From last Wednesday's decision in X.AI LLC v. Bonta, by Judge Jesus Bernal (C.D. Cal.):
Assembly Bill 2013 …, entitled "Artificial Intelligence Training Data Transparency" requires developers of "a generative artificial intelligence system or service" that is "publicly available to Californians for use" to "post on the developer's internet website documentation regarding the data used by the developer to train the generative artificial intelligence system or service." The documentation must include "[a] high-level summary of the datasets used in the development of the generative artificial intelligence system or service" addressing, but not limited to, twelve enumerated topics. Those topics include:
(1) The sources or owners of the datasets.
(2) A description of how the datasets further the intended purpose of the artificial intelligence system or service.
(3) The number of data points included in the datasets, which may be in general ranges, and with estimated figures for dynamic datasets.
(4) A description of the types of data points within the datasets….
(5) Whether the datasets include any data protected by copyright, trademark, or patent, or whether the datasets are entirely in the public domain.
(6) Whether the datasets were purchased or licensed by the developer.
(7) Whether the datasets include personal information ….
(8) Whether the datasets include aggregate consumer information ….
(9) Whether there was any cleaning, processing, or other modification to the datasets by the developer, including the intended purpose of those efforts in relation to the artificial intelligence system or service.
(10) The time period during which the data in the datasets were collected, including a notice if the data collection is ongoing.
(11) The dates the datasets were first used during the development of the artificial intelligence system or service.
(12) Whether the generative artificial intelligence system or service used or continuously uses synthetic data generation in its development….
The court concluded that the law likely didn't violate the First Amendment. It first concluded that the law likely compelled speech only in the context of commercial speech:
On Monday evening, Justices Kavanaugh and Jackson appeared at a joint event at the D.C. Circuit. Several press outlets reported on what was described as a "polite but forceful back-and-forth" concerning the emergency docket. Here is the summary from the New York Times:
Justice Kavanaugh told those gathered that he thought the justices were being asked more frequently to weigh in on presidential actions because gridlock in Congress has led presidents to do more through executive orders, which have then been challenged in court. It is an argument he has made previously from the bench and in public appearances.
He added that such emergency requests are "not a new phenomenon" and had been on the rise during the Biden administration as well. He pointed to an emergency request by the Biden administration to keep in place access to a widely available abortion drug, mifepristone, as a lower court heard a challenge to the drug's approval.
Justice Jackson, however, pushed back and suggested the court's actions under Mr. Trump represented a departure.
Previously, she argued, the court had used emergency orders largely to maintain the status quo. Yet in the Trump administration, she said the court was signing off on new policies. In the mifepristone example, she said, the drug had already been in use for decades, and the Biden administration wanted to maintain access, not seek a new policy or change.
By agreeing to take on such emergency applications, she said the justices had signaled a willingness to hear the cases before they had worked their way through the lower courts, creating "a warped" kind of proceeding and "a real unfortunate problem."
"I think it is not serving the court or our country well at this point," Justice Jackson said, to applause from many in the audience.
Not quite. The Plaintiffs in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA challenged a series of actions concerning mifepristone between 2000 and 2021. The District Court found that all of those actions could be challenged within the statute of limitations. But the Fifth Circuit found that only actions taken in 2016 and 2021 were subject to challenge. So there was an Obama-era policy at issue, and another Biden-era policy. Let's quote from the summary of the facts from Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion:
In 2021, FDA again relaxed the requirements for Mifeprex and generic mifepristone. Relying on experience gained during the COVID–19 pandemic about pregnant women using mifepristone without an in-person visit to a healthcare provider, FDA announced that it would no longer enforce the initial in-person visit requirement. . . . The Court of Appeals next concluded that plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on their challenge to FDA's 2000 approval of Mifeprex and 2019 approval of generic mifepristone. So the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's order as to those agency actions. But the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that FDA's 2016 and 2021 actions were unlawful.
Justice Jackson was partly mistaken. The Biden Administration enacted a new policy concerning mifepristone in 2021. It was challenged in 2022, which was within the statute of limitations. It is certainly true that a District Court did not enter a unappealable universal TRO, as has become the norm during the second Trump Administration. But who should we credit for exercising some restraint? Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk stayed his ruling to permit an orderly appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
The Court STAYS the applicability of this opinion and order for seven (7) days to allow the federal government time to seek emergency relief from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
All. for Hippocratic Med. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 668 F. Supp. 3d 507, 560 (N.D. Tex.), aff'd in part, vacated in part, 78 F.4th 210 (5th Cir. 2023), rev'd and remanded sub nom. Food & Drug Admin. v. All. for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. 367, 144 S. Ct. 1540, 219 L. Ed. 2d 121 (2024), and vacated and remanded, 117 F.4th 336 (5th Cir. 2024).
