The Eighth Circuit held that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that school resource officers lacked probable cause to arrest them; note that nothing in the court's decision casts doubt on the school's ability to investigate or even briefly detain the students short of arrest.
FromEvans v. Cabot School Dist., decided Thursday by Eighth Circuit Judge Michael Melloy, joined by Judges James Loken and Jonathan Kobes:
Two high school brothers were arrested for disorderly conduct after wearing {military-style} tactical vests to school. {Kameron's vest had a "U.S. Army" patch on it. The parties agree that the vests were not real tactical or military vests, nor were they bulletproof. Kameron's vest was mostly obscured under a large winter coat he was wearing. Noah did not have his coat on over his vest. Kameron also carried a green duffle bag that he used to carry his ROTC equipment. The Officers describe the bag as a "military-style duffle bag," but the Evanses dispute that the duffle bag was military-style. Kameron alleges that he regularly used the bag to carry his marching band and ROTC equipment, in addition to his Airsoft war game equipment.}
The brothers were acquitted, and sued the school resource officers; the court held that the officers weren't entitled to qualified immunity on the brothers' claim that they were arrested without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment:
On November 9, 2021, Plaintiffs Chelsea Cox and six minors were leaving "personal written notes that were folded into paper turkeys" "at the front doors of community members" in "expressions of gratitude for the Thanksgiving season." After placing a note at a front door, the minors "pressed the doorbell [and] then ran off to maintain anonymity."
When they went to Defendant Bingham County Sheriff Craig Rowland's home, he "responded to his doorbell ring by having his wife hand him his service-issued sidearm"; "exited the house brandishing his firearm"; "reached into the car and Yanked (sic) Ms. Cox from the car by pulling her hair"; "pointed his gun at [her] head"; and threatened to kill her. Sheriff Rowland was later criminally charged and pled guilty to one count of aggravated assault in August 2022.
The opinion concluded that the lawsuit could only go forward against Rowland personally, not against the Sheriff's Office as his employer:
From Van Deelen v. Jones, decided Friday by Chief Judge Alia Moses (S.D. Tex.) (for more on the underlying scandal, see here):
The Amended Complaint alleges a sprawling tapestry of ethical lapses by major players in the nation's bankruptcy system. The Defendants insist that these accusations, however salacious, create no viable cause of action for the Plaintiff to pursue. Upon reviewing the applicable law and the Plaintiff's allegations, the Court agrees and dismisses the Plaintiff's claims—though it does so with some consternation….
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants—a former Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge, his romantic partner, and two firms with nationally renowned bankruptcy practices—rigged the nation's busiest bankruptcy court for profit and prestige. This scheme propelled the Defendants to national prominence and yielded tens of millions of dollars in attorneys' fees, all drawn from bankruptcy estates at the expense of creditors. The Defendants advanced this scheme, the Plaintiff claims, through a pattern of deception that included the concealment of a romantic relationship between then-Chief Judge David R. Jones ("Jones") and Elizabeth Freeman ("Freeman"), a partner at Jackson Walker, LLP ("Jackson Walker") and Jones's former law clerk.
This relationship, while unknown to the public, was an open secret among the close inner circle of lawyers whom Jones appointed to dozens of the most lucrative bankruptcy cases in the country. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants' scheme diminished the financial recovery of parties, like him, with a pecuniary interest in the cases Jones oversaw. The Plaintiff ultimately seeks relief from what he calls "perhaps the most significant bankruptcy scandal in U.S. history." …
Pro se litigant Diana Natale has filed a civil complaint, in which she alleges that the defendants published defamatory false statements against her, invaded her privacy, and shared her personal information in a podcast [apparently Barstool's The Case] without her consent….
Natale has filed several ex parte motions to impound [i.e., seal]…. Natale asks that "names of the parties, the docket, and all documents filed herein to date" be impounded. She also asserts that, "because of the nature of [her] complaint and the parties involved," if the motions are denied, "this will be all over the internet at first light possibly compromising the case."
The Court DENIES these motions to impound. There is a long-standing common law presumption of public access to judicial records. "[P]ublic monitoring of the judicial system fosters the important values of quality, honesty and respect for our legal system." Although "it is within a court's discretion to curtail the common law presumption of public access, '[o]nly the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.'"
