What class action can do for us regular people

Given everything that’s going on in the news, why bother with this item from 538 Significant Digits?

Because, among other laws, rules, regulations, bodies and rights threatened by the Supreme Court’s right wing, there is class action. If Kavanaugh gets on the court, successful class action lawsuits like this against massive and powerful corporations — note the case began “over a decade ago” — might go away:

$6 billion settlement

Speaking of banks and stuff, Visa and Mastercard will pay some $6 billion to put an end to one branch of a two-pronged price-fixing case. The case began over a decade ago, with merchants accusing Visa and Mastercard of conspiring to inflate the “swipe fees” that the merchants paid when they swiped a customer’s card. It is, according to Bloomberg, the largest class-action settlement of an antitrust case. [Bloomberg]

Posted in J. Judge and courtroom, Law, suits and order, The Facts of Life | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Roberts backs down from his dark money disclosure delay and…

this means the decision made by Judge Beryl Howell that dark money PACs have to disclose their donors will stand.

I was totally taken aback when I saw CREW calmly stating their big win on this on Twitter. I kept reading it again and again, because I couldn’t understand how, a few days after Roberts signed the delay (which was described by SCOTUSBlog as “for the foreseeable future”), it’s now All-Go.

Seems like the “foreseeable future” was a couple of days. Great victory for CREW and, really, for all of us. And dare I interpret this as a humiliating rebuke to Roberts? Or maybe I’m always looking for a humiliating rebuke to Roberts.

As some lawyer on Twitter suggested, Roberts must have gone to his full court, looked at the Kavanaugh hearing mess (and Kavanaugh, even if put on the court, could not weigh in on this case) and figured his court would go 4-4 on this, which would throw it back to the Appellate Court which OK’d Judge Howell’s original decision.

I really should try not to get too overexcited but…could this be the first crack in the door of Citizens United?

Was that too excited?

Posted in Law, suits and order, Politics, The Facts of Life, The filthy rich | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

So what’s doing in the Citizens United Supreme Court?

This. As reported by many newspapers and here by SCOTUSBlog, which I follow. It’s a terse, apolitical layout of what happened. (If I remember correctly, Citizens United — indeed, Scalia said as much — does not state anything about dark money PACS’s “right” to conceal their donors, i.e., to be “dark money.” Obvious to all of us, the fact that they do is very, very bad. [I’m running low on synonyms for “bad” and “bad” is easier to type than “horrendous” or whatever].

Chief justice puts donor-disclosure ruling on hold

Posted: 16 Sep 2018 05:39 AM PDT

Chief justice puts donor-disclosure ruling on hold

Last month a federal district court invalidated a Federal Election Commission regulation governing when political nonprofit groups, sometimes referred to as “dark money” groups, must disclose their donors. On Friday, one of the groups at the center of the ruling urged the Supreme Court to put the decision on hold, calling the district court’s ruling “unprecedented” and its timing – so close to the November elections – “extraordinary.” On Saturday, Chief Justice John Roberts granted the group’s request, allowing the existing regulation to stay in effect for at least the foreseeable future.

The emergency application came from Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategy, a nonprofit linked to American Crossroads, a “super PAC” started by Karl Rove. The Internal Revenue Service allows groups like Crossroads Grassroots to spend money on elections as long as it is not their “primary purpose.” The FEC has long interpreted federal election laws to require such groups to disclose their donors only when the donors’ contributions were earmarked for a specific “independent expenditure” – communications that expressly urge voters to vote for or against candidates. (The ruling does not affect communications known as “issue ads,” which may discuss policies or candidates but don’t explicitly support or oppose a candidate.)

But U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell rejected the FEC’s interpretation on August 3, concluding that nonprofits like Crossroads Grassroots should be required to disclose any donors who give at least $200 toward any independent expenditures. If allowed to stand, the ruling would be significant: Political nonprofits have spent over $700 million on “independent expenditures” since 2010.

Howell stayed her order for 45 days, but neither Howell nor the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit would further extend the stay, which ends on Monday, September 17. On Friday, Crossroads Grassroots went to the Supreme Court for relief, telling Roberts (who is responsible for emergency appeals from Washington, D.C.) that the FEC regulation had been used in 19 previous elections, “and there is no compelling reason to hastily throw the clear reporting standards it provides to donors and speakers into confusion just prior to a national election.” Roberts could have referred the request to the full court, as justices often do, but instead he opted to act alone, in a brief one-sentence disposition that indicated that the district court’s decision was “stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court.” Roberts’ quick action may have stemmed from a desire to bring clarity to the situation as far in advance of the Monday deadline as possible, but it may also reflect his frustration at the D.C. Circuit’s failure to act on Crossroads Grassroots’ request.

This post was first published at Howe on the Court.

Me again. I linked to Judge Howell so you could confirm that she was appointed to the District Court by President Obama and that, yep, she’s a woman.

Posted in J. Judge and courtroom, Law, suits and order, Politics, The Facts of Life, The filthy rich | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment