The broader lesson of this study is that the details will matter in these copyright cases. Too often, online discussions have treated “do generative models copy their training data or merely learn from it?” as a theoretical or even philosophical question. But it’s a question that can be tested empirically—and the answer might differ across models and across copyrighted works. //

For any language model, the probability of generating any given 50-token sequence “by accident” is vanishingly small. If a model generates 50 tokens from a copyrighted work, that is strong evidence that the tokens “came from” the training data. This is true even if it only generates those tokens 10 percent, 1 percent, or 0.01 percent of the time. //

There are actually three distinct theories of how training a model on copyrighted works could infringe copyright:

1. Training on a copyrighted work is inherently infringing because the training process involves making a digital copy of the work.
2. The training process copies information from the training data into the model, making the model a derivative work under copyright law.
3. Infringement occurs when a model generates (portions of) a copyrighted work.
   A lot of discussion so far has focused on the first theory because it is the most threatening to AI companies. If the courts uphold this theory, most current LLMs would be illegal, whether or not they have memorized any training data.

The AI industry has some pretty strong arguments that using copyrighted works during the training process is fair use under the 2015 Google Books ruling. But the fact that Llama 3.1 70B memorized large portions of Harry Potter could color how the courts consider these fair use questions. //

The Google Books precedent probably can’t protect Meta against this second legal theory because Google never made its books database available for users to download—Google almost certainly would have lost the case if it had done that. //

Moreover, if a company keeps model weights on its own servers, it can use filters to try to prevent infringing output from reaching the outside world. So even if the underlying OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google models have memorized copyrighted works in the same way as Llama 3.1 70B, it might be difficult for anyone outside the company to prove it.

Moreover, this kind of filtering makes it easier for companies with closed-weight models to invoke the Google Books precedent. In short, copyright law might create a strong disincentive for companies to release open-weight models.

“It's kind of perverse,” Mark Lemley told me. “I don't like that outcome.”

On the other hand, judges might conclude that it would be bad to effectively punish companies for publishing open-weight models.

“There's a degree to which being open and sharing weights is a kind of public service,” Grimmelmann told me. “I could honestly see judges being less skeptical of Meta and others who provide open-weight models.”

This Supreme Court term may well be remembered as a turning point. Not because the justices dismantled the administrative state in one dramatic move, but because they took important steps to rein in its excesses.

A string of rulings issued Friday—from McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. to Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA to FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.—shows the Court is serious about restoring balance between unelected regulators and the courts tasked with holding them accountable.

What ties these decisions together is not a single ideological agenda. It is a shared recognition that when agencies act like legislative bodies or try to wall themselves off from judicial review, they go beyond their constitutional limits. The Court’s recent work reminds us that regulatory power must remain subject to oversight and correction when needed. //

District judges must independently interpret statutes, even when an agency has already spoken. As Justice Kavanaugh put it, “When a statute is clear, it is the law—not the agency’s interpretation—that governs.”. //

In FDA v. R.J. Reynolds, the Court pushed back on the FDA’s attempt to control who could challenge its decisions. The agency argued that only manufacturers could challenge its denial of premarket approvals. The Court disagreed and ruled that retailers, who are also harmed by these decisions, have every right to challenge them.

This ruling matters because it keeps agencies from deciding who gets to take them to court. When regulators pick their critics, there is no real oversight. //

None of these decisions dismantles the administrative state. Nor should they. What they do is draw clearer boundaries. Regulators should not act as lawmakers. They should not decide who can challenge them. They should not expect courts to accept their interpretations of the law automatically.

These rulings stand out because they are not driven by ideology. In fact, in some of these cases, Justice Elena Kagan, one of the Court’s more progressive voices, joined the conservative majority. That tells us something important. It suggests that Kagan recognizes, as the majority does, that unchecked regulatory power is dangerous no matter who holds it. If a progressive agency can go too far, so can a conservative one. The Constitution’s checks and balances are there to protect everyone.

Together, these rulings mark a shift toward restoring that balance. In our system, laws should come from legislators, be applied by judges, and not be dictated by unelected bureaucrats. That is a balance worth defending. //

Warren Pease
8 hours ago
“None of these decisions dismantles the administrative state. Nor should they.”

