Each year, the Edmondson Community Organization (ECO)—a nonprofit in Baltimore dedicated to revitalizing the city's Midtown-Edmondson area—reviews an obscure list of properties released by the government. The task is to see how many are situated within the organization's neighborhood boundaries. The fewer, the better.

The owners of the properties that do appear have fallen behind on their property taxes and, as a result, are poised to lose their real estate in an annual tax sale conducted by the government. After poring over the list, the ECO knocks on those doors to deliver the queasy news and alert the occupants to what is about to happen.

The issue is one ECO knows intimately. A few years back, the organization accrued a $2,543 property tax debt on its community center. So in 2018, the city sold that lien for $5,115 to a California-based investor, who then foreclosed on and sold the ECO's building for $139,500. In return, the ECO got a check for the difference between its debt and the lien purchase price: $2,572.

In other words, all told, the organization paid six figures to compensate for the $2,543 it owed the government, in what a new federal lawsuit alleges is a pervasive practice in Baltimore that illegally deprives people of their equity in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause as the city attempts to satisfy modest tax debts.

Every spring, Baltimore bureaucrats conduct a mass auction online to sell off liens like the ECO's. Sometimes the unlucky debtors have fallen just hundreds of dollars behind on their taxes.

For that, they may lose their property and the vast majority of equity tied up in it. Following an investor's purchase, an owner has a certain period to satisfy the amount of the lien, along with interest and fees, to keep their property. That's a tall order when considering these parties were struggling to pay the original debt, much less the new total, which has since ballooned. In the case that debtors are unsuccessful, the investor has effectively purchased the property for the amount they paid for the lien.

In the ECO's case, that meant an investor bought their building for about 2,600 percent less than what it ultimately sold for. The ECO, in turn, was left with a fraction of what their property was worth.

That Baltimore's process robs property owners of huge chunks of equity is not just a regrettable side effect, the ECO's lawsuit alleges; it's baked into the nature of the city's approach. "The City understands there that there is a finite pot of investor capital available to purchase all the liens," reads the complaint. "This creates a perverse incentive for the City to minimize the winning bids"—a.k.a. to depress prices—"to spread that finite pot across the highest number of liens." 

Some of the moving parts of Baltimore's approach do seem to imply that the government is not merely unconcerned with owners retaining some of their equity but that they are actively seeking to keep bids low. The more glaring examples included in the ECO's suit show that the city charges a high-bid premium that punishes investors making offers above a certain threshold and opts to fulfill the law's advertising requirement in part by listing properties in The Daily Record, a business and legal newspaper that is not targeted at the general community. (The ECO says this violates state law, which stipulates that such a sale must be advertised twice in general-circulation newspapers.)

"There's a limited amount of investor money out there," says Maryland Legal Aid's chief legal and advocacy director Somil Trivedi, who is representing the ECO, "and the city has structured a system to spread that money across as many liens as possible instead of getting as much equity back for their citizens."

The ECO is not alone, according to the suit, but is one of many victims. You don't have to travel far to find others. "In the same tax sale in which a bidder purchased a lien on ECO's building, 68 properties in Midtown-Edmondson were also subject to the tax sale," states its complaint. "The winning bids on those properties totaled only 22% of the assessed value of the properties—a dramatic loss of generational wealth for the owner of each Midtown-Edmondson property that was lost in the sale."

Home equity theft, as it's sometimes called, was once an obscure issue limited to discussion in magazines like this one. But last year it took the national stage when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Tyler v. Hennepin County that a local government had violated the Constitution when it seized an elderly woman's condo over a modest tax debt, sold it, and kept the profit. Geraldine Tyler, the plaintiff in that suit, had fallen $2,300 behind on her taxes, which ultimately reached $15,000 after Hennepin County tacked on penalties, interest, and fees. The government then sold the condo for $40,000 and kept the additional $25,000.

While the ECO's situation isn't entirely analogous to Tyler's—the organization was paid something—Baltimore's scheme could still very well be unconstitutional, says Christina M. Martin, a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation who represented Tyler before the Supreme Court. "If the procedure that you're using to sell the property is designed in a totally unreasonable manner, then obviously people are going to still get robbed of more than what they owe," she tells me. "There's a longstanding history of courts overturning sales that have a shocking result like [the ECO's]."

Tyler, in theory, should have put an end to stories like these. But the lawsuit out of Baltimore comes as some other jurisdictions have devised creative ways to comply with the law on its face but not really in practice. After Michigan's Supreme Court ruled the practice unconstitutional, for example, the state passed a convoluted debt collection statute that requires owners to complete a Herculean legal obstacle course to reclaim their equity. It is a difficult course to win.

"It is the government's choice in the first place to collect property taxes, to decide what regime they want to use to enforce the collection of those property taxes, and so it can't then complain that the regime that it chose to engage in for an amount of money that it chooses to collect is then too difficult to do constitutionally," says Trivedi. "There are lots of jurisdictions around the country that do it differently. Some don't even have tax sales. Some have much longer periods of negotiation and payment plans….Municipalities around the country have figured out ways to collect taxes without doing it unconstitutionally."

The post Baltimore's Tax Sales Are Robbing People of Their Equity appeared first on Reason.com.

The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to the length of a seizure, a federal court ruled last week, significantly restricting how long law enforcement can retain private property after an arrest.

"When the government seizes property incident to a lawful arrest, the Fourth Amendment requires that any continued possession of the property must be reasonable," wrote Judge Gregory Katsas of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in a unanimous ruling.

