SCOTUSblog

I was going to recommend SCOTUSBlog and then I noticed it's the same person... https://www.scotusblog.com/ Volokh Conspiracy is also great https://reason.com/volokh/

Kerr is an important professor and author in this area. He has also been a staunch academic opponent to further Constitutional controls, which has made his writings on Jones v United States and the 3rd Circuit cell site location case interesting to read. Look up things he has written about "Matrix" theory of fourth amendment protections. I don't think Kerr really grasps the level of unease that the courts are developing regarding the capability of dragnet surveillance by the government of this sort. But definitely, anything he has written is pretty much a must-read in this field. Edit: Also Prof. Kerr blogs at http://www.volokh.com and http://www.scotusblog.com

I am not a legal scholar, but from my understanding enough that serious cases were filed and fought and made in all the way to the Supreme Court. In a https://www.scotusblog.com article, Amy Howe quotes the Chief Justice as saying "Chevron deference, Roberts explained in his opinion for the court on Friday, is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that sets out the procedures that federal agencies must follow as well as instructions for courts to review actions by those agencies. The APA, Roberts noted, directs courts to “decide legal questions by applying their own judgment” and therefore “makes clear that agency interpretations of statutes — like agency interpretations of the Constitution — are not entitled to deference. Under the APA,” Roberts concluded, “it thus remains the responsibility of the court to decide whether the law means what the agency says." I ought to go read the decision for myself, which I have to this point not yet done. I am not an attorney, but do have a general interest in these matters. But back to the earlier poster's notes, ATF has been a prime example. They have a history of capricious reinterpretation at the whims of whichever administration is in power. They issue letters to people and businesses that say one thing is okay and then outlaw in without any law changes a decade later. I have never owned a pistol brace, but they stated it was an acceptable innovation for certain applications, thousands and thousands of…

These were helpful for me and may or may not be helpful for you: Mix in editorialized content. Read the New York Times or another major, old publication rather than only sites that have user-generated and user-moderated content. There are certain things that will get upvotes all the time on Reddit, etc. Similarly, read blogs that are outside your normal areas. For example, if you're into tech and work in tech, read the http://www.scotusblog.com/ Read new science fiction from the library, not the same user-generated recommendations from Reddit and HN. Anthologies of short stories are great for rebooting my brain with new ideas. Worms using tunnels in ice to form a sort of neural network over millions of years? Drag racing aliens? Tattoos that administer medicine? Also with that, just pull random books off your local library's shelf from time to time. A book about the history of Target? A book about socialism and electricity? Why not?

Yeesh. What a mess. So first of all, let me recommend SCOTUSBlog and the actual court decision rather than the Atlantic: http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=143279 http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons… Now what's going on here: Congress said (1) you have a right to resell copies of copyrighted work "lawfully made under this Title", but (2) you can't import copyrighted work from other countries without the copyright holder's permission. This is intended to make it possible to sell things at different prices in Mexico City and LA, which in turn makes it more viable to sell things in Mexico City at all. You may not love it, but it's at least a rational system. The Ninth Circuit has interpreted this, using common sense, to mean that if a publisher voluntarily imports stuff and sells it in LA, and then you buy it and resell it, the doctrine of first sale applies. What happened in this case is someone was straight up running a business importing and reselling stuff that wasn't intended for the United States. But instead of focusing on that, the Second Circuit took a closer look and said, waitaminute, these books aren't "lawfully made under this Title" in the first place, because they were made under someone else's statutes instead of ours. So whether or not you had the right to import them, you don't have the right to resell them. Now, as the defendant and the dissent and the Ninth Circuit have all pointed out, that's nuts. It destroys the…

Strange how we've had decades of elections where Republican state legislators have put in illegal maps which the courts struck down, yet it was always "too late to change it now"... Yet here they say no cost is too great and they're literally suspending elections already in progress to seize partisan advantage. I'm tired of the Calvinball, boss. https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/justices-reinstate-louisiana-voting…

The executive branch has blatantly violated numerous laws but so far they have still obeyed court orders which explicitly required them to follow those laws. The real Constitutional crisis will come if they decide to openly defy a federal court order. I would also note that while the current Trump administration has broken federal laws at an accelerated rate, the previous Biden administration did much the same thing on a smaller scale. People here on HN frequently make excuses for Biden's illegal student loan forgiveness program because they liked the results but if we want to preserve the rule of law then it needs to apply to every program. In the long run allowing unchecked growth of executive branch power and the administrative state will be bad for everyone. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-biden-st…

This site is the personal blog of a well-regarded reporter that is a primary contributor to SCOTUSBlog: https://www.scotusblog.com/ All these posts are cross-posted there. If I recall correctly the reason for the cross-post setup has to do with conflict-of-interest avoidance since she is married to the owner of SCOTUSBlog. So you’re probably better off reading that site directly than this one.

