Partner, @BakerHostetler; legal adjunct, @catoinstitute; legal fellow, @TheBuckeyeInst. Per Sen. Whitehouse, possessor of 'seemingly vast expertise.'
Nov 30 • 4 tweets • 4 min read
Grateful to @pmarca for throwing light on debanking.
So what to do? 3 policy responses, 2 for this January: 1) limit regulators' "jawboning"; 2) require public disclosure, backed by penalties; 3) dial back anti-money laundering law, the "world's worst policy experiment." (1/4)
1. Limit "jawboning" with an EO and personnel changes. The most widespread abuses aren't from regs, published guidance, or enforcement actions. They're informal: regulators expressing "concerns," raising eyebrows, etc. This "jawboning" comes cloaked in many guises, like "reputational risk" and "red flags." For closely regulated businesses like banks, a wink is as a good as a rule, because regulators wield so much power and have extremely broad discretion.
Drawing a perfect line to separate valid concerns about compliance from abusive requests is hard or even impossible. But two narrower fixes are easy. First, issue an executive order[*] requiring financial regulators to ban their personnel from requesting or encouraging the denial of services based solely on an account-holder's First Amendment-protected speech or associations, use of crypto, or status as a business in any lawful industry, including crypto, firearms, etc. Second, appoint financial regulators willing to investigate ongoing and past abuses, clean house, and put new personnel on the job who won't abuse their stations. These may be temporary fixes, but they'll work and, over the longer term, begin to change the culture.
[*] For the legal nerds, yes, there's a potential issue with financial regulators being "independent" agencies. But (1) unclear how much that matters following Seila Law and Collins and (2) the President can and should choose appointees willing--really, eager--to coordinate and do the right thing here.
(2/4)
Dec 6, 2022 • 6 tweets • 3 min read
A few resources on tomorrow's argument in Moore v. Harper:
1. David Rivkin and I explain what the case is really about: stopping a state-court lawfare campaign aimed at overriding traditional election regulations and redistricting practices wsj.com/articles/marc-…2. In a FedSoc TeleForum, I explain why the canard about the case allowing legislators to overrule the voters is trivially false fedsoc.org/events/litigat…
Jun 25, 2021 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
TransUnion is a big victory for business over lawsuits over illusory injuries recognized by statute but not history or practical reality.
But it leaves open another avenue to press the same federal-law claims: bring them in state court. 1/n
In fact, since Spokeo (2016), there has been an explosion in such suits, particularly under statutes like (as in TransUnion) the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (e.g., receipts w/ >5 digits of a CC #). 2/n
Apr 5, 2020 • 17 tweets • 3 min read
THREAD: Stuck at home and want to improve your music setup? You can do much better than AirPods, Echos, your phone's speaker, etc., and it doesn't have to cost a fortune.
Here's a quick set of recommendations.
Let's start with speakers. All-in-one systems geared to streaming have hit their stride lately. KEF's LS50 bookshelf speakers made waves, and for good reason: outsounding sound quality in a very small package. But they needed to be paired w/ great electronics.