Can the government use its power to punish law firms for the viewpoints they represent? In my latest Civil Liberties in 60 Seconds, I examine the DOJ’s sudden reversal on its appeal defending executive orders that blacklisted major firms. Watch to learn why this matters. ⚖️🏛️
Can the military cut a retired veteran's pension for political speech?
The Pentagon tried to punish Senator Mark Kelly for a video, but a federal judge blocked it, ruling his speech is unquestionably protected. Now, the appeals court will hear the case in May.
Watch my 60-second breakdown! ⬇️
Can the Trump Administration force Anthropic to let the military use its products however it likes? My latest for Civil Liberties in 60 seconds.
Really excellent brief, filed earlier today, from First Amendment scholars in support of @knightcolumbia.org's motion for public access to Jack Smith's Mar-a-Lago report. Thanks to @mfia-clinic.bsky.social for putting it together. knightcolumbia.org/documents/ak...
Protesting is a right—and so is your digital privacy. 🦋
Just because the police can take your cellphone if you get arrested mean they have an all-access pass to your life. ⚖️
The law draws a line in the sand at your data. #DigitalPrivacy #FirstAmendment #ProtestRights
Read the full report here: www.law.berkeley.edu/case-projec... (6/6)
If the state can revoke community supervision based on technological assertions, it must ensure, at a minimum, that the technology is accurate. Otherwise, individuals will lose their freedom despite having done nothing wrong. (5/6)
This evidence then forms the basis for revocation proceedings—but these proceedings are not designed to reveal problems with complex technological evidence. (4/6)
With 3.7M people on supervision, the stakes are high. Jurisdictions across the country use technology to monitor individuals on community supervision and to allege that they violated their conditions of release. (3/6)
A special shout-out to the student authors for their rigorous research and advocacy:
• Abby Smith ’26
• Corinne Johnston ’26
• Katarina van Alebeek ’26
• Niyati Narang ’26
(2/6)
Huge congratulations to Julie DeVries and the talented students of the Samuelson Law, Tech & Public Policy Clinic at @BerkeleyLaw on their vital new report: “Check the Monitor: Parole and Probation Technologies in Review.” 🧵 (1/6)
Professor Catherine Crump sitting at desk, official photo of Rep. Jamie Raskin displayed alongside
Can DOJ coerce Apple into deleting apps? Rep. Jamie Raskin is investigating claims DOJ strong-armed Big Tech into killing ICE-tracking apps. The 1st amendment bans DOJ from pressuring companies to suppress speech
Watch here: www.youtube.com/shorts/zjLZu...
#FirstAmendment #CivilLiberties #ICE
Are privacy rights failing to keep pace with surveillance tech? In my latest video for Civil Liberties in 60 Seconds, how federal agencies like ICE use high tech surveillance to monitor peaceful protesters without a clear legal framework #ICE #TwinCities
www.youtube.com/shorts/EqA7...
Social media bans for kids are a huge trend--yet bad policy and likely unconstitutional. These laws don't just affect minors. They force adults into cumbersome age verification. I broke down the legal and social fallout in my new piece for @TheHill thehill.com/opinion/tec...
2/2 I’ve recorded a quick breakdown of the law and why this distinction matters for your constitutional rights. Watch it here: www.youtube.com/shorts/TqSNw...
1/2 Contrary to recent rhetoric from DHS, the law is clear: ICE agents generally cannot enter a home without a judicial warrant.
www.washingtonpost.com/immigration...
Frustrating that in an era where 80 % of major law enforcement agencies have body-worn cameras, ICE has so few of them. President Biden signed an Executive Order requiring body-worn cameras---which President Trump repealed on his first day in office.
Laird v Tatum was a terrible decision that continues to haunt our democracy half a century later.
I submitted a FOIA request for records the DHS OGC position. Granted, none of us are expecting scrupulous compliance with the public records laws from this administration.
Yes, agreed. Even though there are some block quotes, it's hard to know what to make of it overall
The New York City law requiring retailers to disclose their use of facial recognition technology is a minimal first step that every jurisdiction should adopt.
If you are going to surveil us, the very least you can do is tell us.
There is no way the current federal government will address this, even though it is clearly a national issue.
That means we need localities and states to step up. We cannot wait for Congress to plug the leak.
If the government doesn't search you—but simply asks Target or Wegmans for the data they already have—it's unlikely the constitution protects you.
www.aclu.org/news/privac...
This exposes a gaping hole in the Fourth Amendment: it has almost nothing to say about the government collecting "third-party" stores of data.
A new frontier in unchecked surveillance: retailers are turning their facial recognition systems into tools for law enforcement to spot persons of interest.
If you're wondering what Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post, has said publicly in response to the FBI's raid of a Washington Post reporter's home last week, the answer is nothing.
Mark Carney's remarks at Davos are worth reading in their entirety. This is the kind of leadership the world needs. paulwells.substack.com/p/the-carney...
Rules on paper mean nothing without leadership at the top. Policy doesn't amount to much when the President creates an environment of impunity.
A new ProPublica investigation documents immigration agents using these exact banned chokeholds. www.propublica.org/article/vid...
