#DC US Circuit Court of Appeals

[facelessoldgargoyle]

I haven’t seen anything about this on tumblr, so check it out:

TLDR:

- Insane Texas judge issues a ruling that revokes the FDA approval of commonly used medical abortifacient mifepristone. This was an insane ruling because (a) the plaintiffs lack standing to bring this case (b) the plaintiffs did not exhaust their appeals to the FDA, a requirement for bringing a case like this to trial (c) the statute of limitations for an appeal on the FDA’s approval ran out 16 years ago. In addition, the judge was wrong about mifepristone; it is a safe and effective method of seeking abortion.

- At the exact same time, a contrary ruling from a judge in Washington DC that requires the FDA to not change the status of mifepristone. 16 AGs of blue and purple states sued for this ruling. It directly contradicts the Texas 5th Circuit.

- The Supreme Court has issued an administrative stay of 7 days on the Texas ruling so that it can hear these cases and resolve the contradiction. Because the Texas ruling was made on such terrible legal grounds, I wouldn’t normally be concerned. However, this Supreme Court is politically motivated to eliminate abortion, so who can say?

- If you need a medical abortion, seek it NOW.

[follow-up-news]

The federal appeals court in Washington, DC, on Tuesday upheld the conviction of the Cowboys for Trump founder who entered the restricted area of the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, saying rioters didn’t have to know the Secret Service was protecting then-Vice President Mike Pence inside when they breached the area. The case is among a handful that tested the foundational approach the Justice Department took to prosecute hundreds of Capitol rioters, and the decision has been long-awaited since it was argued last December by those handling cases coming through the DC federal court. It also strengthens federal protection the Secret Service can offer, by defining more clearly the law around trespassing in areas where public officials are being protected. “The basis of the Secret Service’s authority to prevent access to designated areas for the safety of its protectees … need not be in the mind of the trespasser,” DC Circuit Judge Nina Pillard wrote in the opinion Tuesday. The unsuccessful challenge to the law was brought by Couy Griffin, a New Mexico local official who organized a group called Cowboys for Trump, who jumped a stone wall outside the Capitol to board the inauguration stage. Griffin was convicted of two misdemeanors, including the trespassing charge, and was sentenced to 14 days in jail and a year of supervised release. “In [Griffin’s] view, the statute also requires proof that he knew why the Capitol grounds were so restricted when he entered or remained there —i.e. that a Secret Service protectee was or would be temporarily visiting the Capitol grounds. We decline to adopt such a rule,” Pillard wrote in the 2-1 opinion. “Griffin’s approach would surely hinder the Secret Service’s capacity to handle the full range of potential threats.”

[beardedmrbean]

Maryland’s largest school district does not have to allow parents to opt their K-5 children out of classes and books that discuss LGBTQ topics like sexuality and gender, at least for now, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.

The 2-1 ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision denying a preliminary injunction on the basis that the parents had not shown how the policy – initiated by the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) board – would violate their children’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

The parents had argued that refusal to provide an opt-out from their children’s exposure to LGBT-themed books and related discussions violates federal and state law.

Some of the book titles include "The Pride Puppy," "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," and "Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope." 

The parents argued that the books contradict their religious duty to train their children in accordance with their faith on "what it means to be male and female; the institution of marriage; human sexuality; and related themes."

The litigants - three sets of parents who are Muslim, Jewish and Christian, along with a parental rights organization -- argue that the responsibility for what their children learn should fall to them, instead of the schools.

However, the court ruled that the mere exposure to ideas contrary to one’s faith is not enough of a burden to implicate the First Amendment and that exposure to issues that one disagrees with, even for religious reasons, is "part of the compromise parents make when choosing to send their children to public schools," the ruling states.

"We take no view on whether the Parents will be able to present evidence sufficient to support any of their various theories once they have the opportunity to develop a record as to the circumstances surrounding the Board’s decision and how the challenged texts are actually being used in schools," U.S. Circuit Judge G. Steven Agee, President George W. Bush appointee, wrote for the majority in the opinion.

"At this early stage, however, given the Parents’ broad claims, the very high burden required to obtain a preliminary injunction, and the scant record before us, we are constrained to affirm the district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction."

U.S. Circuit Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., who was appointed by former President Trump, dissented, writing that he disagreed with the district court motion finding the parents failed to establish that the board burdened their First Amendment rights. 

