The Potential Harm to Low Income Families from the Parent-Partner Status


By Jane C. Murphy

In A Parent-Partner Status for American Family Law, Merle Weiner makes the case that strengthening the relationship between parents will enhance the well-being of children and benefit communities. She argues that the law should play a central role in fortifying parent to parent relationships by imposing legal obligations between parents that create the new status “Parent-Partner.” This new status is necessary, Weiner argues, because existing legal obligations created by marriage, cohabitation and the parent-child relationship are inadequate to create the kind of bond that is needed to sustain the strong relationship needed to co-parent healthy children. She demonstrates this by carefully and exhaustively examining all of the obligations the law currently imposes on adults who have children together, revealing in the process how limited the legal ties are between parents.


The book, like Weiner’s other scholarship, is beautifully and clearly written. Indeed, the first 300 + pages include such useful and enlightening analysis of existing law and scholarship about marriage, cohabitation and the parent-child relationship they would justify the book even before Weiner gets to the heart of her proposal—the five duties she proposes the law should create between parents. She cautions they are meant only to “provide a starting point for the conversation.” And I suspect this book will, indeed, start many conversations among scholars, lawyers, policymakers and parents.

The duties she proposes are: a duty to aid, a duty not to abuse, a duty to participate in “relationship work,” a duty of loyalty when contracting and a duty “give care or share.” She anticipates a wide range of objections to her proposals and responds to these objections thoroughly and, for the most part, persuasively. But, for me, questions remain about the efficacy of some of these duties and their potentially harmful impact on the low income parents and families who are becoming the majority demographic in today’s family courts.


As someone who both teaches Family Law and supervises law students representing parents in child access cases, I appreciate Weiner’s deep concern about the tenuous relationships between many parents. I also agree that the strength of the bond between parents affects the welfare of children (and their parents) and that, despite this, the law does little or nothing to nothing strengthens that bond. I have seen both the father who threatens to walk away “for good” if he doesn’t get joint custody and the mother whose control over access to the children discourages any paternal role beyond child support payments. While most parents fall between such extremes, we regularly see couples who have had children together who are strangers to one another or mistreat each other in ways that sever any bond that ever existed between them. As a result, I understand the impulse to look to the law for something beyond child support to connect unmarried or divorced parents.


But I worry that Weiner’s proposals will have the greatest impact on non-marital, low income families who will have few of the protections that marriage provides at break-up. I am concerned that enforcement of at least two of these duties will do more harm than good.


I have no problem with three of the five duties. The duty not abuse is hard to argue against. While some are beginning to broadly question the efficacy of legal remedies for those experiencing domestic violence, Weiner’s suggestions for modifying civil protection orders make good sense. Having a child in common with the alleged abuser (or being pregnant with his child) should be enough to make one eligible for an order of protection. And Weiner proposes two other changes to the typical protection order statute that would certainly benefit many, including parent-partners: including psychological abuse in protection order statutes’ definition of abuse and eliminating mandatory stay away orders.


Weiner also proposes making parent-partner physical abuse a specific crime. Acknowledging the concerns expressed by a number of scholars that strengthening the criminal response to abuse can disempower victims, she believes that it would ultimately benefit parents and children by conveying “a stronger message” about the particular harms to both the direct victim and her children when physical abuse is perpetrated against a parent-partner. This seems like an important message that still needs to be communicated to batterers, law enforcement and the community at large.


The duty to aid, requiring a parent to aid the other parent “when the parent-partner is physically imperiled and it is reasonable to lend aid,” would probably be, like the existing duty between spouses, largely a “symbolic measure.” Parent-partners, married or not, make other symbolic promises to each other in legal binding documents called parenting plans. These include promises to respect one another and act in ways that support the children’s relationship with both parents. It is hard to imagine lawsuits to enforce these promises or a future duty to aid between unmarried parents. But such a duty might have an important expressive value underscoring the “ethic of care” that we’d like to see exist between two people who share a child.


The proposed duty of loyalty when parent-partners contract with one another also seems like a good idea and consistent with where the law is heading. Any good family lawyer will tell unmarried parties with assets and income who are contemplating cohabitation, having a child together or both, to enter into an agreement making clear each party’s rights and obligations. This duty is likely to affect only those with the resources and lawyers to engage in such planning. But, much like with prenuptial agreements, such a duty may provide grounds for vulnerable unmarried cohabitants to set aside unfair agreements negotiated without full disclosure or other protections.


