The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a California law that would require euthanizing downed livestock at federally inspected slaughterhouses to keep the meat out of the nation’s food system. The high court ruled that the state’s 2009 state law was blocked from going into effect by federal law administered by the Agriculture Department’s Food Safety and Inspection Service.

You can read the slip opinion in National Meat Assn. v. Harris, No. 10-224 here.

How much do you sanction an attorney who lies to the court, seeks unwarranted sanctions, bullies opposing counsel, shows no remorse, and effectively vows to continue such tactics by endorsing his conduct when challenged on it?

Read the decision sanctioning Timothy Donahue in Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. here: G044216

California’s legislation straddles the fence between (1) addressing a serious social problem and (2) helping concerned parents control their children. Both ends are legitimate, but when they affect First Amendment rights they must be pursued by means that are neither seriously underinclusive nor seriously overinclusive. See Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 546 (1993). As a means of protecting children from portrayals of violence, the legislation is seriously underinclusive, not only because it excludes portrayals other than video games, but also because it permits a parental or avuncular veto. And as a means of assisting concerned parents it is seriously overinclusive because it abridges the First Amendment rights of young people whose parents (and aunts and uncles) think violent video games are a harm-less pastime. And the overbreadth in achieving one goal is not cured by the underbreadth in achieving the other.Legislation such as this, which is neither fish nor fowl, cannot survive strict scrutiny.

You can read the entire decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association here.