Bad News For Slavering Authoritarians

A lot of people resent the Patriots, because they’re really good. It’s nice to think that the Patriots beat the crap out of you every time they play you not because they’re smart enough not to do stuff like trading first round picks for sub-replacement level players at positions of marginal importance, but because they CHEAT. The grossly dishonest leaks that created the Ballghazi tempest in a thimble was hence welcome news for many. The Wells Report, however, confirmed two problems for people excited about the suspension doled out to Tom Brady. First, the NFL’s evidence that Brady was guilty was farcical. And second, even if one assumed that Brady and the Patriots were guilty, all precedent and the substantive importance of the offense plainly mandated a punishment somewhere between a sternly worded letter and a modest fine, not a four game suspension.

What’s a Patriots hater with enough of an authoritarian streak to want them treated with patent unfairness to do? Focus on the broad authority given to Goodell under the collective bargaining agreement. Try to switch the discussion from whether the NFL had adequate evidence or whether the punishment was fair given the offense to the question of whether Goodell had the formal legal authority to impose it. The implication that if a punishment is formally authorized it therefore cannot be arbitrary or capricious or unjustified is transparently wrong and dangerous, of course, but since defending Goodell’s punishment on the merits is impossible, what option do you have?

Well, too bad for authoritarians who retreat to formalism:

Judge Richard M. Berman has nullified the NFL’s four-game suspension of Tom Brady for his role in the Patriots’ ball deflation scandal. Pending an appeal (which is a very real possibility, given the implications for the NFL’s disciplinary process going forward), Brady will start on opening night one week from tonight.

More after I have a chance to read it, but this is excellent news. Even if you hate the Partiots, an employer being stopped from imposing a patently unfair punishment on an employee is a good thing.

…perhaps the most important part of the ruling going forward is Berman’s argument that reliance on the conduct detrimental clause was “legally misplaced.” Goodell and his apologists essentially relied on an argument similar to that used by the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell, using the conduct detrimental clause to override the other collectively bargained procedures and punishments. For good reason, Berman rejected this approach.