Here, Natale has not set forth an adequate basis for the Court to order the impoundment of the "names of the parties, the docket, and all documents filed" in this case. The thrust of Natale's claim is that the defendants have recently widely broadcasted false statements that, thirty years ago Natale and her then-minor children engaged in criminal or otherwise reprehensible misconduct. There is no "compelling reason" to curtail access to alleged misinformation that, even as alleged by Natale, is already largely available to the public. In addition, there is no basis for preventing the public from learning that Natale seeks recourse for the defendants' alleged misconduct….
The court also dismissed the case because of lack of federal jurisdiction over this sort of tort law claim (absent sufficient allegations, which Natale didn't provide, of total diversity of citizenship among the parties).
[This is the eighth post in my series on my mission to Israel. You can read Parts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII.]
The concept of an Israeli Kibbutz is likely foreign to most readers. Historically at least, these collective farms were operated according to the principles of socialism. Everyone worked according to their abilities on the farm. And everyone received food and shelter according to their needs. Now is neither the time nor the place to discuss the economic viability of these models. Needless to say, Kibbutzim (the plural of Kibbutz) became an important aspect of the Israeli pioneer culture before and after independence.
During our mission to Israel, we visited Kibbutz Nir Oz in the south of Israel about one mile from the Gaza Border. On October 7, about 25% of the four-hundred residents of Nir Oz were either killed or abducted. The Kibbutz is currently unoccupied. It looked like a ghost town. Everywhere you looked, there were burned-out buildings, shattered glass, and bullet holes. I visited the kibbutz shortly after I visited Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum. The horrific sights made me think of the Holocaust, but it was still fresh and raw.
Our guide that day was Sharon Lifschitz. She grew up on that Kibbutz with her parents, Oded and Yocheved. On October 7, her eighty-five year old father and eighty-three year old mother were taken hostage and brought to Gaza. Her mother, Yocheved, was freed in late October, but her father is still held in captivity.
Sharon and Oded Lifschitz
As readers may infer, people who lived on Kibutzim were not right-wingers. They were very much left-wing, and had great sympathy for the situation of the Palestinians. Indeed, Oded Lifschitz spoke fluent Arabic. He had many friends in Gaza. He was a peace activist who opposed the settlements. He would regularly drive to the Gaza border in a Kibbutz vehicle (no kibbutz member owned a car) and would take sick Palestinians to a hospital in Jerusalem. The Kibbutz employed workers from Gaza, and ensured they would be paid wages. These were the last people in the world who deserved to be murdered, raped, kidnapped, and held hostage. Indeed, there is some evidence that the workers on the kibbutz provided Hamas with intelligence of where to attack and what the vulnerable locations would be. Still, Sharon did not blame the workers. She said they likely faced threats to their own families and did what they had to do. These people are far more magnanimous than I could have imagined.
I asked Sharon where she finds the strength to go on, knowing that her father is held only a few kilometers away. She said that people must go on. There is trauma, but no time to mourn. Unlike September 11, 2001, where the tragedy ended fairly quickly, this pain is ongoing. Sharon hoped her father was able to get along well with his captors, and he was being treated humanely. But there is no way to know for sure. The uncertainty is the pain. Sharon repeated over and over again that there is no reason to hold an eighty-five year old hostage. He should be released on humanitarian grounds. But these savages are not humanitarians.
This post will walk through the trip to the Kibbutz, largely chronologically. I was able to document this trip with photographs. The descriptions are as accurate as I can recall.
Indiana seeks a stay of the preliminary injunction that a district court entered preventing the enforcement of Ind. Code § 24-4-23, which requires web sites to limit minors' access to certain sexual materials.
Indiana's statute is functionally identical to one adopted by Texas. That statute has been held to be valid [by the Fifth Circuit, though the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case]. Free Speech Coalition, Inc., which is a plaintiff in both the Indiana case and the Texas case, asked the Supreme Court to prevent enforcement of the Texas statute while that litigation continued. That application was denied, so the Texas statute is now in force.
We do not see any adequate reason why Texas's law may be enforced pending the [Supreme Court's] decision on the merits in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, while Indiana's may not be enforced. Functionally identical statutes should be treated the same while the Supreme Court considers the matter. Accordingly, Indiana's request for a stay is granted. The stay will remain in effect until the Supreme Court has issued its mandate in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.
