Food truck regulations around the country continue to be challenged in court because they are indefensible from a legal perspective.

If Tupelo leaders continue to try to regulate these businesses in an effort to protect the brick and mortar restaurants, it is very likely the same scenario will play out in the city that gave us Elvis. The constitution specifically prohibits such economic protectionism. Our legal arm, the Mississippi Justice Institute, has already cautioned the City Council against such actions.

Rather than making the case by leveraging the consequences of a legal challenge, I would like to appeal to the leaders of Tupelo to consider the practical reasons why being on the side of economic liberty is the prudent choice. This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of free enterprise, consumer choice, and the proper role of government in a system of capitalism.

It is not the role of government to protect any business, brick and mortar or otherwise, from competition. The free enterprise system operates correctly when consumer choice, not political blessing, is the basis of choosing the winners and losers.

From a practical standpoint, it is also a mistake to thwart a powerful economic trend like food trucks. These businesses are examples of entrepreneurs responding to market signals. In so doing, they are contributing to the local economy by serving a customer niche. Brick and mortar restaurant entrepreneurs can do the same, and many have. All of these entrepreneurs, new and old, are creating unique options and that work to build a more diverse and appealing food marketplace in Tupelo. In turn, this attracts more consumers to the downtown – creating a bigger, healthier and more prosperous local economy.

In a properly functioning economy in America, the success of a food company should be based on how good the food and service is; not on how well connected it is to the political class. In a system of capitalism, competitors respond to consumer trends with innovations and improved offerings, not by seeking government help to build a moat around their businesses. We should be encouraging entrepreneurs and risk-takers, not creating hurdles out of a misplaced sense of obligation to protect existing businesses.

In many ways, the food truck controversy is similar to those disputes we’ve seen around the country where local governments are determining how to regulate Airbnb and Uber. Rather than government looking to create new and restrictive regulations for these emerging businesses, they should be thinking about how to reduce the existing regulatory burdens on brick and mortar restaurants and hotels. The local economy would be the beneficiary of such actions and no one would argue against a policy that spurs economic growth – especially not in a state where we have struggled to experience sustainable growth in our private sector.

On behalf of customers, competition, and consumer choice, I hope this appeal to the political leaders of Tupelo does not land on deaf ears. Cites across the country are realizing these kinds of cases are very hard to defend. However, the City Council should not vote to keep the regulatory burden for food trucks low out of a fear of the legal consequences; they should do it because it’s in the best economic interests of Tupelo.

This column appeared in the Daily Journal on October 28, 2018. 

The EPA and the Department of Transportation have been working together for the past year to create a new set of standards for the automotive industry. The goal is to use a lighter regulatory hand and a more consumer-friendly approach to address the burdensome and wildly expensive standards mandated during the Obama administration.

The 2012 CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standard went well beyond a rational approach in the name of the environment.

Americans should have the freedom to decide what kind of car they drive, not bureaucrats in Washington or California. Choosing that car and producing cars that meet those needs does not mean that Americans, or the companies that produce their cars, are not concerned about the environment. We can do both. We can balance social, environmental, and economic impacts.

The proposed new standards, called SAFE (Safe Affordable Fuel Efficient Autos) are a smart and reasonable approach to keeping cars affordable while also ensuring increased fuel efficiency and improved emissions. The CAFÉ standard went beyond boundaries allowed by the Clean Air Act and basically doubled the fuel efficiency standards for American vehicles - mandating new cars have an average fuel efficiency of 54.5 MPG by 2025.

For many citizens, car ownership isn’t a luxury; it’s a lifeline. Creating reasonable and balanced automotive standards will have a positive impact on millions of Americans and thousands of Mississippians who rely on their cars every single day. It’s time we let consumers decide what kind of car to drive, not unelected bureaucrats in Sacramento.

At the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, we support the SAFE standards for four main reasons:

• We believe automakers should design vehicles to meet the choices of consumers, not to meet the preferences of bureaucrats.
• We believe no state should get to dictate the kinds of cars another state’s citizens can or should drive. To California, we say, “You sweep your porch and we’ll sweep ours.”
• We believe the CAFÉ mandates were based on a world of energy scarcity, not the world of energy abundance in which we live today.
• We believe if left unchanged, the current standards would significantly increase the average cost of a vehicle and provide an unnecessary burden on many Mississippians – even pricing some consumers entirely out of the new car market. This would increase safety risks for some and could also prove to be a drag on the automotive industry – an important part of the Mississippi economy.