But the duty to “give care or share” and, to a lesser extent, the duty to engage in “relationship work” may result in obligations and burdens that do more harm than good for low income families. My reservations about these duties stem from my concern that more low income families may be forced into court as a result. I have written elsewhere about the risks to poor families in today’s family courts. Most cannot obtain free legal services or afford to hire their own attorneys. They find themselves in courts that are increasingly outsourcing family cases to mediation and other informal decision-making. This results in a reduced reliance on legal norms in these courts and broad authority vested in non-legal personnel with little accountability. Moreover, the ambitious therapeutic goals of these courts leads to greater state intervention as the granting of legal remedies is tied to participation in “services and treatment.”


In contrast, families with the resources to hire lawyers and make choices about dispute resolution options reach agreements outside of court and bypass the range of interventions that come with any dispute between parents today. To the extent that these two new duties Weiner proposes will result in further state intervention that will disproportionately affect poor families, I worry that they will result in further loss of privacy and control that will be both destabilizing to the parents and children these duties were intended to benefit. While requiring such loss of privacy in exchange for legal remedies may not be unconstitutional, it strikes me as bad policy.


The duty to engage in “relationship work” at the time of the child’s birth or the end of the romantic relationship sounds a lot like, as Weiner acknowledges, child access mediation and/or parent education programs now offered or mandated in most state courts. In addition to the risks surrounding referrals of couples with relationships marked by domestic violence, which Weiner acknowledges, government sponsored “relationship work” may suffer from the same misplaced assumptions that make parent education and court-based mediation ill-suited for many low income parents.


A key assumption in these programs is that parents have established relationships with each other and with any children involved in the dispute. While the assumption of a shared past may be accurate for some parent-partners, it is much less likely to hold for others. Unmarried parents, in particular, often have little experience raising children together. Indeed, studies estimate that less than half of all unmarried mothers are living with the child’s father at the time a child is born. These never married couples who we are trying to engage in relationship work will face the daunting task of initiating their role as parents at the same time as they are attempting to define their own relationship. Weiner is probably correct that the number of actions to enforce this duty will be relatively few. But one can imagine that, social service agencies, therapeutic jurisprudence enthusiasts or others might just add a check box for “relationship work” education to form pleadings to establish paternity and/or child support, thus giving courts another set of obligations to routinely impose on the mostly low income fathers who end up in court in these cases. A sanction requiring attendance at a session explaining the value of relationship work may, as Weiner describes it, just be “a brief court appearance.” But going to family court without a lawyer is both risky and burdensome, particularly if you are a low income father of color and this appearance is added to the other interventions low income parents experience in today’s family courts.


The duty to “give care or share”– to pay compensation to the other parent for any disproportionate caregiving– raises even greater concerns. Again, my clinical experience representing caregivers who struggle, with or without child support, to raise children alone makes such a proposal appealing. But the likelihood that cash strapped mothers will seek to enforce this duty seems strongest here. As an increasingly large number of former TANF recipients get cut off from public benefits, one can imagine the pressure a single parent raising children will feel to look to the other parent for some financial relief, thus ending up in court as adversaries once again. An even scarier—and probably still remote—possibility is that the state may see this financial remedy as a vehicle for reimbursement for those few parents who still receive public benefits to support their children.



Weiner, of course, considers the plight of low-income families throughout the book. She recognizes that this duty may have the greatest impact on non-marital parents and that most of those parents are poor. She also recognizes that harsh sanctions threatened or brought by one parent against the other will cause damage in these relationships but believes the benefits outweigh any potential harm. She, in fact, identifies poor mothers as among those suffering the greatest “leisure deficit” and most in need of caregiver compensation by poor fathers who have left all the hard work of parenthood to the mothers.


But I fear unintended consequences. Just like the ill-effects few of us saw coming from aggressive child support enforcement, using courts to create “fairness” in caregiving may end up destabilizing rather than strengthening fragile families. One can imagine judgments for caregiver compensation that go unpaid driving parents underground, undermining any hope of future economic health, and resulting in sanctions like license suspension and incarceration that destroy family relationships.


Before we consider adopting another set of obligations that will force more poor families into court, we need to spend more time thinking about how to make our current dispute resolution system more responsive to the needs of all families. As long as the dispute resolution options that preserve privacy, limit state intervention and permit party control over the process are only available to the wealthy, creating new legal duties between parents will disproportionally harm low income families.



