Skip to main content

SCOTUS Denies cert

Image result for Trump

On Tuesday morning of this week, the Supreme Court of the United States denied cert in Unite Here v. Trump Entertainment Resorts.  In plain English, it denied appeal, which means that the decision of the court below stands.

Chapter 1113 of the bankruptcy code allows the debtor, here the Trump entity, to reject a collectively bargained agreement (CBA) under certain circumstances. This seems to put bankruptcy law at odds with the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRA prohibits an employer from unilaterally changing the terms of a CBA even after the agreement has on its own terms expired.

In this case the union, Unite Here Local 54, said that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to amend the contract terms in Trump's favor. But the bankruptcy court decided that  the more specific law prevails over the more general: section 1113 holds here. So it granted Trump's motion.

This is surely a case of what the presidential candidate who is a namesake of this corporate entity calls "working the system" in his favor. Of course once he is President he will use the same talents on our own behalf, on behalf of the whole people of the United States. And if you believe that, he'll sell you a famous bridge in his favorite city.

In this case he and his corporate entities worked the system so as to avoid their negotiated responsibilities regarding pensions, health insurances, severance funds, paid meal times and paid holidays. All the features of employment that separate old-fashioned middle class work from something distinctly lower-rung.

Anyway, the Third Circuit (which includes New Jersey, where the corporation involved is headquartered) upheld the decision of the bankruptcy court early this year. The decision says,  "[T]he authority to reject an executory contract is vital to the basic purpose to a Chapter 11 reorganization, because rejection can release the debtor's estate from burdensome obligations that can impede a successful reorganization." 

That is the judgment that SCOTUS has now allowed to stand.  That settles the legal question for the Third Circuit, but not for the remainder of the court, because a rejection of cert has no precedential effect.


Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …