Moody vs NetChoice (2024) delves into the nuanced landscape of artificial intelligence and raises a fundamental question: who should be considered the speaker in the context of a deep-learning algorithm—the algorithm itself or the individual who crafted it? As this legal exploration unfolds, attention also turns to a preliminary injunction case, anticipating its likely deferral […]
Read MoreThe landmark case of Loving v. Virginia, etched into the legal history of 1967, stands as a focal point of controversy and debate. Critics passionately argue that the court’s decision, viewed by some as antidemocratic, ignited discussions surrounding the perceived substitution of legislative processes with the court’s asserted wisdom. Drawing comparisons to Lochnerism, legal scholars […]
Read MoreOh, the Supreme Court, that bastion of unshakable authority, took a real beating in those desegregation cases. Brown vs. Board of Education? Just a casual game of kicking the can back down to the lower courts. And of course, Boiling v Sharpe unveiled the shocking revelation that the 14th Amendment was apparently just a suggestion […]
Read MoreIn the turbulent history of desegregation, some Southern schools employed evasive tactics to resist integration. Rather than integrating, some schools transferred ownership to private companies, circumventing the 14th Amendment as private entities are not bound by its provisions. Shockingly, these companies explicitly prohibited black students, exemplifying the lengths some went to maintain segregation.
Read MoreIf you love someone, give them a future interest in fee simple in an estate. That being said, Baker v. Wheeton (1972) showed a husband did not love his wife.
Read MoreWhen comes to how you can use your property, Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) held that a zoning board can tell you how to use your property- or get out.
Read MoreWhen it comes to spending money on politics, Buckley v. Valeo (1976) said campaign contributions are free speech.
Read MoreWhen it came to providing free advertising for the abortion industry, NIFLA (2018) v. Becerra said the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Exercise Clause.
Read MoreWhen it came to a town hall Christian prayer, Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014) said there was no violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Read MoreWhen came to a school prayer and the First Amendment, Lee v. Weismann (1992) said prayer amounts to coecion which violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
Read More