Note: On August 26, 2019, the Washington Legal Foundation published this article as part of its Legal Pulse blog. FIFRA, the federal pesticide statute, gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exclusive authority to regulate the content of pesticide labeling, including health & safety warnings. Section 24(b) unequivocally declares that a “State shall not impose . […]
EPA Finally Flexes Some Preemption Muscle Read More »
More than 100 members of the House of Representatives—all Democrats—are sponsoring or co-sponsoring the so-called Ban Toxic Pesticides Act of 2019, H.R.230. This short bill would immediately ban all sale and use of chlorpyrifos, a highly beneficial insecticide long used in agricultural production and for certain other uses such as mosquito control and turf maintenance.
Pesticide Ban Bills Ditch Science For Politics Read More »
On July 19, Capital Appellate Advocacy founder Larry Ebner moderated an expert panel on how to develop, conduct, and promote a U.S. Supreme Court practice. The panel was part of the annual Appellate Advocacy Seminar sponsored by DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar. The seminar, held in Chicago, was co-chaired by Sarah Spencer of Christensen
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, No. 16-1275 (June 17, 2019), reveals the Justices’ sharply differing views on the role that legislative intent should play in cases involving implied preemption of state law — more specifically, (i) state legislative intent where the issue is whether a state statute is barred under
Virginia Uranium Reveals Fissures in Supreme Court Implied Preemption Jurisprudence Read More »
Thank you Glenn Lammi, Chief Counsel, Legal Studies Division at the Washington Legal Foundation—and your WLF colleagues, including Rich Samp and Cory Andrews—for inviting me to moderate the June 19 briefing on How Free Enterprise Fared during the U.S. Supreme Court’s October 2018 Term. I began by identifying the wide variety of subjects addressed this Term
Supreme Court Experts Discuss This Year’s Free Enterprise Cases Read More »
The Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision in Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646 (June 17, 2019), reaffirming the “dual-sovereignty doctrine”—under which “a State may prosecute a defendant under state law even if the Federal Government has prosecuted him for the same conduct under a federal statute,” slip op. at 1—is a goldmine for politically motivated state
I’ve previously written about Justice Kavanaugh’s and Justice Gorsuch’s brilliant legal writing styles. For example, in Newest Justices’ Dueling Opinions Sparkle (For The Defense, June 2019), I describe how they squared off last March, writing the majority and dissenting opinions, respectively, in Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries, No. 17-1104 (6-3 decision rejecting the
Note: A version of this March 2019 blog was published by DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar in For The Defense (June 2019) under the title “Newest Justices Dueling Opinions Sparkle.” The Supreme Court’s two newest members—Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch—are brilliant legal writers. Their first Supreme Court opinions reflected the superb drafting skills
Newest Justices’ Dueling Opinions Sparkle Read More »
DRI Panel: What Does It Take To Develop and Conduct a U.S. Supreme Court Practice? Two Supreme Court practitioners, a nationally renown legal marketing & brand strategy expert, and a highly experienced Supreme Court printer, will answer this question in detail during the “You Too Can Be a Supreme Court Practitioner” panel at the DRI
You Too Can Be a Supreme Court Practitioner Read More »
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is known for his staunchly conservative views. He is not whom you might expect to cast a deciding vote that favors class-action plaintiffs. But that is exactly what he did on May 28 in Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 17-1471. In fact, Justice Thomas authored the Court’s 5-4
Justice Thomas Challenges Congress To Learn How To Say What It Means Read More »