"The parents have shown the board’s decision to deny religious opt-outs burdened these parents’ right to exercise their religion and direct the religious upbringing of their children by putting them to the choice of either compromising their religious beliefs or foregoing a public education for their children," Quattlebaum wrote.

"I also find that the board’s actions, at least under this record, were neither neutral nor generally applicable. Finally, I find the parents have established the other requirements for a preliminary injunction. So, I would reverse the district court and enjoin the Montgomery County School Board of Education from denying religious opt-outs for instruction to K-5 children involving the texts."

Eric Baxter, a senior counsel and vice president at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which is representing the parents, tells Fox 5 DC that the group is disappointed with the decision and says the themes are inappropriate for students.  

"They involve issues around sexuality that are simply too mature for such young children," Baxter said. 

Baxter tells The Hill they plan to appeal the ruling.

"The court just told thousands of Maryland parents they have no say in what their children are taught in public schools," Baxter tells the publication. "That runs contrary to the First Amendment, Maryland law, the School Board’s own policies, and basic human decency."

MCPS, which is the wealthiest district in Maryland, announced in 2022 efforts to include an LGBTQ-inclusive reading list as part of its English language arts curriculum. The decision sparked several rallies pushing for the school district to put the opt-out policy back in place.

Bethany Mandel, a mother and contributing writer for Deseret News, told "Fox & Friends First" last year that she believed it's a parent's right to tackle controversial topics, including sexuality and gender ideology, with their children on their own terms.

"Some of the books were first, second, third-grade read-aloud books about transgender ideology, about sexuality," Mandel told Carley Shimkus. "Some of the parents who spoke in favor of banning the opt-out said… 'I'm gay, and a book didn't make me gay and... There's no way that your child, if you shield them in this manner, can sort of operate in the outside world,' and that's not what anyone is asserting."

"No one thinks that our kids can turn gay by reading a book. What we're asserting is that children are best learning about these sort of tricky, sticky subjects from their parents, and their parents should have a right to determine how their kids are first introduced to this," she continued. 

[lboogie1906]

Jurist Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson (September 14, 1970) serves as an associate justice of the SCOTUS. She was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Joe Biden and sworn into office on June 30, 2022. She was a US circuit judge of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

She was born in DC. Her father, Johnny Brown, further attended the University of Miami School of Law and became the chief attorney for the Miami-Dade County School Board; her mother, Ellery, served as school principal at New World School of the Arts in Miami.

She studied government at Harvard University. She performed improv comedy took classes in drama and led protests against a student who displayed a Confederate flag from his dorm window. She graduated from Harvard with an AB magna cum laude. Her senior thesis was entitled “The Hand of Oppression: Plea Bargaining Processes and the Coercion of Criminal Defendants”.

She worked as a staff reporter and researcher for Time magazine, then attended Harvard Law School, where she was a supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review. She graduated with a JD cum laude.

She is a member of the Judicial Conference Committee on Defender Services and the Council of the American Law Institute. She serves on the board of Georgetown Day School and the Supreme Court Fellows Commission.

She has served as a judge in several mock trials with the Shakespeare Theatre Company. She presided over a mock trial, hosted by Drexel University’s Thomas R. Kline School of Law, ���to determine if Vice President Aaron Burr was guilty of murdering” Alexander Hamilton.

She has served as a judge for the Historical Society of the District of Columbia’s Mock Court Program. She served on the advisory board of Montrose Christian School, a Baptist school.

She presented at the University of Georgia School of Law’s 35th Edith House Lecture. She gave the Martin Luther King Jr. Day Lecture at the University of Michigan Law School and was honored at the University of Chicago Law School’s third annual Judge James B. Parsons Legacy Dinner, which was hosted by the school’s Black Law Students Association. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence #deltasigmatheta

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from The Nation:

Donald Trump believes that he has the Supreme Court in his back pocket. He is right. The court heard oral arguments on Thursday in Trump v. United States, the case about whether Trump is immune from prosecution over his attempt to obstruct Congress and reverse the results of the election he clearly lost. Trump is counting on delaying the trial about his crimes committed in the previous election until he gets to the next one, which he hopes to win so he can then dismiss the charges against him. The Supreme Court has done everything in its power to help Trump accomplish his goals, and that pattern continued on Thursday.

At this point, people who expect anything less than the maximum partisan thuggery possible from the Republicans justices are not paying attention—or worse, they’re actively lying to themselves and the American people about what the Roberts court has become. The question has long since ceased being “whether” the court will help Trump; the question is only “how” it will go about doing it.

Heading into oral arguments, the justices-for-Trump crowd had three ways to stand by their man: They could grant Trump absolute immunity; they could reject immunity but release their ruling as late as possible; or they could send the case back down to the DC Circuit court for an additional ruling (lawyers call this a “remand”) that would trigger another appeal and another opportunity for delay.

The first option is kind of a nonstarter. Unlike, say, the Republican judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Republicans on the Supreme Court are generally careful to make sure that their pro-Trump rulings cannot be turned against them later and used by a Democratic president. Giving Trump blanket, absolute immunity could be used by people like the current president, Joe Biden, to do whatever he wanted. Granted, Biden would not use the newfound power to steal an election as Trump did—Democrats are eager to follow rules that don’t apply to the other side—and the Supreme Court knows that. But still, granting future presidents total immunity from criminal prosecution sets a precedent that even Republicans can see is dangerous.

The second option of just delaying the decision rejecting Trump’s argument has always been in play. But that option might not get the Supreme Court and Trump all the way to the next election. There is a timeline, albeit an unlikely one, where special counsel Jack Smith could still get through a trial before November, so long as the court rules against Trump by the end of the term.

That brings us to the third option: Remanding the case back to the DC Circuit. This is the option that causes maximum delay of Trump’s reckoning, allowing him to avoid it entirely if he wins the next election, while still preserving the court’s ability to say that blanket immunity is unconstitutional later down the line, should Trump lose. Remand is therefore the best possible option for the Republican justices if they want to see a Republican president elected in November—and at oral arguments, most of them signaled that’s exactly what they’re going to do.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

John Fritze at CNN, via The Advocate:

(CNN) — The Supreme Court on Monday declined to review an appeal from a group of parents who claimed their suburban Washington-area school district was hiding transgender support plans involving their children. Three parents sued the Montgomery Country school district in Maryland over guidelines adopted in 2020 that allow schools to develop support plans for transgender students and “respect the students’ wishes to keep certain information confidential.”

The Supreme Court’s decision, made without explanation, left in place an appeals court ruling that the parents lacked standing to sue because they never established the plans were put in place for their children. It’s the latest in a series of cases where the high court has dodged the issue of transgender rights at school – often leaving in place lower court rulings that sided with trans students. “This case presents an issue on the merits that is roiling parents and school districts from Maine to California,” the parents who sued over the policy told the justices in their appeal last year. “It is important for parents, their children, and public schools alike to have this issue addressed and resolved now.” The school district said the guidelines were put in place to “ensure a safe and respectful school environment” for all students. The fact that a student chooses to disclose information to a teacher or administrator, the school said, “does not authorize school staff to disclose a student’s information to others.”

SCOTUS refuses to grant review for the John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education case regarding Montgomery County Public Schools' trans-inclusive policies that the 4th Circuit Court ruled that the parents lacked standing.

See Also:

Reuters: US Supreme Court won't hear Maryland school district gender identity case

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

* * * *

Supreme Outrage!

April 26, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Thursday regarding Trump's presidential immunity defense. For clarity, that defense asserts that the president is above the law and beyond the reach of US criminal statutes that otherwise apply to every American. To the shock of everyone—and no one—the reactionary majority expressed sympathy for Trump's defense. The hearing itself was a supreme outrage. While the reactionary majority may not adopt the most extreme version of Trump’s defense, they need not do so to grant Trump a victory. Indeed, they have already granted Trump most of what he asked for: a lengthy delay.

Before I review the debacle that masqueraded as a Supreme Court hearing, let’s skip to the most important part: We have a remedy; we need only be bold enough to claim it. The current court is illegitimate; we must effectively replace it by enlarging the Court to overwhelm the reactionary majority.

Is such a plan reasonable? Constitutional? Wise? Achievable? Yes! Mitch McConnell created an Orwellian rule to deny Democratic presidents the right to appoint Supreme Court justices—and then waived the novel rule as soon as it would apply to an appointment by a Republican. Three justices (at least) lack legitimacy: Gorsuch and Barrett, whose appointments were tainted by the McConnell rule, and Clarence Thomas, who should recuse himself from every case relating to Trump. In short, one-third of the Court that heard Trump's arguments on Thursday had no business presiding over Trump's immunity claim.

Expanding the Court requires only a majority vote in both chambers of Congress and the signature of the president. Those conditions are within our grasp in November 2024. When I first raised this prospect in 2018, it was met with shock and horror by readers, who protested that expanding the Court would undermine its legitimacy. Such objections seem quaint in light of the damage wrought by the Court in six short years.