For additional reading on the proposed reforms, check out this article:  https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/409512-unreasonable-demands-stifle-real-environmental-progress

Over the past 20 years, the price of a college education has increased nearly 200 percent.

These numbers, adjusted for inflation, trail only the cost of hospital services when it comes to changes in the prices of consumer goods and services. During the same period, inflation stands at 55 percent.

What about other items? The price of housing has increased at about the rate of inflation. But consumer goods such as cars, household furnishings, clothing, cellphone service, software, toys, and TVs are all cheaper today than they were in 1997. In some instances, the prices have decreased significantly.

So why have the prices of some items decreased? And why have some, college education in particular, become more expensive? As with most items that have become more expensive, we can largely thank the government.

It’s the law of unintended consequences that we often see with federal legislation. A prime example is the “Great Society” of the 1960s. As we grew the welfare state as a nation, out-of-wedlock birth rates increased from about 5 percent fifty-years-ago to over 40 percent today. In Mississippi, it’s 53 percent. As a result, we have generations of children who grew up without Dad, leading to numerous negative societal effects.

The Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, is another example of unintended consequences. Designed to lower barriers to employment for disabled persons, research shows that the law has actually harmed employment opportunities for those who are disabled. Prior to the law, 60 out of every 100 disabled men were able to find jobs. Thanks to the bad incentives created by the law, the number fell to 50 per 100 disabled men after the ADA went into effect.

In an effort to make college more affordable, government involvement has only made college more expensive. Because of readily available financial aid, there are no market mechanisms to control for costs. While those in the private sector have incentives to constantly innovate and maintain competitive costs, there is no such need in higher education. After all, when tuition goes up at Ole Miss, it also goes up at Mississippi State. The schools see no benefit to lower costs. If a school wants to raise tuition, the money to attend will be there - courtesy of Washington, D.C.

Unfortunately, that money isn’t just going toward educational purposes. The ballooning costs of a four-year education are funding new administrators and non-teaching sprawl on campus. Indeed, universities now employ more administrators than faculty members. And as part of an education arms race on non-education services, we constantly see new and improved cafeterias, student unions, recreation centers, climbing walls, and other things today’s students apparently need in today’s university experience.

As prices climb, students, and their families, don’t really notice it. At least, not at the time. Because most students are just taking out loans and money is going directly from the federal government to the office at a university that handles student account payments, the student never feels the pain of writing a large check.

And as the federal money flowed, we watched a dramatic change. The missions of colleges and universities shifted from teaching and preparing students to use critical thinking and particular skills to start a successful career to preparing students for a future in political correctness, being constantly offended, and progressive indoctrination.

We’ve seen campuses shift from a place where rigorous intellectual debate, along with civility and decorum, is the norm to one in which conservative speakers are routinely shouted down and even shut down, simply because some students don’t like their message or feel offended by speech with which they disagree. Sadly, administrators are often complicit in this censoring, if not supportive of the protesting actions.

Most recently, a sociology professor at Ole Miss, James Thomas, made national news when he encouraged protestors to “put your whole fingers in their salads” and to “bring boxes and take their food home.” Because, as Thomas put it, “They (Republicans) don’t deserve your civility.” This came on the heels of liberal activists confronting and harassing Republican Senators while they were dining out.

If we want to make college affordable and return higher education to the respected and noble status it once held, we must end federal subsidies to colleges and universities. For more than a century, the American university system was considered the best in the world for providing a classical liberal undergraduate education. Our federal government has jeopardized that.

For the sake of our future generations, we’ve got to reclaim our public colleges.

This column appeared in the Madison County Journal on September 25, 2018. 

Mississippi payrolls have added more than 20,000 jobs over the past year with employment numbers setting a new record.

According to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are now 1.17 million people in the state working. That’s a boost from a little less than 1.15 million a year ago. This is a statistically significant employment change of 1.8 percent. Only Tennessee, who saw a 2.1 percent growth, posted better numbers among neighboring states.

Alabama’s employment grew by 1.3 percent, while employment grew by 1 percent in Arkansas and Louisiana.