As longtime readers might recall, it was common for District Court judges to stay their rulings against the Biden Administration. Alas, rulings against President Trump have not received similar courtesies requiring even more frantic trips to the Supreme Court.
The Fifth Circuit then granted a partial stay, and the Supreme Court, on the emergency docket, granted a complete stay of the Fifth Circuit's ruling.
Here, Justice Jackson's line (which apparently got applause) was partly mistaken.
Justice Kavanaugh continues his service as the leading Justice who defends the Court's work.
From U.S. v. Segari, decided today by Judge Kathryn Mizelle (M.D. Fla.):
In August 2025, Desiree Doreen Segari posted TikTok videos of herself announcing a "new movement," which she coined "see MAGA, shoot MAGA." In Segari's words, "if we all get our guns and use our second amendment right … and you see somebody with a MAGA hat, pew pew that's what we do, that's the way, it's the only way." Segari explained that "MAGA people deserve to be terrified and scared to walk in the streets because they should know that real Americans are gonna [mouths the word "fucking"] kill them." Based on these and similar statements in TikTok videos, a jury convicted Segari of transmitting in interstate commerce a true threat to injure another person….
In the first video, posted on August 17, 2025, Segari states that people wearing a MAGA hat should be shot:
Ok guys, so I would like to start a new movement called see MAGA [shoot] MAGA, because people like that respond to fear and terror and aggression not logic and empathy and I don't know, intelligence, it doesn't work for them so fear works so if we all get our guns and use our second amendment right and our common sense at this point this administration is begging us to rise up and revolt and you see somebody with a MAGA hat pew pew that's what we do, that's the way, it's the only way. Put them back in their basements, make them scared again to be racist, homophobic, and terrible just awful fucking pieces of shit because I would way rather live next to anyone other than MAGA people. MAGA people deserve to be terrified and scared to walk in the streets because they should know that real Americans are gonna [mouths the word "fucking"] kill them.
Segari balls her fist and points her index finger to mimic a firearm when saying, "see someone with a MAGA hat pew pew that's what we do."
The next day, Segari posted another video, continuing the same themes from the first:
Today, the Liberty Justice Center filed, Burlap and Barrel, Inc. v. Trump, a lawsuit challenging Donald Trump's massive new Section 122 tariffs. LJC is the same group that I worked with on V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, the IEEPA tariff case decided by the Supreme Court last month. I am not one of the attorneys on this new case. But I completely support it and its objectives. This case is the second challenging the Section 122 tariffs, following one filed by 24 state governments, last week.
The LJC complaint is available here. Here is an excerpt from LJC's description of the new case:
On March 9, 2026, the Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging President Trump's attempt to reimpose broad global tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, following the Supreme Court's landmark decision striking down the prior tariff regime imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
After the Supreme Court held that the IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, the administration announced a new plan: a global tariff beginning at 10 percent imposed under Section 122, and justified as a response to alleged "fundamental international payments problems" and "large and serious United States balance‑of‑payments deficits."
But the United States is not facing such a crisis. Section 122 was designed to address short‑term, balance‑of‑payments emergencies in a fixed‑exchange‑rate world—not to impose sweeping tariffs on nearly all imports based on long-standing trade deficits.
More fundamentally, the Constitution gives Congress—not the President—the power to impose tariffs and taxes. The Supreme Court reemphasized this principle in the case that included V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the President cannot rely on broad statutory language to claim sweeping tariff authority that Congress never clearly granted.
By attempting to stretch Section 122 into a catch‑all tariff power, the administration is once again bypassing Congress and placing the burden of unlawful tariffs on American small businesses and consumers.
LJC's clients here are businesses that import goods subject to the new tariffs, and therefore undeniably have standing to challenge them.
