Law

"The ban on fake reviews includes AI-generated reviews and real people that have no experience with the product being reviewed.... Buying reviews, whether positive or negative, is also banned in any form. So-called “insider” reviews are prohibited by employees of a given company.... The new rule will become effective 60 days after it’s published in the Federal Register.... "

After a doctor suffered a fatal allergic reaction at a Disney World restaurant, Disney is trying to get her widower's wrongful death lawsuit tossed by pointing to the fine print of a Disney+ trial he signed up for years earlier.

Jeffrey Piccolo is representing the estate of his late wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, a doctor at New York's NYU Langone hospital who died of an allergic reaction while visiting the Florida resort in October.

The couple, along with Piccolo's mother, went to dinner on the night of Oct. 5 at Raglan Road Irish Pub, a restaurant located within a shopping and dining complex called Disney Springs.

Tangsuan was "highly allergic" to dairy and nuts, and they chose that particular restaurant in part because of its promises about accommodating patrons with food allergies, according to the lawsuit filed in a Florida circuit court.

The complaint details the family's repeated conversations with their waiter about Tangsuan's allergies. The family allegedly raised the issue upfront, inquired about the safety of specific menu items, had the server confirm with the chef that they could be made allergen-free and asked for confirmation "several more times" after that.

"When the waiter returned with [Tangsuan's] food, some of the items did not have allergen free flags in them and [Tangsuan] and [Piccolo] once again questioned the waiter who, once again, guaranteed the food being delivered to [Tangsuan] was allergen free," the lawsuit reads.

The three of them ate and then went their separate ways: Piccolo brought the leftovers to their room, while his wife and mother headed for the stores. After about 45 minutes, Tangsuan "began having severe difficulty breathing and collapsed to the floor." Bimbo bread is displayed on a shelf at a market in Anaheim, Calif., in 2003. On Tuesday, U.S. federal food safety regulators warned Bimbo Bakeries USA - which includes brands such as Sara Lee, Oroweat, Thomas', Entenmann's and Ball Park buns and rolls - to stop using labels that say its products contain potentially dangerous allergens when they don't.

She self-administered an epi-pen, and an observer called 911. The Piccolos, who had tried calling her multiple times, were eventually told she had been rushed to the hospital. They went to meet her and, after a period of waiting, were told that she had died.

...

"First, it determined that under the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Carpenter v. United States, individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location data implicated by geofence warrants.... Second, the court found that even though investigators seek warrants for geofence location data, these searches are inherently unconstitutional.... "

The hardline approach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito takes usually gets him what he wants.

This year it backfired.

Behind the scenes, the conservative justice sought to put a thumb on the scale for states trying to restrict how social media companies filter content. His tactics could have led to a major change in how platforms operate.

CNN has learned, however, that Alito went too far for two justices – Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson – who abandoned the precarious 5-4 majority and left Alito on the losing side.

As a result, the final 6-3 ruling led by Justice Elena Kagan backed the First Amendment rights of social media companies

It is rare that a justice tapped to write the majority opinion loses it in ensuing weeks, but sources tell CNN that it happened twice this year to Alito. He also lost the majority as he was writing the decision in the case of a Texas councilwoman who said she was arrested in retaliation for criticizing the city manager. ...

I know there's been challenges about elected officials blocking people on social media, but I've got a local elected official who keeps claiming that he's been working on a particular safety issue for like 6 years now. attempting to follow up yet again, I got a response saying that if I continued contacting him, he was going to block my phone number.

we were discussing city business. nothing personal. florida, if it matters

I've got an empty lot that I need to properly mark as private property before an upcoming project, and I want to make sure my signage is legally enforceable.

from what I can read, it just says that the signs have to be 18x24, with the words no trespassing at least 2" tall, and the name of the owner or lessee clearly printed on it. but there should be more to it than that, right? I can't find a regulation for how many signs there has to be for a given size property. like I'm sure I can't just mark 10 acres with a single sign, right? when I lived up north, the law was something about you had to have a sign posted every so many feet around the entire perimeter but I can't find the Florida regulation on that.

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

The President enjoys no im- munity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch contended that the Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment, “serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges” to “dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.” Instead, he suggested, such a task should fall to the American people.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She argued that the majority’s ruling “focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local government and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf

In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretion of ambiguous laws.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

Considering I made the post Yesterday about the Thursday & Friday rulings, I felt obliged to share that they added another additional day of opinions (July 1st).

