Plaintiff and Defendant are attorneys who met seven years ago as summer associates at different prominent law firms in New York City…. [Plaintiff] alleges that Defendant violently raped and sexually assaulted her on the night they met, causing her physical, professional, and psychological damage. Defendant denies all allegations of nonconsensual conduct…. Defendant claims that he and Plaintiff engaged in consensual sexual activity in May 2018. Defendant attests that he was "terminated from [his] employment with a top law firm on October 13, 2025 as a result of the Plaintiff's Complaint and false allegations," and that he fears that it would be "nearly impossible" to obtain employment with his name attached to this lawsuit, He also claims to fear that his physical safety could be placed at risk….
Defendant sought to proceed under a pseudonym, but the court said no:
[T]he economic and reputational harms that Defendant has faced and may face as a party to this action, substantial though they may be, are outweighed by the public interest in access to judicial proceedings…. This Court agrees that "[a]llegations of sexual assault are paradigmatic examples of highly sensitive and personal claims." … Yet courts in this District routinely deny motions seeking anonymity brought in the context of sexual assault absent a heightened showing of harm. For example, with respect to claims brought by adult plaintiffs who allege they are the victims of sexual abuse, a claim that such victims have and will continue to suffer physical or psychological damage, an invasion of privacy, or reputational harm is generally not sufficient to entitle a plaintiff to proceed anonymously.
"The rule is the same for a plaintiff as for a defendant who is accused and who might want to keep his or her identity confidential." Any defendant accused of perpetrating a violent sexual assault potentially suffers harm to their reputation. Yet "[c]ourts have put weight on the right of the public to know the identity of the litigants as well as on the interest of the accused to be able publicly to confront the accuser." Accordingly, "something more is required to rebut the presumption of public access, at least in cases involving adult sexual assault." "[T]hat something more frequently has to be evidence of real (and not conclusory) harm that is substantial and that will flow directly from and is directly linked to disclosure of the party's name." "Were it otherwise, virtually all claims of adult sexual assaults would ipso facto proceed anonymously."
From last month's Pennsylvania appellate decision in Commonwealth v. Abdul-Rahman, written by Judge Anne Lazarus, joined by Judge John Bender and Judge Megan McCarthy King:
[T]he Commonwealth of Pennsylvania … [is] seeking review of the September, 29, 2025 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, which granted Defendant Muhyyee-Ud-Din Abdul-Rahman's petition to modify bail pending sentencing, reducing his bail to sign on bond, and placing him on "Strict Conditions of House Arrest on Electronic Monitoring." Upon careful review, we reverse the trial court's order modifying bail pending sentence and reinstate Defendant's original bail….
Defendant, who was 16 years old at the time, was arrested on August 11, 2023, and charged with multiple offenses, including attempting to build weapons of mass destruction that he planned to use to bomb the Philadelphia Pride Parade, before fleeing the country to join a terrorist organization in Syria. Specifically, as the Commonwealth recites in its Petition, the evidence established that Defendant: "(1) attempted to manufacture "TATP" (a potent explosive known as "The Mother of Satan") using a recipe he found online; (2) practiced bomb-ignition using 12 to 20 ignition devices; (3) conducted a series of online searches, including what the punishment was for homosexuality under Sharia law, what the route was for the Philly Pride Parade, where to find trash cans along that route, and how to build pressure cooker bombs (i.e., the same device used in the Boston Marathon bombing); and (4) communicated online with two state-designated terrorist groups (KTJ and HTS) in Syria, where he planned to flee[,] … all while living at his family's house and without their knowledge."
On August 12, 2023, Defendant additionally was charged with criminal conspiracy, attempting to build weapons of mass destruction, arson, causing/risking catastrophe, criminal mischief, possession of an instrument of crime, and recklessly endangering another person (REAP). In September 2024, the trial court set monetary bail at $5,000,000.00 (at 10%), which remained through trial.
Following a jury trial, on September 17, 2025, Defendant was found guilty of attempting to build weapons of mass destruction (F-2), possessing explosive materials (F-3), risking a catastrophe (F-3), and REAP (M-2). After the jury rendered its guilty verdicts, the Commonwealth filed a motion to revoke Defendant's bail or, in the alternative, maintain bail at $5,000,000.00, and the Defendant filed a motion to modify bail to house arrest…. [T]he trial judge …. entered an order granting Defendant's motion for modification of bail, modifying bail … "… to $5,000,000.00 Sign Own Bond with Strict Conditions of House Arrest on Electronic Monitoring." …
From State v. White, decided by the Louisiana Supreme Court Thursday, in an opinion by Justice John Michael Guidry
The State charged the defendant with three counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon after parole officers found [two] guns in the house where he lived with family members….
Defendant was convicted as to these two guns, and sentenced to seven years in prison, but the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed:
To convict [under state felon-in-possession law], the State is required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant had: 1) possession of a firearm, 2) a prior conviction for an enumerated felony, 3) an absence of the ten-year statutory period of limitation, and 4) a general intent to commit the offense…. Defendant's 2020 drug conviction and the fact that the ten-year cleansing period between the prior conviction and the current offense did not lapse are undisputed….
Possession … can be either actual or constructive…. "'[C]onstructive possession' is a term of legal art, describing the situation in which a person, not in physical possession of a thing, can, nevertheless be considered to be in legal possession of the thing." Constructive possession of a firearm occurs when the firearm is subject to the defendant's dominion and control, even if only temporarily or shared….
The court concluded there wasn't enough evidence of defendant's dominion and control over the guns:
The jury found the defendant guilty of attempted possession of the firearm found in the master bedroom that he shared with his wife. Notably, the gun was found in a dresser drawer that contained clothing items that in color and design appeared to belong to a woman. Kimberly, the defendant's wife, testified that the drawer containing the gun also contained {her underwear, bras, and girdle} and an electronic gaming device she stated belonged to her.
"[The coach's alleged statement] can reasonably be inferred as ... defamatory ... about Clary—that Clary himself was greedy and only interested in money and, as a result, abandoned [his] team and refused to play for Penn State."
Clary v. Pennsylvania State Univ., decided Dec. 2 by Chief Judge Matthew Brann (M.D. Pa.), involves a claim that the Penn State basketball head coach Michael Rhoades defamed Kanye Clary, the team's student captain. The court concluded that two statements were sufficiently alleged to be actionable:
Paragraph 41 alleges that Rhoades, in January and February 2024, "spread rumors to staff, media and surrounding people that [Clary's] father, Anthony Clary, was after more money which is the reason why [Clary] did not return." … [A]lthough the statement only references Clary's father, it also states that Clary refused to return to Penn State due to the desire—whether his or his father's—for more money. This can reasonably be inferred as a defamatory statement about Clary—that Clary himself was greedy and only interested in money and, as a result, abandoned [his] team and refused to play for Penn State…. [And] it may be reasonably inferred that this statement damaged Clary; the statement created a stigma related to Clary that forced him to play at a less prestigious university and directly led to financial losses and the "derailment" of his basketball career….
The court concluded that a retraction likely wouldn't breach any publication contract, and that under the circumstances a temporary restraining order would be especially unjustified given the publisher's First Amendment rights.
Self-controlled case series (SCCS) is a novel study design uniquely equipped to ethically quantify the safety of vaccination. We sought out to perform a meta-analysis on all SCCS assessing mortality associated with COVID-19 vaccination in the immediate post-vaccination period. We included SCCS investigating the safety of COVID-19 vaccination and reporting all-cause and cardiac-related mortality. Three SCCS were located, totaling approximately 750,000 patients.