As Ian Millhiser of Vox wrote today,

One takeaway from today's debacle of a Supreme Court argument is Democrats need to start seriously considering packing the Supreme Court. A Court that would allow Donald Trump to get away with trying to steal a presidential election cannot be trusted.

We have a long list of issues that should drive us to the polls in historic numbers in November. Add to that list that we are burdened with a lawless Supreme Court that cannot be trusted with our democracy or Constitution.

As noted above, the reactionary majority granted Trump a victory before the hearing began by refusing Jack Smith’s request to skip the intermediate step of an appeal to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court enhanced that victory for Trump by refusing to hear the matter on an expedited schedule. And now it appears that the Court will issue a fractured opinion on the last day possible (June 30) that will order the trial court to engage in pointless pre-trial fact-finding about the difference between “private” and “official” acts.

But most critically, the reactionary majority gave Trump a victory by dignifying ludicrous arguments that should have been rebuked and condemned the moment Trump's counsel gave them voice. In failing to reject those arguments out of hand, the reactionary majority bestowed upon them the veneer of legitimacy and respectability they do not deserve.

For example, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Trump's lawyer,

If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity? Trump's lawyer responded, “That could well be an official act [and therefore immune from prosecution]”

How did we arrive at this point? How is it possible that counsel for a former president could say with a straight face that a president can order the assassination of a political rival with impunity? How could the justices sit silently and ponder counsel’s answer instead of rising in horror and ordering the attorney out of the courtroom? They are feckless. They have abandoned the Constitution in its hour of need by failing to communicate the horror and repulsion such arguments deserve.

The reactionary majority also gave Trump a victory by refusing to acknowledge the constitutional urgency of the attempted coup and insurrection. Rather than focusing on the facts alleged in the indictment against Trump, the reactionary majority crafted ever more fanciful hypotheticals that had no bearing on the case at hand. As expressed by Professor Laurence Tribe,

Today’s SCOTUS argument was more like a hearing in Congress to design an immunity law for future presidents, with Justice Kavanaugh saying “We’re not taking about the present case” and Justice Gorsuch saying “We’re writing rules for the ages” and Justice Alito joining in.

Only Justice Jackson reminded her colleagues that deciding this case was the Court’s task and that it might not be cool to use it as a vehicle for “answering in advance all these abstract questions”!

By engaging in fantasy rather than focusing on the facts at hand, it is inevitable that the Court will send the case back to the trial court for pre-trial fact finding—an outcome that will ensure the case will be delayed until after the election. The Court will thus deny all Americans the opportunity to cast their vote with the benefit of a jury verdict on Trump's guilt or innocence.

Justice Alito reached the pinnacle of bad faith by arguing that not granting immunity to Trump would increase the likelihood that a future president would try to stay in power. Huh? Every president before Trump relinquished power voluntarily without benefit of presidential immunity. If Trump is told he has absolute immunity and wins a second term, what motivation would he have to leave office—ever?

Alito also summited the peak of hypocrisy. In Dobbs, he wrote that there is no constitutional right to an abortion, reasoning as follows:

Constitutional analysis must begin with “the language of the instrument . . .  The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion . . . .

But the Constitution make no reference to “presidential immunity.” As counsel for Jack Smith argued,

There is no immunity that is in the Constitution, unless this Court creates it today.

Do not expect blatant hypocrisy to slow Alito’s headlong embrace of presidential immunity that appears nowhere in the Constitution. Alito knows no shame in service of his reactionary agenda.

For additional discussion of the oral argument and potential outcome, see

Ian Millhiser in Vox, The Supreme Court is likely to place Donald Trump above the law in its immunity case (excellent legal summary), and

Chris Geidner at Law Dork, SCOTUS approach to Trump's immunity claim likely to delay D.C. case further (substack.com) (deep dive into argument by counsel and questions by justices).

Millhiser predicts an outcome along the following lines:

At least five of the Court’s Republicans seemed eager to, at the very least, permit Trump to delay his federal criminal trial for attempting to steal the 2020 election until after this November’s election. And the one GOP appointee who seemed to hedge the most, Chief Justice John Roberts, also seemed to think that Trump enjoys at least some immunity from criminal prosecution.

As summarized by Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, The Court is Corrupt. Say It With Me. Per Marshall,

The Roberts Court is a corrupt institution which operates in concert with and on behalf of the Republican Party . . . That’s the challenge in front of us. . . . But things become more clear-cut once we take the plunge and accept that fact.

