Is a taco a “sandwich”? Yes, as a state court in Fort Wayne, Indiana, said on May 13. Quintana v. Fort Wayne Plan Commission, No. 02D02-2212-PL-414 (Super. Ct. Allen County May 13, 2024).
Is a taco a “sandwich”? Such a claim would be “wrong and ridiculous on its face,” as the federal court in Fort Wayne said three days later. See Humphries v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 2024 WL 2248735, at *5 n.7 (N.D. Ind. May 16, 2024).
So does the Supremacy Clause mean tacos can’t be sandwiches in Fort Wayne? No. The issue in Quintanawas whether a “Famous Taco” restaurant is one “whose primary business is to sell ‘made-to-order’ or ‘subway-style sandwiches’ (which by way of example includes, but is not limited to, Subway or Jimmy John’s ….)” under (poorly drafted) zoning restrictions. I think you can answer that question “yes” without going on to say, as the court did, that “tacos and burritos are Mexican-style sandwiches.” But in any event, the federal court didn’t hold that tacos aren’t sandwiches. It only rejected, in a footnote, Humphries’ argument that he shouldn’t have been fired for sending a picture of his [redacted] to a co-worker because that person “welcomed” it. “[T]he court views such an implication,” it said, three days after Quintana, “the same as a claim that a taco is a sandwich—almost certainly wrong and ridiculous on its face.” So there, too, the taco statement was just dicta. This important question thus remains unanswered for now.
Australian sources report that four people have been charged with conspiracy to commit fraud in a so-called “pump and dump” scheme, which involves artificially inflating a stock’s value in order to sell it at a profit. Authorities evidently began to suspect that members of a Telegram chat room might be planning a pump-and-dump scheme after noticing the name of the chat room was “the ‘ASX Pump and Dump Group.'” According to the report, authorities warnedmembers of the “ASX Pump and Dump Group” in October 2021 that pump-and-dump schemes are illegal, but the four defendants proceeded anyway.
Also from Australia: a case filed in April called Tickle v. Giggle. That’s certainly a candidate for the Comical Case Names page, although the full name of the case is Tickle v. Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd., and the corporate stuff drags the comedy value down a bit. I’d appreciate it if the courts could consider this when naming cases in the future.
FYI, it’s illegal to: (1) cause the placement of an explosive or incendiary device on an aircraft, (2) film from a drone (under some circumstances) without an FAA waiver, (3) operate a helicopter at less than the required minimum altitude, and (4) operate a helicopter in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. All of which Suk Min (“Alex”) Choi or his pilot did last June while filming a YouTube video entitled “Destroying a Lamborghini With Fireworks [From a Helicopter],” according to a criminal complaint filed on June 4. Prosecutors charged Choi with #1; the pilot lost his license because of #2–4. The video is no longer online, which is a shame because the still shots make it look pretty cool. Though maybe not cool enough to risk 10 years in prison.
Oh, did I mention that somebody tried to steal Graceland? No? Sorry, it’s been a busy couple of months. Happily, I’m on sabbatical now. Anyway, that happened.
In June, media in the Republic of Maldivesreported that the country’s State Minister for Environment and Climate Change had been arrested for allegedly casting a spell on its president. The minister, Fathimath Shamnaz Ali Saleem, was arrested on June 23, but police wouldn’t confirm or deny whether she was being charged with sorcery, which isn’t a crime under the civil code but does violate Islamic law. Given that the Maldive Islands are the lowest-lying country on the entire planet, with an average elevation of less than five feet above sea level, they either need to let their climate-change minister do her job or come up with some sorcery of their own. Probably both.
