It's not 'speech,' it's 'sanitary nuisance!' The post Judge Rebukes DeSantis Admin: ‘It’s The First Amendment, Stupid.’ appeared first on Above the Law.

U.S. law has long provided a border search exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant or probable cause requirement, allowing federal agents to search people, and their electronic devices, at border crossings without a warrant or probable cause. The scope of the exception may be narrowing under increased court scrutiny as modern cell phones provide what the Court called an “intimate window into a person’s life.” The government has long contended that border agents need to be able to conduct warrantless searches of cell phones for security purposes. In United States v. Sultanov, a New York federal court in the Eastern District of New York ruled that border agents must obtain a warrant based on probable cause before conducting searches of electronic devices at the border. The court ruled that searches of cell phones or other electronic devices are “nonroutine,” bringing them outside the border search exception. In its ruling, the court made the…

John B. Farmer, the founder of Leading Edge Law Group, PLC, in Richmond, Virginia, has for more than 25 years written a monthly column for the Richmond Times on breaking legal issues in the e-commerce, intellectual property and high-tech fields. He also lectures annually for the Virginia bar on trademark law developments. His highly practical analysis and advice is always worth reading. John has kindly given me permission to provide a link to his latest effort, co-authored with his colleague, Dana Bosnic, entitled "2023-24 Trademark Developments." [pdf here]. John is a former Chairman of Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC) and a frequent lecturer on trademark and branding issues. I thank him for allowing me to provide TTABlog readers with his insightful commentary on what's going on in the trademark world, and particularly at the USPTO and the TTAB. Here is the Table of Contents for this article. Contents I. Recent USPTO Administrative Developments…

Campaign Finance Pennsylvania: “A Judge Dismissed a Lawsuit That Ex-Mayoral Candidate Jeff Brown Filed Against the Ethics Board” by Anna Orso (Philadelphia Inquirer) for MSN Elections Alabama: “Judge Halts Alabama State Program Aimed at Determining Voter Eligibility” by David Nakamura and Patrick Marley (Washington Post) for MSN Florida: “‘It’s the First Amendment, Stupid’: Federal judge blasts DeSantis administration for threats against TV stations” by Liam Reilly and Brian Stelter (CNN) for MSN Ethics California: “How S.F.’s Former Dream Keeper Chief Used Her City Position to Boost Her Personal Brand” by Michael Barba and St. John Barned-Smith (San Francisco Chronicle) for MSN National: “Appendix of Source Materials Unsealed in Trump Jan. 6 Prosecution” by Spencer Hsu, Perry Stein, and Aaron Blake (Washington Post) for MSN…

The D.C. Circuit issued only one opinion this week, and it wasn’t about admin law. (It’s about the exceptions to the “three strikes” rule under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which bars prisoners from proceeding in forma pauperis if they have filed three frivolous lawsuits). So there isn’t much to report! The Court did hear argument last week in several interesting cases, though, including one about an FBI agent who lost his clearance and was suspended after testifying before Congress; a suit from a journalist alleging First Amendment violations from the denial of a “hard” press pass for the White House (i.e., one that allows “on-demand” access); and a challenge by several airports across the country to new TSA rules about screening airport workers. There will be interesting decisions in the future. But for now, we wait… The post D.C. Circuit Review – Reviewed: A Slow Week appeared first on Yale Journal…

Here are some of the regulatory developments of significance to broadcasters from the past week, with links to where you can go to find more information as to how these actions may affect your operations. The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau released its second EEO audit notice for 2024.  Audited stations and their station employment units (commonly owned stations serving the same area) must provide to the FCC their last two years of EEO Annual Public File Reports and other documentation showing that the stations complied with the FCC’s EEO rules.  Audited stations have until December 2 to upload the required information to their Online Public Inspection Files, although stations in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia impacted by Hurricanes Helene or Milton may take additional time until January 16 to do so.  See our article here for more detail on EEO audits and the FCC’s concerns about broadcasters’ EEO…

Today's advance release tort law opinion: Mulvihill v. Spinnato(Defamation; special motion to dismiss pursuant to anti-SLAPP statute (§ 52-196a)).

From the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represented defendant Amy Gulley (click on the link above for a version with many more links): In August 2023, a British court convicted nurse Lucy Letby of murdering seven children and attempting to murder six more. The trial garnered international media attention. When Sarrita Adams — a British expat living in California — questioned the scientific evidence behind the conviction. Claiming to hold a Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge, Adams set up a website questioning the evidence, sought to submit a friend-of-the-court brief to the British court, and began fundraising to "aid in the upcoming appeal for Lucy Letby" — even starting a for-profit company, "Science on Trial, Inc." British media outlets and internet users questioned the credibility of…

The trial court thought that the board members of the Coachella Valley Water District had brought an entirely frivolous anti-SLAPP motion, so awarded the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association over $180,000 in attorney's fees for the frivolous motion.The Court of Appeal, by contrast, thought that the anti-SLAPP motion was not only frivolous, but meritorious, so reverses and grants the "frivolous" motion on appeal.Interesting how different judges can reach such dramatically disparate rulings, eh?