Briefing in this appeal will be deferred until the Supreme Court has decided Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.…
But Judge Ilana Rovner concurred in part (as to deferring briefing) and dissented in part (as to the stay of the trial court injunction):
[A.] From today's Pennsylvania Supreme Court majority opinion in Oberholzer v. Galapo, written by Justice Kevin Dougherty, joined by Chief Justice Debra Todd and Justices Christine Donohue and Sallie Updyke Mundy:
Dr. Simon and Toby Galapo (appellants) own a home in Abington Township, Montgomery County, the rear yard of which borders the property of Frederick and Denise Oberholzer (appellees). Although the properties are separated by a creek, low-lying shrubs, and some tall trees, the houses and yards remain visible to one another. In November 2014, a brewing feud between the neighbors over landscaping issues reached a boiling point after Dr. Galapo confronted Mr. Oberholzer about a resurveyed property line and Mrs. Oberholzer responded by calling him a "fucking Jew."
This prompted the Galapos in June 2015 to erect the first of many signs primarily displaying anti-hate and anti-racist messages "along the back tree-line directly abutting [the Oberholzers'] property line, pointed directly at [the Oberholzers'] house, and in direct sight of [other] neighbors' houses." All told, the Galapos posted twenty-three signs over a years-long span, during which the neighbors continued to quarrel over other minor nuisances….
The signs included, among others, "No Place 4 Racism," "Hitler Eichmann Racists," "Racists: the true enemies of FREEDOM," and twenty more. The Oberholzers sued, claiming the Galapos' posting of the signs constituted "(1) private nuisance; (2) intrusion upon seclusion; (3) defamation – libel and slander; (4) publicly placing the Oberholzers in false light; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress." The trial court ordered the Galapos to move or reorient the signs so that they "be positioned in such a way that they do not directly face and target [the Oberholzers'] property: the fronts of the signs (lettering, etc.) are not to be visible to [the Oberholzers] nor face in the direction of [their] home."
Today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held the injunction violated the Pennsylvania Constitution's free speech clause. The Court applied its 1978 precedent in Willing v. Mazzacone, which generally suggested that injunctions against speech (in that case, against libel) are unconstitutional prior restraint, and held that it applied to this situation as well. Recent court decisions throughout the country have mostly concluded that the federal First Amendment doesn't prohibit permanent injunctions against speech found to be constitutionally unprotected, for instance because it is libelous. But state courts are entitled to read their state constitutions as more speech-protective than the federal Constitution. A few excerpts from the 57-page opinion:
So reports the Johns Hopkins Hub; here's the underlying statement, from the President, Provost, and top deans:
As leaders of Johns Hopkins University, we are often called upon in the face of global, national, or local occurrences to issue public statements on behalf of the institution. These requests are usually grounded in a sense of connection to the values and purpose of our university and our common humanity, and on the occasions when we have issued such statements, we have attempted to choose our topics and words carefully.
In recent years, requests for institutional statements have increased in frequency. The subjects upon which we have been urged to speak have varied widely—human rights violations, acts of discrimination, changes in health regulations, incidents of targeted violence, military conflicts, and natural disasters, among others, have led to calls for a university statement.
Often those seeking such statements want us to identify and condemn the actors whom they regard as principally responsible. In other cases, those seeking statements simply desire an expression of concern or sympathy for the persons directly affected by the incident in question. However, we must recognize that taking institutional positions can interfere with the university's central commitment to free inquiry and obligation to foster a diversity of perspectives within our academic community.
[This is the seventh post in my series on my mission to Israel. You can read Parts I, II, III, IV, V, and VI.]
On the final day of our mission to Israel, we visited the headquarters of the IDF Spokesperson in Tel Aviv. This is the public affairs department of the Israeli military. We would attend a screening of surveillance footage of the October 7 attacks. This was a moment I had been thinking about since I agreed to go on the trip. Would I watch it? This descriptions in this post will be quite graphic, though I encourage you--for reasons that will be made clear at the end--to read on through.
The front page of CNN.com blares the headline, "Prominent conservative endorses Harris, calls Trump a threat to democracy." Below the photograph of Mike Luttig is the caption, "It'll be the first time the retired federal judge, a veteran of two GOP administrations, has voted for a Democrat."
