From the News

404 – Lawsuits for Revenge and Profit?

One of the most common ways for an American to seek a redress for some grievance is to file a law suit. This has made the United States a very litigious society. I was not able to determine the number of lawsuits filed, but in 2023 there were more attorneys in the United States (1.33 million) than doctors (1.08 million). As you might imagine, it is unlikely that all of these lawsuits are legitimate.

Take for examples the case of Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer. In this case, Acheson Hotels claims that Deborah Laufer filed a lawsuit against them not because she was harmed by their hotel, but because she is an activist using the Americans with Disability Act to harass companies who do not advertise whether or not they have handicapped accessible rooms. While the Supreme Court found that the case was moot, both the facts of the case and the courts decision points to what appears to be a case of Ms. Laufer using lawsuits for both revenge and profit.

403 – What is Income?

There are certain words that are so commonly used we think they have a universal understanding. One of those words is “income”. Think about it, what is income? Your paycheck? Dividends on your investments? Profits from your business? When does an increase on the value of something you own become “income”? The answer to that question is important to more than just the parties in the case Moore v. United States, but to just about every American. Can the United States tax you, as income, for the value of something you have not sold yet?

396 – Hard Cases Make Bad Precedent

There is an adage in the legal profession, “Hard cases make bad law.” Well, since cases in this country to not truly make law only precedent, you might be tempted to dismiss this saying. However, since our courts are so devoted to their precedent, we should be very careful when hard cases come to the Supreme Court. For example, one case heard by the court has a very unsavory respondent. The question is, will Mr. Zackey Rahimi’s shady past be used to infringe on the right of the rest of Americans?

395 – Social Media and Government Communications

Social media has become so much of everyday lives that we often don’t think about its use. This has led to what appears to be a large percentage of Americans developing what can at best be described as “interesting ideas” about the relationship between government and the various social media platforms. Some recent cases heard before the Supreme Court bring the question of the relationship between government actors and social media companies into question. Probably the best well known would be Missouri v. Biden, where the states of Missouri and Louisiana have brought suit claiming that members of the Biden Administration violated the First Amendment by attempting to influence what content would be deleted or deemphasized on various platforms. However, two other cases involving local officials focus on under what circumstances government actors can block access to their social media accounts. While most of the country seems to be focused on Missouri, these two cases bring up some questions the American people should really think about.

394 – Placing Politics Above Children?

Studies show that the best outcomes for children is to live in a home with their married parents. If the world were perfect, then all children would have that chance. But the world isn’t perfect, and either by accident or as the consequences of the actions of adults, children will be in need of people to step in for their parents. In our modern society, the role of finding homes for these children has been filled by the state government. What happens when those government entities place politics above the needs of their charges? A recent case in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts deals with that very topic. Plaintiffs Michael and Catherine Burke claim that the State of Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) discriminated against them in their application to become foster parents for religious reasons. When I looked at the case what I saw wasn’t so much religious discrimination, but DCF placing political viewpoints above not only the Constitution of Massachusetts, but what is best for the children in their care.

393 – Public Recording

Do you have a right to record people in public? A recent case out of Oregon asked that very question, can states restrict who and when people can record the conversations in public. Oregon law prohibiting recording public conversation except in certain limited circumstances was challenged by Project Veritas. As is so often the case, both the legal challenges and judicial opinion make some questionable constitutional claims. This is why we’re going to look at the opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court Panel and decide for ourselves, does recording the public conversations of others violate the law or does the law violate the Constitution?

386 – In Loco Parentis, Tyrannis!

Who is in charge of your children? That has been a perennial question that grown in importance over the last few years. When I was a child, it was understood that, with rare exceptions, parents were in charge of a child’s upbringing. This included medical, religious, and educational decisions. However, over the last few decades, the role of the parent in these decisions has been replaced by experts. What happens when the goal of the experts differs from those of the parents? Who decides the future of the rising generations? It was understood that the state acted in loco parentis, in place of the parents, only for the safety of the child. A recent case in U.S. District Court shows that be it health departments, child services, schools or even the courts, government not only believes they know better than the parents, they are more than willing to act in loco parentis tyrannis.

385 – Do Artificial Intelligences Have Rights?

With the release of ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence (AI) applications, there has been a lot of speculation and downright assertions about our future. With over 30 years of experience in Information Technology (IT), not more than a passing understanding of AIs, I’ve come to the conclusion that much of what I’ve heard is more science fiction than fact. A recent court case decided in the D.C. District Court revolved around one very important question. Do AIs have rights?