Former footballer, Joey Barton has made a statement in open court, in which he apologised for suggesting that Radio 2 presenter Jeremy Vine had a sexual interest in children in a series of online posts and stated that he recognised the allegations were untrue. In settlement of the claim, Barton agreed to pay £75,000 in damages and legal costs, in addition to a further £35,000 for posts published after Vine issued his claim, after the High Court ruled that the posts were defamatory in May. However, before the High Court hearing on Friday 11 October, Barton posted another video on X, depicting Vine wearing a pair of heeled shoes and the caption, “Perfectly normal. Nothing to see here.” Vine’s barrister stated that posting the videos “negates the vindication of a statement” and Steyn J warned Barton about the risk of contempt of court should he breach the undertakings he had given not to harass Vine. The Independent, Metro,…

?Advance release contract law opinion: Sicignano v. Pearce (Breach of contract; defamation, defamation per se; fraud; Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (§ 42-110a et seq.); special motions to dismiss pursuant to anti-SLAPP statute (§ 52-196a); separation of powers doctrine; ex post facto clause of United States constitution.)

Fifteen years ago, courts generally avoided categorical pronouncements about the legitimacy of competitive keyword advertising. That produced a string of waffly or irresolute rulings, such as the appellate rulings in Rescuecom v. Google (2d Circuit) and Rosetta Stone v. Google (4th Circuit). Whatever legal ambiguity might have existed then has been decisively resolved, at least with respect to competitive keyword ads that don’t use the trademark in the ad copy. Courts almost never found trademark infringement in those cases, but it was only in the last decade that we started to get opinions saying this bluntly and clearly. That’s why I welcome the Second Circuit’s ruling in 1-800 Contacts v. Warby Parker, part of 1-8oo Contacts’ irrepressible efforts to revive the litigation genre. The Second Circuit says, unambiguously, that “the mere act of purchasing a search engine keyword that is a competitor’s trademark does not alone, in the context of…

In a published decision filed October 7, 2024, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment rejecting a CEQA challenge to the revised EIR for the State Capitol renovation project based on recent legislation exempting that project from CEQA.  Save Our Capitol! v. Department of General Services (Joint Committee on Rules of the California State Senate and Assembly) (2024) ___ Cal.App.5th ___.  This was the Court’s third published appellate decision in the CEQA litigation over the controversial project; see my posts dated January 2 and January 23, 2023 and May 23, 2024, covering the Court’s initial two published decisions finding flaws in the project EIR, and in the trial court’s premature discharge of the remedial writ, and my post dated July 11, 2024 covering the dispositive statutory CEQA exemption enacted through SB 174. The Court of Appeal’s Opinion Little more need be said regarding the substantive…

After nearly four years of court battles, Proposition 22—also known as the Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act—has been upheld by the California Supreme Court. The voter-enacted law allows drivers for app-based transportation and delivery companies—also known as “network companies”—to be classified as independent contractors, as long as several conditions are met. Summary of Proposition 22 In January 2020, Assembly Bill No. 5 (AB-5)—the landmark bill that created a streamlined test for determining which workers are independent contractors—took effect. AB-5 codified the “ABC test” set forth by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Super. Ct. Under the ABC test, a worker may be treated as an independent contractor only if the hiring entity can meet three conditions. After the enactment of AB-5 made it virtually impossible to classify workers as independent contractors, many…

By Thomas A. Robinson, co-author, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law Editorial Note: All section references below are to Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, unless otherwise indicated. Traveling Employee Injured in Fall Down Employer’s Unobstructed Stairs. Acknowledging that generally, traversing stairs is a neutral risk and injuries resulting therefrom are not compensable under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act, but construing the state’s rules on traveling employees, an Illinois appellate court affirmed a finding of the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission that a town’s “blight inspector” was a traveling employee and accordingly, that injuries sustained by him in a fall down unobstructed stairs at a town office building were compensable [see Town of Cicero v. Illinois Workers’ Comp. Comm’n , 2024 IL App (1st) 230609WC, 2024 Ill. App. LEXIS 819, § 7.04 n. 41.1]. The court agreed…

California law provides that any licensee of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control or agent or employee of the licensee, who sells, gives or delivers to any person any alcoholic beverage between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. of the same day, and any person who knowingly purchases any alcoholic beverages between those hours, is guilty of a misdemeanor.  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 25631.  Thus, if it 3 in the morning and you are looking for a drink, you are out of luck in California.  Your luck, however, may soon change as a result of legislation recently passed by the California legislature.   AB 3206 (McKinnor) allows the sale of alcoholic beverages between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. at an on-sale licensed premises operated in a fully enclosed arena with a seating capacity of at least 18,000 seats located in the City of Inglewood, subject to certain conditions.  If that sounds very specific, it is.  The only arena that fits this…

The California Legislature has banned more food ingredients in the name of food safety. This time, six food dyes are being banned from California’s public schools. Passed unanimously by the California Senate and Assembly, the California Food Safety Act only awaits the governor’s signature to become law. The bill prohibits public schools from serving food and beverages containing synthetic colorings, which California lawmakers believe are linked to neurobehavioral issues experienced by some children. Assembly Bill 2316 bans dyes in schools, including Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, Blue 2, and Green 3. The ban follows the complete prohibition of the manufacture, sale, and distribution of any foods anywhere in California containing the additives red dye no. 3, titanium dioxide, potassium bromate, brominated vegetable oil, and propylparaben. Jesse Gabriel, the Assembly representative who has sponsored both sets of bills, said the state is responsible for…

Last month, two key legal developments in the area of independent contractor misclassification and compliance highlighted the risks posed to customer service companies that use an independent contractor business model. The first involves a Colorado company using agents to provide customer support through an app-based platform. The company was sued in a proposed class and collective action lawsuit based on the allegation that the company misclassified the agents as ICs and not employees. The second involves a $3 million settlement between a nationwide customer service support company and the U.S. Department of Labor, which sued the company alleging it had misclassified as ICs the workers that provide customer service to its clients. Many companies in the customer service industry use an independent contractor business model. Workers in that type of trade or occupation usually can be classified legally as ICs under federal and most state laws if their relationships with the…