The pooled hazard ratio (HR) revealed no significant association of COVID-19 vaccination with all-cause mortality (HR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.71, 1.10], p = .28). Regarding cardiac-related mortality, the pooled HR suggests that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with an increased risk of cardiac-related mortality (HR = 1.06, 95% CI [1.02, 1.11], p = .007). Subgroup analysis showed that the male gender is significantly associated with an increased incidence of cardiac-related deaths (HR = 1.09, 95% CI [1.02, 1.15], p = .006). In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccination may be associated with a small increase in cardiac-related mortality, especially among males.
Here's the court's summary of plaintiff's factual allegations and the procedural history, from Marchand v. Taylor & Francis Group LLC, decided yesterday by Judge Diane Humetewa (D. Ariz.):
Marchand is a surgeon in this state, practicing gynecologic medicine, and a researcher with more than 120 published articles. T & F is a publisher of journals and books centered on topics that are academic, scholarly, or scientific. One of the journals published by T & F is called Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics (the "Journal"). The Journal publishes research on vaccines and immunotherapy with its primary audience being those in various medical professions and related fields. Marchand's article about the relationship between Covid-19 and death inducing heart disease was selected for publication by T & F on June 25, 2023. He paid T & F $3,175.00 to have it published for free online, or have it be an open access publication.
The journal received and published two letters to its editor criticizing the article and its methodology. Marchand was allowed to respond to the first letter and T & F published it as well. The second letter triggered corrections to the article. A back and forth ensued between the parties about the sufficiency of the corrections and whether the corrected article would be published.
At some point, during the back and forth on corrections, T & F told Marchand they might retract the article entirely. They also told him he could submit a response detailing his position on T & F's concerns by November 24, 2025. On that same day, Marchand filed his Complaint and the TRO [temporary restraining order] currently pending before the Court. He asks that the Court grant his TRO to prevent T & F from retracting his article. For reasons explained below, the Court will not do so….
During the first week of December, I spent several days doing speaking engagements in Mexico. Although I have previously visited several Latin American nations, and even twice served as a visiting professor in Argentina, this was my first-ever visit to our southern neighbor. I spoke on a panel on "Migration in the 21st Century" at the FIL Guadalajara International Book Fair (one of the largest book fairs in the Spanish-speaking world), and gave two talks on democracy and political ignorance at the Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education (Tec de Monterrey), one of the country's leading universities. The experience gave me some interesting new perspective on our vitally important neighbor to the south.
Before continuing, I should emphasize I am not an expert on Mexico, and I speak little Spanish (though my wife, who came with me on the trip, is fluent in the language). In addition, I obviously did not encounter anything like a statistically representative sample of Mexicans. This post, therefore, can provide only very modest insight. But that modest insight might still have some value.
At least when it comes to Guadalajara and Monterrey, Mexico seems a much more affluent nation than many Americans might assume. My family and I saw little, if any of the grinding poverty that is commonplace in many poor countries I have been to, such as China, Russia, El Salvador, and Uruguay. For example, we saw almost no homeless people or beggars.
Guadalajara and Monterrey are two of Mexico's wealthiest cities; thus not representative. But, in many poor countries, poverty is evident in relatively affluent areas. Mexico's economic progress is also evident from per capita GDP statistics, which show rapid gains in recent years. The country is no longer the cesspool of poverty some in the US imagine it to be.
This progress was, also, in some ways, in evidence at the FIL Guadaljara book fair, when I spoke there. Not surprisingly, the other panelists and most audience members were sympathetic to my pro-immigration and anti-restrictionist perspective. But one of the panelists - prominent Mexican political consultant and former diplomat Gabriel Guerra - noted that Mexico itself has been facing an influx of migrants in recent years, and the government's treatment of them has sometimes been unjust and indefensible. Mexico has gone from being the biggest source of migrants to the US, to itself being a magnet for migrants from Central America and Venezuela. The Mexican government's flawed policies do not justify those of the US (and vice versa). But these issues do throw a wrench in the traditional view of the US-Mexican relationship, when it comes to migration. The changing migration patterns, obviously, reflect Mexico's increasing relative affluence.