Mississippi added jobs in four sectors over the past month. The largest gains were in education and health services (+1,500 jobs) and government (+1,000 jobs). Manufacturing and trade, transportation, and utilities posted slight gains, while professional and business services growth was flat. Construction, financial activities, and leisure and hospitality showed loses over the past month.

Over the past year, construction (-200) is the only sector to post a decrease in employment. The largest gainer over the past year was professional and business services (+6,400).

Mississippi has also seen a large gain in the public sector, particularly over the past three months. Government has added 2,800 jobs over the past year with 1,600 jobs added alone in the past quarter. Government jobs account for 14 percent of the jobs created in Mississippi over the past year. This is significant because a growing public sector can often stifle the growth of the private sector.

In this measurement, Mississippi far outpaced our neighbors. Louisiana’s government was down 200 jobs last month. Arkansas’s government did not change and Tennessee added 100 government jobs between August and September. Alabama’s government added 300 jobs last month.

Mississippi’s unemployment rate remained steady at 4.8 percent. That is a near record low for the state, but is still the fourth highest in the nation. Only Louisiana, at 5 percent, has a higher rate in the Southeast.

The city of Tupelo appears to have backed away from controversial regulations that would have prohibited food trucks from most high-traffic areas in the city.

But some city leaders continue their push for protections for brick-and-mortar restaurants at the expense of food truck operators.

During Monday’s work session, the city released the proposed regulations. According to the Daily Journal, this includes additional licensure and some limitations on parking but lacks the restrictions on setting up on Main and Gloster Streets, the two most prominent retails areas in the city, as originally discussed.

“We have not been protectionist and made any distance requirements between competing business,” Ben Logan, city attorney said.

Mayor Jason Shelton, a Democrat, added, “I want to be pro-business,” Shelton said. “I don’t think we need more restrictions on businesses. I think we need to look at restrictions to take away.”

New regulations have been in the works for some time now, with support for restrictions from both Democrats and Republicans.

Earlier this year, Councilman Willie Jennings said, in proposing the regulations, “I just want to make sure the established businesses are protected.” Another councilman, Markel Whittington, said brick-and-mortar restaurants have requested food truck regulations. While he didn’t feel food trucks posed a ‘threat’ to those restaurants, he believed it was appropriate for government to act ‘on behalf of select business interests.’

“I think we have to protect some of our taxpayers and high employers,” he said.

And even yesterday, Councilman Mike Bryan lobbied for brick-and-mortar restaurant protections, such as a ban on major roads. Another councilman, Buddy Palmer, also indicated his support for a ban.

“I will always be pro-downtown businesses over food trucks,” Palmer said. “I am for brick-and-mortar businesses much more than I am for food trucks.”

When Tupelo leaders began discussing food truck regulations, Mississippi Justice Institute, the legal arm of Mississippi Center for Public Policy, sent a letter to the city warning of litigation if these regulations passed.

“The very regulation Tupelo is discussing—a regulation about how close a food truck should be to a restaurant—was found to be unenforceable just this past December in Baltimore. Food truck regulations around the country have been challenged over and over in court, from Louisville, to San Antonio, to Chicago, and many places in between. Cities ultimately realize that these kinds of cases are very hard to defend,” the letter said.

More recently, the city of Carolina Beach, North Carolina repealed its prohibition on out-of-town food trucks from serving the city after a lawsuit was filed by the Institute of Justice. Under the law that has since been scrapped, only brick-and-mortar restaurants that have been in business for more than one year could run a food truck.

“It is a shame that it took a lawsuit to convince the town to repeal such an obviously unconstitutional law,” Justin Pearson, senior attorney at IJ said. “I’m hopeful that this vote will signal the end to the town’s attempt to use the power of government to favor a handful of established businesses over the region’s entrepreneurs.”

Mississippi regulators are preventing small poultry producers from operating a sustainable business by severely restricting the sale of safe and healthy poultry products.

The consequence is more limited access to diverse food options for families, students, hospital patients, restaurateurs and chefs.

More specifically, Mississippi Department of Agriculture (MDAC) regulations prohibit all but direct farm-to-consumer sales by small-scale poultry producers. This is contrary to Mississippi law, which has adopted a federal exemption that allows small producers to sell to grocery stores, restaurants, hotels, hospitals and other institutions.