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy

Issue(s): (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; and (3) whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.

Issue(s): Whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants’ consent.

Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce

Issue(s): Whether the court should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

Issue(s): Whether the court should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency. [Sic]

Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) when an agency issues a rule — regardless of whether that rule injures the plaintiff on that date — or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to “suffer[] legal wrong” or be “adversely affected or aggrieved.”

Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency

Issue(s): (1) Whether the court should stay the Environmental Protection Agency’s federal emission reductions rule, the Good Neighbor Plan; and (2) whether the emissions controls imposed by the rule are reasonable regardless of the number of states subject to the rule.

*Moody v. NetChoice, LLC"

Issue(s): (1) Whether the laws’ content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment; and (2) whether the laws’ individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.

NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton

Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint-, content-, or speaker-based laws restricting select websites from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech — or otherwise burdening those editorial choices through onerous operational and disclosure requirements.

Fischer v. US

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson

Issue(s): Whether the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

Moyle v. US

Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court should stay the order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho enjoining the enforcement of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which prohibits abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother, on the ground that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts it.

Trump v. US

Issue(s): Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

...the state Supreme Court ruled against allowing what would have been the nation’s first taxpayer-funded, state-sponsored religious public charter school.

Linked article mostly just covers the bare bones and a comment from the state AG.

If you want more flavor here's some different coverages:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/25/oklahoma-high-court-rejects-religious-charter-school-contract-00164843

https://apnews.com/article/public-religious-catholic-charter-school-unconstitutional-oklahoma-e4ef414605094313331a39cc645ede8a

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2024/06/25/oklahoma-state-funded-religious-charter-school-unconstitutional/74205802007/

https://okcfox.com/news/local/oklahoma-supreme-court-rules-st-isidore-charter-school-contract-unconstitutional-public-religious-funds-statewide-virtual-charter-school-board-constitution-establishment-clause-freedom-religious-practice

Direct link to the opinion:

https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/oag/documents/news-documents/2024/june/1058190300-20240625-085757-.pdf

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/16749379

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240607122602/https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/american-immigration-council-analysis-presidents-212f-proclamation-and-interim-final-rule

The Supreme Court on Thursday reinstated a lawsuit by the National Rifle Association, alleging that a New York official violated the group’s First Amendment rights when she urged banks and insurance companies not to do business with it in the wake of the 2018 shooting at a Florida high school. In a unanimous decision by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the justices agreed that the NRA had made out a case that Maria Vullo, then the head of New York’s Department of Financial Services, had gone too far in her efforts to get companies and banks to cut ties with the NRA, crossing over the line from efforts to persuade the companies and banks – which would be permitted – to attempts to coerce them, which are not.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf

Article on the Culley v Marshall case that recently got announced by SCOTUS. The Gorsuch concurrence hints that a 5-4 majority of the court might want to reel in the practice of civil asset forfeiture.

Direct link to the concurrence [here]

But in future cases, with the benefit of full briefing, I hope we might begin the task of assessing how well the profound changes in civil forfeiture practices we have witnessed in recent decades comport with the Constitution’s enduring guarantee that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Found this old article thought it might be interesting for anyone else who recreationally listens to SCOTUS oral arguments.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/12511460

Law360 (February 28, 2024, 1:40 AM EST) -- FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried asked a Manhattan federal judge late Tuesday for a sentence that releases him "promptly" after his conviction for stealing billions from customers of the now-collapsed crypto exchange, arguing that federal sentencing guidelines recommend no more than six-and-a-half years in prison.

Bankman-Fried made the request in a memorandum submitted to U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who is due to sentence the 31-year-old former crypto executive on March 28. Bankman-Fried was found guilty in November of seven counts of fraud, conspiracy and money laundering, although he maintains his innocence and has vowed to appeal.

According to the filing, a presentence report prepared by the U.S. Probation Department calculated sentencing guidelines that call for a maximum sentence of 1,320 months, or 110 years, with the report recommending a downward variance of 10 years to bring the recommended sentence to 100 years.

But Bankman-Fried asked the court to reject the report's "barbaric proposal," saying the advisory guidelines should put the appropriate sentence range at 63 to 78 months, or 5 years and 3 months to 6 years and 6 months.