Not all is rosy in Mexico, by any means. Mexican academics and policy experts I spoke to are deeply concerned about the state of the US-Mexican relationship, given Donald Trump's unleashing of massive new tariffs, and harsh immigration policies. After the Guadalajara panel, I spoke at length with Guerra and others, including Arturo Sarukhan, former Mexican ambassador to the US. They noted that Trump's policies have not yet generated a "nationalist backlash" in Mexico (their term, not mine), but that such a backlash was likely to develop. They noted that many Mexicans have friends and relatives among Mexican immigrants in the US, who are feeling the effects of the new administration's policies of racial profiling and expanded detention and deportation. That, along with the trade war, is bound to cause anger and poison relations between the two countries.
I pointed out that Trump will not be in power forever (or perhaps even for very long), and a future administration might well revoke his policies. My Mexican interlocutors were not mollified. They emphasized that much damage has already been done to the US-Mexican relationship, and that it will be difficult to reverse.
I do not know to what extent they are right about this. But, regardless, alienating our most populous neighbor and biggest trading partner isn't Making American Great Again. Exactly the opposite, in fact. The more we damage relationships with neighbors and allies, the harder it will be to counter adversaries like Russia and China.
The general sense of progress and rising affluence was also partly offset by the - in Guadalajara - ubiquitous posters depicting "desaparecidos" - "disappeared" people believed to have been abducted by drug cartels (or, in some cases, to have joined them voluntarily).
Sadly, the cartels are indeed a significant presence in Mexican society, even in relatively affluent cities. One prominent Mexican academic recounted a story of how he had been "mugged" by cartel operatives who searched him "like professional security guards." He was, he said, relieved they "only" took his smartphone, and nothing else. The government estimates there are over 130,000 "disappeared" people in Mexico, as of July 2025, many of them believed to be taken by the cartels and other organized crime groups.
These revelations do not shake my opposition to the War on Drugs. In both Mexico and elsewhere, criminal cartels have the power they do because prohibitionist policies have created a vast black market for them to exploit. Legalization would undermine the cartels, and eliminate most of the violence associated with their operations, just as the end of Prohibition largely eliminated the role of organized crime in the sale of alcoholic beverages. But, whatever policy lessons, the impact of the drug cartels on Mexican society is a significant one.
After Guadalajara, we went to Monterrey, where I gave two talks at the Tec de Monterrey, and also met with law and social science students and faculty. These events were organized by my graduate school classmate Gabriel Aguilera, who is now the Dean of the School of Social Sciences and Government there.
I offered a range of different lecture topics within my areas of expertise, such as issues related to migration rights, federalism, property rights, constitutional theory, and more. But Gabriel and his colleagues chose to have me do both talks on issues related to political ignorance. In recent years, I see growing interest in this topic around the world. One might say it has been "made great again." But, in truth, it goes beyond any one one nation or political movement, and has long been a major challenge for democracy.
When I first started writing about political ignorance over 25 years ago, many scholars and others argued that voter knowledge levels are not a significant problem, because voters who know very little about government and public policy can still do a good job thanks to information shortcuts, the "miracle of aggregation," and other workarounds.
Such optimism is far less prevalent today. In Mexico, as in recent talks I have given about political ignorance elsewhere, virtually all the questioners presumed that voter ignorance is indeed a serious problem, though some took issue with my proposals for mitigating it. That happens despite the fact that I always make a point of including shortcuts and related issues in my presentations about ignorance.
Voter ignorance is, in fact, a serious problem in democracies around the world. But at least there is growing cross-national recognition of its significance. In Mexico, concerns about this topic have recently been heightened by the government's erosion of judicial independence, which has weakened a significant check on demagogic populist leaders and political majorities.
