Equal Protection, indigents and the FTC's Red Flags Rule

Lerajjareanra-o-kel-ly, v. Schow,(Idaho App.)
Prisoners - Statute generally requiring indigent prisoners to make at least partial payment of filing fees did not violate equal protection.
In a matter of first impression, the Court of Appeals of Idaho has held that the statutory scheme generally requiring indigent prisoners to make at least partial payment of filing fees, but providing for waiver of such fees in certain cases for indigent non-prisoners, had a rational basis, which was legislature's intent to reduce frivolous prisoner litigation. Thus, the statute governing indigent prisoner filing fees did not violate equal protection.

ABA sues the FTC regarding “Red Flags Rule”
The “Red Flags Rule,” mandated by the 2003 Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, requires that “financial institutions” and “creditors” implement programs to detect, identify and respond to activities that signal possible identity theft. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has stated that the term “creditor,” as defined by the act, covers all entities—including lawyers—that regularly provide services or goods before seeking payment. On August 27, the ABA filed a complaint asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to bar the FTC from applying its “Red Flags Rule,” intended to prevent identity theft, to practicing lawyers.

The Law Lady. For more information, click here, where you can request to be placed on our Recent Decisions of Interest mailings, or subscribe (see left column).