Is Mike Luttig "prominent"? And is he still a conservative? At one point, he was unquestionably both. The former Wunderkind held senior posts in DOJ and was appointed to the Fourth Circuit before most lawyers make partner. He was at the tip-top of the Supreme Court short list, but President George W. Bush passed over him to select John Roberts and Samuel Alito. In 2006, Luttig retired from the Fourth Circuit and became general counsel of Boeing. After that point, he fell off the map. I had completely forgotten about him. I had never seen him at any Federalist Society event. He did not offer any public advocacy. He said nothing about the leading issues facing the conservative legal movement. He was a non-entity.
But then January 6 happened. And the Luttig hagiography emerged. Greg Jacob, Mike Pence's counsel, relates that Luttig had no conversations with Pence prior to January 6. Jacob simply cited some of Luttig's tweets in his already-completed letter. That's it! Yet, somehow, Luttig is commonly viewed as Pence's close advisor, and a person who helped save the Republic. Never happened.
Since January 6, I cannot think of a single "conservative" position that Luttig has taken on anything. He has filed amicus briefs in several Supreme Court cases, always on the liberal side of the issue. As best as I can recall, he said nothing favorable about Dobbs, perhaps the crowning achievement of the conservative legal movement. Most recently, he has said nothing at all about Senator Schumer's nuclear jurisdiction stripping bill. He has organized a new organization that is meant to be a counter to the Federalist Society. All of his pro-democracy advocacy may as well be an in-kind donation to the Kamala Harris campaign. Formally endorsing Harris was a foregone conclusion. By what measure can Luttig still claim to be a conservative?
David French also recently endorsed Kamala Harris (which I flagged here). He offered this self-reflection:
I'm often asked by Trump voters if I'm "still conservative," and I respond that I can't vote for Trump precisely because I am conservative. I loathe sex abuse, pornography and adultery. Trump has brought those vices into the mainstream of the Republican Party. I want to cultivate a culture that values human life from conception through natural death. Yet America became more brutal and violent during Trump's term. I want to defend liberal democracy from authoritarian aggression, yet Trump would abandon our allies and risk our most precious alliances.
The only real hope for restoring a conservatism that values integrity, demonstrates real compassion and defends our foundational constitutional principles isn't to try to make the best of Trump, a man who values only himself. If he wins again, it will validate his cruelty and his ideological transformation of the Republican Party. If Harris wins, the West will still stand against Vladimir Putin, and conservative Americans will have a chance to build something decent from the ruins of a party that was once a force for genuinegood in American life.
French, Luttig, and others have joined the august company of people like John Paul Stevens and David Souter, who insist that they never moved to the left, but the conservative party moved too far to the right. Tell me about it. To paraphrase Rahimi, legal conservatism is not trapped in amber. To paraphrase Forest Gump, conservative is as conservative does. As I wrote last year, "there should be a statute of limitations for calling a person a legal conservative."
[After a brief hiatus, this is the sixth post in my series on my mission to Israel. You can read Parts I, II, III, IV, and V.]
It is difficult to describe the extent to which October 7 impacted the psyche of Israelis. In particular, there is a constant awareness of the hostages. Walls and billboards throughout the country are plastered with the familiar sign: the person's name and age in red letters against a white background; a photograph of the person in happier times; and bold letters: "Bring Him/Her Home Now!"
From the moment you get off the airplane, you see over one hundred posters lining the ramp to customs.
Various locations curate different ways of remembering the hostages. At the National Library of Israel, a poster of each hostage was placed on a chair, with a book that person enjoyed. For the Bibas brothers, who were nine months and four years old when kidnapped, they had kid chairs and kid books.
The signs appear everywhere. The only experience that I can slightly relate to was the prevalence of American flags after 9/11. At least in New York, I think almost every kid brought an American flag to school for at least some period after the terrorist attacks. But eventually that patriotism faded; or, as I learned a new word, the patriotism became jingoism.
Artists also created illustrated versions of the sketches.
Again, the drawing of the Bibas brothers was especially heart-breaking. The younger son has now spent more of his life as a hostage than outside.
During our mission, we visited the headquarters of the Hostage & Missing Family Forum. This organization sprung up in the wake of October 7 to advocate for the interest of families of those who were taken hostage, as well as those whose bodies were missing in Gaza. In a fairly short period of time, a sophisticated operation developed.
