Supremacy

Quick quiz — fill in the blank from a quote in a recently-filed lawsuit:

“______ is creating its own policy and regulations concerning immigration, and therefore, violating the supremacy clause.”

Don’t peek. The answer is just below. While you’re considering this, also try to guess who the plaintiff that filed this complaint might be.

Immigration policy is complicated — and tragic — enough and it’s getting weirder.

Ok, the answer to the first question is “The City of New York.”

The answer to the second question is Wynne Transportation, one of the charter bus companies hired by the State of Texas to transport migrants to New York City as part of Operation Lonestar. You can decide for yourself how ironic this is. The current rulers of Texas aren’t exactly known for appreciating the supremacy clause when it comes to immigration.

Wynne, in case you’re wondering, was complaining about a New York executive order requiring charter companies to give the city at least 32 hours' notice that busloads of migrants are coming and to not drop off migrants in need after midnight.

Wynne — or its lawyers— say this is a burden that violates the commerce clause.

Wynne, by the way, was one of a bunch of bus companies named in a previous suit filed by the city that claims the bus companies have been paid “roughly $1,650 per person on chartered buses compared to $291 for a single one-way ticket.”

Yep. That’s commerce all right.

Dungeons, dragons and courtrooms. I recently named a horse “Chaotic Neutral” mainly because I like silly names and the horses don’t seem to care.

Lawyers — or at least some of them— do seem to care.

I don’t know if the American Bar Association was following my lead or not (and I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t) but the ABA has “respectfully” requested that the Judicial Conference of the United States change the name of “court-appointed master” to “court-appointed neutral.”

As far as I can tell, there won’t be any difference in constitution and spells for those characters.

Apparently, this change is important. Or maybe not important. The eight-page letter from the ABA president to the Secretary of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is a little unclear on this.

There were “thousands of hours of discussion” on the topic of masters, the letter said, and five reasons for the change explained at some length. The reason that sticks out is that master “refers to one (male) person who has control or authority over another; and the most obvious example of that is slavery.”

No one wants to be enslaved during discovery.

If you’re seriously trying to avoid triggering litigants, calling the masters “neutral” is not the best idea. “Neutral” conjures the prospect of cold bureaucracy and endless wrangling in front of a faceless arbiter. What they should be called is something soothing and perhaps even delightful.

Court-appointed shoulder to cry on.

Court-appointed emotional support entity.

Or court-appointed Mom.

That’s the kind of change we need.

The letter ends with reason No. 5: “The changes are nonsubstantive and relatively simple to implement.”