I must disagree with this premise. The administrative state is prima facie unconstitutional. Laws must be passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president. Having unelected bureaucrats make “regulations” with the force of law (these people can jail you and ruin you) is antithetical to a representative republic. SCOTUS should stop screwing around and remove the authority of anyone but congress to do things with the force of law.

“Our democracy cannot very well function if individual judges issue extraordinary relief to every plaintiff who clamors to object to executive action,” U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil said in her ruling on Monday. “It is not the role of a district court judge to direct the policies of the Executive Branch first and ask questions later.”

Those are the words many observers of the ongoing judicial coup have wanted to hear from a federal judge since the first wave of injunctions from tyrannical district court judges started coming down early in the Trump administration’s tenure, blocking the president elected by the American people to do what they elected him to do.

They finally came from Vyskocil, a Trump appointee serving in New York, when she dismissed a case from teachers unions attempting to get the court to “commandeer,” as she put it, $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University. The Trump administration canceled the funding because of the school’s inability to handle pro-Palestine protests and violence on its campus.

“With no apparent sense of irony, lawyers for an organization called ‘Protect Democracy’ insist that a district court judge should order the Executive Branch immediately to restore the flow of taxpayer dollars to an elite university, which funding Defendants represent is inconsistent with the priorities of the duly elected President of the United States,” Vyskocil added. //

Vyskocil dismissed the case because the unions had no standing to sue, and Columbia University is “conspicuously absent” from the case as a plaintiff. //

She then went through the litany of bizarre counts against the Trump administration from the unions that did not describe any more than a tenuous relationship to the funding cuts at best. The unions even argued that the fact that they chose to spend money to oppose potential (yes, potential, not real) action from the Trump administration meant they had standing.

An organization “cannot spend its way into standing simply by expending money to gather information and advocate against the defendant’s action,” the judge wrote, quoting the Supreme Court.

Teachers unions, and universities for that matter, apparently believe they are entitled to federal funding and that any cut is a constitutional impossibility representing some kind of free speech violation. But as Vyskocil soberly pointed out in her second appeal to the fact that elections have consequences, the cuts are often made simply because the president — and the people who elected him — have priorities that differ from those of the unions and universities.

For experts in estate planning, the question may start to arise as more AI ghosts pop up. But for now, writing "no AI resurrections" into a will remains a complicated process, experts suggest, and such requests may not be honored by all unless laws are changed to reinforce a culture of respecting the wishes of people who feel uncomfortable with the idea of haunting their favorite people through AI simulations.

Deploying the National Guard is not an overreach but a measured response to a crisis that local leaders have failed to address. //

Labeling riotous behavior as “peaceful protest” is a deliberate misrepresentation that erodes trust in governance. Protesters who attack federal agents, destroy property, and endanger lives are not champions of justice; they are obstructing the rule of law. To paint Trump as the villain for responding to this chaos is to invert reality and excuse lawlessness under the guise of political posturing. //

The rule of law is not negotiable, and no state can opt out of federal authority when it comes to immigration enforcement. Other communities across the country must take heed: excusing violence as protest and obstructing federal law enforcement sets a dangerous precedent. As a nation, we must stand united in supporting the lawful execution of federal duties and reject the narrative that casts law enforcement as the enemy. The safety of our communities and the integrity of our laws depend on it.

A federal judge has stranded three ICE officers and their convicted-criminal deportees in Djibouti, Africa, after an order was handed down grounding their flight.

The eight illegal immigrants were on their way to South Sudan in late May when US District Judge Brian Murphy stepped in, claiming the Trump administration "unquestionably" violated a March decision on deportations. The flight then landed in Djibouti, a small nation on the Horn of Africa, with ICE agents being ill-equipped to deal with the "outrageous" conditions. //

The Trump administration has appealed to the Supreme Court to step in regarding this case, but so far, nothing has happened. As I've said before, regardless of what legal arguments exist, the longer this constant stream of lower-court decisions usurping executive power is allowed to continue without any new guardrails put in place, the less credibility the judiciary will enjoy. That's not a good thing for the country, and I sincerely hope this doesn't reach the point where court orders have to be ignored, because if that happens, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

In a unanimous decision that restores sanity and reaffirms the true meaning of civil rights, the Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a misguided judicial doctrine that had, for decades, warped Title VII protections into a one-sided tool of “equity.”

Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services is not just a technical correction of legal doctrine, it is a resounding declaration that equality under the law still matters more than identity-based scorekeeping.

