Law professor's blog causes federal judge to revisit decision
Pundits often view law blogs as nothing more than a cheap marketing ploy by lawyers. An editorial in today’s New York Times demonstrates otherwise.
It’s a rare day that a federal judge decides to revisit a decision the week after making it or that the Justice Department apologizes for failing to brief him on the crucial precedent. A re-do is clearly called for.
Just a week ago, Judge James Cacheris of Eastern Virginia’s Federal District Court struck down a century-old ban on direct corporate contributions to political candidates. He wrote that it was an “inescapable” outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case last year, even though the court specifically said the ruling was about allowing corporate expenditures through independent campaign groups.
If Judge Cacheris’s decision were to stand as law, it would lead to even more profligate spending on political campaigning and to the severe corruption that comes with it. Sua sponte, or on his own initiative, Judge Cacheris has now given himself the chance to reverse his usurpation of Supreme Court authority and avoid that disaster.
On Tuesday, he ordered the parties in the case to file briefs by Wednesday about whether, in light of two other Supreme Court cases, he should reconsider his finding about direct corporate contributions. They will argue the matter [this] morning.
The reason for Judge Cacheris’ change of heart?
The Election Law Blog published by Loyola Law Professor Richard Hasen. Hasen’s blog, as seconded by the TImes editorial, is closely followed by people in law, politics and the news media. Per the Times:
He blogged about last week’s Cacheris ruling the day it was issued, drawing attention to the omissions of Beaumont in both the Justice Department’s brief and the judge’s decision.
Thousands of lawyers on the LexBlog Network are blogging about legal issues and developments. On any given day there may be close to 200 blog posts on niche areas of the law. In some cases, they’ll cover particular jurisdictions in detail.
Attorney Francis Pileggi’s Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog, covering Delaware’s Supreme Court and Court of Chancery and Chicago Attorney David Donoghue’s Chicago IP Litigation Blog, tracking Northern District of Illinois IP cases, come to mind. Both blogs are widely followed by the media and the judiciary.
It is folly not to appreciate the impact that lawyers empowered by blogs are having on public opinion and the shaping of American law. Kudos to those lawyers who have chosen not to sit on the sidelines.
Hat tip to Attorney Richard Gluck for sharing word of the Time’s Editorial.