State Taxation of Internet Businesses

The Supreme Court is hearing a case, South Dakota v Wayfair Inc, that seeks to overturn an older precedent that prevents States from taxing businesses doing business in the State that don’t have a physical presence there.  South Dakota is claiming that

…the 1992 precedent harms state treasuries and disadvantages taxpaying home-grown businesses.

That argument might hold water if the States were powerless. They’re not. There’s nothing at all preventing them from lowering the tax rates they impose on the brick-and-mortar and home-grown businesses resident in those States so they can compete. There’s nothing at all preventing the States from lowering their spending rates and thereby protecting their treasuries.

There’s nothing at all preventing the States from taking advantage of the increased economic activity that would result.

A Better Answer

The Supreme Court might take up a case involving cy pres, the policy of handing class action suit settlement fund “leftover” money to third parties.  It’s especially used where the number of plaintiffs in the class is huge.

In privacy or data-breach cases, where the number of potential plaintiffs reaches into the millions, the majority of a settlement can go to cy pres recipients.

A 2015 class-action settlement involving Alphabet that centered on its Google subsidiary would have led, after the lawyers’ cut, to four-cent checks being sent to each of nearly 130 million plaintiffs, for instance.

Cy pres also becomes a player when the bulk of the funds are distributed and the remainder is impractical to distribute (“impractical” generally is determined by the court involved, or by the court’s acceptance of an agreement between plaintiffs and defendant(s)).

The Court should take the case and strike the practice.  Part One of a better answer, which the Court can impose, is to reduce the permissible per centage of the total payout that can go to the lawyers.  That would leave more money for the payout and reduce, if only by a little, one of the problems: the pennies distributed were all the monies disbursed to the plaintiffs.

Part Two of the better answer is a political decision, and so it’s beyond the reach of the Court; although, the Justices can, and should, inveigh Congress to address the matter.  That political decision is to bar the leftover monies from going to third parties.  By definition, those entities were not victims of the misbehavior that led to the payout, and so they should not receive any of it.  Instead, the leftovers should be delivered to the Federal or State Treasury, depending on whether the case was a Federal or State one.

Part Two-a of the better answer likely would find the most use in those privacy or data-breach cases, where all of the plaintiffs might each get impractically small payouts.  In this sort of case, all of the settlement funds should go to the Federal or State Treasury.

A District Judge Gets One Right

Senior Federal District Court Judge for the District of Maryland Roger Titus has ruled that President Donald Trump’s wind-down of DACA was entirely legal and proper.  While that’s an outcome agreeable to me, my interest is in his reasoning for upholding Trump’s withdrawal of the Obama DHS Memorandum creating DACA.

As disheartening or inappropriate as the president’s occasionally disparaging remarks may be, they are not relevant to the larger issues governing the DACA rescission. The DACA Rescission Memo is clear as to its purpose and reasoning, and its decision is rationally supported by the administrative record.

And

This court does not like the outcome of this case, but is constrained by its constitutionally limited role to the result that it has reached. Hopefully, the Congress and the president will finally get their job done.

An overwhelming percentage of Americans support protections for ‘Dreamers,’ yet it is not the province of the judiciary to provide legislative or executive actions when those entrusted with those responsibilities fail to act.

Imagine that.  A judge ruling on the merits of the matter and not bringing in irrelevancies.  A California and a New York Federal trial judge could stand to read Titus’ ruling and learn from it.

Titus’ ruling can be read here.

 

h/t Power Line

A Hong Kong Trial

Some of you may recall the umbrella protests in Hong Kong a few short years ago concerning the rapid erosion of freedoms there as the People’s Republic of China accelerated its walk away from its promise to Great Britain to respect Hong Kong liberties after the island city was surrendered to the PRC.

Joshua Wong, one of those protesters, sentenced to jail for participating and speaking his mind, is out of jail pending his appeal.  Hong Kong Commissioner Clement Leung had a Letter to the Editor of The Wall Street Journal earlier this week objecting to a WSJ piece decrying the whole sorry charade that is the current Hong Kong judiciary.

Surprise: I have my own response to Leung.

Joshua Wong was convicted because he was resisting the enforcement of a court injunction to reopen the roads in a blocked protest site.

No, Wong was convicted for continuing to exercise his free speech rights in the face of a court ruling that erroneously subverted those rights.

Mr Wong and others were also convicted and sentenced in another case, not for exercising their freedom of expression, but for their disorderly and intimidating behavior….

The use of the “disorderly and intimidating behavior” charge was simply a Communist Party of China-directed cynical euphemism for “speaking too freely.” The only ones who saw disorder or who were “intimidated” were those unused to being disobeyed in their diktats and others unused to the rollicking noise of democracy.

As an experienced Commissioner, Mr Leung should know better.

Another Biased Federal Judge

US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis, of the Eastern District of New York, blatantly and zealously does not like President Donald Trump, as many folks do not.  However, the judge is hearing a case concerning whether to block Trump’s withdrawal of ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) unconstitutionally applied DACA protections, and that overt bias may well feed into his ruling on what should be an open and shut question: the DACA protections were illegally applied, and apart from that, they were applied by DHS Memorandum, and so even were Obama’s DACA legal, the protections can be removed by Memorandum or by a President’s Executive Order.

Amazingly, Garaufis is considering the weight to be given to Trump’s campaign rhetoric as though that could be relevant, and the text of the law be damned.

Judge Garaufis appeared to struggle with how much to weigh Mr Trump’s prior comments in determining whether to temporarily block the unwinding of DACA, saying he couldn’t ignore them.

“I’m not sure what the answer is,” Judge Garaufis said.

If the good judge doesn’t understand the question, he should recuse himself.  If he doesn’t understand so basic a question, he has no business being on the bench at all.

It gets worse.

In a speech to the Heritage Foundation last year, Mr [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions cited a comment from Judge Garaufis at a hearing in the same case in which he said the government “can’t come into court to espouse a position that is heartless.” Mr Sessions said comments like this are “highly offensive and disrespectful” of the legislative and executive branches.

Getting visibly angry, Judge Garaufis said of Mr Sessions, “He seems to think the courts cannot have an opinion.”

Yewbetcha.  Courts cannot have political opinions.  Not a syllable of one.  It’s appalling that a Federal judge does not understand this, or pretends not to.