For years, some federal courts imposed what was known as the “background circumstances” test, a requirement that majority-group plaintiffs (read: white, male, heterosexual, or Christian employees) provide extra proof that their employer was the rare kind that discriminated against the majority. //

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said plainly what constitutional conservatives have argued all along: “Title VII’s disparate-treatment provision draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.” The law, she explained, “makes it unlawful to discriminate against any individual… because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” //

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, filed a separate concurring opinion that went even further, calling out the root cause: judge-made doctrines that create unequal burdens under the guise of helping the marginalized. “Such a rule is undoubtedly contrary to Title VII, and likely violates the Constitution,” Thomas wrote. “[T]here can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race.” //

Equality > Equity
This case is more than just a victory for a woman who was passed over and demoted in favor of candidates who checked more fashionable demographic boxes. It’s a victory over the growing trend of replacing equality with equity.

Equity, as practiced in far too many corporate HR departments and public institutions, demands unequal treatment to engineer equal outcomes. That’s not fairness, that’s retribution disguised as justice. In this case, it meant denying Marlean Ames the same legal protections everyone else enjoys, simply because of her orientation and perceived privilege.

The Ames decision, by contrast, restores the foundational principle that every American, regardless of background, deserves to be judged on the content of their character and qualifications, not on their demographic label.

On Monday, Alex Marquardt, CNN Senior Intelligence Correspondent and frequent fill-in anchor at the network, announced that he was leaving his position. Speculation was immediately emerging that this was in connection to the defamation lawsuit brought against CNN, where a jury found the news network liable for defamation and ruled they had to pay tens of millions of dollars in damages. Now, indications are that Marquardt was in fact let go as a result of the suit.

https://redstate.com/bradslager/2024/07/23/cnn-defamation-suit-does-unredacted-deposition-show-journo-confirms-no-crime-was-found-in-report-n2177289

CNN was sued by Navy veteran Zachary Young over a report on Young’s work as an extraction expert who facilitated the safe release of people from Afghanistan. CNN chose to frame Young’s work as illegal black market activities where he was extorting people to have them safely escape the nation as it fell into Taliban rule. The jury ruled CNN acted errantly and with malice in its false presentation, awarding Young with significant compensatory damages, with the network then negotiating undisclosed punitive compensation.

Marquardt was the reporter on those disputed reports, which ran on programs hosted by Jake Tapper, as well as others at the network.

https://redstate.com/bradslager/2024/06/26/more-details-emerge-with-the-cnn-defamation-case-that-could-surpass-the-fox-news-settlement-n2175955

Retired Professor OrneryCoot
6 hours ago edited
Since you asked, here are the essential elements of any legal claim:

1. There must be an enforceable duty to do something, or not do something, established by law, contract, court decree, custom, or otherwise. For example, there's a legal duty to not commit adultery, although they forgot to tell my ex-wife that.

2. There must be an identifiable breach of that duty by someone legally obligated to obey it. If I'm committing adultery with Kristi Noem, but only in my heart, I haven't breached any duty in the (secular) legal sense.

3. The breach of that duty must be the cause of any injuries complained of. This has two aspects: "cause in fact" (the "but for" test), and "proximate" or "legal" cause (the relationship of the breach to the harm as a matter of public policy: The fact that Hitler's father met Hitler's mother might be a cause in fact of WWII, but it is not a proximate cause).

4. The breach of duty must result in (i.e., have been the legal cause of, see above) identifiable damages to an identifiable party. As you might have guessed, there's an entire area of law devoted to the subject of what constitutes legal damages. The fact that the Democrats make my blood boil is not a legal item of damage.

Ancillary considerations include:

5. Any valid defenses to the claim, which can involve anything from immunity (yes, I did it, but the law allows me to because of who I am) to statute of limitations (yes, I did it, but you waited too long to complain). There are a myriad of other legal defenses, everything from contributory negligence to condonation and recrimination. Don't you wish you'd taken my Remedies class?

6. The jurisdiction of the court to resolve the matter. This includes such considerations as personal jurisdiction (i.e., whether this particular party is properly before the court) and subject matter jurisdiction (i.e., whether the court in question has authority over this kind of legal dispute, and the power to afford the kind of relief requested. You can't try a felony case before a traffic court judge). Another jurisdictional issue is the feasability of relief. A court shouldn't issue a ruling that would be impossible or even unreasonably difficult/expensive to enforce.