This board depicts all of the various media outlets the group has appeared on.
But there are divisions. Not everyone agrees what "Bring them home now!" means. Is this message an ultimatum to Hamas? Or an ultimatum to the Netanyahu government?
Even among Israelis, there is a stark disagreement about how to handle the hostage situation. In years past, Israel went to great lengths to bring back hostages, including by releasing many dangerous prisoners--including Yahya Sinwar, who has become the head of Hamas. What is the cost of bringing back the hostages? What is the cost of not bringing back the hostages? These questions are exceptionally difficult. I think media coverage only shows the side of the poor families who want their loved ones brought home at any cost. But, as with any public policy decision, costs are never so easily balanced.
We met with one woman whose nephew, a soldier, was kidnapped on October 7. She described the agony of not knowing whether he was dead or alive. They held a funeral for him, with an empty casket. She later found out that he had been killed, but at the time, did not know where his body was.
Shortly after our trip, the body of Staff Sgt. Tomer Yaakov Ahimas, 20 was recovered from Gaza and brought to Israel. They were able to hold a proper funeral with Tomer's remains.
I will continue this series tomorrow with a post about the restricted surveillance tapes.
The housing crisis is one of the most important policy issues facing the nation. Housing shortages increase living costs for large numbers of people, and also prevent millions from moving to places where they would have better job and educational opportunities, thereby slowing economic growth and innovation. Both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have taken positions on housing issues. But their ideas are mostly ones that would cause more harm than good. Sadly, neither candidate proposes any meaningful steps to break down the biggest barrier to housing construction in most of the US: exclusionary zoning rules that make it difficult or impossible to build new housing in response to demand.
These policy ideas range from mediocre to awful. A $25,000 subsidy for first-time homebuyers is unlikely to do much to ease housing shortages. The fundamental problem is one of regulatory restrictions on supply. In that environment, subsidizing demand will simply bid up prices. Moreover, the people who most suffer from housing shortages are mostly renters, not would-be homeowners. This subsidy plan does nothing for them. Much the same goes for the plan to provide tax incentives for developers. This won't do much for supply so long as developers are barred from building much in the way of new housing in many places, especially multi-family housing.
If zoning and other regulatory restrictions do get lifted, Harris's tax credit incentives would be unnecessary. And, indeed, there would be no good reason to have the tax code favor housing purchases over other types of consumption.
Rent control is a terrible idea that is actually likely to exacerbate shortages. This is an Economics 101 point broadly accepted by economists across the political spectrum. Don't take my word for it. Take that of prominent progressive ecoonomists, such as Paul Krugman, and Jason Furman, former chair of Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, who points out that "[r]ent control has been about as disgraced as any economic policy in the tool kit."
Finally, there is no good reason to think that corporate landlords are any worse than other types of landlords, or that algorithmic pricing is somehow making the housing crisis worse. To the contrary, corporate landlords are usually as good or better than their "mom and pop" counterparts. Take it from a longtime renter with experience living under both types of landlords; the corporate ones usually maintain their properties better, and have better customer service. And algorithms can help owners identify situations where they can increase profit by lowering prices, as well as increasing them.
Harris is right to want to build 3 million new homes. Indeed, it would be great to build more than that. But, so far, she hasn't proposed much in the way of effective methods of doing it. Unless and until she does so, her aspiration for 3 million new homes is not much more viable than my desire to add 3 million unicorns to the nation's stock of magical animals.
Trump's housing agenda is less detailed than Harris's, but could well be even worse. The housing chapter of the Heritage Foundation's controversial Project 2025 emphasizes that "a conservative Administration should oppose any efforts to weaken single-family zoning." Single-family zoning, of course, is the most restrictive type of exclusionary zoning blocking new housing construction in many parts of the country. Donald Trump has disavowed Project 2025, and claims he "knows nothing about it." But the author of the housing chapter is Ben Carson, Trump's former secretary of Housing and Urban Development. During the 2020 election, Carson and Trump coauthored a Wall Street Journal op ed attacking efforts to curb exclusionary single-family zoning. He recently reaffirmed that position, promising to block "low-income developments" in suburban areas. On housing, at least, Project 2025 seems to reflect Trump's thinking, and that of the kinds of people likely to influence housing policy in a second Trump administration. The Trump worldview is one of NIMBYism ("not in my backyard").