The courts are not going to save us. The reverse is true. A significant portion of the federal judiciary has been corrupted and undermined by judges loyal to a reactionary religious and partisan agenda above all else. They view the Constitution and statutes as convenient “talking points” when they advance their agenda and disposable trifles when they do not.

Our remedy is at the ballot box. We must give Joe Biden control of Congress and a mandate to reform the federal judiciary—starting with the Supreme Court. We can achieve that goal if we are disciplined and tenacious. Put aside all disagreements and reservations to ensure Democrats win control of the executive and legislative branches in 2024. Then we can begin the long, slow work of repairing the damage inflicted in a few short years by the reactionary majority empaneled by Trump, McConnell, and The Federalist Society.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[stephen-barry]

Dr. William L. Bainbridge;

Ph.D., former CEO & Distinguished Research Professor at School Match Institute - University of Dayton (2001-2018)Ph.D., former CEO & Distinguished Research Professor at School Match Institute - University of Dayton (2001-2018)

With the presidential immunity case the SCOTUS was given an iron-clad ruling from the DC circuit court. It did not need to hear this case at all.

If it believed that, for reasons of legitimacy, it needed to weigh in, the Court could have granted cert to this appeal on the narrow question of whether or not Donald Trump, in this particular case, could claim immunity.

Instead, the Court granted cert on the widest grounds possible, giving itself the scope to define presidential immunity for all time.

Kim Wehle talked about this choice last night and it is striking how the conservatives on this Court were eager for the chance to create precedent.

“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said during arguments.

But no one asked Gorsuch to write a rule for the ages.

The Court was given a narrow question to decide and the Court’s conservatives chose to widen the aperture as much as possible so that they could make right some cosmic wrongs they see in American law.

Which is exactly what conservatives used to complain that liberal judges did.

[greatwyrmgold]

So, Donald Trump's lawyer said that he thinks the President's legal immunity would protect him if he ordered Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival.

He added qualifications about "He could be charged if Congress already impeached and convicted him," but that has a loophole where the President could resign if he was at risk of actually getting impeached and thereby get off scot-free.

Some commentators argued that Seal Team Six wouldn't actually listen to that assassination order, but that seems like shaky ground on which to justify letting that be legal. Others point out that this contradicts an argument Trump made earlier, about how Congress shouldn't impeach him because that's not actually necessary to pursue criminal charges, which is interesting but not that important.

What seems important to me is that Trump's legal team is openly admitting that their rhetorical positions only make sense if the President can get away with assassinating political rivals. Concerning. I hope they lose!

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398223-trump-team-argues-assassination-of-rivals-is-covered-by-presidential-immunity/

[cmesinic]

Crazy 🤪!

[bllsbailey]

Court Vaporizes 50 Years of Environmental Law Leaving Trump's EPA to Build on the Ashes

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit summarily vaporized 46 years of Federal environmental regulations. Writing in a case called Marin Audubon Society, et al v. FAA, et al, the majority of a three-judge panel ruled that the Council on Environmental Quality, a cabal inside the Executive Office of the President charged with ensuring that National Environmental Protection Act requirements are interpreted uniformly across the federal government, had illegally used the Federal Register to publish that guidance thereby giving citizens, agencies, and even the courts the impression that their internal guidance had the authority of law.

The decision was written by Karen LeCraft Henderson (George H. W. Bush) and A. Raymond Randolph (George H. W. Bush) with Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan (Joe Biden) dissenting, and it found:

As the parties argue the case, it centers on whether the Agencies complied with regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, an entity within the Executive Office of the President.  We will not address these arguments.  The CEQ regulations, which purport to govern how all federal agencies must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, are ultra vires. 

Ultra vires means the CEQ was acting "beyond the legal scope of it authority."

The court goes on to detail the shenanigans by which an advisory body with no regulatory authority was able to write environmental regulations for the entire United States for nearly a half-century just because it decided it could. 

Making the case even more awesome is that it was set off by enviro-wackos suing the FAA for allowing sightseeing flights near some national parks. The enviros claimed the FAA used the wrong standard established by the CEQ to permit the flight. They ended up being right in a backhanded kind of way.

This decision throws the entire environmental regulation scheme governing the federal government into chaos. I suspect that many of the CEQs regulations will be reissued by other agencies, but after Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (see The Supreme Court Firebombs the Administrative State and Tells Congress to Get Off Its Butt and Work) that slew the medusa called "Chevron deference," the survival of those replacement regulations is not assured.

