Clarence Thomas saves CFPB using originalist reasoning, Boeing non-prosecution agreement analysis, Washington State felony for duplicate names in elections, fish farm legal case, and check on Trump's trial in NY.
Read more
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
Clarence Thomas rejected a 5th Circuit ruling to save CFPB, showcasing originalist interpretation diversity.
CFPB's independence and authority affirmed through Thomas' decision against payday lenders' predatory practices.
Court likely to rule in favor of divers in fish farm case based on strict liability laws.
Deep dives
Background on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was established in 2010 to regulate financial practices and protect consumers from predatory lenders. The agency was designed to be independent, with a director serving a longer term than the president and funded through interest on security and cartel money.
Legal Battle Over Payday Lenders' Predatory Practices
Payday lenders challenged a CFPB rule that prohibited them from attempting multiple withdrawals from an account and charging excessive fees. The lenders were making up to 11 withdrawal attempts a day, adding fees each time, on top of already predatory loans.
Supreme Court Upholds CFPB's Rule and Rejects Lenders' Challenge
In a surprising turn, Clarence Thomas wrote the decision rejecting the payday lenders' challenge. The ruling affirmed the CFPB's authority to regulate predatory lending practices, siding against the lenders who vehemently fought to continue their exploitative practices despite facing multiple court rejections across circuits.
Strict Liability and Fish Farm Divers Incident
In a case involving a fish farm where aggressive fish attacked trespassing divers, the divers sued under strict liability. The court is likely to rule in favor of the divers because Jack, the owner, is strictly liable for injuries caused by his dangerous animals under strict liability laws, regardless of the divers trespassing.
Signage and Negligence in the Fish Farm Case
The court may also consider ruling in favor of Jack if he can prove that he had posted adequate warning signs about the aggressive fish. However, the court would not necessarily rule in favor of the divers solely on negligence grounds related to how Jack secured the area where the aggressive fish were kept, as the case is primarily governed by strict liability laws.
We begin with a quick check-in on Trump’s trial in New York, from the recent appellate ruling on his gag order Todd Blanche's bizarrely personal start to his cross-examination of the most important witness in one of the most important criminal trials in US history. Matt then explains why it might be a felony to run for governor in Washington State if your name is Bob Ferguson.
Then: Clarence Thomas just rejected an originalist 5th Circuit ruling to save the
Consumer Protection Finance Bureau on behalf of a 7-2 court--with Alito dissenting for totally different originalist reasons. What is going here?
We then stop in for a quick layover with the current state of the Boeing non-prosecution agreement before Thomas takes on a bar question about some extremely unpleasant fish.