Last session, the Georgia General Assembly passed controversial bills on campus carry and religious freedom. While Governor Deal vetoed those bills in the eleventh hour, we are likely to see some elements revived when the legislature reconvenes. Tune in to my WRGC interview to learn what was in these bills, their proponents and detractors, and the reasoning behind the Governor’s vetoes.
We wrapped up another incredible Constitution Week at Georgia College! Here were some of the highlights:
Chief Justice Hugh Thompson of the Georgia Supreme Court discussing access to justice and the court’s expansion;
State Rep. Alan Peake discussing medical marijuana initiatives;
A panel of state legislators discussing recent campus carry and religious freedom bills;
Jason Carter and Josh Belinfante discussing voting rights, poll access and ballot security.
Check out my interview with WRGC’s Dan McDonald where we talk about the week’s events.
Too busy to blog for the past few months, so just catching up now! WRGC’s Dan McDonald and I recorded this show shortly before the Georgia primary elections, but it’s still relevant for anyone curious about the Georgia Court system and the process by which judges arrive on the bench.
The Georgia Legislature recently passed the “Free Exercise Protection Act.” This bill, which combined several pending bills, addresses (1) the obligations of religious entities to provide employment and services they find objectionable, (2) the power of the state to restrict or punish persons acting according to their religious beliefs, and (3) what happens when a public official’s duty conflicts with her faith. The Act, which awaits Gov. Deal’s signature, has been condemned by a number of business and LGBTQ advocacy groups as potentially encouraging discrimination.
Click here for my recent interview with Georgia Public Broadcasting on HB 757 and its legal implications.
The FBI wants Apple to provide access to information stored on the iPhones of criminal suspects. See below for my recent discussion, with WRGC 88.3’s Dan McDonald, about the legal and ethical implications.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s life had a major influence on American law and politics. So will his death. See the link below for my recent interview with WRGC 88.3 on Justice Scalia’s legacy, the current state of the U.S. Supreme Court, and potential nominees to fill his seat.
Please see below for my recent interview with WRGC 88.3 on Dr. King’s media legacy and the battle for control of his intellectual property.
Each fall, during Georgia College’s Constitution Week, I host a panel on recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions. On September 17, from 6-8pm, a group of lawyers and law professors will join me in Milledgeville, GA to talk about same-sex marriage, ACA subsidies, and other major decisions of the 2014-15 Roberts Court. The event is free and open to the public.
WRGC 88.3 radio host Daniel McDonald and I met to discuss the Court and its recent rulings.
Today, I heard a research presentation on the economics of drone warfare and it reminded me to follow up on my Drone Home post. Congress gave the FAA until 2015 to integrate drones (or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to you sophisticates) into U.S. commercial airspace. The New Year is upon us, and so is the question – Dude, where’s my TacoCopter?
To be fair, Congress gave the FAA until September. But why wait? Just file for an exemption, and you can join the lucky UA-VIPs who already fly the red, white, and blue skies.
Academic community: attend my open house or be destroyed.
Lest you think the FAA hands out drone licenses like TicTacs, you’ll still have to wait in a pretty long line. The FAA currently is considering exemption requests from hundreds of companies and individuals. I hoped to find a few really strange proposals, but most of them appear reasonable – agriculture surveys, aerial photography, search and rescue, and, of course, training people how to operate drones. Some of the more entrepreneurial applicants requested exemptions for every use that the FAA has approved for other companies. After all, once you get permission for commercial drone use, why limit yourself?
Sadly, taco delivery is not yet on the horizon.
In my Toys for Torts post, I covered the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s fight to force a recall of magnetballs. These toys (or should I say “science kits?”) have become the modern lawn dart. Federal regulators say the product poses an inherent danger to children and animals. Magnetball sellers say the dangers are exaggerated and warning labels should suffice.
Two of the largest magnetball companies were named Buckyballs and Zen Magnets. Each sold millions of magnetballs into the U.S. market, starting around 2009. The companies had some friction in 2011 when Buckyballs CEO threatened to sue Zen Magnets and got this YouTube video in return. But regulatory enforcement makes strange bedfellows, and the intra-industry tiff took a back seat in 2012 when the CPSC sued both companies, trying to force a recall.
The companies had different reactions to the lawsuit. Buckyballs CEO Craig Zucker fought the lawsuit in the press and with lobbying efforts in Washington, but eventually shut down the LLC that was selling the product. The CPSC responded by amending its lawsuit to add Zucker as an individual defendant. Zen Magnets, on the other hand, continued business as usual. It still offers magnetballs for sale through its website.
Just last month, Zucker and the CPSC signed a consent order. Zucker, with no admission of wrongdoing, pledged $375,000 toward a recall of Buckyballs. Here is the consent order. It looks like Zucker will need to put up $100k towards publication of a website, to last five years, and administration of a six-month recall, with the rest of the money put in escrow to pay claims. However, if there are any unclaimed funds left in the escrow after one year, Zucker gets the money back. (It’s not clear to me what would happen if there were more recalls in one year than could be supported by the escrow account. Do the U.S. taxpayers foot the bill?)
Both sides claimed victory – Zucker (or an anonymous supporter) through a WSJ opinion piece, and the CPSC Commissioners through their website. However, each Commissioner had a different reaction. Robinson’s press release crows almost as loudly as Zucker’s. Buerkle supports the settlement, but takes offense at the fact that Zucker was added as a defendant by unilateral action of the Presiding Officer, and not by a vote of the Commission. Only Adler, who dissented from the settlement, says it didn’t go far enough. He makes two points that were in my mind upon reading the consent order – why pay to maintain a recall website for five years if customers only have six months to respond? And is $375k enough?
The second point is significant in deciding who really won this battle. Did Zucker beat City Hall? Or did he end up doing basically what the CPSC wanted in the first place? Let’s do a little back-of-the-napkin math. In its Complaint, the CPSC estimated 2.5 million Buckyballs (or variants) were sold. A set of 10 cost $3.50. 250k sets at $3.50 each gives us $875k. Now, Zucker himself has been quoted as saying he made millions off Buckyballs, so we might assume the $875k number is low. But how many purchasers are likely to actually return their Buckyballs? Presumably anyone who finds the product dangerous already got rid of it. The $275k in escrow covers the return of about 78,000 sets. Of course there is postage, etc., but I have a hard time believing Zucker would have experienced this level of returns even if he agreed to a recall at the outset (and he might have saved some hefty litigation fees).
What effect will this consent order have on future market behavior? Does a penalty of this size have a deterrent effect? I doubt it, but the CPSC’s willingness to hold LLC members personally liable might. Or the maneuver may simply have made Zucker a hero to small gov advocates, with a strong base of support for his future projects.
And what now for Zen Magnets? They are still in the fight and beginning the discovery phase of litigation. Zucker is out of the CPSC’s sights but might still be on its deposition list. Will Zucker take the chance to sink his former rivals? I think Zucker wants to preserve his anti-establishment image, and he still might be on the hook for tort liability. So, for now, I expect these magnetball magnates to stick together.
Sidebar 