by Billy Binion, Reason, June 5, 2025.
Excerpt:
At the heart of the matter lies a pressing concern—what many perceive as a looming danger to democracy. The New Yorker articulates this apprehension well, focusing on “the far-right shift of the Supreme Court and the conservative movement’s intentions to take control of it.”
This critique has been persistent, as noted in a previous Reason article. Some of the Court’s recent decisions demonstrate why this narrative is both unfair and inaccurate.
The case of Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services stands out, where the justices overturned a lower court ruling in favor of a woman who claimed she was a victim of reverse discrimination. In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that individuals from majority groups do not need to meet an elevated standard to substantiate such claims. The opinion, penned by Justice Jackson, is clear and compelling.
Here’s the key takeaway from Justice Jackson’s opinion:
The Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule obliges majority-group plaintiffs to shoulder an extra burden at the initial stage. However, Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision makes no distinctions between majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs. The provision emphasizes individual experiences rather than group identities, prohibiting discrimination against “any individual” based on protected characteristics. Congress did not leave room for judicial imposition of special prerequisites on majority-group plaintiffs.
DRH comment: I take issue with the term “reverse discrimination.” Discrimination is discrimination, irrespective of direction.
by Jonathan H. Adler, Civitas Institute, June 2, 2025.
Excerpts:
The American Bar Association (ABA) stands as the largest lawyers’ organization in the U.S. While it represents a mere fraction of the legal professionals, it holds the exclusive authority to accredit law schools. Unlike universities, which are often accredited by regional bodies, the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar monopolizes this space. Given that federal student loans are contingent upon accreditation, and most states mandate a degree from an ABA-accredited institution to sit for the bar exam, could this status quo be on the verge of change?
As legal education costs soar and technological innovations threaten the traditional delivery of legal services, the ABA’s tight grip on legal accreditation faces increasing scrutiny. Both Texas and Florida, states boasting the third and fourth largest lawyer populations, are contemplating the elimination of the ABA accreditation requirement for bar applicants. Concurrently, the Trump Administration is advocating for the expansion of accreditation options. An Executive Order issued in April directs the Department of Education to enhance scrutiny of current accrediting bodies while expediting the approval of new accreditors to “foster competition and accountability in promoting high-quality, high-value academic programs centered on student outcomes.”
And:
Whether the ABA perceives itself as a cartel or not, much of its accreditation behavior resembles that of a self-serving cartel. Consequently, many of the ABA’s accreditation criteria are predicated on expensive inputs, such as library resources and the number of full-time, tenured faculty, which bear no proven correlation to a student’s success on the bar exam or their effectiveness as legal practitioners. These stringent requirements, however, have contributed to the escalating costs of obtaining a law degree and have stifled innovation within legal education.
by Christian Britschgi, Reason, June 5, 2025.
Excerpt:
While one might commend Fielder’s proposal, it would arguably perform as effectively as the 1,500-hour rule (meaning not at all), yet would incur far less cost.
No other nation mandates its airline pilots to accumulate as extensive flight hours as the U.S. does.
Neither the Federal Aviation Administration (which oversees aviation safety) nor the National Transportation Safety Board (which investigates accidents) has established any link between the 1,500-hour rule and enhanced safety outcomes.
(Notably, the pilots involved in the Colgan crash each had over 1,500 hours of flying experience.)
Critics assert that the 1,500-hour requirement may actually compromise safety by compelling pilots to log endless hours on routine flights rather than undergoing more productive simulator training.
Regional airlines report that this rule has hindered pilot recruitment, leading to a shortage of qualified pilots and a decline in regional airline services.
DRH comment: A more effective training approach for pilots, in terms of benefits and costs per hour, would be to have them spend significant time in simulators. Why? Because simulators can replicate real-life emergency scenarios that a trainee might never encounter during their 1,500 hours of actual flying. Moreover, they can recreate a multitude of emergency situations. This insight was shared by a retired American Airlines pilot who now trains new pilots.
Editorial, Wall Street Journal, June 5, 2025 (June 6 print version.)
Excerpts:
Let’s begin with the CBO’s estimate that 5.2 million able-bodied adults on Medicaid would lose coverage due to the bill’s work requirements. This undermines the Democratic assertion that only a limited number of able-bodied individuals on Medicaid are unemployed. Regardless, the work requirement could motivate some to seek gainful employment that offers health insurance—a commendable objective of the legislation.
DRH comment: This quote implies that the CBO assumes none of these able-bodied adults will secure jobs. That’s rather astonishing. It’s hard to fathom the CBO being so short-sighted. I’ll have to review the CBO study later.
The CBO projection also anticipates that 1.4 million undocumented migrants would lose coverage, primarily due to the bill’s reduction of federal matching funds for states extending Medicaid to undocumented individuals. Additionally, the bill prohibits ObamaCare subsidies for many non-permanent immigrants and asylum seekers, which the CBO estimates would further decrease coverage by one million.
DRH comment: This is a positive development, not a negative one. I have consistently advocated, alongside a substantial increase in legal immigration, that the government should not subsidize healthcare or health insurance for undocumented immigrants. Furthermore, whatever actions the government takes regarding legal immigration, it should refrain from subsidizing healthcare or health insurance for those who are in the country illegally.
Note: The accompanying picture was created by ChatGPT.
