Subscript Law

Google and other cool technology companies have set the employee-keep-happy standards in Silicon Valley. Games, yoga, personal time. These fit into the companies’ shareholder obligations, which despite the do-gooder pretense , always come back to profit. That’s what the invisible hand is all about, right? It’s actually in the company’s best interest to treat employees well because then the company attracts good employees and keeps them happy, which increases worker productivity, in turn increasing profitability and sales, and then more sales follow because the company can market its good reputation. But there are a few things that distinguish employees of cool tech companies from, say, those of an auto manufacturer. It’s the skills of the workers, and their choices in employment. Actually, if you want to make a complete list, you can look at the factors that create employer monopsony power : There is only one main employer in a particular region / industry. Workers have no choic...

Argument: March 26, 2019 Final Rule: August 14, 2019 Complaint: August 16, 2019 Plaintiffs: California, et al Defendants: DHS, et al. Court below: Northern District of California Four States and D.C. ask a federal judge to block the government’s “Public Charge Rules” For a long time federal immigration law has allowed the government to disqualify someone from immigration into the United States if that person is likely to be a “public charge.” In essence, the provision allows the government to deny immigration to people who will cost the government too much money. That rule exists in law. The current federal agencies haven’t changed that law, but they have changed how it will be enforced. The Department of Homeland Security has just finalized new rules that will be taking on a new interpretation of “public charge.” And they’ll be defending the new rules in court. California leads a group of states and Washington D.C. in a lawsuit challenging the new rules on a number of ...

Convicted of murder by 10 of 12 jurors - is that enough? Evangelisto Ramos was convicted of murder by a 12 member jury, and only 10 of them believed he did it. Under federal law, a non-unanimous verdict wouldn’t cut it. The Constitution doesn’t allow it. But the Supreme Court has ruled that states can convict with less. The Constitution The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution provides protections in criminal proceedings:  The right to a speedy and public trial The right to an impartial jury  The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation The right to be confronted with the witnesses against him The right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and  The right to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. It does not specifically mention that juries must be unanimous, but long ago the Supreme Court decided that the Sixth Amendment does include the requirement. In 1898, the Supreme Court said that th...

Supreme Court poised to take a deeper look at “insanity” in criminal law Kraig Kahler faces the death penalty for murdering his wife, his two daughters and his wife’s grandmother. According to the record, Kahler’s issues began with his wife taking a lesbian lover. Kahler initially agreed, in hopes he could be a part of the action, but at some point he got jealous. The wife left him. Unable to handle the mental strain, Kahler killed everyone except his son at a Thanksgiving get-together. Feel free to Google the guy for more about the emotional story. Having been sentenced to death, Kahler now appears at the Supreme Court arguing Kansas’s criminal law is unconstitutional. Kahler wants to seek relief from the death penalty by way of “insanity.” Psychological reports show Kalher suffering from narcissism, histrionic personality disorder and obsessive compulsions. The insanity defense In many states, Kahler could argue for the “insanity” defense based on his illnesses. Traditionally,...