In a recent Boston Globe article, I explained why the enormous Section 122 tariffs are illegal. In addition to going beyond the statutory text, they also run afoul of the "major questions" doctrine, and nondelegation limits on Congress' power to delegate its authority to the executive:
The three conservative justices in the majority in [the IEEPA] decision cited…. the "major questions doctrine," which requires Congress to "speak clearly" when authorizing the executive branch to make "decisions of vast economic and political significance."
They concluded that IEEPA did not clearly grant the president sweeping tariff authority. But the same is true of Section 122. At the very least, it is far from clear that it authorizes the president to impose 15 percent tariffs on goods from virtually every nation in the world, in a situation vastly different from that which inspired the law. And the effects of Trump's Section 122 tariffs would be large enough to qualify as a "major question." Within 150 days, the tariffs would impose some $30 billion in taxes on American businesses and inflict serious damage on the economy by raising prices and disrupting production in industries that depend on imports…..
Justice Neil Gorsuch's concurring opinion in the IEEPA case also relied on the nondelegation doctrine, which limits the extent to which Congress can delegate its authority to executive discretion. The limits of delegation are far from clear. But the Supreme Court held last year that a delegation of authority to impose taxes or fees must have a "floor" and a "ceiling" and that the degree of "guidance" required from Congress is greater "when an agency action will 'affect the entire national economy' than when it addresses a narrow, technical issue." The power to impose 15 percent tariffs — the highest tariffs since the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariffs that exacerbated the Great Depression — is unquestionably one that affects the "entire national economy." And Trump's permissive interpretation of the law would let him impose those rates at almost any time.
Section 122 does limit tariff rates to 15 percent, creating a ceiling. But in that same ruling last year, the court emphasized that even a fixed numerical ceiling is not constraining enough if it leaves the executive with what amounts to "boundless power." The power to start a Great Depression-like trade war at will surely qualifies as such.
The LJC complaint raises the major questions and nondelegation issues more clearly and fully than that filed by the states. I am glad to see these issues will be considered.
A YouTuber must face claims that he groomed and assaulted two underage fans, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday.
James Jackson, known online by the name "Onision," and his spouse Lucas Jackson, known online as "Laineybot" or "Kai," did not convince a federal judge to dismiss claims brought by former fans who accused the couple of violating sex trafficking and minor abuse laws by enticing them across state lines and coercing them into commercial sex acts.
Regina Alonso and a plaintiff identified under the pseudonym Sarah sued the YouTubers in 2023, accusing the two of using their YouTube page to solicit explicit photos from them while they were underage and sexually assaulting Sarah while she was a minor.
Now, Friday's decision in Alonso v. Jackson by Judge John Chun (W.D. Wash.) about the sealing / pseudonymity questions:
Plaintiffs bring various claims against Defendants James and Lucas Jackson relating to alleged grooming and sex trafficking when Plaintiffs were minors.
Defendants move for an order … redacting and sealing "all past and future personal identifying information (PII)" appearing on the docket and accessible via PACER, including their home address, phone number, email addresses, last names, and household details" … [and] permitting them to proceed pseudonymously by using only their first names ….
On April 23, 2024, the PSC [Palestine Solidarity Committee] at UT posted a notice on their Instagram account describing a protest for the following day. The notice advertised a walk-out of class, a meeting at Greg Plaza, and a "march to occupy the lawn." The post stated: "In the footsteps of our comrades at Columbia SJP, Rutgers-New Brunswick, Yale, and countless others across the nation, we will be establishing THE POPULAR UNIVERSITY FOR GAZA and demanding our administration divest from death." On April 24, the PSC posted again with a proposed schedule of events, including a walk-out of class, a guest speaker, two teach-ins, an art workshop, and study and food breaks, with the final event scheduled for 7:00 p.m.
In response, UT preemptively cancelled the event by sending notices to PSC student representatives, with one such notice dated April 23, 2024, and four others dated April 24, 2024. In those notices, UT states its reasons for cancellation as follows:
The Palestine Solidarity Committee student organization's event "Popular University for Gaza," which is planned for tomorrow, has declared intent to violate our policies and rules, and disrupt our campus operations. Such disruptions are never allowed and are especially damaging while our students prepare for the end of the semester and final exams. For these reasons, this event may not proceed as planned.
However, Plaintiffs allege such notice was not communicated to the broader student body or public until the protest was underway, at which time UT released its Event Cancellation Notice, dated April 23, 2024, to the press….
