And the U.S. Constitution doesn't preclude this result.
"So whatever hard to imagine rationalization Haverford might offer for obscuring the content of its actual bias policy—an artifice reminiscent of Dean Wormer's 'double secret probation'—I find the demarcation 'draft' to be of no legal import."
The child, and her 12-year-old brother, were left under the supervision of a neighbor by the mother, who left town for six days for a foreign job interview.
The Supreme Court just declined this morning to consider this issue, but here's how a noted lower court judge analyzed the matter.
"[B]oth parties exchanged these Snapchat videos while they were intoxicated and their judgment was impaired. Notwithstanding, the communications were private and intended to be jokes between close friends."
"Lower courts lost, and the executive branch got mixed results."
Prohibiting the distribution of porn to minors, the Court says, legitimately carries with it some burdens on adults as well, when the burdens are closely linked to distinguishing the adults and the minors.
"Strict scrutiny is unforgiving because it is the standard for reviewing the direct targeting of fully protected speech.... [A]s a practical matter, it is fatal in fact absent truly extraordinary circumstances."
The Seventh Circuit is generally much more hesitant than courts in other circuits to allow pseudonymity in such cases.
The Florida Supreme Court concludes that, among other things, the allegations were knowingly or recklessly false.
"it is clear that he, at the very best, acted with culpable neglect of his professional obligations."
And the court declines to so find when the proposed class counsel filed a brief containing "a wholesale fabrication of quotations and a holding on a material issue" (presumably stemming from using AI and not adequately checking its output).
"[Defendant ex-employer's] request for all of [plaintiff's] communications containing language that is sexist or racist is overbroad."
"While Mr. Legorreta may have been calling Cobham an 'asshole' and making other comments, and even if he called Cobham the 'N' word these events do not justify or provide a defense of self-defense."
The court does, however, leave open the possibility that the plaintiff can file an amended complaint that can go forward.
"[A]llowing plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym could enable her to evade judicial oversight under the vexatious litigant rules by obscuring her litigation history and identity across multiple cases."
"[W]hatever harm she claims, it is not imminent, irreparable harm. Her damages, if any, are monetary damages."
"[P]ublic condemnations, op-eds, and official complaints ... through proxies are independent constitutional violations" if the officials "engaged in conduct that was motivated by the plaintiff's protected speech and had the requisite chilling effect on First Amendment activity."
Django Unchained: An enjoyable movie, but not always the best source of references in the courtroom.
So holds the Ohio Supreme Court.
The court stays the injunction pending appeal, and in the process concludes the defendants "are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal."