Most courts of appeal to pass judgment on the issue—namely, the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th, and 11th circuits—have held that, once an item is seized, law enforcement can retain the item indefinitely without violating the Fourth Amendment. These precedents have allowed police to retain personal property without clear legal grounds, effectively stripping people of their property rights merely because they were arrested. The D.C. Court of Appeals' ruling complicates this general consensus.

Though law enforcement does not have to return property "instantaneously," Katsas wrote, the Fourth Amendment requires that any "continuing retention of seized property" be reasonable. So while police can use seized items for "legitimate law-enforcement purposes," such as for evidence at trial, and are permitted some delay for "matching a person with his effects," prolonged seizures serving no important function can implicate the Fourth Amendment, the court ruled.

Given that the D.C. court finds itself in the minority on the question, some say that the case may be primed for the Supreme Court if the District chooses to appeal. "This case has potential to make national precedent," Paul Belonick, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco law school, tells Reason. "The influential D.C. Circuit deliberately intensified a circuit split and put itself in the minority of circuits on the question, teeing it up cleanly for certiorari."

The plaintiffs each had their property seized by D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Five of the plaintiffs were arrested during a Black Lives Matter protest in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of D.C. on August 13, 2020.

As they were arrested, MPD officers seized their phones and other items. Though the protesters did not face any charges and were, in Katsas' words, "quickly released," MPD retained their phones for around a year. Some of the plaintiffs had to wait over 14 months to get their property back.

In the meantime, the plaintiffs say that they were forced to replace their phones and lost access to the important information on the originals, including personal files, contacts, and passwords. "The plaintiffs have alleged that the seizures at issue, though lawful at their inception, later came to unreasonably interfere with their protected possessory interests in their own property," Katsas explained.

"MPD is aware of the ruling and will continue to work with our partners at the United States Attorney's Office to ensure that our members are trained appropriately to ensure compliance with recent rulings," a spokesperson for MPD tells Reason.

"Practically, this case is important because police have been exploiting a gap in the Fourth Amendment," Andrew Ferguson, a professor at American University's Washington College of Law, tells Reason. "In situations where there is a lawful arrest, but no prosecution, there are no clear rules on retaining personal property. In these cases, police have been confiscating phones to punish protestors."

Michael Perloff, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, agreed that the D.C. Circuit's decision could set an important precedent going forward. "Nationally, we've seen litigants attempt to challenge similar practices only to fail because the court concluded that the Fourth Amendment does not limit the duration of a seizure," he tells Reason. "Moving forward, we are hopeful that the D.C. Circuit's opinion will lead courts to reconsider those rulings and, instead, enforce the Fourth Amendment as fully as the framers intended."

The post Police Cannot Seize Property Indefinitely After an Arrest, Federal Court Rules appeared first on Reason.com.

This week, a federal judge ruled that a major provision of New Jersey's "assault weapon" ban is unconstitutional, but he was not happy about saying so. The decision illustrates how the Supreme Court's Second Amendment precedents have constrained the discretion of judges who are personally inclined to support gun control.

New Jersey's Assault Firearms Law—which the state Legislature approved in 1990, responding to a mass shooting at a Stockton, California, elementary school the previous year—bans a list of specific rifle models, along with "any firearm manufactured under any designation which is substantially identical to any of the firearms listed above." According to guidelines that New Jersey Attorney General Peter Verniero issued in 1996, the latter description encompasses semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines and have at least two of five features: a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one, or a grenade launcher. Illegal possession of "assault firearms" is a second-degree crime punishable by five to 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $150,000.

In separate lawsuits that U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan considered together, several gun owners and two gun rights groups, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC), argued that the rifle ban is unconstitutional. Sheridan's decision in ANJRPC v. Platkin focuses on the Colt AR-15, one of the specifically banned rifles, because it was the model mentioned most frequently by the plaintiffs and the state.

"The information presented to the Court focuses largely on one specific type of firearm: the AR-15," Sheridan writes. "And given the variety of firearms regulated in the Assault Firearms Law and the nuances that each individual firearm presents, the Court's analysis of the Assault Firearms Law is limited to the firearm with which the Court has been provided the most information: the AR-15."

Sheridan, a senior judge who was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by George W. Bush in 2005, repeatedly refers specifically to "the Colt AR-15." But he also notes that "the AR-15 is produced by several different manufacturers," including FN, Ruger, Remington, Bushmaster, Rock River Arms, Wilson Combat, Barrett, Panther Arms, H&K, Lewis Machine, Olympic Arms, Palmetto State Armory, and Mossberg. So his conclusion that "the AR-15 Provision is unconstitutional" evidently applies to all AR-15-style rifles, regardless of who makes them or what they are officially called.

Before explaining his reasoning in reaching that conclusion, Sheridan expresses his dismay at the Supreme Court precedents he is required to follow. "It is hard to accept the Supreme Court's pronouncements that certain firearms policy choices are 'off the table' when frequently, radical individuals possess and use these same firearms for evil purposes," he says. "Even so, the Court's decision today is dictated by one of the most elementary legal principles within our legal system: stare decisis. That is, where the Supreme Court has set forth the law of our Nation, as a lower court, I am bound to follow it. This principle—combined with the reckless inaction of our governmental leaders to address the mass shooting tragedy afflicting our Nation—necessitates the Court's decision."

Despite his personal policy preferences, Sheridan thinks it is clear that the AR-15 qualifies as a weapon "in common use" for "lawful purposes like self-defense"—the sort of arms that the Supreme Court has said are covered by the Second Amendment. He notes a 2022 estimate that Americans owned about 24 million "AR-15s and similar sporting rifles," and he highlights testimony that such guns are useful for home defense.

