In particular, to some extent, progressive scholars and policymakers have thought it relatively low-cost to allow conservatives to attack injunctive litigation. After all, if something is already dead, why expend any political capital defending it? This is a point that has a good deal of relevance right now, as Congress considers the "Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act" proposed to implement restrictions similar to the PLRA's in other topical areas of governmental injunctive litigation. If this article is correct about prison and jail orders, the stakes of the proposed "reform" are probably extremely high; progressives should think long and hard before they allow this statute or others like it to pass without a strenuous fight.

Latest case in point: NHTSA has access to documents showing that, "throughout the late 1990s, Ford successively weakened the roof of its Ford Explorer and that the vehicle has an extremely low margin of safety in rollover crashes." These documents are directly relevant to a pending rulemaking on roof strength that, so far, fails to demand the level of safety that is both possible and cost effective. NHTSA has decided nonetheless to suppress those documents, which were unearthed in a lawsuit. Meanwhile, the court presiding over the lawsuit that produced the documents has sealed the documents.

Public Citizen wants consumers to know what's at stake and wants NHTSA to own up to the implications of these documents in the pending roof crush rulemaking. Although PC obtained the documents legally, Volvo threatened to sue the group if it chooses to publish them.

Now, PC and Trial Lawyers for Public Justice are challenging the order sealing the documents. Learn more here.

Posted by Robert Shull, 11:38:10 AM