Online Symposium on Merle Weiner’s “A Parent-Partner Status for American Family Law”

9781107088085It is an honor to introduce Professor Merle Weiner and the participants of our online symposium on A Parent-Partner Status for American Family Law (Cambridge University Press). This week we will be discussing Professor Weiner’s provocative new book, which critiques the law’s reliance on marriage, domestic partnerships, and contracts to set the parameters of parents’ legal relationship to each other rather than looking to their status as parents.   Professor Weiner proposes creating a legal “parent-partner” status to guide parents to act as supportive partners and discourage uncommitted couples from having children together. Her proposed status would shift the focus from the adults’ romantic relationships to the parental partnership.

At a time when many adults are increasingly postponing or foregoing marriage, but not childbearing, A Parent-Partner Status raises many important and difficult questions. What are the risks of creating a legal parent-partner status?  Should the law be in the “relationship work” business? How would a parent-partner status affect non-traditional families?  What are its potential risks and benefits for families that have experienced domestic violence? Should the law attempt to discourage reproduction between uncommitted individuals?

To consider these and many other fascinating questions, we have invited a group of leading family law scholars: Professors Richard Banks, Brian Bix, Naomi Cahn, June Carbone, Leigh Goodmark, Clare Huntington, Jane Murphy, and of course, Professor Weiner.

Let the discussion begin.

The Larger Debate on Federal Credit Programs

Earlier today I criticized a New York Times proposal regarding law school loans. Whatever you think about the proper cost of legal education, the NYT is off-base, because it ignores the role of private finance in our economy.

Education finance policy is difficult because it raises fundamental issues in political economy and public finance generally. It also only makes sense with some historical context.

Back in the 1970s and ’80s, an anti-tax coalition operated on the presumption that state support for education had to drop. Financialization plugged the resulting hole in funding: responsibility for paying for school shifted from (relatively well-off) taxpayers to students. By the 1990s, private lenders realized that they could make tremendous profits from such loans–particularly if they could privatize profits, while sticking the government with losses. That arrangement became so scandalous by 2010 that it was curtailed as part of PPACA. The federal government directly offers many loans now.

But the private lenders did not simply give up. Current efforts to “reform” federal student loans are part of their much larger effort to shrink federal credit programs. The basic idea is simple: to force the US government to account for its credit programs as if it could and should charge interest rates (and impose terms) prevailing among private lenders.

It’s a strange move, especially since, as Matt Yglesias states, “costs reported in the budget are generally lower than the costs to the most efficient private financial institutions because the government’s costs of funds are in fact lower.” David Kamin has also questioned this accounting tactic. But if it succeeds, there is little rationale for any federal credit program–it will simply duplicate extant private lenders’ work. That redundancy will lead to further privatization of federal credit programs, raising costs to borrowers and diverting more money to the finance sector. It’s not a great outcome for students–but it is a logical outgrowth of reflexive hostility to the type of state intervention that actually could improve students’ finances while maintaining quality.


Justice Breyer and International Copyright

Justice Breyer has a new book out that discusses the importance of international and comparative law to the Court’s work. I find this ironic given Justice Breyer’s position in several of the Court’s major copyright decisions.  In Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003), Golan v. Holder (2012), and Kirtsaeng v. Wiley (2013), Breyer’s analysis consistently discounted international or comparative factors in either assessing the constitutionality of a copyright statute or interpreting such a statute.  To wit:

In Eldred, Justice Breyer dissented and argued that Congress’s extension of the copyright term for existing works was invalid.  He took this view in spite of the fact that Congress took this step (in part) to match a decision by the European Union on the appropriate length of copyrights.

In Golan, Justice Breyer dissented and argued that Congress could not constitutionally remove works from the public domain.  He took that position in spite of the fact that Congress took this step to bring the United States into compliance with the Berne Convention.

Finally, in Kirtseang Justice Breyer authoring the Court’s opinion construing the Copyright Act as providing that the first sale doctrine applied to copies of a copyrighted work made abroad.  He did this in spite of the assertion (made in dissent by Justice Ginsburg) that the Court’s interpretation contradicted the United States’s position in global copyright negotiations on “international exhaustion.”

Now all of these positions might be perfectly justified.  (Indeed, I think that Breyer was right in Golan, though wrong in Eldred.) I just think it shows that “taking certain considerations into account” says little about how cases should be resolved.


