The institute emphasizes its commitment to limited government and the rule of law, challenging the NAR settlement as overreaching and not aligning with legislative authority. It warns that the settlement reflects a judiciary acting beyond its role, imposing regulatory reforms without trial or public debate. The organization argues that courts lack the competence to effectively restructure markets, criticizing their ability to engage in meaningful deliberation on complex economic issues, which should rest with legislative bodies. This case underscores their concerns about the blend of judicial power and economic regulation through private litigation.
The MI filing raises concerns about the NAR settlement's overreach, asserting it circumvents legislative authority and imposes structural reforms on real estate without proper deliberation.
The organization critiques the use of class-action lawsuits as a means to enact regulatory reforms, arguing that such judicial actions undermine the constitutional separation of powers.
Collection
[
|
...
]