Considering the former CEO's "charitable works and demonstrated commitment to others, a sentence that returns Sam promptly to a productive role in society would be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of sentencing," the memo states.

Bankman-Fried argues that he is a first-time, non-violent offender and that the report includes an incorrect 30-point increase to the base offense level based on the assumption that the case involved a loss of $10 billion. But the report adopted that $10 billion loss number "without a scintilla of support," the memo states.

Tuesday's filing says that bankruptcy counsel for FTX stated last month that "customers and creditors who can prove their losses are expected to get back all of their money."

"[T]he company was solvent at the time of the bankruptcy petition," the memo asserts. "The money was there — not lost."

"The harm to customers, lenders, and investors is zero," the filing adds, italicizing the sentence for emphasis.

Alternatively, the court could peg customer losses as the estimated cost of collection in the bankruptcy proceedings, according to the memo.

At this point, the total fees incurred by advisors to the unsecured creditors committee is about $57.5 million, the memo states, which Bankman-Fried argued is a much more reasonable estimate of actual loss than the presentence report's estimate of $10 billion.

With that in mind, there should not be a 30-point increase in the guidelines calculation for a loss amount enhancement, Bankman-Fried said.

The memo also highlights Bankman-Fried's "selfless, altruistic" qualities and his commitment to philanthropy, attaching 29 letters of support from his brother and parents; several professors at Stanford University, where his parents work, including the interim dean of Stanford Law School; tech executives; two psychiatrists; and his former personal assistant.

Barbara Fried, an attorney and professor emeritus at Stanford Law, wrote that anyone who tries to "understand him through the lens of 'normal' behavior and motivations is going to misunderstand" her son. She said her son has suffered with depression but has devoted his life to the happiness of others.

For example, when he took a lucrative job as a trader at Jane Street Capital, he gave away more than half his earnings without telling his parents, according to the letter. Even in the six months he has spent in detention, she said her son is running a tutoring session to help fellow inmates prepare for GED exams.

Fried also emphasized that her son is autistic and that she fears for his life in a typical prison environment, where his "inability to read or respond appropriately to many social cues, and his touching but naive belief in the power of facts and reason to resolve disputes, put him in extreme danger."

"If allowed to resume his life, he would do the only thing he has ever cared about: devote the remainder of his natural life to leaving the world a better place than he found it," Fried wrote.

Paul Brest, named the interim dean of Stanford Law last month, wrote that Bankman-Fried is a proponent of a philanthropy theory called "effective altruism," which holds that a person's life "should be devoted to doing as much good as possible."

"Beyond his intellectual contributions, Mr. Bankman-Fried has manifested the philosophy in his own giving and life," Brest wrote, noting that he has donated millions of dollars to effective altruism causes. "Based on his behavior to date, Mr. Bankman-Fried is likely to continue to engage in philanthropy in whatever circumstances he is placed."

The prosecution's sentencing recommendation is due March 15.

Counsel for Bankman-Fried and a representative for the DOJ did not immediately respond to requests for comment late Tuesday.

During a month-long trial this past fall, prosecutors said Bankman-Fried drove FTX into bankruptcy by spending $10 billion worth of customer deposits on venture investments, lavish real estate and political donations.

Three of Bankman-Fried's top lieutenants — Caroline Ellison, Gary Wang and Nishad Singh — testified that the defendant accomplished this scheme by secretly funneling billions of dollars between FTX and his crypto hedge fund Alameda Research.

The defense, meanwhile, said Bankman-Fried made a number of governance mistakes but did not intend to steal from FTX customers. Bankman-Fried himself made this argument from the witness stand, telling jurors that he always believed Alameda could lawfully borrow from FTX and then repay the debts.

The jury ultimately deliberated for just over four hours before finding Bankman-Fried guilty on all counts. He has been detained at Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center since August due to alleged witness tampering.

The government is represented by Danielle R. Sassoon, Nicolas Roos, Danielle Kudla, Samuel Raymond and Thane Rehn of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and Jil Simon of the U.S. Department of Justice's Criminal Division.

Bankman-Fried is represented by Marc L. Mukasey, Torrey K. Young, Thomas E. Thornhill, Michael F. Westfal and Stephanie Guaba of Mukasey Young LLP.

The case is U.S. v. Bankman-Fried, case number 1:22-cr-00673, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.