In conformity with federal law, Mississippi law technically incorporates the federal 20,000 bird exemption, which allows poultry producers who raise fewer than 20,000 birds a calendar year to sell these birds without being subject to daily inspection and other facility requirements. MDAC regulations, however, do not recognize this mandated exemption in any meaningful way.[1]

This means that Mississippi is forcing small poultry producers to follow federal requirements that were drafted with large-scale producers in mind. These requirements are onerous and expensive and address the unique problems created by large-scale poultry production.[2] It is not appropriate to subject small producers to these requirements, which is why federal law has always allowed for a small producer (20,000 bird) exemption. Unlike other states that recognize the federal 20,000 bird exemption, Mississippi prohibits all but direct farm-to-consumer sales for small farmers. This completely undermines the purpose of the exemption. Mississippi agricultural regulations ban small producers from selling to restaurants, grocery stores, hotels, schools and hospitals. As a result, small poultry producers are denied access to distribution channels currently open to large producers.

What is the solution?

State law should clearly define what a small-scale producer is (consistent with the federal definition of a 20,000 bird producer) and clarify that these producers are not subject to the same inspection requirements that large producers operate under. In particular, state law should clarify that small producers are not subject to mandatory daily inspection and other facility requirements. State law should also clarify that small producers may sell to restaurants, grocery stores, hotels, schools and hospitals. Alternatively, MDAC could issue new rules that actually conform to the federal 20,000 bird exemption and thus rectify the current contradiction between state law and agency regulatory practice.

More than 40 states have adopted the 20,000 bird federal exemption. Granted, not all of these states are actually implementing the full range of federal exemptions. In neighboring Alabama, for instance, farmers with the exemption may only sell in farmer’s markets, as well as direct from the farm. Louisiana, on the other hand, has fully implemented the 20,000 bird exemption and allows sales to retail outlets, restaurants and various institutions. Louisiana has also adopted the federal small enterprise exemption pertaining to the processing of dressed exempt poultry (see table below).

North Carolina stands out as one of the states with the best and clearest regulatory guidance. Their policy allows for the slaughter, processing and distribution of poultry without mandatory daily inspection. The regulations also spell out requirements aimed at protecting consumer health and safety. These include: sanitary standards and practices, detailed recordkeeping, and mandatory labelling that identifies the processor and provides for safe handling instructions. These requirements essentially follow federal law.

A win for small farmers and economic growth

North Carolina’s deregulation of small poultry producers has been a win-win for both small and large producers. The market for each of these products is different. For many consumers seeking farm-fresh chicken, the choice is not between purchasing small-scale or large-scale produced products. The choice is between purchasing small-scale produced chicken or no chicken at all.

North Carolina’s example is illustrative. While the state has more than 1,000 small-scale producers, Sanderson Farms recently opened a plant with the capacity to slaughter and process 1.25 million birds a week. Consider that Sanderson Farms’ stock has increased many times over, going from roughly $6 a share in 2000 to $100 a share today. Clearly, their business model can accommodate small-scale producers selling to a different customer base. In addition, it is often said that small businesses are a key economic driver. Small farms are small businesses. Freeing small farmers and entrepreneurs from onerous regulations that 40 other states do not have will help Mississippi’s economy grow.

Federal Poultry Exemptions

Table taken from eXtension Foundation as adapted from USDA FSIS guidebook.

[1]Cf. definition of “retail food establishment” at § 69-1-18: “‘Retail food establishment’ means any establishment where food and food products are offered for sale to the ultimate consumer and intended for off-premise consumption.” Under this section, MDAC rules at 100.04 require “all poultry products offered for sale at a retail food establishment” to be slaughtered and processed according to state/federal guidelines. Thus, “no retail food establishment’ may sell poultry provided by a farmer actually operating under the 20,000 bird exemption. Cf. http://www.sos.ms.gov/ACCode/00000093c.pdf

[2]In the late 1960s, under the Johnson administration, the federal government forced states to follow federal inspection guidelines, even for products not entering interstate commerce – that is, products produced and sold only within the boundaries of a single state. The “Meat Act” included various “personal use” exemptions for custom slaughterhouses. The “Poultry Act” also allowed for conditional exemptions for small producers and businesses – i.e., the 1,000 and 20,000 bird exemptions. Exempt operators are NOT exempt from all federal requirements. They are exempt from continuous bird-by-bird inspection, and accordingly, the daily presence of a federal inspector. In other words, the 1,000 and 20,000 bird allowances exempt the processor from mandatory inspection. Federal law also permits a small enterprise exemption that allows a restauranteur, for instance, to purchase live chickens and then slaughter, dress and sell them to customers. It is unclear whether Mississippi allows this practice. For more information from FSIS, see the PowerPoint presentation by Robert Ragland, “Poultry Exemptions Under the Federal Poultry Products Inspection Act.”