Applying all of these factors makes it pretty clear that most of what drives you and me crazy these days (everything from making excuses for murderers, racists, terrorists, etc. to providing them with material support) is not going to be actionable under the legal principles enumerated above, certainly not by us, and in many cases not even by the government. In support of the idea that this is a pretty good thing overall, I cite two words: Fani Willis.

I hope this answers at least part of your very excellent questions, above. I also wonder what our RedState Legal Eagle, @Susie Moore, would tell us about this?

On April 14, Dubai’s ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, announced that the United Arab Emirates would begin using artificial intelligence to help write its laws. A new Regulatory Intelligence Office would use the technology to “regularly suggest updates” to the law and “accelerate the issuance of legislation by up to 70%.” AI would create a “comprehensive legislative plan” spanning local and federal law and would be connected to public administration, the courts, and global policy trends. //

AI, and technology generally, is often invoked by politicians to give their project a patina of objectivity and rationality, but it doesn’t really do any such thing. As proposed, AI would simply give the UAE’s hereditary rulers new tools to express, enact, and enforce their preferred policies.

Mohammed’s emphasis that a primary benefit of AI will be to make law faster is also misguided. The machine may write the text, but humans will still propose, debate, and vote on the legislation. Drafting is rarely the bottleneck in passing new law. What takes much longer is for humans to amend, horse-trade, and ultimately come to agreement on the content of that legislation—even when that politicking is happening among a small group of monarchic elites.

Rather than expeditiousness, the more important capability offered by AI is sophistication. AI has the potential to make law more complex, tailoring it to a multitude of different scenarios. The combination of AI’s research and drafting speed makes it possible for it to outline legislation governing dozens, even thousands, of special cases for each proposed rule.

But here again, this capability of AI opens the door for the powerful to have their way. AI’s capacity to write complex law would allow the humans directing it to dictate their exacting policy preference for every special case. It could even embed those preferences surreptitiously.

Since time immemorial, legislators have carved out legal loopholes to narrowly cater to special interests. AI will be a powerful tool for authoritarians, lobbyists, and other empowered interests to do this at a greater scale. AI can help automatically produce what political scientist Amy McKay has termed “microlegislation“: loopholes that may be imperceptible to human readers on the page—until their impact is realized in the real world.

But AI can be constrained and directed to distribute power rather than concentrate it. For Emirati residents, the most intriguing possibility of the AI plan is the promise to introduce AI “interactive platforms” where the public can provide input to legislation. In experiments across locales as diverse as Kentucky, Massachusetts, France, Scotland, Taiwan, and many others, civil society within democracies are innovating and experimenting with ways to leverage AI to help listen to constituents and construct public policy in a way that best serves diverse stakeholders.

If the UAE is going to build an AI-native government, it should do so for the purpose of empowering people and not machines. AI has real potential to improve deliberation and pluralism in policymaking, and Emirati residents should hold their government accountable to delivering on this promise.

SCOTUS Takes Up the Power of Nationwide Injunctions and the Threat to Executive Authority.

May 16, 2025

Mark Twain once used the word, Podunk to describe a small, unimportant town. Today, a Podunk pettifogger from just such a place thinks he is David taking on Goliath. But this time, Goliath is the duly elected President of the United States. //

The Presidential Executive Order (EO) has become the way to govern Washington at a time when Congress is entirely dysfunctional. However, the vast network of federal district judges, who are, by definition, supposed to be apolitical and neutral, often rule against the EO. They do so increasingly on a "nationwide" basis, far beyond the districts their courtrooms oversee.

It has become a pressing and multifaceted issue. The United States federal judiciary has 677 district court judges (across 94 districts, including territorial courts like those in Puerto Rico and Guam). These are lifetime appointments under Article III of the Constitution. When an activist federal judge deems the underlying challenge to an EO from a plaintiff noteworthy, the judge sets out to ensure "uniform relief" across the entire country through a nationwide injunction. Even the nine Appeals Courts do not have such a reach. Even the Supreme Court doesn't have the same power unless at least five justices agree! //

Expectedly, Justice Clarence Thomas expressed his displeasure again at nationwide injunctions, pointing out that the U.S. judicial system operated without them until the 1960s, so why were they necessary now? Justice Samuel Alito, who has previously been a skeptic, hinted that he would vote to scale them back.