For SCOTUS related news I always hit up SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/ They do a good job of linking to or posting quality articles.

Seems like the justices missed a great opportunity here to rule in favor of the settlement and then receive $$$$$$ next year as a thank you gift. Because buying government officials is now entirely legal. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-anti-…

Lawyer here. "[A]nyone that actually reads Supreme Court decisions" is the pertinent part of your comment. That is a very small group of people,* and usually a very quiet one that doesn't jump to the conclusion that the court is "illegitimate". The vast majority of the 50+ decisions each year do not make the news and the plurality of them are decided unanimously.** * Basically nobody, unless it's their job, reads every case. However it is normal to follow a site like SCOTUSblog.com and get summaries to stay in the know. ** I guess check out any of the years here: https://www.scotusblog.com/reference/stat-pack/

There was an interesting SCOTUS case heard this term centered around these issues: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/justices-debate-whether-warhol-imag… The oral argument is worth a listen.

It seems to me the difference in this case is that it complains about content promotion, not content publishing. The issue is that YouTube's algorithms promoted extremist content to people who were prone to extremist behavior. That's not quite the same as simply hosting extremist content uploaded by users. As it says on the Supreme Court site: "Issue: Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limits the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information." https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gonzalez-v-google-llc/

Just terrific. Illuminates the descent into madness most effectively. Thank you for sharing. Yes and: With Percoco v US and Ciminelli v. US, the current SCOTUS has another opportunity to bat down the government's ability to combat fraud. https://crooked.com/podcast/making-fraud-great-again/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ciminelli-v-united-states/ Embarrassingly, or perhaps tellingly, SCOTUS has previously been non-partisan in asserting their own immunity to frivolous stuff like anti-fraud and ethical oversight.

The SCOTUS blog entry https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/court-rules-for-high-school-cheerle… They have excellent coverage and commentary

In 2018, in the case South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc. [1] the Supreme Court overturned Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and National Bellas Hess Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, which were the cases that had previously established that remote sellers without a physical presence in a state could tell the state to shove off if it demanded they collect sales tax (or use tax), and upheld South Dakota's law that required remote sellers to pay tax if they has sales of at least $100k or at least 200 transactions. A large number of other states have followed South Dakota's lead, and went with $100k or 200 transactions for their sales tax nexus laws. [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/south-dakota-v-wayfair-inc…

This is a great question, and one that SCOTUS ruled on [1] earlier this year. I had hoped that the decision would result in the people who were wronged getting their money back, but it would seem not. [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/opinion-analysis-justices-accept-bu…

Scotus Blog did a great job describing the case for those who need to know a case preview before it goes up to the Supreme Court: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/10/case-preview-justices-to-weigh-in-o…

Great point. Many citizens don't know that "qualified immunity" is a thing that protects police officers from being held accountable. QUOTE: "Tragically, thousands have died at the hands of law enforcement over the years, and the death toll continues to rise," said Judge Carlton Reeves, of the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. "Qualified immunity has served as a shield for these officers, protecting them from accountability." SOURCES: - https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/ask-the-author-reuters-on-the-conse… - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity - https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/04/politics/qualified-immunity-federal-jud… - https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/876212065/an-immune-system

Worth noting that there are now cases in the Supreme Court about "faithless" electors that didn't cast their vote for the state mandated winner. https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/argument-analysis-in-a-close-case-c…

Here's the SCOTUSblog page for the case. It's got all the related Amicus briefs, and oral will be posted there once it happens (usually a day or two after) that will include a transcript and audio. Doesn't look like a date has been set yet, as far as I can tell. Oyez also usually does an awesome mashup with the transcript and audio from oral argument. I encourage everyone to check out that page. A favorite of mine is below. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/google-llc-v-oracle-americ… https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/13-132

After reading more recent caselaw I think, in practical terms, the reason they attempted a Takings claim is because they wanted monetary damages, whereas because of the peculiar contours of sovereign immunity jurisprudence the remedy for an infringement claim would have at best been an injunction. And apparently more recent sovereign immunity caselaw has cast doubt in some circles on the ability to even get an injunction. I'd personally be surprised it that notion was ratified by SCOTUS, but clearly I haven't been keeping up so my opinion isn't worth much. EDIT: Just this month SCOTUS agreed to take up the specific issue of sovereign immunity vs copyright: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/allen-v-cooper/