While some may be sad to see Sears head into bankruptcy, it is the free market working.

As Sears goes through bankruptcy, we will likely see nostalgic perspectives on the 130-year-old retailer. But through the ups and downs of retail, one constant remains; consumers decide and the market always wins.

Fifty-years ago, if one had suggested Sears would go bankrupt and just a fraction of their stores would remain open, most sane people would have laughed. Now, we know the rest of the story. Sears started as a mail-order catalog before transitioning into a brick-and-mortar force that grew with suburban America and the boom of indoor malls.

That boom included Jackson, Mississippi. While Sears long had a presence in the city, it would serve as the first anchor for the new Metrocenter Mall in 1978, the state’s largest mall. For years, both Sears and the mall hummed along…until people began to make other choices. In 2012, Sears was the last anchor to leave, effectively ending whatever claim Metrocenter still had at labeling itself a mall.

…..

There has already been – and there will continue to be – stories about mismanagement at Sears or about some other decisions from the past decade or so that necessitated the bankruptcy. But we know what killed Sears. It was the same thing that made Sears into a retail giant – creative destruction. Fighting to give consumers new and better options, Sears created unique and valuable shopping experiences for consumers. Today, other options are causing consumers to spend their money elsewhere. It is the order of things in a free market.

The “elsewhere” might be Wal Mart, which is able to sell goods at a deeper discount than Sears, while also selling groceries. It might be Best Buy or Home Depot/ Lowes, which offer Sears-size stores for a single retail category, providing consumers with far greater choice. Perhaps it’s Amazon, which has put pressure on every remaining retail giant. In the final analysis, nothing remained in the value proposition of Sears that gave people a compelling reason to shop there.

In the end, capitalism gave us better options. Creative destruction, which has been the driving force behind American ingenuity for the past century, ruled the day.

Someone else provided the market with a value proposition that consumers voluntarily decided was better. In much the same way that, once upon a time, Sears provided a better value proposition than general stores or five-and-dimes, which had dotted downtowns in an earlier era. The same creative destruction that made Sears a retail juggernaut would eventually be the reason for its slow death over the past decade.

…..

Sears gave the masses access to affordable household goods largely before anyone else. But the free market, and retail in particular, is about appealing to modern tastes and changing behavior. For many years, Sears had been losing its relevance. Nostalgia is good for writing an obituary, but is largely unhelpful in keeping most businesses open.

No one likes to see a business close, particularly one that has been around for more than a century and likely evokes found memories from early eras. But for consumers in Mississippi and around the country, we don’t have to worry. The market, via you, the consumer, spoke long before Sears filed for bankruptcy protection.

A professor at Ole Miss is encouraging Americans to publicly confront, disrupt, and harass Republicans in public.

James Thomas, an assistant professor of sociology at Ole Miss, tweeted on October 6, “Don't just interrupt a Senator's meal, y'all. Put your whole fingers in their salads. Take their apps and distribute them to the other diners. Bring boxes and take their food home with you on the way out. They don’t deserve your civility.”

This came after protestors interrupted Sen. Ted Cruz and his family during a meal in Washington, D.C. Such interactions  have become all too common with Republican elected officials and liberal protestors.

Most recently, two Republicans in Minnesota were attacked in separate incidents. Minnesota State Rep. Sarah Anderson was punched in the arm by a man while Shane Mekeland, a candidate for the state legislature in Minnesota, suffered a concussion after being attacked in a restaurant.

Ole Miss Chancellor Jeffrey Vitter posted a response on Facebook, saying, “A recent social media post by a UM faculty member did not reflect the values articulated by the university, such as respect for the dignity of each individual and civility and fairness. While I passionately support free speech, I condemn statements that encourage acts of aggression. I urge all members of the Ole Miss community to demonstrate civility and respect for others and to honor the ideal of diversity of thought that is a foundational element of the academy.”