"Plaintiffs have shown that AR-15s are well-adapted for self-defense," Sheridan writes. "Evidence has been presented to the Court that the build of the AR-15 makes it well-suited to self-defense because it is 'light weight, [has] very mild recoil, and [has] good ergonomics'; it is a weapon which is 'well suited to younger shooters, female shooters, and other shooters of smaller stature.'" He adds that "the AR-15's design features—including the effectiveness of its cartridge for self-defense use and its better continuity of fire when used with available magazines—make the AR-15 a good choice for self-defense." And he notes that "the AR-15 has been used recently in several, relatively high-profile self-defense events in Florida, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma."

Those points should be disregarded, the state argued, because handguns are a more popular choice for self-defense and one that New Jersey allows. But as Sheridan notes, the Supreme Court's decision in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, which overturned a local handgun ban, explicitly rejected that sort of argument. "It is no answer to say…that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion. "It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon."

Like the law at issue in Heller, "the Assault Firearms Law's AR-15 Provision acts effectively as the total prohibition on a commonly used firearm for self-defense—AR-15s—within the home," Sheridan writes. And under Heller, "a categorical ban on a class of weapons commonly used for self-defense is unlawful." Given "the Supreme Court's clear direction on this point," Sheridan says, "the AR-15 Provision of the Assault Firearms Law is unconstitutional" as applied to "the Colt AR-15 for use for self-defense in the home."

Sheridan reached a different conclusion regarding another provision of New Jersey's Assault Firearms Law that the plaintiffs also challenged: the ban on "large capacity magazines" (LCMs). Legislators originally defined LCMs as magazines that hold more than 15 rounds but reduced the limit to 10 rounds in 2018. That restriction, Sheridan says, is "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation"—the test established by the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Sheridan acknowledges that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which includes New Jersey, has recognized ammunition as "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment. But he thinks the LCM ban differs from the AR-15 ban in a crucial way.

"The LCM Amendment passes constitutional muster because although the Second Amendment right is implicated, this regulation is in line with the historical regulations within the tradition of our Nation," Sheridan writes. "Put more precisely, the reduction of capacity is a limitation on firearms ownership. It is not a categorical ban preventing law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights [with] a weapon that is in common use for self-defense."

Sheridan notes that "detachable magazines did not exist in the Founding period" and that "it was not until the mid-l800s that patents for magazines falling within the definition of the LCM Amendment began appearing in the historical record." While "rifles capable of holding more than ten rounds became available" in the 1860s, he adds, "the magazine was fixed." And "despite the issuance of a patent for detachable magazines in 1864, firearms with detachable magazines were not widely available until the end of the Nineteenth Century."

Magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds, Sheridan notes, "did not exist in 1791," when the Second Amendment was ratified, and "were not widely available in 1868," when the 14th Amendment required states to respect the right to arms. He says it therefore would be plainly unreasonable to demand that New Jersey "locate a statute or regulation from that time" that closely resembles its LCM ban.

In Bruen, Sheridan writes, the Supreme Court "noted that current regulations may implicate either 'unprecedented societal concerns' or 'dramatic technological changes' different from those that existed when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 or when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. In those circumstances, 'a more nuanced approach' to determine if historical regulations are 'relevantly similar' to the currently challenged regulations must be utilized based on two measurements: 'how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen's right to armed self-defense.'"

Sheridan thinks the LCM ban's "how" is "relevantly similar" to the scope of historical restrictions on pistols and Bowie knives. "The LCM Amendment places a burden on self-defense that is comparable to the burden imposed by the historical analogues," he says. "Like these restrictions, the LCM Amendment is…a restriction responding to safety concerns present in our time."

As for the LCM ban's "why," Sheridan says, there is evidence that LCMs "increase the lethality of mass shooting events." In recent years, he notes, magazines holding over 10 rounds often have been used in mass shootings, including "all" such crimes from 2019 through 2022.

The "stated purpose" of New Jersey's LCM ban, which is to "effectively slow down a mass shooter," is "well-served" by that restriction, Sheridan writes. "A limitation on magazine capacity stops the rate at which victims can be injured," he says, and "allows for time during which a shooter may be intercepted, interrupted, or hopefully, stopped." While "such a problem" may be "new to us," he adds, it is "analogous to other safety issues presented by [weapons] commonly used…for lawful purposes confronted by our Nation in the past."

Sheridan, who decries the "alarming frequency" of mass shootings, never acknowledges that they remain rare compared to other kinds of lethal crime. Based on the commonly used definition of mass shootings as public attacks that kill four or more people, they account for around 1 percent of homicides committed with guns. And while Sheridan implies that mass shootings are on the rise, the RAND Corporation notes that "chance variability in the annual number of mass shooting incidents makes it challenging to discern a clear trend" and that "trend estimates are sensitive to outliers and to the time frame chosen for analysis."

Sheridan nevertheless decries the "reckless inaction of our governmental leaders to address the mass shooting tragedy afflicting our Nation," which both exaggerates the frequency of these crimes and takes for granted that they could be prevented if only politicians tried hard enough. In addition to a lack of political will, Sheridan implicitly blames the Supreme Court for saying that the Second Amendment puts some gun restrictions "off the table." Yet despite these views, he felt constrained to reject New Jersey's AR-15 ban.

At the same time, Sheridan was curiously reticent to extend his analysis by considering the illogic of banning "substantially identical" rifles and defining that category based on an arbitrary set of features. With or without those features, a rifle fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity. Does it make any sense, for example, to expect that banning rifles with both folding stocks and threaded barrels would have any noticeable impact on mass shooting deaths, let alone homicide generally?