My time at Tec de Monterrey also gave me some new perspective on Mexican academia. A number of the law and social science faculty I met are not from Mexico or elsewhere in Latin America, but from countries around the world, including some from east Asian nations, such as China and South Korea. I asked Gabriel if these non-Hispanic academics already spoke Spanish before being hired, or were required to learn after taking up their positions. He noted that many of them actually teach and write in English, which is the language in which many social science courses at Tec are taught. If this is any indication, Mexican academia is becoming more cosmopolitan, and is a competitor for hiring talent from around the world. Gabriel himself came to the US as a poor immigrant, held a number of academic positions at American universities, and returned to Mexico to take his current high-level post.
On a less academic/intellectual note, I don't think I've ever seen a university anywhere in the world that has as many peacocks and deer on campus as Tec does:
Deer at Tec de Monterrey (Ilya Somin)
Peacock at Tec de Monterrey, Mexico (Ilya Somin)Gabriel Aguilera.
Annapolis Mayor Jared Littmann fired City Attorney D. Michael Lyles, effective immediately, as part of his effort to clear the way for a new administration, Littmann said Wednesday.
The firing comes a day after plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Housing Authority of the City of Annapolis and the City of Annapolis accused the city's counsel of including fabricated citations and quotes in a motion, which they called "hallmarks" of artificial intelligence use.
Lyles is the first major departure since the mayor took office Dec. 1…. However, the mayor said in an interview that his decision to end Lyles' employment was "unrelated to any particular legal case," and that he is looking for a city attorney with a "fresh perspective." …
From Graham v. T.T., decided Nov. 26, by D.C. high court Judge Catharine Friend Easterly, joined by Judges Joshua Deahl and Vijay Shanker:
T.T. was the sole witness who testified at the hearing on her motion for an anti-stalking order. She and Mr. Graham were neighbors; they lived in the same apartment building on 13th Street NW, on the ground floor. Of particular relevance, T.T.'s bedroom window was at the front of the building and was directly accessible from the street.
Prior to the four alleged incidents that gave rise to her motion, T.T. had had very little interaction with Mr. Graham and had seen him only a few times around the building. Then, on September 13, 2023, and November 30, 2023, Mr. Graham took food that had been delivered to the front door of her apartment. T.T. did not witness these incidents first-hand; rather, when she inquired with the building management about the stolen food, they told her Mr. Graham was the culprit and provided her with video footage from the hallway camera, which she played in court.
In December of the same year, Mr. Graham knocked on T.T.'s bedroom window and crudely propositioned her for sex on two separate occasions. On the first occasion on December 28, 2023, Mr. Graham came to her window at 6:00 a.m., knocked three times, and said, "come here; I got something for you[.] I want you … I want to eat your pussy." She "told him to get away" and that she was "going to call the cops" and Mr. Graham "ran away." She reported the incident to the police. Two days later, on December 30, Mr. Graham again came to her window at 4:00 a.m. and "banged" or "knocked" and "repeated the same thing that he said the first time he came," "come here, let me eat your privacy part." When she told him to leave, he repeated, "ma'am, I'm trying to eat your privacy part."
T.T. then said she was going to call the police, and he ran away. She filed a petition for a temporary anti-stalking order the next day. She explained to the court that she filed the petition "because, not only that I'm afraid [for] my life, I am a victim of getting molested. Also, I'm scared for my life because he is registered as a sex offender and has history as that." { T.T. testified that when the police came, they told her that Mr. Graham was a sex offender, and she also "look[ed] it up."} {It is unclear if T.T. was asserting that she had previously been molested or that she considered Mr. Graham's propositions for sex to be "molestation." Because of this lack of clarity and in an abundance of caution, we refer to T.T. by her initials.} …
Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.
Neat: IJ's own Dan Alban is a featured guest on the latest episode of the Collateral Damage podcast, talking the early history of civil forfeiture.
New on the Short Circuit podcast: More civil forfeiture fun. Feds seize over half a million big ones, hold on to it for three years, never give a reason, and give it back without explanation.
