Fair notice of the law is a basic principle that separates liberal democracies like the United States from more authoritarian governments. Fair notice is an especially critical due-process check against government’s power to criminally prosecute. Government must not only prove that a person did the unlawful act, but also that he intentionally engaged in wrongful conduct or knew the conduct was illegal—that it, that he had a guilty mind. So why, then, is the Obama Administration and other elected representatives opposing reforms to ensure that federal criminal laws include a clear criminal-intent standard?
The idea being advanced seems far from revolutionary or controversial, which may explain why politicians and interest groups of every ideological stripe support it: Federal laws with criminal provisions must require prosecutors to prove that the accused possessed the mens rea, or culpable mental state, to commit a crime. If a law lacks such language, then a default intent provision will apply, such as showing that the defendant acted “willfully” or “recklessly.” Continue reading
The U.S. Supreme Court held its first Conference of 2016 on Friday, January 8, where it considered cert petitions in several high-profile cases impacting free enterprise. The Court issued an orders list on January 11 from that Conference, which, while it did not include any cert grants in these cases, potentially offers positive results for free-market enthusiasts.
First, the Court issued a CVSG in State Farm v. U.S. ex. rel. Rigsby. For those not versed in Supreme Court-speak, CVSG=Calling for the Views of the Solicitor General. The U.S. government is not a party in Rigsby, but because the case involves a key federal law, the False Claims Act (FCA), the justices want to give the government a chance to weigh in with a yay or nay on cert before deciding. It takes the vote of four justices—the same number it takes to grant cert—for the Court to seek the Solicitor General’s views. A CVSG is thus a very good sign that the Court has an elevated interest in a case. Continue reading
In introducing an October 7, 2015 oversight hearing on the forthcoming 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), House Agriculture Committee Chairman Michael Conaway stated, “It is essential that the guidance that comes out of this process can be trusted by the American people.” Chairman Conaway framed that remark in the context of the scientific evidence the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) relied upon in its Scientific Report. Lawmakers should question the quality of the report’s science, but their probe of the DGAC and its work shouldn’t stop there. Another, perhaps greater, threat to the Dietary Guidelines’ credibility is the significant breaches of federal law that occurred in the creation of the DGAC. Violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) infect the entire Scientific Report and call into question its recommendations and any federal regulatory proposals that rely on the report or the resulting DGA. Continue reading
In a highly influential 1936 essay, “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action,” sociologist Robert K. Merton explained that there were five sources of unintended consequences. One is the “imperious immediacy of interest:” someone wants the intended consequences of an action so badly that they consciously ignore any unintended effects. One can find many examples of this in government regulation. In fact, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) provided an ideal illustration recently with its final rule that requires each listed company to express, in a ratio, how its workforce’s median pay compares with its CEO’s compensation. Continue reading
Officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services are currently finalizing the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA). Those agencies will rely quite heavily on the Scientific Report of a USDA/HHS advisory panel—the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC)—that Washington Legal Foundation and many other interested parties have criticized as driven more by ideology than sound science. The USDA and HHS Secretaries recently assured the public that the DGA will provide “nutritional and dietary information … based on a preponderance of the evidence.” One test of the Secretaries’ fidelity to that statutorily-mandated criterion will be whether the Dietary Guidelines embrace the Scientific Report’s thoroughly unscientific conclusions on caffeine. Continue reading
In a February 17, 2015 post, we applauded a new voluntary program developed by advertising trade associations, the Brand Integrity Program Against Piracy. The program’s goal is to deter the placement of advertisements for legitimate products on websites that help disseminate illegally-copied entertainment content or knockoffs of trademarked products.
This voluntary property-rights protection effort received a considerable boost last week when GroupM, the investment management arm of global media and advertising services giant WPP, formally endorsed the Brand Integrity Program. GroupM’s digital marketing and media partners handle over 32% of the world’s media billings.
As explained in our February post, a trade association-created entity, the Trustworthy Accounting Group (TAG), initiated a program to certify companies that assist advertisers and ad agencies to avoid ad placement on cyberlockers and other undesirable websites. Third-party accounting entities such as Ernst & Young will assess those wishing to be certified. If these companies meet certain effectiveness criteria, TAG will validate them as “Digital Advertising Assurance Providers” (DAAPs).
GroupM is requiring that its partners either be certified as DAAPs or contract with companies that have earned that certification. The joint GroupM-TAG press release explained that TAG will announce the first validated DAAPs before the end of 2015, and that GroupM’s partners must be validated as or hire a DAAP by the end of March 2016.
Online copyright and trademark infringement is a multi-billion-dollar problem for economically critical U.S. businesses. The pursuit of rogue businesses through civil or criminal law enforcement has expanded in recent years, but pirate sites and their creators are quite elusive and the legal process is slow. For instance, it’s been four years since New Zealand officials arrested Megaupload founder Kim Dotcomm, and a decision has yet to be made on his extradition to the U.S.
Voluntary efforts to undermine the revenue stream for cyberlockers and other trafficking sites, therefore, are a critically important weapon against online piracy. TAG’s enlistment of GroupM and its partners is a positive development, one that could accelerate the recruitment of more partners for the Brand Integrity Program Against Piracy.
This is the second part of a two-part commentary on FDA’s requirements that added sugars be listed on the food Nutrition Facts panel, and that a Daily Reference Value (DRV) be set for added sugars and included in the panel footnote. For part I, click here.
FDA’s Reliance Solely on a DGAC Report to Establish a DRV is Unprecedented
When implementing the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, FDA first set daily reference values in 1993 based on “sufficient scientific consensus,” a standard established by the agency under that law. FDA did not rely on a federal advisory committee’s report. Moreover, it relied only minimally on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans itself. Instead, FDA cited numerous consensus reports which, taken together, constituted “sufficient scientific consensus.” Continue reading