While Sheridan's concern about the use of LCMs in mass shootings is more plausible, it is based on an inconclusive correlation. The public safety benefit of banning them is speculative, and Sheridan did not even consider the argument that the ability to fire more than 10 rounds without changing magazines can be important in some self-defense situations—a point that legislators take for granted when they exempt current and former police officers from magazine restrictions.

The FPC plans an appeal to the 3rd Circuit, which it wants to "address legal deficiencies in [Sheridan's] opinion," and "seek the full relief" that the plaintiffs requested. "Bans on so-called 'assault weapons' are immoral and unconstitutional," says FPC President Brandon Combs. "FPC will continue to fight forward until all of these bans are eliminated throughout the United States."

The post A Federal Judge Reluctantly Concludes That New Jersey's AR-15 Ban Is Unconstitutional appeared first on Reason.com.

President Joe Biden's new op-ed in The Washington Post makes the bold argument that, following a constitutional amendment to reverse a recent Supreme Court decision, Congress should pass both Supreme Court term limits and an ethics code to "restore the public's faith in the judicial system." According to Biden, the Court's "extreme" decisions and ethical crisis require immediate action.

Looking at the last Supreme Court term, none of this is true. The Court's opinions were nuanced and largely unanimous, and there are no credible allegations of vote-buying. If Biden wants to restore faith in the Court, he'd do better to highlight these nuances rather than using the Court as a political talking point.

At the outset, it's worth taking a bird's eye view of the Court. This term, the Court ruled unanimously in almost half (46 percent) of cases, which was similar to the year before (48 percent) and a significant uptick from the term before that (29 percent). Among the Court's unanimous or near-unanimous opinions were hot-button cases involving former President Donald Trump's eligibility for the presidency, access to the abortion drug mifepristone, the government's ability to dissuade companies from doing business with the National Rifle Association, regulation of social media companies, and the scope of the Second Amendment. Such consensus among the justices undercuts Biden's characterization of a rogue or extremist Court.

It's true that the Court is sometimes divided along partisan lines—and in many of those cases, the justices disagree vigorously. As Biden points out, Trump v. United States (regarding presidential immunity) and Dobbs v. Jackson (regarding abortion) represent two such cases. But just because these opinions were divisive doesn't make them radical.

For example, Biden chided the Court for imposing "virtually no limits on what a president can do" in the immunity case, but the Court maintained an ample sphere of liability for presidential acts. All nine justices agreed that presidents have absolutely no immunity for unofficial acts. While the majority ruled that absolute immunity applies to core, official acts, it emphasized that noncore duties are only presumptively immune.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether the Court made it too hard to rebut that presumption. But to make that call, we'll have to see how the standard plays out in practice. Trump's case, for example, will now go back down to the district court, which will determine which acts are official or unofficial, core or noncore, and whether the special prosecutor can surmount any presumption of immunity that applies. It makes little sense to say at this premature stage, as Biden does, that the only limits left on the president are "self-imposed."

Biden also criticizes the Court for "overturn[ing] settled legal precedents" like Roe v. Wade. But this is a critique with no substance. Precedent isn't an end in and of itself; prior cases should stand when they're correct and well-reasoned and fall when they're not. Some of the most important Supreme Court decisions in history "overturned settled precedent," including Brown v. Board of Education (overturning the separate but equal doctrine) and Gideon v. Wainwright (extending the right to counsel to felony defendants in state courts). Overturning precedent is part of a Supreme Court justice's job description. Without context, saying a judge overruled an earlier case is meaningless.

Biden's ethics accusations similarly lack substance. Though many have wrung their hands over Justice Clarence Thomas' friendship with businessman Harlan Crow, not one person—including Biden—has pointed to any specific instance where the justice supposedly traded his vote for a gift from his wealthy friend (and they ignore that Thomas voted against Crow's personal convictions in the abortion case). That's not surprising. Thomas is widely regarded as one of the most consistent justices on the Court who regularly writes separate opinions to explain his idiosyncratic views. Given that his views are so consistent, transparent, and well-known, it would be especially difficult for him to abandon them in exchange for a flight on a private jet. If anything, bribes are much more likely in the context of opaque decision making—as happens behind closed doors in the legislative and executive branches.

In at least some ways, the Court is showing more restraint than in prior years. It's taking fewer cases than ever (just 59 this year, compared to 82 a decade ago), it's finding reasons to sidestep thorny issues, and it's increasingly using judge-made legal doctrines to rule that the plaintiffs have no right to sue or that the case needs more time before the Court can step in. It also continues to produce interesting alignments between justices considered to be on opposite ideological spectrums. In a case involving the January 6 defendants, for example, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voted with "conservative" justices to throw out the convictions while Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with the "liberals" to affirm them.

In sum, the Supreme Court is not exactly a radical conservative monolith. This term, Court watchers actually observed strong disagreements among Republican-appointed justices. If Biden cares about bolstering the public's faith in the judiciary, he'd be wise to emphasize this nuance.

The post Biden's Supreme Court Reforms Are Unnecessary and Wrong appeared first on Reason.com.

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the right to a trial by jury and to due process apply to people who face a steep sentencing enhancement under federal law, in a ruling that transfers some power from the hands of judges to the public and will affect many criminal defendants' future punishments.