Trump's immigration policies - a centerpiece of his agenda, if anything is - would also have negative effects on housing. Evidence shows that mass deportations of undocumented immigrants reduce the availability of housing and increase the cost, because undocumented immigrants are an important part of the construction work force (an effect that outweighs the potential price-increasing effect caused by immigration increasing the number of people who need housing). Trump and his allies also plan massive reductions in most types of legal immigration. Slashing work visas is also likely to negatively affect housing construction (as well as damage the economy in other ways).
If there is a saving grace to the Harris and Trump housing policies, it's that most of them cannot be implemented without new legislation, which will be extremely hard to push through a closely divided Congress. That's true of the Harris's rent control policies, and her plans to subsidize home purchases, and crack down on "corporate" landlords. Likewise, a Trump administration would probably need new legislation for any major effort to protect single-family zoning against state-level reform efforts.
But Trump's immigration policies are an exception. The executive could ramp up deportation and slash legal immigration without new legislation. Indeed, the Trump administration did in fact massively cut legal immigration during Trump's previous term in office. Deportation efforts could be partially stymied by state and local government resistance (as also happened during Trump's first term). But Trump could partly offset that by trying to use the military, as he and his allies plan to do (whether legal challenges to such efforts would block them is debatable). At the very least, ramping up federal deportation efforts would drive undocumented immigrants further underground, and reduce their ability to work on construction, where laborers are relatively out in the open and more vulnerable to detection than in some other jobs.
In sum, Harris and Trump are offering mostly terrible housing policies. Their main virtue is the difficulty of implementing them.
There are, in fact, steps the federal government can take to ease housing shortages. Most restrictions on new housing are enacted by state and local governments, which limits the potential of federal intervention. But Congress could enact legislation requiring state and local governments that receive federal economic development grants to enact "YIMBY" legislation loosening zoning rules. Perhaps a stronger version of the YIMBY Act proposed by Republican Senator Todd Young and Democratic Rep. Derek Kilmer (their version could be a useful start, but does not have enough teeth). Those who object to such legislation on grounds of protecting local autonomy should recall that YIMBYism is actually the ultimate localism.
Finally, the feds could help pursuing the opposite of Trump's immigration policies, and instead make legal migration easier. That would increase the construction workforce, and make housing construction cheaper and faster.
Sadly, neither major-party candidate is proposing to do any of these things. Instead, they mostly sell claptrap that is likely to make the housing crisis even worse.
The New York Times, perhaps in something of a rush, is catching up with the usual profiles of a presidential candidate that would usually come during the nomination season. Of course, as Maureen Dowd points out, there was no such process for the current Democratic nominee. Nomination by acclimation, as it were. So the name of the game is backfill. Today's Times shared two tidbits about Kamala Harris that may be of interest to readers.
First, it turns out that John Eastman, of all people, helped Harris prevail in her razor-thin margin of victory for AG. For those who were not around fifteen years ago, Eastman was a leading figure in legal education. As dean at Chapman, Eastman was building a nucleus of leading conservative law professors. One of his more important hires was to poach Ron Rotunda, my professor, from George Mason. But in 2010, Eastman resigned as Dean to run for California Attorney General. Eastman would lose the Republican primary to Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley. During that primary, as the Times points out, Eastman landed a strong punch on Cooley. Apparently, Cooley would have been eligible to receive both the salary of Attorney General, and his pension from serving as District Attorney. Eastman attacked Cooley for "double dipping."
Later, during a debate between Cooley, and Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for AG, Eastman's "double dipping" point was brought up:
Dan Morain, who worked for The Sacramento Bee's editorial page, asked who would bring up double-dipping — that is, taking both a public salary and a public pension. It had been an issue in the Republican primary, first raised by John Eastman, Mr. Cooley's primary opponent. Mr. Eastman is better known now for his efforts to keep Mr. Trump in office after the 2020 election, which resulted in an indictment and disbarment.
"I'm going to ask that," replied Jack Leonard, a Los Angeles Times reporter who covered Mr. Cooley.