The silver lining is that Trump's EPA, under Lee Zeldin (see We Have Another Trump Cabinet Pick: Lee Zeldin Gets the Nod), will get the first crack at reworking useless and expensive regulations.

Complete Decision

Marin Audobon Society vs. FAA by streiff on Scribd

[ipconsultinggroup-1]

🎯 Ed Sheeran beats copyright appeal over 'Thinking Out Loud' song

On November 1, Reuters reported that Ed Sheeran, along with his record label Warner Music and music publisher Sony Music Publishing, successfully convinced a U.S. appeals court to uphold a previous ruling that his 2014 hit, Thinking Out Loud, did not infringe on Marvin Gaye’s 1973 classic Let's Get It On. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan sided with a lower court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Structured Asset Sales, which owns the rights previously held by the song's co-writer, Ed Townsend.

David Pullman, the owner of Structured Asset Sales and an investment banker, stated that the company was considering its options following the court's decision. Donald Zakarin, the lawyer representing Sheeran and the record labels, expressed that they were "gratified" by the 2nd Circuit’s ruling. Earlier, in May 2023, Sheeran also won a different copyright case brought by the heirs of Ed Townsend, who hold a separate portion of rights in Let's Get It On, after a closely followed jury trial.

Structured Asset Sales (SAS) filed a lawsuit against Sheeran in 2018. However, U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton dismissed the case after the jury's decision in the lawsuit filed by Townsend’s heirs. Judge Stanton concluded that the musical elements in question were too commonplace to qualify for copyright protection. The appeals court upheld this view, noting that granting copyright on these elements could hinder creative expression and affirming that Sheeran’s song did not bear enough similarity to Marvin Gaye's work to infringe on SAS's copyright.

The appeals court also dismissed the argument that Judge Stanton should have considered Gaye's original recording, which, according to Pullman, contained essential elements allegedly copied by Sheeran, instead of limiting the review to the sheet music registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. Structured Asset Sales has filed an additional lawsuit against Sheeran based on its rights to Gaye’s recording, though that case is currently paused.

Contact Us DC: +1 (202) 666-8377 MD: +1 (240) 477-6361 FL +1 (239) 292–6789 Website: https://www.ipconsultinggroups.com/ Mail: protect@ipconsultinggroups.com Headquarters: 9009 Shady Grove Ct. Gaithersburg, MD 20877 Branch Office: 7734 16th St, NW Washington DC 20012 Branch Office: Vanderbilt Dr, Bonita Spring, FL 34134

[ronaldjmoore]

Appeals Decision in Child in Need of Services Case

The Randolph Circuit Court appealed “Termination of Parental Rights of: AB (Minor Child), v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner. and I.B. (Mother), Appellant-Respondent,” with a decision rendered on December 29. 2023. The case focused on the termination of parental rights.

Biological parents of AB., IB. (Mother), and CB (Father) allegedly engaged in persistent drug use and failed to provide the infant with a stable home. A Randolph County Department of Child Services (DCS) petition filed within a month of AB’s birth claimed that AB met the criterion of a child in need of services (CHINS). On June 24, 2021, just a day after the infant’s two-month birthday, the parents provided legal admission that AB stood as a CHINS.

DCS petitioned to have the parental rights of the Mother and Father terminated. The post office returned the summons sent by DCS via certified mail to Mother, addressed to her last known Ohio address, as undeliverable. Before the initial Termination of Parental Rights (TPS) hearing, the trial court appointed an attorney representing the Mother in the underlying CHINS matter. While this appointed counsel appeared at the initial hearing, Mother did not attend.

DCS received permission to serve the Mother by publication, with the DCS Family Case Manager serving the Father's mother at her Richmond, Indiana, home. The trial court and DCS deemed it to constitute an acceptance of service on Mother's behalf. Then, the trial court terminated Mother's parental relationship with her offspring, noting, "All persons required to be notified of these proceeding[s] and the hearings were so notified.”

Mother appealed, claiming a violation of due process rights since she did not receive the process. The attorney’s case hinged on care, custody, and control of one’s children, which are some of the most fundamental and well-established “liberty interests.” Correspondingly, a parent-child relationship remains one of the most valued relationships.

The definition of due process became another critical factor. It embodies certain principles of “fundamental fairness.” So does the opportunity for an individual to share their perspective and heard in a meaningful time and manner. Balancing parental rights and trial court actions is a matter of weighing the State's “parens patriae interest” in ensuring the child’s welfare is protected, with a parent's private interest spanning custody, care, and control of his or her offspring. Both interests are substantial and case-relevant.