The procedural history of the case is a bit of a whirlwind. But at its center is Paul Erlinger, who was charged in 2017 with being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 15 years under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which increases the punishment for that offense—felon in possession of a firearm—from a 10-year maximum to a 15-year minimum if the defendant has been convicted previously of three violent felonies or serious drug offenses on separate occasions.

At sentencing came one of the initial twists, when the judge who handed down the 15-year punishment made clear it was inappropriate. Erlinger, who pleaded guilty, had gained steady employment, started a family, and remained drug-free in the more than a decade since his previous convictions, so a five-year sentence, the judge said, would be "fair." But under the ACCA, the court's hands were tied.

Then came the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which said shortly thereafter that two of Erlinger's offenses considered for the purposes of the ACCA did not actually qualify as violent felonies or serious drug crimes. Prosecutors, however, were undeterred. They returned to court and invoked convictions related to burglaries Erlinger committed 26 years before the felon in possession of a firearm charge, when he was 18 years old. Erlinger countered that the burglaries in question had been a part of one criminal episode—not distinct events as the ACCA requires—and that, most importantly, a jury would need to make the consequential determination about the separateness of those offenses.

The sentencing court disagreed, ruling it was the judge's decision and that the court was bound by the ACCA, thus reimposing the 15-year sentence that it once again called "unfortunate" and "excessive."

But Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the 6–3 majority opinion, explained that Erlinger did indeed have the 5th Amendment and 6th Amendment right to ask a jury whether those offenses were committed separately and if he is therefore vulnerable to the massive increase in incarceration that the sentencing court itself characterized multiple times as unjust. The outcome was at least somewhat predictable when considering yet another twist: After Erlinger appealed on the grounds that his constitutional rights had been violated, the government agreed. But the 7th Circuit still refused to reconsider his sentence, leaving Erlinger to ask the Supreme Court.

Core to Gorsuch's opinion is Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), a Supreme Court precedent that ruled it was unconstitutional when a judge sentenced a defendant more harshly on the basis that a shooting had allegedly been motivated by racial animus, because no jury considered or made any determination beyond a reasonable doubt on that factor. A jury and a jury only, the Court ruled, may find "facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed" when it will cause the penalty to exceed the prescribed statutory maximum.

But Gorsuch also says the Court has something else on its side today: history. "Prominent among the reasons colonists cited in the Declaration of Independence for their break with Great Britain was the fact Parliament and the Crown had 'depriv[ed] [them] in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury,'" he writes. "The Fifth and Sixth Amendments placed the jury at the heart of our criminal justice system" in order "to mitigate the risk of prosecutorial overreach and misconduct" and serve as a check on the government.

This is not a novel area for Gorsuch, who has made clear his respect for the right to a trial by jury. Last month, he rebuked the Court's demurral from hearing a case concerning Florida's use of six-person juries as opposed to the traditional, historical practice of using 12-person panels.

Though much has been made of the ideologically fractured nature of the current Court, the decision in Erlinger did not fall neatly along partisan lines. Among the dissenters were Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the latter of whom argued that Apprendi—and, as an extension, the case law that has sprung from it—was wrongly decided. "I recognize that many criminal defendants and their advocates prefer the Apprendi regime, which provides some defendants with more procedural protections at sentencing," Jackson writes. "In my view, however, the benefit that some criminal defendants derive from the Apprendi rule in the context of their individual cases is outweighed by the negative systemic effects that Apprendi has wrought," which she says has hamstrung judges and increased sentencing disparities.

"The only thing judges may not do consistent with Apprendi is increase a defendant's exposure to punishment based on their own factfinding," counters Gorsuch. "Does Justice Jackson really think it too much to ask the government to prove its case (as it concedes it must) with reliable evidence before seeking enhanced punishments under a statute like ACCA when the 'practical realit[y]' for defendants like Mr. Erlinger is exposure to an additional decade (or more) in prison?"

The post The Supreme Court Again Strengthens the Right to a Jury Trial in Criminal Sentencing appeared first on Reason.com.

For nearly a decade, the transit authority in Washington, D.C., has faced controversy over restrictive guidelines governing advertisements in the city's subways and busses. Now, it might have to scrap some of them.

The controversial rules prohibit any ad that is "issues-oriented" or "intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions." The guidelines also single out religious ads, prohibiting "advertisements that promote or oppose any religion, religious practice or belief."

Last month, a D.C. district court ruled in favor of a Christian group seeking to challenge the rules, placing a preliminary injunction on part of the guidelines that ban ads "intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions."

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) first enacted the controversial rules after an anti-Islam activist attempted to buy an advertisement depicting Muhammad in 2015.

In 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union sued WMATA over the guidelines, joined by plaintiffs ranging from vegan group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. That case is still ongoing. In 2018, however, a D.C. district court ruled against a request for a preliminary injunction against WMATA's rules.

But the ACLU has joined another lawsuit challenging the guidelines on First Amendment grounds—this time, to much better success. This latest lawsuit was filed in December 2023 by WallBuilders, an organization that aims to educate the public "concerning the Godly foundation of our country," according to legal records.

When WallBuilders attempted to purchase ads to go in WMATA busses, reading "Christian? To find out about the faith of our founders, go to wallbuilders.com." WMATA rejected the ads, citing their guidelines. When WallBuilders resubmitted the ads, omitting all text except "visit wallbuilders.com," they were still rejected.

WallBuilders sued. On May 21, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the District Court of D.C. granted WallBuilder's motion for a preliminary injunction, halting enforcement on the part of the guidelines that prohibited advertisements seeking "to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions."

