More Commentary on the Grand Irony of ERISA

Erisa Thanks to Ian Millhiser (National Senior Citizens Law Center) who wrote this piece about the inequities of employee benefits law under ERISA with his colleague Simon Lazarus for the U.K. Guardian.

Here’s a taste:

Erisa sets strict standards to ensure that employers and insurers administering group benefit plans act “solely in the interests of beneficiaries for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits,” not their own bottom-line. But the court has rendered these protections meaningless. In a Catch-22 decision written by Justice Scalia, a 5-4 majority held that, when plan administrators violate their obligations under the law, victims may not recover any monetary compensation for resulting losses they suffer. Adding insult to injury, the court has read Erisa as a warrant for “pre-empting” – ie abolishing – pre-existing state law protections, leaving victims with literally no recourse. Thus, in the words of, the late Justice Byron White, the supreme court has achieved the “perverse anomaly of leaving those Congress set out to protect with less protection than they enjoyed before Erisa was enacted.”

Continue ReadingMore Commentary on the Grand Irony of ERISA

A Judicial Visit to the Classroom

Thanks to the Hon. Diane S. Sykes (Marquette University Law School, ’84) for speaking to my Wisconsin Supreme Court class this afternoon. Judge Sykes now serves on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, but spent five terms on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and shared something of her experience on the court and about the nature of a collegial court with students.

One of the things that I hoped was clear to the students is the notion that even these experienced and gifted lawyers on a court of last resort struggle with the law. Minds change and dissents become majority opinions. While differences in philosophy are real (Judge Sykes does not shy from referring to “conservative” and “liberal” jurists while warning that these labels are not comprehensive and their use is complicated), judges grapple with hard cases and their differences are not simply consequentialist. She talked briefly about a decision — which she knew we had discussed in class — about whether a condition of probation might be that the defendant (who had been convicted of wilful failure to support his nine children) refrain from having further children until he could support those he already had (a state of affairs that was extremely unlikely). While the potential consequences are unpalatable, then Justice Sykes (joined in dissent by two “liberal” justices, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley) concluded that the law prohibited such a condition. Even if we disagree with that view, the recognition that hard cases can make bad law should be married to the idea that they should not.

Continue ReadingA Judicial Visit to the Classroom

Laboratories of Democracy at the Local Level

Matt Parlow has a thought-provoking new article in print: Progressive Policy-Making on the Local Level: Rethinking Traditional Notions of Federalism, 17 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 371 (2008).  (A draft can be downloaded here.)  Matt contends that the oft-quoted argument of Justice Brandeis (pictured to the left) that states may appropriately serve as laboraties for “novel social and economic experiments” applies equally well — indeed, perhaps even better — to cities and other local units of government.  Citing recent immigration initiatives and living wage ordinances (including one in Madison, Wisconsin), Matt notes a long history of local-level policy innovation in this country.  He argues,

Because they are smaller in size, local governments are more capable of being responsive to the needs of their respective communities because they are more in touch with their constituents.  This leads, in theory, to more responsive and representative policy-making as local government officials make decisions informed by the community’s wants and needs.

In light of these considerations, Matt argues against the tendency of some courts to squelch local initiatives through narrow constructions of home rule powers and liberal invocations of the implied preemption doctrine.

All of this connects nicely to the recent, lively discussion on this Blog of Milwaukee’s ballot initiative mandating paid sick leave for employees.  I take it that Matt would be skeptical of arguments that the Milwaukee law is preempted by state and federal law — at the least, his analysis would suggest some good reasons why a court ought to be slow to find preemption. 

Continue ReadingLaboratories of Democracy at the Local Level
Newer Posts
Older Posts