Constitutional Communication

In 2005, before I was an academic, I started working on an article, now titled Constitutional Communication, about constitutional interpretation. I still have drafts of it dating back to 2006. I have even presented it a couple times over the last decade. I have worked on it throughout that time period, but was never satisfied with it. I’m happy (and relieved) to say that I finally have a completed draft that I have made publicly available. I welcome feedback. Here is the abstract:

Scholars from various normative and positive perspectives endorse the notion that the Constitution is communicative of its meaning. However, there has been little discussion as to what “communication” means in the constitutional context. This Article addresses the communication gap by introducing and applying communication-based concepts and models to constitutional theory. The results of the integration of communication theory into debates about constitutional interpretation are twofold. First, the account in this Article offers a richer framework and vocabulary for ongoing debates about interpretative theory and constitutional meaning. Second, the addition of communication concepts and norms into the debate about constitutional meaning points toward a new approach to interpretation: constitutional contextualism. This flexible approach contends that the constitutional provision being interpreted, and not a pre-selected universal theory, dictates the tools that should be used to analyze it. Significantly, this approach does not seek to negate the dominant theories of constitutional interpretation. In fact, the insights of various originalist and living constitutionalist theories are essential for selecting or synthesizing which interpretive methods are preferable in specific situations. By adopting a flexible, contextual, communication-based approach to identifying the best constitutional meaning in particular cases, we can end the growing fetishization of global interpretive theories and better adapt to the real-world needs of constitutional readers.


What does it mean to vindicate a First Amendment right of free expression?

The following short essay is substituting for this week’s issue of First Amendment News, which will resume next week.

* * * *

In times past if you wanted to get a real sense of the Supreme Court’s record on civil liberties you prepared charts indicating the Justices’ voting record in sustaining a claim of right. Take, for example, C. Herman Pritchett’s The Roosevelt Court: A Study in Judicial Politics and Values (1948). In chapter 9 of that book (p. 254, table 23) he calculated the percentage of times each Justice voted “pro” in civil liberties cases. Likewise in Civil Liberties and the Vinson Court (1954), he did something of the same. In chapter 10 of that book (p. 225, table 10), he calculated the percentage of times each Justice voted to “support . . . libertarian claims.” Justices Frank Murphy and Wiley Rutledge were at the top with a 100% record, while Chief Justice Fred Vinson and Justice Stanley Reed were well below at the bottom.

imagesHelpful as such studies were in past times, I wonder about their value in today’s tug-and-pull First Amendment world of free expression cases. Consider, for example, the record of the Roberts Court in the 41 such cases its has decided since 2006. It has upheld a First Amendment claim of right in 17 of 41 cases (in one case, a per curiam, the Court vacated and remanded the matter). That is a 41% record. But is it a 41% record of vindicating such First Amendment rights?

In one sense, the answer is simple: yes. The parties raised a First Amendment claim and a majority of the Court sustained it. End of story. Or is it?

To raise this question is to raise a more puzzling one. What exactly does it mean to vindicate a First Amendment freedom of expression claim? In today’s volatile atmosphere of supercharged liberalism and fortified conservatism, it can mean almost anything depending on which side of the ideological fence one stands. If you have a collective or “democratic” political-theory view of the Amendment — e.g. like that of Justice Stephen Breyer or Dean Robert Post or Professor Burt Neuborne — then that very much informs your constitutional calculus as to whether a First Amendment right has been vindicated or violated. By that collective constitutional measure, the “fairness doctrine” and he “net neutrality” one are formulas for vindicating First Amendment rights. But that view is radically different from, say, an atomistic understanding of the First Amendment like the one championed by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy, Floyd Abrams, and the Cato Institute.

Perhaps this is a modern-day version of an old debate. Merely consider the thinking displayed by Justice Byron White in his dissent in Gertz v. Welch (1974): “It is not at all inconceivable that virtually unrestrained defamatory remarks about private citizens will discourage them from speaking out and concerning themselves with social problems. This would turn the First Amendment on its head.” Likewise, analyzing the relationship between the First Amendment and copyright law created a sharp division in the Court in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985) owing to the similar problem of a constitutional guaranty at war with itself. What makes such “constitutional tension unusual, as Professor Eugene Volokh once tagged it in a slightly different context,” is the conflict between opposing views of the First Amendment as to what it means to vindicate that right. After all, the tension here is not between the First Amendment and other rights (such as equal protection or a right to a fair trial), but between the First Amendment and itself.

To return to the free-speech mindsets of Breyer, Post , Neuborne and company, cases such as McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010) — both of which sustained rights claims — cannot be listed in the “pro” First Amendment column. Worse still, they are listed as “anti” First Amendment rulings. Much the same could be said of Harris v. Quinn (2014) where the Court divided 5-4 along conservative-liberal lines and struck down a compulsory collection of union fees provision. By the same new liberal norm, a case such as Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar (2015) (denying a claim of right) might be seen as a “pro” First Amendment case.