"WMATA is permitted to retain considerable discretion in evaluating the intent and purpose of an ad…but this discretion must be coupled with objective, workable standards," wrote Howell. "Put simply, the utterly undefined use of the phrase '[a]dvertisements intended to influence . . . regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions,' coupled with the lack of any definitions or official guidance and WMATA's inconsistent application of [the guideline], makes clear that [it] is not a reasonable restriction on speech."

The ruling is a major victory for a whole range of controversial groups who want to buy ads on D.C. buses and subways. It also sends a clear message to WMATA: While it can place some restrictions on the content of ads, its rules have to be well-defined and narrowly tailored. 

The post D.C.'s Rules for Subway Ads Are Blocked in Federal Court appeared first on Reason.com.

What do the National Rifle Association (NRA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and nine U.S. Supreme Court justices from five presidential administrations all have in common? That list is likely relatively small. But at least one area of overlap was made evident Thursday when the Court published a unanimous ruling that a New York government official allegedly violated the First Amendment by pressuring insurers and banks to sever business ties with the NRA, which the ACLU is representing.

The decision resuscitates the gun advocacy group's lawsuit against Maria Vullo, the former head of New York's Department of Financial Services (DFS). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit had previously ruled in her favor.

At the core of the case is Vullo's advocacy following the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. After that tragedy, in private meetings with insurance companies, Vullo allegedly expressed she would selectively apply enforcement action to groups that insisted on serving the NRA.

She didn't stop there. She also sent letters titled "Guidance on Risk Management Relating to the NRA and Similar Gun Promotion Organizations" to insurers and banks, in which she encouraged them to "continue evaluating and managing their risks, including reputational risks, that may arise from their dealings with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations"; to "review any relationships they have with the NRA or similar gun promotion organizations"; and to "take prompt actions to manag[e] these risks and promote public health and safety." And in a press release with then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the two officials urged such companies to terminate their relationships with the gun advocacy group. Some took them up on the suggestion.

The constitutional issue at stake here is similar to the one the Court explored in Murthy v. Missouri, the case that asks if President Joe Biden's administration violated the First Amendment when it sought to convince social media companies to remove content it disliked. During those oral arguments in March, many justices appeared sympathetic to the view that government officials had not overstepped the bounds of their authority and had merely exercised their own free speech rights to persuade those companies to adopt their views, not unlike a White House press secretary promoting an ideological slant to the media. 

But in NRA v. Vullo, the Court ruled unanimously that Vullo's actions as alleged by the NRA had crossed the line from persuasion into coercion. "Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors," wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The NRA, she said, "plausibly alleges that respondent Maria Vullo did just that."

The decision sends the case back to the 2nd Circuit, which could still give Vullo qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that shields government officials from suits like the NRA's if the misconduct alleged has not been "clearly established" in prior case law. That outcome is certainly probable, as the 2nd Circuit's original decision not only ruled that Vullo had not violated the Constitution—which the Supreme Court rejected today—but that even if she had, qualified immunity would insulate her from the NRA's claim.

It is difficult to imagine, however, a more obvious violation of the Constitution than the weaponization of government power to cripple advocacy disfavored by the state. The supposed reason for qualified immunity is that taxpayer-funded civil servants deserve fair notice that conduct is unlawful before a victim can seek recourse for those misdeeds. To argue that a government agent could not be expected to understand the contours of the First Amendment here is rather dire.

Many people may struggle to separate the constitutional question from the ideological backdrop. The NRA, after all, is one of the more polarizing lobbying organizations in the country, not least of which because its founding issue—gun rights—is not exactly a topic that elicits cool-headed responses. It has also become an advocacy group not just for firearms but for the Republican Party more broadly and the identity politics associated with it, alienating large swaths of people, to put it mildly.

There is another major group in the country that has followed a similar story arc, just on the other side of the political spectrum: the ACLU. Once a stalwart free speech group—so principled it defended the First Amendment rights of Nazis—it has, in modern times, sometimes actively advocated against civil liberties when those principles transgress progressive politics, an awkward move when considering the group's name. But no matter how much you dislike one or both of them, the NRA and the ACLU coming together here is all the more reflective of the fact that some things, like the First Amendment, really aren't partisan.

The post The NRA's Unanimous Supreme Court Victory Is Good for Free Speech—No Matter How You Feel About Guns appeared first on Reason.com.

Prosecutors in Texas last week dismissed the criminal case against a journalist who, in 2021, was arrested, strip-searched, and jailed for filming police. But his lengthy legal battle is in some sense just beginning and once again demands we probe the idea that real journalists are entitled to a different set of rights than the public.

That's because Justin Pulliam, the man in question, is a citizen journalist. He is not employed by an outlet. Rather, he publishes his reporting to his YouTube channel, Corruption Report, which, true to its name, is unapologetically skeptical of state power and supportive of transparency.

The Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office (FBSCO) has allegedly been vexed by his audacity. In July 2021, Pulliam was expelled by police from a press conference because they alleged he did not qualify as media, and in December of that same year, he was arrested for videoing police at a mental health call, despite that he had stationed himself about 130 feet away from the interaction. Officer Taylor Rollins demanded Pulliam move back even further, and he obliged, although he continued to film the deputy speaking to other bystanders at the scene (none of whom were arrested).

That didn't end well for Pulliam, who was charged with interfering with police duties. (According to his complaint, Officer Ricky Rodriguez, who assisted with the arrest, told another cop at the jail that the ordeal would teach Pulliam a lesson "for fucking with us.") In April 2023, a jury was not able to reach a verdict in the case, with five jurors wanting to acquit and one urging to convict. It took law enforcement more than a year to decide not to pursue the case further.