New Jersey allows doctors (in certain circumstances) to assist in the suicide of terminally ill patients—but only if those patients live in New Jersey. Unconstitutional? Third Circuit: Even if there were a fundamental right to assisted suicide (which we doubt), New Jersey has a pretty strong interest in preventing New Jerseyans from killing Pennsylvanians in violation of Pennsylvania law.
Philly police are generally not to engage in vehicle pursuits because of the high risk to innocent bystanders. So are these two officers who chased a drug dealer, who then crashed and killed a woman, liable under Section 1983? Third Circuit: Nope. Might have been a violation of dept. policy, but there's no constitutional violation, and, even if there was, qualified immunity. Read More
From Louisiana Chief Justice John Weimer's concurrence in yesterday's In re Colbert:
Terms have been coined to describe undesirable traits a judge may develop as a result of wearing a judicial robe–such as "Black Robe Fever" or "Robe-itis." Newly elected judges in Louisiana have been warned of this affliction. The symptoms include becoming self-righteous, self-centered, self-serving, pompous, and acting as if the judge is above the law or the law does not apply to a judge, as contrasted to being a servant of the people and a disciple of the law. Manifestations include possessing traits of bias, prejudice, abuse of judicial power, and being overly authoritative, insensitive, and disrespectful. Other traits include a lack of civility, poor temperament, extreme impatience, and overstepping authority by acting outside of the bounds of legal responsibility and engaging in misconduct which undermines public trust.
Displays of disrespect, disdain, volatility, and a lack of courage to follow the law as written have no place in judging. Abuse of power involves using the judicial power for personal gain, partisanship, politics, or favoritism, or to intimidate or retaliate against others who do not bend to the judge's will. Such behavior fosters distrust of courts and alienation of those who turn to courts for resolution of issues.
Judges who engage in these behaviors lose sight of the fact they were elected to be a public servant assigned to resolve issues properly brought before a judge, to work to improve the system of justice, and to lead by example so as to ensure the rule of law is respected and followed. {Faced with a red light, the respondent ignored the obligation to stop as if the law did not apply to him and then berated a police officer attempting to ensure public safety.} This type of behavior reflects poorly on our system of justice and other judges, exhibits a lack of respect for the law and ultimately adversely impacts our system of government.
Plaintiffs Chloe Longworth and Anna Lardner regularly protest on city-owned sidewalks in front of the federal building in Eugene, Oregon, located between 6th and 7th Avenues and Pearl and High Streets. Plaintiffs protest there at least once per week, and sometimes more frequently.
In June 2025, DHS finalized new rules regarding the protection of federal property…. The new rules expanded the geographic scope of the previous rules to include areas outside federal property. Specifically, the regulation now found at 6 C.F.R. § 139.35(c) prohibits "Creating a loud or unusual noise, noxious odor, or other nuisance." … This applies to "Federal property or in areas outside Federal property that affects, threatens, or endangers Federal property or persons on Federal property.
The regulations contain applicable definitions at 6 C.F.R. § 139.15, but neither "loud" nor "unusual" is defined. Nuisance is defined as "a condition, activity, or situation, to include a loud noise or foul odor, that interferes with the use or enjoyment of Federal property." Put together, the Unusual Noice Provision seeks to criminalize creating a loud or unusual noise in areas outside Federal property that affects persons on Federal property and interferes with the use or enjoyment of Federal property.
On November 18, 2025, Ms. Longworth was detained, arrested, and issued a citation for "unusual noise" for using a megaphone on the city-owned sidewalks outside of the federal building. The next day, Ms. Longworth returned to site of the protest, and a federal officer, calling her by name, threatened to arrest her for "yelling." The citation issued on November 18, 2025, was dismissed by the US Attorney's office in early December 2025.
On November 25, 2025, Ms. Lardner was approached by a DHS employee and threatened with arrest for "unusual noise" for speaking through a megaphone on the public sidewalk.