> (including several in New Jersey, which coincidentally is challenging the constitutionality of the national gambling restrictions in the Supreme Court) An update on that: New Jersey won, 6-3, with Kagan joining the conservative wing of the court in this majority. The conclusion is that Congress and the states each have concurrent power to regulate sports gambling. Congress hadn't actually done that directly, but rather had banned states from legalizing it. That's been struck down. Opinion analysis from the excellent SCOTUSblog: http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/05/opinion-analysis-justices-strike-dow…

SCOTUSBlog has a great deepdive into the case: http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/argument-preview-free-tv-at-a-bargai…

Because it is not (yet) reflected on the SCOTUSblog page, here is the Order granting certiorari: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120613.zr_4g15.pdf The actual link above links to a number of amicus briefs urging the court to grant (or not grant) review, and would be good reading to understand the issues in the case. Links to Coverage: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/12/court-to-rule-on-patent-rights/ http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/06/us-usa-court-software-idUSBR…

Sadly, the true brilliance of secret laws and classified programs is that they place incredible barriers in front of anyone attempting to prove they have standing to sue, making constitutional challenges difficult, at best. “Assuming you don’t know exactly what the government did, how could you possibly have a lawsuit that provides any sort of relief and provides and effective remedy?” Samp asks, “How could the plaintiff know what remedy to ask for when he doesn’t even know what’s happened?” --Richard Samp of the Washington Legal Foundation SOURCE: http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/10/suing-over-surveillance-secrets/

To be clear, the specific question answered in Rehberg was whether grand jury witnesses enjoyed absolute immunity. See: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/rehberg-v-paulk/ I don't think it's particularly crazy. People focus on the cases where prosecutorial misconduct is protected by immunity, but ignore all the meritless suits and appeals prisoners file against anybody and everybody because they're in prison and have nothing else to do. The justice system is a system. Designing systems is about making trade offs (something that should be obvious to an engineer). Any system of justice is going to put innocent people in jail, just like every drug is going to kill some people who would have otherwise survived. You have to deal with that fact the best you can to construct a workable system.

This is relevant to HN because healthcare costs affect all businesses, including startups. This ruling removes a lot of uncertainty. The best coverage is here: http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/

> Not at all. I'm simply asking whether you can see how speech restrictions can be abused. Nothing vague here. Speech restriction being able to be abused doesn't mean that speech restriction is never appropriate. There are countless things that are fundamental to day to day life that can be abused but are vital in their non-abusive form. > This is an anti-scientific perspective. There is no such thing as "known falsehoods". There is only "current best understanding", which is the thing that most aligns with observations of reality. If you are making a claim based on information you know to be incorrect, this is a known falsehood. This isn't anti-science, we're not talking about people making arguments against the scientific consensus in good-faith with some framework behind their reasoning. > Questioning existing axioms or intermediate conclusions is a great technique to advance understanding of reality. If everyone simply referred back to the previous "foregone conclusions", we'd still be trying to discover fire. Trying to frame this discussion as being a matter of people performing science and not people taking a politically or financially motivated stance (or people that have been conned by people that did that) is also fundamentally dishonest. > The problem here is the gatekeeping of discussion. Humanity has spent thousands of years trying to escape the power of the societal priest class, and we are in a better place than ever. Free speech isn't absolute, and…

The case you cited is not really appropriate here because it's about elections which are one of the few domains where citizenship plays a critical and very well established role. In this case, you're talking about broadly restricting the constitutional rights of an entity legally within the US based on its ties to a nationality, given that ByteDance is legally not even a Chinese company, as it's incorporated in the Cayman Isles. The implications of this seem huge. Don't trust regular media to give you fair assessments of this case. ScotusBlog generally has excellent and impartial analysis of cases from experienced lawyers, and this is no exception. [1] They described the overall court as skeptical of the claims. Skeptical does not mean fully in bed with one side or the other, but simply that - skeptical. It's also important to bear in mind is that hearings are, by their very nature, off the cuff. And the implications (or factualness) of what the justices believe may change as they consider the implications of a decision, and factualness of their assumptions. Again the thing I would say is that if this was an obvious case, the justices would not be waiting to the last second. My guess is that we'll probably see an announced delay+injunction on Friday. [1] - https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/supreme-court-skeptical-of-ban-on-t…