One wonders if the Fort Bend government is smartly allocating resources in support of public safety when it doggedly went after a case because someone filmed them. Yet at a deeper level, it's worth asking if law enforcement would have taken the case to trial at all had Pulliam worked for a formal media outlet. My guess is no.

It is difficult to reconcile those two things. Journalism is, after all, an activity, consisting of collecting information and reporting it to the public. That venture is not exclusively available to people working at a full-time newsgathering organization, and the strength of the First Amendment should not hinge on whether or not you are on a media outlet's payroll. Even if Pulliam didn't consider himself a journalist at all—citizen or otherwise—his right to film the government employees he pays with his taxes should remain intact. It certainly shouldn't come at the expense of his freedom.

Whether or not he will be able to make that case before a jury in civil court is yet to be determined. Last June, Judge David Hittner of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas allowed Pulliam's federal lawsuit to proceed, declining to award the defendants qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that shields state and local government actors from such claims if their alleged misconduct was not already "clearly established" in the law. 

"The Individual Defendants assert no case law to support their proposition that an indictment precludes a claim for first amendment infringement," wrote Hittner. "Indeed, based on the facts alleged in the complaint, it appears Pulliam was singled out and arrested for exercising his rights under the First Amendment."

Pulliam, however, is not in the clear. He will next have to convince the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which has considered a similar case in recent months: that of Priscilla Villarreal, the citizen journalist in Laredo, Texas, who police arrested in 2017 using an obscure statute criminalizing the solicitation of nonpublic information if there is the "intent to obtain a benefit." If that description sounds a lot like standard journalism—seeking information not yet public—that's because it is. But despite attracting some strange bedfellows in her defense, Villarreal has not fared well in court.

While her case is not identical to Pulliam's, they both raise very similar questions, particularly as it relates to the idea that a certain class of journalists should get more rights than others. "Villarreal and others portray her as a martyr for the sake of journalism," wrote Judge Edith Jones in her majority opinion dismissing Villarreal's suit and giving qualified immunity to the police. "That is inappropriate," according to Jones, because Villarreal, who posts her reporting to her popular Facebook page Lagordiloca, is not a "mainstream, legitimate media outlet." Her free speech rights are suffering as a result.

The post This Journalist Was Arrested, Strip-Searched, and Jailed for Filming Police. Will He Get Justice? appeared first on Reason.com.

The job of the prosecutor is to hold the public accountable. But when the tables are turned—when the prosecutor is the one who allegedly flouted the law—it is, paradoxically, enormously difficult for victims to achieve recourse. Lawyers yesterday sparred at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit over one such barrier preventing someone from suing a former assistant district attorney accused of misconduct so egregious that one judge on the 5th Circuit described it last year as "utterly bonkers."

At the center of the case is Ralph Petty, whose yearslong career included work as both an assistant district attorney and a law clerk—at the same time, for the same judges. In practice, that means his arguments as a prosecutor were sometimes performance art, because, as a law clerk, he had the opportunity to draft the same rulings he sought in court. It doesn't take a lawyer to deduce that the set-up presents troubling implications for due process.

One of Petty's alleged victims, Erma Wilson, would like the opportunity to bring her civil suit against him before a jury. In 2001, she was convicted of cocaine possession after police found a bag of crack on the ground near where she and some friends were gathered. Law enforcement offered to let her off if she implicated the guilty party; she said she didn't know.

Years later, that conviction continues to haunt her. Most notably, it doomed any chance of her fulfilling her lifelong dream of becoming a nurse, because Texas, where she lives, does not approve registered nursing licenses for people found guilty of drug-related crimes.

Wilson's conviction coincided with the beginning of Petty's dual-hat arrangement in Midland County, Texas. Though he was not the lead prosecutor on her case, she alleges he "communicated with and advised fellow prosecutors in the District Attorney's Office" on her prosecution while simultaneously working for Judge John G. Hyde, who presided over her case, giving him "access to documents and information generally unavailable to prosecutors." (Hyde died in 2012.)

"Further undermining confidence in Erma's criminal proceedings, Petty and Judge Hyde engaged in ex parte communications concerning Erma's case," her lawsuit reads. "Consequential motions, such as Erma's motion to suppress, were resolved in the prosecution's favor throughout trial. And despite the weak evidence against her, Erma's motion for a new trial was not granted. Any of these facts by itself undermines the integrity of Erma's trial. Together, these facts eviscerate it." 

Typically prosecutors are protected by absolute immunity, which, as its name implies, is an even more robust shield than qualified immunity. But that issue is not before the 5th Circuit, because Wilson must overcome another barrier: Someone who has been convicted of a crime may not sue under Section 1983—the federal statute that permits lawsuits against state and local government employees for alleged constitutional violations—unless "the conviction or sentence has been reversed on appeal or otherwise declared invalid," wrote Judge Don Willett for the 5th Circuit in December. "The wrinkle here is that Petty's conflicted dual-hat arrangement came to light only after Wilson had served her whole sentence."

But Willett—the same judge who characterized Petty's alleged malfeasance as "utterly bonkers"—did not appear happy with his own ruling, which he said came because his hands were tied by precedent. He invited the 5th Circuit to hear the case en banc, where all the judges on the court convene to reconsider an appeal, as opposed to a three-judge panel (the usual format for evaluating cases).

The court accepted. "The defendants say that [Wilson is] forever barred from invoking that federal cause of action or any other federal cause of action unless she first persuades state officials to grant her relief. If they never do, she can never sue," Jaba Tsitsuashvili, an attorney at the Institute for Justice who is representing Wilson, argued yesterday. "In most circuits, that argument would be rejected, and rightly so."