Phrased another way, one First Amendment “right” is being swapped out for another but in the same case. Of course, this may seem strange because one thinks of rights on one side and the government on the other. And remember: rights runs against the government. So how can there be any swapping since the government does not have rights? — it has only constitutionally authorized powers.

This riddle might be “solved” in two ways: (1) by the government siding with one conception of First Amendment rights (e.g., with labor unions in compulsory support cases), or (2) by a third party entering a suit to assert its own version of a First Amendment right (e.g., invoking an argument in line with Breyer’s dissent in McCutcheon). To be sure, such moves might, among other things, implicate Article III standing issues. There is also the peculiar specter of the government siding with one conception of First Amendment in order to defeat another. In the old world, the government could abridge a First Amendment right, whereas in the new world it “vindicates” a right (depending on which side of the constitutional divide one is on).

In all of this there is more at work than dethroning a once-recognized constitutional right (as in the case of the demise of economic due process). There is, I think, a move to both defeat certain tenets of First Amendment law (e.g., campaign finance) and to erect others (net neutrality). In the case of the latter, the goal is to develop new notions of First Amendment law (e.g., in the compulsory support of unions line of cases and in the fairness doctrine area).

The old paradigm: Liberals demanded the vindication of First Amendment claims while conservatives tendered reasons why societal interests should trump such claims.

The new paradigm: Conservatives demand the vindication of certain First Amendment claims while liberals tender reasons why societal interests should override such claims.

The result: Conflicting norms of First Amendment rights. In this new constitutional environment, the conflict-of-rights dilemma of the Religion Clauses (Establishment vs Free Exercise) is destined to become the rights-in-conflict dilemma of the Free Speech and Press Clauses.

imagesOf course, this remove-and-restructure constitutional mindset is still in its theoretical phase and has yet to garner any formal recognition by a majority of the current Court. But now that this cat is out of its conceptual bag, might it begin to influence the way lawyers litigate free expression First Amendment cases? (Something of that very thing has already occurred, though not in entirely explicit way, in an amicus brief filed on behalf of Norman Dorsen, Aryeh Neier, Burt Neuborne and John Shattuck (“Past leaders” of the ACLU) in the Williams-Yulee case.)

What are we to make of this new way of considering whether a First Amendment right has been upheld or not? How are we to gauge whether our rights are being vindicated or violated? Will First Amendment law begin to change, both jurisprudentially and operationally?

While you ponder such questions, step back and ask yourself one more question: Have we entered some postmodern maze in which we have lost our constitutional bearing . . . or we are struggling to find our way out in the hope of discovering a new one?


A sequel to this essay appears in the Boston University Law Review Annex symposium and is titled “The Liberal Divide & the Future of Free Speech” (commentary on Danielle Citron’s Hate Crimes in Cyberspace).


Roundup: Law and Humanities 10.20.15

A quick view of the Law and Humanities landscape, mid-October 2015.


First, we are looking forward to a couple of notable conferences next year. The Association for the Study of Law, Culture, and the Humanities (ASLCH) 19th Annual Conference will take place at the University of Connecticut Law School April 1-2, 2016. This year’s conference theme is Reading Race, Writing Race, and Living Race. The deadline for submitting paper and panel proposals is extended until October 22nd. More information here at the conference website.

Another notable conference is the Law and Society Association Conference. This year LSA will hold its meeting in New Orleans from June 2-5, 2016. This year’s theme is At the Delta: Belonging, Place and Visions of Law and Social Change. The submission deadline for papers and panels has been extended to October 25. More information here at the LSA website.

In addition, AALS will have several interesting law and humanities-themed sessions.  The AALS Law and Film Committee presents as its feature film selection this year, Wednesday, January 6 at 7:30 p.m., Reversal of Fortune. This movie, based on the nonfiction account of the case by Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School, who represented Claus von Bulow, convicted of attempted murder of his wife Sunny, in his attempt to obtain a new trial. The film stars Jeremy Irons as von Bulow and Ron Silver as Dershowitz. On Friday, January 8, also at 7:30, the Committee presents the documentary film The Hunting Ground. This 2015 film, made by Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering, investigates the explosion of campus rape and the repeated failure of many university officials to address the problem.

The Law and Humanities Section presents its panel at 10:30, January 9. This year’s presentation is on Law and Images. The Law and Interpretation Section presents its panel on January 9 at 4:30. Its theme is the Empirics of Legal Interpretation.  The Legal History Section presents its panel at 1:30 January 9. Its theme is 800 Years of Comparative Constitutionalism: The Unique Legacy of Magna Carta.