Collis gave the wrong answer, and said he "earned" the right to accept the salary and the pension:
Inside the practice courtroom, Mr. Leonard outlined that the $150,000 salary of the California attorney general was half of the $292,300 salary that Mr. Cooley was earning as the local district attorney. If he double-dipped by taking a taxpayer-paid pension as a former district attorney and a taxpayer-paid salary as the state attorney general, Mr. Cooley would be in line to make more than $400,000.
"Do you plan to double-dip by taking both a pension and your salary as attorney general?" Mr. Leonard asked.
"Yes, I do," Mr. Cooley said without hesitation.
He glanced at Ms. Harris. She said nothing.
"I earned it."
But Mr. Cooley was not yet done. "I definitely earned whatever pension rights I have, and I will certainly rely upon that to supplement the very low, incredibly low salary that's paid to the attorney general," he added.
"It was tone deaf," Mr. Riggs said. "It was startling," Mr. Leonard said. "It was awful," Mr. Morain said. "It was jaw-dropping," Mr. Smith said.
Harris would prevail by less than 1% in the race. I think it is safe to say that John Eastman, at least in part, helped Harris win her race for Attorney General. Had the primary gone differently, imagine if Eastman had bested Harris in the general election. What a different world we would be in.
The next tidbit concerns Harris's role in filling Justice Breyer's seat. As readers will recall, President Biden promised to select a black woman for the Supreme Court seat. (He previously also promised to select a black woman for the vice presidency.) The top three nominees were Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Leondra Kruger of the California Supreme Court, and District Court Judge Michelle Childs from South Carolina. Both Jackson and Kruger had clerked on the Supreme Court. Childs was favored by Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, who helped turn the 2020 Democratic primary in Biden's favor.
VP Harris played a role in the process, which the Timesdescribes:
She was also deeply involved in Mr. Biden's only Supreme Court appointment, interviewing all three finalists and studying their legal records. While she considered Leondra R. Kruger, a California Supreme Court justice, a "very sharp lawyer," she concluded that the justice might be too cautious for the moment, according to a former White House official.
J. Michelle Childs, then a district judge, had the support of both Mr. Clyburn and Senator Joe Manchin III, then a Democrat from West Virginia, making her the choice of least resistance. But Ms. Harris concluded that Ketanji Brown Jackson, a federal appeals judge, would be the boldest option, the former official and Mr. Klain said. "Joe, you may only get one chance to do this as president, and you want to be proud of your legacy here," she told Mr. Biden, according to Mr. Klain.
There is a lot packed into this paragraph. First, Harris echoed what was the general consensus: Kruger, a former Deputy Solicitor General, was viewed as a "very sharp lawyer." As a former Deputy SG, she had developed a sterling reputation for intellect. But there were suggestions she would not be as willing to make waves. Apparently she was something of a moderate on the California Supreme Court! Kruger also very publicly declined President Biden's invitation to serve as Solicitor General. (I wrote about Kruger here, here, here, and here.) Second, Childs, who had been nominated to the D.C. Circuit, was viewed as candidate who would face the "least resistance." (I wrote about Childs here and here.) But did Harris recommend Kruger or Childs? No, she backed Jackson. Why? Third, Harris drew a contrast between Kruger and Jackson. The former was "cautious" and the latter was "bold."
I know I am widely ridiculed on the right when I discuss judicial courage. But progressives get it. They understand intrinsically that the primary limitation of a Supreme Court justice is not her intellect or precedent, but fortitude. Democrats are not interested in appointing an intellectual who exhibits caution to the Supreme Court. VP Harris recognized this dynamic fully. Caution may be fine for the lower courts, but it is not the order of the day for SCOTUS. Courage is. Really, courage is important on all levels, but especially on the Supreme Court where the stakes are higher, and pressure is stronger. And a judicial nominee's record must clearly demonstrate by word and deed their courage. In that regard, Justice Jackson was the ideal pick for the Supreme Court, and has justified her selection with everything she has done on the bench. Maybe we should ask Harris to help pick Republican nominees for the Supreme Court?
Sign up here to receive all of the new Volokh Conspiracy posts in a daily e-mail.
The All-Argentina Issue is Here
New from Reason: a look into what Javier Milei
has accomplished and what it will take to make the most of Argentina’s window for real change. Out now
for subscribers.
The front page of CNN.com blares the 