On its part, the DCS contended that Mother waived her entitlement to due process rights by failing to raise a due process argument in the trial court. The appellate judge agreed that such action (by nonappearance in court) would generally result in waiving such rights. However, terminating parental rights implicates Mother’s “substantive and procedural due process rights.” It leaves it to the discretion of the court to review her due process claim.

The court found that none of the various methods DCS did not fully comply with serving Mother with process, despite unknown whereabouts. The court found that the record has procedural irregularities, indicating an overall lack of the “care and caution” required of such proceedings. With blatant and significant service errors overlooked by the trial court and counsel, it violated the Mother's rights to due process. Therefore, the appealing court deemed the order issued by the trial court terminating her parental rights as void.

[lboogie1906]

Judge Leondra Reid Kruger (July 28, 1976) a Justice on the California Supreme Court, was born in Glendale, California to Leon Kruger and Audrey Reid Kruger. Both of her parents were physicians. She was reared in South Pasadena. She has two siblings. Editor-in-chief of Polytechnic High School’s newspaper. She enrolled at Harvard University and received a BA. She was a reporter for the Harvard Crimson and was awarded the Phi Beta Kappa key. She earned a JD from Yale Law School. She was editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal, the first Black woman to hold that position.

She clerked for Judge David Tatel on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and she clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens of the SCOTUS.

She was a visiting assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School. She joined the Department of Justice. She argued 12 cases before the SCOTUS on behalf of the federal government. She served as a deputy assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.

She was confirmed by a special three-member committee to the California Supreme Court as a judge. Since 2015, she has been a California Supreme Court justice. She authored a noticeable opinion in a 4-3 ruling that upheld the law requiring people arrested for suspected felonies to provide DNA specimens before charges are filed. She authored several more opinions, including one reflecting a unanimous court that allowed a death row inmate, who claimed racial discrimination during jury selection, to review a prosecutor’s notes. She wrote the opinion in a unanimous ruling that upheld a white supremacist’s convictions, she wrote a unanimous decision regarding sexual abuse of minor plaintiffs training for the Olympics in taekwondo by their coach.

She is married to attorney Brian Hauck. The couple have a son and daughter.

In 2022, she was a frontrunner on President Joseph Biden’s shortlist to replace Justice Stephen Breyer as the first Black Female SCOTUS Justice. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence #phibetakappa

[leopoldainter]

This is the legendary inn. This is the guild

LalLALilalalaja hIfThereIf lose124 last you were here He's Clarice

Kinzingerz caramakani

It's important tu us that they get the right answer that they get the right narrative

Sunday morn

Artvandelat

Indc thedc circuit Court of appeals dc

Ages and ages they were in no hurry

He and Reagan went around the sissycongress

I met a man named

Walter

Taffet

[speed-seo]

