Friday, February 28, 2003
An admittedly lame entry in the S.Ct. prediction thingy:
The first case to be argued Tues. 3/4 is Nat'l Parks Hospitality Ass'n v. Dep't of Interior. The question is whether a contract allowing somebody to provide a concession in a national park – e.g., being the official cotton-candy and slushee vendor at Yellowstone – is a contract within the scope of the "Contract Disputes Act of 1978". The Department of the Interior issued a regulation saying "no, these concession agreements aren't covered by that statute" but the concession lobby is mad about that. I don't feel like delving into why the concession lobby wants to be covered by the statute; it would presumably give them some entitlement to something that they want. If you're interested in this, read the DC Circuit's opinion ruling in the government's favor, and the government's brief to the Supreme Court. I'll take a shot in the dark and say "AFFIRM" because the government's brief looks reasonable on a quick skim and the government wins more often than not. Apologies to those who care about the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 and its impact on concession agreements.
The second case for Tuesday, a Freedom of Information Act case brought by the City of Chicago seeking gun-purchase records, has been taken off the docket, because it might have been made moot by recent legislation. See this explanation from Howard Bashman. Good thing I had dawdled about formulating any thoughts on this one.
posted by sam 7:14 AM
email: first name@last name dot net