Basically, your general assignment is read one full assignment for each day. But I think if you have read through Assignment 2, you should be prepared for our next two classes (Wednesday & Thursday):
2. Casebook P. 124-126 (Armory and Bridges); p. 131-133 (McAvoy) and p. 127-129(Sharman)
SCOTUSblog: " BREAKING: The Supreme Court lifts the federal eviction moratorium. In an unsigned 8-page opinion (with the three liberals dissenting), SCOTUS sides with a group of landlords who argued that the CDC lacked the authority to bar evictions during the pandemic."
From NYT:
The majority opinion, which was unsigned, said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had exceeded its authority.
“The C.D.C. has imposed a nationwide moratorium on evictions in reliance on a decades-old statute that authorizes it to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination,” the opinion said. “It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the C.D.C. the sweeping authority that it asserts.”
We will discuss this case briefly in class tomorrow.
I enjoyed our discussion today about the Covid mandates vs. liberty and holding onto the things that make life worth living. Thank you for sharing so many good thoughts.
Whatever your views about the mandates, I hope that you will not become too used to having your life so heavily regulated by government for such a long period of time. It is like boiling a frog slowly; you get used to the warm water as the heat slowly increases and the next thing you know you are boiled alive. Here is something Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams in 1787:
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere."
And here is something Reagan said along the same lines:
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men [and women] were free.”
See you tomorrow in class.
Consider this property rights battle between next-door neighbors in the town of Sunnyvale, California. I am taking this story from Heller & Salzman's book entitled Mine! (at p. 153-160).
The Bissetts are environmentalists who love Redwood trees. Their neighbor, Mark Vargas, is "an equally proud green" who drives "an electric car and installed solar panels on his rooftop."
Can you sense what's coming?
Vargas installed his solar panels 5 years after the Bissetts planted their Redwood trees. But when the Redwood trees grew taller, they began to shade the solar panels on Vargas's rooftop. Vargas demanded that the Bissetts cut off the tops of their redwoods. The Bissetts refused.
How should the law resolve this conflict between two neighbors who wish to make ordinary but incompatible uses of their property? Should the law require the Bissetts to cut down their redwood trees? Or should the law permit the trees and leave Vargas to figure what to do about electricity for his home?
If you are a first-year law student, you might make a habit of asking yourself questions like the following:
Is the rule in the case I've just read, just or fair from an ex post perspective?
Will the rule produce good consequences (as compared to the alternatives) from an ex ante perspective?
Covid restrictions imposed great costs on many interests, including on property.
When thinking about Covid restrictions, we should focus not only on the benefits, but also the costs. Health "experts" tend to focus only on the benefits when proposing various restrictions. But what have been the costs?
All of the following are uncounted costs of the Covid Restrictions and Mandates adopted by government:
1. Right to Worship
2. Right to travel
3. Right of Social Contact (especially during the lockdowns when families were unable to come together)
4. Freedom of Expression (mask mandates literally cover your facial expressions--your smile, your frown)
5. Medical Privacy (take a look at your "Safer Community" app)
6. Livelihoods were destroyed
7. Small businesses were forced to close (some forever)
8. What are some others?
How long should these restrictions continue? Two weeks to flatten the curve? Two years? A decade? As Justice Gorsuch put it so eloquently in one of the church lockdown cases: “Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical.”
Now think about this:
What about the litigation right now in which rental property owners are seeking to have the “eviction moratorium” declared unconstitutional?
Which side of this litigation is the social justice side?
What happens to a small landowner—maybe a retired mom and pop who own 10 apartment units and rely on rental income for their living—when their tenants stop paying rent and they cannot evict them because of the moratorium?
Who decides wherein lies social justice?
The Law College?
The ABA?
Or each lawyer fighting for his or her own idea of the common good and justice?