Plaintiffs were arrested and also subject to probation or deferred suspension as university discipline. They sued, claiming this violated the First and Fourth Amendments. The court concluded that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that the April 24 protest was canceled based on its viewpoint:
SUNY Fredonia philosophy professor had been barred from campus over podcast questioning illegality and immorality of adult-child sexual contact; a federal court has just allowed his First Amendment claim to go forward.
From Kershnar v. Kolison, decided Friday by Judge Lawrence Vilardo (W.D.N.Y.):
Among the many topics he studies, [SUNY Fredonia philosophy professor Stephen] Kershnar is especially interested in the "moral and legal issues implicated by sexual conduct [between] adolescents and children." His scholarship questions "whether, as a moral matter, adult-child sex is always wrong, and why we should criminalize it" even though he believes that "as a legal matter, [it] should always be criminalized." "Kershnar argues that it is important that the arguments favoring criminalization of [adult-child sex] be scrutinized so that they are defensible, [because] 'if incorrect reasons are given recognition in support of morally legitimate laws,' like those against [adult-child sex], 'then th[o]se reasons may … be used to support morally illegitimate' laws."
Kershnar elaborated on these views during two podcast appearances. In December 2020, he appeared on an episode of Unregistered—a podcast hosted by an Occidental College professor—to discuss "the traditional philosophical justifications of age[-]of[-]consent laws in the United States." During that episode, he said that "it[ i]s not obvious to [him] why" adult-child sex is always "unlawful because … humans are designed by evolution to begin reproduction below the age of 18."
A little more than a year later, on January 30, 2022, Kershnar appeared on Brain in a Vat, a podcast described as "thought experiments and conversations with philosophers." During that appearance, Kershnar said:
Imagine that an adult male wants to have sex with a 12-year-old girl. Imagine that she's a willing participant. A very standard, very widely held view is that there's something deeply wrong about this, and it's wrong independent of being criminalized. It's not obvious to me that it is in fact wrong.
Similarly, in response to a question about "whether… [,] in an attempt to find a threshold of consent," a one-year-old could ever consent to sexual activity with an adult, Kershnar said:
From Upsolve, Inc. v. James, decided Friday by Judge Lewis Kaplan (S.D.N.Y.) (for the earlier decision reaching the opposite result, see this post):
The nonprofit Upsolve, Inc., wishes to train non-lawyers like the Rev. John Udo-Okon to provide free legal advice to consumers facing debt-collection lawsuits. But that conduct would violate New York's prohibition on the practice of law by anyone other than a licensed attorney. The question in this case is whether Upsolve and the Rev. Udo-Okon have a First Amendment right to engage in their proposed course of conduct notwithstanding the state's licensing law. For the reasons that follow, they do not….
In earlier proceedings, Judge Paul A. Crotty granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. In finding that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their free-speech claim, Judge Crotty held that the UPL Rules were a content-based regulation of speech that likely could not survive strict scrutiny….
In September 2025, the Second Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction. The court agreed with Judge Crotty that, as applied to "convey[ing] … legal advice to a client," the UPL Rules regulate speech. But it held that the UPL Rules are content neutral and therefore subject to only intermediate scrutiny. The court remanded for reconsideration of plaintiffs' entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief under that lower standard….
From Magistrate Judge Robert Numbers (E.D.N.C.) Monday in Fivehouse v. U.S. Dep't of Defense; the government's lawyer has been a member of the bar for almost 30 years, and has worked in the U.S. Attorney's office since 2009 (according to an article in Bloomberg Law by Ben Penn):
The conduct at issue includes:
1. The inclusion of fabricated quotations and misstatements of case holdings in Defendants' response to Fivehouse's motion to supplement the administrative record (D.E. 86), including citations to Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v.Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2009), Dow AgroSciences, LLC v.National Marine Fisheries Service, 637 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2011), and Sierra Clubv. United States Department of the Interior, 899 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2018).
2. The inclusion of a fabricated quotation in Defendants' response opposing Fivehouse's motion concerning compliance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 16 (D.E. 79), citing South Carolina Health & Human Services Finance Commission v. Sullivan, 915 F.2d 129, 130 (4th Cir. 1990).
3. The inclusion of a fabricated quotation in Defendants' response opposing Fivehouse's motion asking the court to take judicial notice of certain matters (D.E. 80), citing South Carolina Health & Human Services Finance Commission v. Sullivan, 915 F.2d 129, 130 (4th Cir. 1990).
