sector, and a full pension at 42 years of age is the perfect launching platform for the second half of their productive life. Yet, the perk remains.

It’s been a target here for years, Wearing the uniform we bought them, carrying the gun we bought them, and with the power of the badge we pinned on their very proud chest, cops get to sell themselves after hours to the highest bidder. Some get to drive their police cruiser to their rent-a-cop job. All get to be an authorized law enforcement officer for whomever slips them an envelope full of cash at the end of the shift.

Seth Stoughton, once a cop and now a prawf at the South Carolina law school, has decided to spill the beans on cop moonlighting. Continue reading →

One of the legacies of its Jesuit heritage is that Georgetown University kept excellent records of the slaves it sold in 1838 to keep the joint afloat. To its credit, it’s now trying to do something about it, as the climate in 2016 is to “reflect upon [Georgetown] University’s history and involvement in the institution of slavery.” Even the Jesuits had slaves back then.

Georgetown University is taking a series of historically important steps to atone for the acts of 19th-century Jesuits who held African-American men, women and children in slavery and sold 272 of them to Southern sugar plantations to keep the college that became Georgetown operating.

Regardless of whether anyone else believes that the historical atrocity of slavery should be left in the past, Georgetown, as a private institution, has chosen to deal with it today. The institution’s decision is laudable, and doesn’t require anyone else’s approval. If it makes you feel badly because it’s doing what others are not, or refuse to do, that’s your issue. Georgetown University makes its own decisions. And lives with them. Continue reading →

Nine years ago, Geraldine and her daughter, Caroline, Burley were the victims of a forced entry into their home by masked men. They later came to learn that the men were identified as Team 11. Radley Balko was on it years ago, and is still on it now.

Geraldine, now 70, pleaded with the man to let her move to the floor slowly, explaining to him that she’d had both of her knees replaced. Instead, another officer approached, grabbed her by the face, demanded that she “get the [f–––] on the floor,” then threw her into a table. She tumbled to the ground. At that point, she said later in a deposition, everything turned to “a fire, white and ringing in my ear.” Another officer came up from the basement with her grandson, stepping on her knees in the process. She cried out again in pain.

Were these dangerous felons in need of a “dynamic entry,” the euphemism preferred by police because it sounds so much better than any more accurate phrase, by a SWAT team to rid society of their violent crimes?  Not quite.

According to the Burleys’ accounts, the officers who raided their home were clad in black. Some wore balaclava masks or face shields that hid all but their eyes. Others pulled their hats down low to shield their identities. They had also obscured their names and badge numbers. Once the Burleys’ house had been thoroughly searched, both women asked the officers for their names. After holding an impromptu meeting, the officers told the Burleys that they wouldn’t divulge any information that could identify them individually. Instead, they told the women that they had just been raided by “Team 11.”

Continue reading →

There are people for whom we can feel enormous sympathy. Real victims. True victims. Undeniable victims. And still, they can make poor choices and, ultimately, suffer the consequences in court.  For some of the victims of James Holmes’ rampage at Cinemark’s Century Aurora 16 theater in Aurora, Colorado, the bill just came due at $700,000.

The question was never whether the plaintiffs were injured. They were, and their injurious were grievous. And there was no fault on the part of the plaintiffs, ordinary people who did nothing more than go to see a movie.  The question was whether the movie theater breached a duty to these patrons by failing to provide sufficient security to address a crazed shooter like Holmes. Was the theater liable for their injuries? Of this, the plaintiffs were certain:

“It was the 12th hour, we were all feeling the same way. We all knew they were liable. We knew they were at fault,” [victim Marcus] Weaver said.

The plaintiffs knew what was coming. They were told. There was a state case that resulted in a jury verdict for Cinemark, that they couldn’t have foreseen Holme’s rampage.  Judge R. Brooke Jackson actually told them that he would issue a decision against them, ending the case, the following day.  And Cinemark put a settlement offer on the table. Not a good offer from the plaintiffs’ perspective, but an offer. Continue reading →

Aside from the honor of being an Admiral in the Great Navy of Nebraska, I’m also a Tennessee Squire.  Many years ago, I was graced by the kind folks from Jack Daniels with plot f20377 in Lynchburg.  Every once in a while, I get a letter from one of the neighbors about some confounding issue, and one arrived yesterday from Goose Baxter’s wife, Debbie.

It’s not that Debbie accused me of anything, as it would be un-neighborly to do so. But let’s be frank, that’s what she meant.  So unlike some folks who never denied that they didn’t kill Noel’s puppy, I did not take Goose’s britches.

The head-scratcher was why the ABA, which has been granted the authority to accredit law schools for reasons that haven’t aged well, decided that Texas needed yet another new one when it conditionally approved one at the University of North Texas-Dallas. Were there not enough unemployed, starving new lawyers vying for jobs at Dairy Queen already?

The answer may be found in the critique of this inexplicable decision at the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Texas as a state has no shortage of lawyers. However, UNT has sought to train lawyers interested in representing lower-income residents by admitting students from more diverse, and non-traditional backgrounds. The school, which was launched in 2014, also placed a lower priority on LSAT scores than many institutions. Instead, it looked for work experience and other accomplishments that indicated applicants could succeed in classes and on the bar exam. And UNT is charging thousands less in tuition and fees than even other public law schools in the state.

Continue reading →

Whether Roger Ailes is the pig he’s alleged to be will be known soon enough. But since he’s Roger Ailes, the now-ex-soul of the most hated conservative news channel on the tube with the best tagline, “fair and balanced,” he’s a lightning rod. Weird how controversial people, knowing that they have a target on their foreheads, do things certain to destroy them.

Two high-profile lawsuits against Roger Ailes, the former Fox News chairman, have painted a shocking picture of brazen sexual harassment at the network. In her bombshell complaint against him, the former Fox host Gretchen Carlson said that he told her, “I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago.” Last week, another former Fox host, Andrea Tantaros, filed her own lawsuit, stating that Mr. Ailes told her to turn around so he could “get a good look” at her and that she was harassed by other employees and even show guests.

The details both women lay out portray Fox as a place where sexual harassers roam free, grabbing or ogling whatever they fancy, with consequences brought to bear only on the victims who speak up.

The image couldn’t be more unsavory, which, for a news source promoting traditional values, makes the irony delicious and the conduct reprehensible. Fox News wasn’t Bill Buckley’s flavor of conservatism, and Roger Ailes (not to mention many others who roamed the hallways), love him or hate him for his politics, gets no free pass for his conduct. Continue reading →

Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote in The Common Law,

The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.

By that, he meant that the law develops as it plays out in real life, rather than with mathematical certainty based upon axioms. And, indeed, experience in the trenches is that the most fundamental of legal doctrines, no matter how logical, often play out in ways neither intended nor anticipated. So the law adjusts. Continue reading →

At Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr raises an interesting question arising out of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Jones v. Kirchner.

The question in the case is whether a magistrate judge’s decision to limit a warrant search to daytime hours is binding, such that the officers necessarily violate the Fourth Amendment if they execute the warrant at night. The court presented the issue as easy and answered the question “yes.”

For most of us, there would be little question as to why anyone would find the decision otherwise. In some states, New York for example, executing a warrant at night requires judicial authority, and failure to obtain that approval is the end of the question. After all, what purpose is served by requiring a neutral magistrate to authorize a search if the cops are free to do as they please regardless?

But Orin throws a monkey wrench into this bright line rule: Continue reading →