Ironically, for someone who is calling for public harassment of people he disagrees with, Thomas’ tweets are protected and only confirmed followers have access to them. And when Campus Reform attempted to reach out to Thomas, he hung up on them.

If you are wondering what it takes to become a college professor at a major, liberal arts university today, you might enjoy watching this video on the subject:

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU7_aDc2JXE[/embedyt]

This recent legal invention will continue to turn American principles of presumed innocence and due process on their head.

In the topsy-turvy world of the Justice Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, we were told that a person should be considered guilty until proven innocent, and that we must always believe accusers even when their allegations are unverifiable, remote, and arise under suspect circumstances. For conservatives, the hearings were a reminder of why the presumption of innocence is a bedrock American principle, and why the Founders guaranteed that citizens would not be punished unless they had been convicted of a crime under a fair and impartial process.

But long after the Kavanaugh hearings have faded from the spotlight, another recent legal invention known as civil forfeiture will continue to turn American principles of presumed innocence and due process on their head. Unlike criminal forfeiture, in which the state seizes property of someone convicted of a crime, civil forfeiture is based on the tortured legal fiction that property can be “guilty” of being connected to a crime and that civil proceedings can therefore be brought against the property itself instead of its owner. Cars, cash, guns, and even houses are routinely seized. Rather than being innocent until proven guilty, property owners often have a heavy burden to prove that their property was not connected to criminal activity and can be punished by having the property forfeited — even if they have not even been charged with, much less convicted of a crime. The proceedings usually have minimal judicial oversight and no real due-process protections.

To make matters worse, law-enforcement agencies get to keep the property they seize, which creates a perverse incentive for agencies to abuse the process. Not surprisingly, abuses have been systemic and well documented. For example, the sheriff’s department in Desoto County, Miss., agreed to return a 2006 Chevy Trailblazer owned by the mother of a criminal defendant, but only if the department was paid $1,650. It is common for parents to have their property seized for the alleged criminal activity of their children, even if the parents are completely unaware of the alleged crime. In many cases, the parents enter into an agreement to let the agencies keep all or some of their property. Further complicating this pattern is the fact that often the seized property is worth less than it would cost in legal fees to contest the forfeiture. All of this leads critics to view many forfeiture proceedings as little more than a shakedown. This system also allows law-enforcement agencies to fund themselves, circumventing the legislative appropriations process.

At a bare minimum, agencies should have to publicly report the property they seize, and how they spend the proceeds, to prevent abuse and allow the public to ensure that forfeiture laws are being properly applied. However, even this modicum of reform is often met with opposition from law-enforcement agencies that have become an interest group in the debate over forfeiture laws.

Despite the protests of law-enforcement agencies, initial reforms have already shown the need for transparency and further protections. Mississippi recently passed a law requiring the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics (MBN) to maintain a website listing all property that is seized by it and other law-enforcement agencies. The website was launched on July 2, 2018, and immediately revealed a widespread problem. MBN and many other agencies were routinely pursuing forfeiture of property under a system known as administrative forfeiture, which allowed the agencies to forfeit the property without filing a petition in court. In many instances, the only thing the agency was required to do was provide a description of the property on a website for 30 days. The problem was that the law allowing for administrative forfeiture had been repealed on July 1, 2018, the day before MBN launched the website.

The Mississippi Justice Institute, a constitutional-litigation center, sent a letter to MBN informing the agency that it was violating the law. Nine days later, the agency, to its credit, sent letters to multiple property owners informing them that MBN was returning this seized property, totaling over $100,000 in cash along with other items.

While it is reassuring that the agency followed the law once informed of the change, there is every reason to believe that the improper forfeitures would have continued indefinitely absent the transparency that allowed an outside group to notice them. Even more disturbing is that, when alerted to the change in the law, MBN still had time to file petitions in court to pursue forfeiture of the property under regular civil forfeiture laws. That the agency chose not to may indicate that it knew the forfeitures would never hold up in court.

Law-enforcement agencies are entrusted with enormous responsibility. Every effort should be made to ensure there is not even an appearance of self-interest when those agencies enforce the law. Civil forfeiture clearly jeopardizes that independence, as well as basic American principles of fairness and justice. While further reform is needed, forfeiture transparency is a basic minimum that should be established in every state.

This column appeared in National Review on October 17, 2018.