Chief Justice John Roberts focused on the procedural aspects of nationwide injunctions, suggesting that the Supreme Court has become more efficient at handling emergency cases expeditiously. He undercut the concerns of Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, and Sotomayor.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh had the best legal solution by suggesting that class-action lawsuits could serve as an alternative to nationwide injunctions. His questioning was a rare demonstration of principled legal analysis, not tainted by politics.

"Federal district judges are appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and serve lifetime terms. There are currently 677 such judges in the U.S. Do you support or oppose individual district judges having the authority to block or halt a president’s policy nationwide?"

A solid majority of Americans say yes. Specifically, 56% said they either support such powers "strongly" (31%) or "somewhat" (26%), while just 28% said they oppose it either "somewhat" (13%) or "strongly" (15%). A sizeable 16% said they weren't sure. //

Democrats are most supportive, with 71% saying the support the judges, just 14% saying they oppose them. Among independents, that majority falls to 54% support, and rises to 30% opposition. The surprise comes among Republicans, where a plurality of 48% support judges over presidents, while 40% support it. //

But the numbers shifted somewhat with our second question: "Do you agree or disagree that federal judges should serve for a limited term rather than a lifetime appointment?"

The answer was even more overwhelming, this time not in favor of the judges. Overall, 71% said they either agree "strongly" (41%) or "somewhat" (30%), while the disagree category mustered only 16% for disagree "somewhat" (9%) or "strongly" (7%). //

Overall, 64% said they supported arresting judges who break laws either "strongly" (43%) or "somewhat" (21%). Just 22% opposed the idea, 10% "strongly" and 12% "somewhat." //

According to the Congressional Research Service, federal judges issued 17 separate injunctions against Trump from the time he re-entered office on Jan. 20 through March 27.

This is nothing new. In 2019, William Barr, Trump's second attorney general, complained about judicial injunctions directed at Trump.

"Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the executive branch," Barr said. "That’s more than one a month."

"By comparison," the nation's former top lawyer added, "during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the executive branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circuit. And according to the Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions­ in all of the 20th century (emphasis ours)." //

Americans' appetite for enabling federal judges to halt presidential actions willy-nilly may soon be tempered by a Supreme Court decision that limits those powers. If so, it should not be politics. It should be because the Constitution does not allow it.

///

That's democracy. But what is consistent with Constitutional Law? Districts should not have jurisdiction beyond their district.

"If the ability [to brick a console] is there, someone will want to 'see how it goes.'"

One of the most frequent questions posed in response to articles regarding decisions by federal judges is: Who appointed him/her? In theory, that shouldn't matter — blindfolded Lady Justice and all that. In practice, all too often, it seems that it does.

But...maybe not quite as much as people assume. I decided it might be interesting to take a closer look at some of the statistics regarding the federal judiciary. Some of those stats will come as no surprise. Others, though, well, see what you think. //

While many assume the court typically rules in partisan fashion, the bulk of the decisions in each term are unanimous (accounting for roughly 47 percent of the decisions over the most recent three terms).
In contrast, the 6-3 decisions (what one would expect if the decisions were strictly party-line) account for only 22 percent of the decisions. //

Next, we'll take a look at the makeup of the federal judiciary, beginning with the District Courts.

Number of district courts - 94
Number of district judges - 677 (does not include those who have taken senior status). //

Alright, but what about the Circuit Courts of Appeal? Well, we have that breakdown as well.

Number of circuit-level judgeships - 179 (not including those who have taken senior status)

Because so much of the focus of late has been on the litigation challenging executive actions taken by President Donald Trump, and because so many of those suits have been filed in the D.C. District Court, I thought it might be useful to take a deeper dive into the makeup of that court. We'll also look at the distribution of these cases among the various active judges on the court. //

So, it appears that the judges who have more cases assigned to them tend to have multiple cases that have overlapping issues, and thus, the cases are related if not consolidated ... //

In other words, while I do think there are fair questions about how Judge Boasberg ended up with the J.G.G. case, overall, the only discernible patterns regarding case assignments are that the most senior and most junior have fewer, and the judges who have the most cases assigned to them tend to have cases that lend themselves to being grouped together.

Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
·
Follow
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Obama appointee Allison Dale Burroughs enters TRO against Trump Administration in Harvard case WITHOUT a Trump attorney even appearing in case. Yes, TROs can be ex parte BUT THIS IS NUTS because . . .
Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
Harvard's lawsuit against Trump Administration was predictable, as was its request for a TRO. Will a court blindly issue a TRO, given there is no immediate harm per the letter? Probably. 1/
12:24 PM · May 23, 2025 //

Josh Blackman, constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston and President of the Harlan Institute, wrote Friday:

[We do] …not have time stamps, but the case could not have been on her docket for more than a few hours.

I have a serious question: did Judge Burroughs even read the 72-page complaint and 59-page motion for a TRO? What about all of the pages of exhibits? Did she have any time to reflect upon it or consider countervailing arguments? //

RSB
4 hours ago edited
This is one the administration should openly defy. Not only is there zero legal basis for the TRO and the judge violated multiple TRO rules but SEVP is explicitly not covered under APA (it is just an internal program of INS) and the executive has sole, nonjudiciable authority on issuing and withdrawing visas. They CANNOT be compelled to do so.

Thursday, the Senate voted to block a package of vehicle emissions regulations issued by California, including a highly controversial rule that would have banned the sale of gasoline-powered (aka real) cars by 2035. In the process, tears were shed, threats were issues, and knickers became tightly knotted by leftist Democrats out to cripple the US economy. //

Only a month before leaving office, the [Biden administration] approved a California regulation that banned the sale of new cars and trucks in California in 2035. This was a decision of earthshaking import. Given the size of its market, unilateral economic actions affect the entire country as businesses adjust their processes to accommodate California regulations. Making matters worse, 11 other states were in the process of enacting similar bans. All told, this would have reduced the market for new gasoline-powered automobiles in the US by 40%. This approval was an obviously malicious act by the outgoing EPA management. The EPA had been sitting on the approvals since 2022 but dumped this burning bag of ordure on the front porch of the Trump White House for political points.

The House teed up the action with a bipartisan vote of 246-164 to disapprove three EPA waivers granted to California: a "zero emissions" standard for trucks, a regulation that would have essentially banned heavy-duty off-road vehicles, and the 2035 ban on real cars and trucks.

When the resolution of disapproval arrived in the Senate, its fate was in question. The General Accounting Office had rendered a "legal opinion" (funny how that phrase has become synonymous with "anti-Trump mischief-making") that a mere waiver of an existing law did not rise to the level of being a regulation that the mere collective vote of Congress could override. In this assertion, the GAO was joined by the Senate parliamentarian. //

Neither the GAO nor the parliamentarian has binding authority over the will of the Senate, but what Republicans wanted to avoid was the appearance of steamrolling the parliamentarian. This is where the solid leadership of South Dakota's John Thune came into play in a clear contrast to the "failure theater" directed by Mitch McConnell whenever he was majority leader. //

Thune decided to go around the bureaucratic obstacle. “What I didn’t want to do was vote to overturn the parliamentarian," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), "and with help from a lot of experts the leader came up with an approach that avoids that outcome, and I’m glad.” //

What Thune did was get a ruling from the floor that the situation was not as cut and dried as the GAO and parliamentarian had claimed and that the waivers did, indeed, fall under the provisions of the Congressional Review Act. //

DaveM
8 hours ago
"[Schumer]: This Senate vote is illegal,"

Apparently we have more than a few Senators sworn to uphold the Constitution that have never bothered to read it.

Article II Section 5 Paragraph 2:
"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." //

Romeg
7 hours ago
After carefully scouring my copy of The Constitution of The United States of America I have to report that I was unable to find that article, clause, paragraph or amendment that grants California the power to regulate interstate commerce. Perhaps someone reading this can help me out. //

anon-hlc8 streiff
7 hours ago
Sometimes the problem is that whomever is prosecuting the case does not bring that point of law up in their briefing. If they do not bring up that states may not regulate or impede interstate commerce, the judge is not going to help them out. //

Romeg streiff
5 hours ago
I cannot avoid the conclusion that such rulings utterly negate the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Wickard v Filburn went in the completely opposite direction making ALL commerce, in effect, Interstate Commerce and thus subject to congressional regulation. The ruling you cite along with past failures to challenge CA's high-handedness seem to be judicial nullification of at least certain aspects of that clause in the Constitution.