Google Asserts Its Search Quality Keeps Improving in Court Filing

Search engine giant Google recently made some bold claims about its search quality in a court filing responding to an antitrust lawsuit. The company ardently argued that its search engine quality has steadily improved over the years thanks to continuous innovation and enhancements. This article will analyze Google's statements on search quality, assess whether the claims hold up, provide context on the antitrust case, and consider what it means for the search landscape going forward. Google's Statements on Improving Quality In its filing with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Google asserted that it operates the highest quality general search engine in the United States. The company stated, "Google's search engine today is of remarkably high quality - higher than it was 10 years ago, and dramatically better than its peers." Google went on to describe having an "unrelenting focus on improving search quality" and highlighted setting explicit quality goals to measure progress each year. Some of the sample annual search quality goals mentioned include improving spelling correction, understanding conversational queries, and ranking authoritative healthcare information higher. The filing specifically called out innovations like Google's RankBrain algorithm, Knowledge Graph, intuitive voice searching, and improvements in local search as key drivers of enhancing search quality over time. Google argued that continuous advancement of its search algorithms, along with growing its index of web pages, has steadily made its results more comprehensive, relevant, and useful for those searching online. Responses to Monopoly Power Claims A significant motivation behind Google's search quality assertions appears to be responding to monopoly power allegations. The company forcefully rejected claims that it has illegally maintained its dominant position in the search market, arguing there has been no degradation in quality. Google stated that barriers to entry are decreasing, not increasing, in the internet search ecosystem. The filing points to search services like Microsoft's Bing, along with specialized vertical search engines, as evidence that competition continues to grow. Google believes this dynamic marketplace will organically prevent any potential decline in the quality of its search product. You can read Google´s response Here Assessing Google's Search Quality Claims But does the available data back up Google's bold claims that its search quality keeps dramatically improving year after year? There are a few ways to evaluate: - Benchmarking Studies - Organizations like NIST periodically conduct academic studies comparing Google against competitors on metrics like relevance, freshness, and accuracy. The latest studies give Google high marks but do not show conclusively improving quality over time. - User Surveys - Statista Research suggest ~80% of US search engine users rate Google as a good or excellent resource, on par with previous years. Satisfaction and engagement levels appear stable. - Webmaster Community Feedback - Sentiment from the SEO community on webmaster forums points to frustrations with certain algorithm updates. But many believe core search relevancy has stayed consistent. - Search Analytics - Click-through rates and other metrics indicate Google has maintained its dominant popularity with users, indirectly suggesting sustained quality. But metrics do not show obvious improvement trends. - Financial Performance - Google's ongoing growth in advertising revenue points to a satisfied customer base willing to pay more for clicks. However, revenue expansion alone does not confirm the degree of quality enhancement. - Industry Experts - Leading search marketing authorities like Rand Fishkin of SparkToro and Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Land agree Google continues to innovate but question claims of revolutionary leaps in quality. Overall, there are no smoking gun data points validating or invalidating Google's claims that search quality improves significantly year after year. The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle. While innovations occur, Google search today behaves much like the Google search of a decade ago for most queries. Complementary article: The Economic Rationale of United States v. Google Evaluating Google's Market Dominance Google linking its search quality assertions to monopoly debates prompts deeper consideration of its dominance. Google holds an undisputed leading position in general search, with ~90% market share in the US. Competitors like Microsoft's Bing have single-digit share. This dominance forms the crux of the antitrust lawsuit Google aims to appeal. The case alleges Google unlawfully maintains its monopolistic position through exclusionary agreements locking out rivals, violating antitrust laws. But Google claims competition is thriving and anything less than its best quality will lose users. Most experts agree Google initially gained its commanding position through delivering a superior product. But there are concerns its scale now creates insurmountable competitive barriers, even if challengers build a better mousetrap. Key points in assessing Google's market power: - Scale advantages in data, infrastructure make matching Google's quality difficult for new entrants. - Lack of portability in search queries/history across engines creates inertia in switching. - Google properties like YouTube increasingly keep users within its ecosystem. - Billions spent annually on advertising and default mobile deals solidify Google's reach. - Alternative search engines represent thin slivers of market share. In spite of these advantages, Google does face a long-term threat: The rise of voice search and assistants like Alexa. Over 40% of searches will be voice-initiated by 2022. As the gatekeeper, Amazon holds power in the voice ecosystem, potentially challenging Google. This emerging dynamic will take years to play out but illustrates the competitive forces still constraining Google from abusing its market power in traditional search. The threat of voice assistants rising further reinforces that barriers to entry may not be as impermeable as critics contend. The Road Ahead Google's forceful defense of its search quality improvements provides an insightful window into its mindset on competition issues. Few would argue Google has not pushed web search technology forward in meaningful ways. But claims of continuous, dramatic gains should be evaluated with healthy skepticism. Ongoing legal action and regulatory scrutiny of Google's dominance can be expected. But the clearest test of Google's search quality will be the daily choices of its billions of users. If Google traffic and engagement wane substantially over time, it would signal a degradation in meeting searcher needs. Google's public commitments to improving search quality also necessitate increased transparency. Providing third parties access to evaluate search algorithm updates and releasing metrics on quality KPIs could bolster trust and accountability. But in the absence of such steps, Google merits the benefit of the doubt that its search team remains dedicated to evolving an engine people choose to use because it makes their lives easier. If Google's future innovations match its past contributions to pioneering web search, searchers worldwide stand to benefit. Key Takeaways - Google claims its search quality has steadily improved over time but supporting data is inconclusive. - Legal pressure around Google's market dominance contributed to its quality claims. - Voice search rise poses a long-term threat though barriers to entry still limit competition. - Ongoing scrutiny expected but users' collective actions will determine if Google's quality regresses. The coming years will reveal whether Google can maintain its position that developing the world's best web search engine precludes being a monopoly. But if search quality truly remains Google's north star, the future of finding information online appears promising. Read the full article