Read More

Law’s Nostradamus

The ABA Journal “Legal Rebels” page has promoted Richard Susskind’s work (predicting the future automation of much of what lawyers do) as “required reading.” It is a disruptive take on the legal profession. But disruption has been having a tough time as a theory lately. So I was unsurprised to find this review, by a former General Counsel of DuPont Canada Inc., of Susskind’s The End of Lawyers?:

Susskind perceives a lot of routine in the practice of law . . . which he predicts will gradually become the domain of non-professional or quasi-professional workers. In this respect his prediction is about two or three decades too late. No substantial law firm, full service or boutique, can survive without a staff of skilled paralegal specialists and the trend in this direction has been ongoing since IT was little more than a typewriter and a Gestetner duplicating machine. . . .

Law is not practiced in a vacuum. It is not merely a profession devoted to preparing standard forms or completing blanks in precedents. And though he pays lip service to the phenomenon, there is little appreciation of the huge volume of indecipherable legislation and regulation that is promulgated every day of every week of the year. His proposal to deal with this through regular PDA alerts is absurd. . . . In light of this, if anything in Susskind’s thesis can be given short shrift it is his prognostication that demand for “bespoke” or customized services will be in secular decline. Given modern trends in legislative and regulatory drafting, in particular the use of “creative ambiguity” as it’s been called, demand for custom services will only increase.

Nevertheless, I predict Susskind’s work on The Future of the Professions will get a similarly warm reception from “Legal Rebels.” The narrative of lawyers’ obsolescence is just too tempting for those who want to pay attorneys less, reduce their professional independence from the demands of capital, or simply replace legal regulation of certain activities with automated controls.

However, even quite futuristic academics are not on board with the Susskindite singularitarianism of robo-lawyering via software Solons. The more interesting conversations about automation and the professions will focus on bringing accountability to oft-opaque algorithmic processes. Let’s hope that the professions can maintain some autonomy from capital to continue those conversations–rather than guaranteeing their obsolescence as ever more obeisant cogs in profit-maximizing machines.



A Possible Lawsuit

I want to solicit opinions on the following constitutional question that I am thinking of litigating.

Indiana bans the sale of alcohol in grocery stores on Sundays.  This is an old statute and at this point we are either the only state or one of the few that has such a law.  Every year noises are made in the Legislature about repealing this Sunday alcohol ban, but so far nothing has happened.

It seems to me that this is a classic (if rare) example of an irrational statute that should be declared unconstitutional.  I find it hard to come up with any logical rationale for this.  It’s not as if all alcohol sales are banned here on Sundays (restaurants can sell drinks and so can the stadium where the Indianapolis Colts play).  Why, then, is a distinction made between these vendors and grocery stores?  More broadly, what is the purpose served by banning alcohol sales on a Sunday that isn’t purely religious, which I assume was the original idea?

I would invite groups that want to subject economic regulation to judicial scrutiny to consider litigating this issue.  I’m toying with the idea of doing it myself (largely because I think it would be fun and that I can win), but perhaps I’m missing something.

UPDATE:  Michael Risch correctly points out in a comment that the Court upheld various “Sunday” laws in the 1960s. I would submit, though, that those cases are distinguishable because Indiana’s decision to restrict the sale of one type of good through one type of retail channel cannot survive rational basis review.


State Sovereign Immunity in Another State

In looking over the cases that the Court will be hearing in the next few months, one notable (if less sexy) one is Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt.  Hyatt presents the question of whether a state can deny sovereign immunity to other states in circumstances where the home state gets sovereign immunity in its state courts.  One of the Questions Presented asks the Court to overrule Nevada v. Hall, a 1979 decision holding that states did not have sovereign immunity in the courts of other states.

Hall would appear to be on thin ice.  It is inconsistent with the line of decisions that began in 1996 with Seminole Tribe and give the states broad sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment. Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote Seminole Tribe as the Chief Justice, dissented in Hall on grounds similar to what he later turned into law on related issues.

If the Court does overrule Hall, it will be interesting to see whether Justices Sotomayor and Kagan decide to embrace Seminole Tribe under stare decisis.  One can expect Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, who dissented in Seminole Tribe, to adhere to the view that this entire line of authority is wrongheaded.  The new Justices have not opined on this question, though, and thus it is possible that Hyatt will reveal whether Seminole Tribe has become settled law or not.