Josh Gerstein @joshgerstein
·
BREAKING: #SCOTUS allows Trump to fire labor board members. Apparent 6-3 decision with all liberal justices in dissent. Court says more harm from denying POTUS right to remove officials than from those officials staying in office. Doc: https://documentcloud.org/documents/25951855-24a966-order/
4:44 PM · May 22, 2025. //

Tom Fitton @TomFitton
·
In a massive blow to the permanent administrative state, the Supreme Court, in 6-3 order, lifts stay on @RealDonaldTrump firings of Democratic appointees to "independent agencies." Key majority finding does not augur well for the future of constitutionally suspect agencies that protect appointees from being fired by the Chief Executive:
6:21 PM · May 22, 2025

The stay reflects our judgment that the Government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power. But we do not ultimately decide in this posture whether the NLRB or MSPB falls within such a recognized exception; that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument. The stay also reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.

Christian camp IdRaHaJe in Colorado refuses to comply with progressive gender ideology policies and faces potential shutdown. //

Nestled in the scenic mountains of Bailey, a town 30 miles southwest of Denver with less than 10,000 residents, IdRaHaJe has been serving children ages six to 17 since its founding in 1948 through various programs, such as summer camps, off-site backpacking, and camping trips. The camp’s name comes from the hymn “I’d Rather Have Jesus!” and reflects its commitment to Christianity.

So when they sought emergency relief at 12:34 a.m. on April 18, Petitioners “were fully aware that the District Court intended to give the Government 24 hours to file a response.” A.A.R.P., 605 U.S. at _ (Alito, J., dissenting). They “said nothing about a plan to appeal if the District Court elected to wait for that response.” Id.

At 12:48 p.m. on April 18, however, Petitioners “suddenly informed the court that they would file an appeal if the District Court did not act within 42 minutes, i.e., by 1:30 p.m.” Id. //

This charge is worth exploring. To get to 14 hours and 28 minutes (rather than 42 minutes), the Court was obviously starting the clock at 12:34 a.m., rather than 12:48 p.m. (when Petitioners told the district court for the first time that they wanted a ruling before the Government could respond).

But starting the clock at 12:34 a.m. not only ignores the court’s express instructions respecting the Government’s right to respond. It also ignores the fact that the Court is starting the clock at—12:34 a.m.

We seem to have forgotten that this is a district court—not a Denny’s. This is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone suggest that district judges have a duty to check their dockets at all hours of the night, just in case a party decides to file a motion.

And then he adds the cherry on top:

If this is going to become the norm, then we should say so: District judges are hereby expected to be available 24 hours a day—and the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Administrative Office of the U.S.Courts should secure from Congress the resources and staffing necessary to ensure 24-hour operations in every district court across the country.

If this is not to become the norm, then we should admit that this is special treatment being afforded to certain favored litigants like members of Tren de Aragua—and we should stop pretending that Lady Justice is blindfolded. //

anon-fht2
4 minutes ago
The rationale for the Founders intentionally NOT Constitutionally requiring the other two branches to comply with the judiciary is playing out in real time. It is also apparent that the judicial insurrection by the district courts is bleeding over into the interactions between the lower courts, and between the lower courts and SCOTUS. Not in a good way either.

After reading the full response of the 5th Circuit appeals judge to the SCOTUS ruling, IMO Justice Roberts should be embarrassed that such a shoddy ruling by a SCOTUS court ever saw the light of day, much less received 7 votes of 9. It almost as if Justice Roberts wants a repeat of President Jackson’s response to a Marshal SCOTUS decision.

For the judicial branch, this seems like a slow motion catastrophe being played out with each new judicial “salvo” further undermining respect and trust for the judicial branch. Our Republic was in trouble enough with Congress and the Executive being viewed with disdain by most Americans. The Executive may regain some trust and respect under Trump, but the Judiciary had been more positively viewed than the other two branches, at least until this judicial insurrection against Trump began. Now the judiciary seems to being trying to outdo Congress for the level of earned contempt in which they are held, with SCOTUS attempting to show the way with this ruling.

IMO - YMMV

DemsShouldPayReparations Curmudgeon99
13 hours ago edited

"He is the worst Chief Justice in history, "

Really? Would you reconsider if you knew more facts?

Worse than Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. who wrote the Dred Scott decision, extending slavery in all States, which was one of the triggers for the Civil War?