At the center of the case is Heck v. Humphrey (1994), a Supreme Court precedent that, as Willett noted, forecloses Section 1983 relief for plaintiffs alleging unconstitutional convictions if his or her criminal case was not resolved with "favorable termination." The catch: Most federal appeals courts have established that Heck does not apply when federal habeas relief is no longer available, as is the case with Wilson. The 5th Circuit is an exception.

Perhaps soon it won't be. Yet even if the judges agree with Tsitsuashvili's interpretation of the law, Wilson is not in the clear. She will then have to explain why Petty is not entitled to absolute immunity, which inoculates prosecutors from facing such civil suits if their alleged misconduct was carried out in the scope of their prosecutorial duties. It is nearly impossible to overcome. But Petty may not be a candidate for it, because his malfeasance was technically not committed as a prosecutor. It was committed as a law clerk.

Should Wilson be granted the privilege to sue, it will be the first time an alleged victim of Petty's gets a tangible chance at recourse. There was, of course, the fact that he was disbarred, but defendants whose trials were marred by Petty likely take little comfort in that, particularly when considering it came in 2021—two years after he retired.

The post Can This Woman Sue the Rogue Prosecutor Who Allegedly Helped Upend Her Life? appeared first on Reason.com.

A federal court yesterday heard arguments in an appeal concerning an area of law that, while niche, has seen a streak of similarly situated plaintiffs pile up in recent years. At stake: When a SWAT team destroys an innocent person's property, should the owner be strapped with the bill?

There is what I would consider a commonsense answer to that question. But in a reminder that common sense does not always guide law and policy, that is not the answer reached by several courts across the U.S., where such victims are sometimes told that "police powers" provide an exception to the Constitution's promise to give just compensation when the government usurps property for public use.

It remains to be seen where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit will fall as it evaluates the complaint from Mollie and Michael Slaybaugh, who are reportedly on the hook for over $70,000 after a SWAT team destroyed much of their home in Smyrna, Tennessee.

In January 2022, Mollie Slaybaugh stepped outside her house and was greeted by a police officer with his gun drawn. She was informed that her adult son, James Jackson Conn—who did not live with her but had recently arrived to visit—was wanted for questioning concerning the murder of a police officer, which she says was news to her. Although she offered to speak to Conn and bring him out of her house, law enforcement declined to permit that, or to let her re-enter at all, so she went to stay at her daughter's house nearby.

The next day, police broke down the door and launched dozens of tear gas grenades into the Slaybaughs' home, laying waste to nearly everything in the house. Their insurance declined to assist them, as their policy—like many policies—does not cover damage caused by the government. Yet both Smyrna and Rutherford County said they were immune from helping as well.

But despite Mollie Slaybaugh's offer to coax Conn out sans tear gas, her complaint does not dispute that it was in the best interest of the community for law enforcement to do as they did that day. It merely contests the government's claim that innocent property owners should have to bear the financial burden by themselves when police destroy their homes in pursuit of a suspect.

"Law enforcement is a public good. Through our taxes, we pay for the training, equipment, and salaries of police officers. We pay to incarcerate criminals. We pay for a court system and public defenders," reads her complaint. "When the police destroy private property in the course of enforcing the criminal laws, that is simply another cost of law enforcement. Forcing random, innocent individuals to shoulder that cost alone would be as fair as conducting a lottery to determine who has to pay the police chief's salary each year."

That hypothetical is absurd. And yet the spirit of it is at the heart of several court decisions on the matter. That includes the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, which ruled last year that the Slaybaughs were not entitled to a payout because, in the court's view, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not apply when the state seizes and destroys someone's property in the exercise of "police powers."

The Slaybaughs are unfortunately not alone. The notion that "police powers" immunize the government from liability is what doomed Leo Lech's lawsuit, which he filed after a SWAT team did so much damage to his home—in pursuit of a suspect that broke in and had no relation to the family—that it had to be demolished. In 2020, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Similar claims are continuing to accumulate. The city of Los Angeles refused to compensate Carlos Pena after a SWAT team destroyed his North Hollywood print shop in pursuit of a suspect who barricaded himself inside, and the government in McKinney, Texas, turned away Vicki Baker after police ruined her home and much of its contents while, again, trying to catch a fugitive. After a legal odyssey of sorts, Baker was able to secure a judgment from a federal jury—though that was ultimately overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which ruled there was a "necessity" exception to the Takings Clause. Most recently, the local government in South Bend, Indiana, rejected Amy Hadley's pleas for help after police mutilated her home in search of a suspect she'd never met and who'd never been to her home. An officer's botched investigation led law enforcement to her house, and she has been forced to pay the price of that blunder. Accountability should not just be for the little people.

"The plain text of the Just Compensation Clause contains no exemptions for the police power, for public necessity, or for damage done by law enforcement. And the government bears the burden of establishing that any such exception is grounded in our nation's history and tradition," Jeffrey Redfern, an attorney with the Institute for Justice representing the Slaybaughs, told the 6th Circuit yesterday. "But the government hasn't even tried to meet that burden. Instead it asks this court to blindly follow decisions from other jurisdictions—decisions whose reasoning the government isn't really defending."

In some sense, the government is throwing what it can at the wall to see what sticks. And a fair amount of nonadhesive material is successfully latching on—an exception to the laws of nature that few entities other than the government could reasonably hope to enjoy.

The post A SWAT Team Blew Up This Innocent Couple's Home and Left Them With the Bill. Was That Constitutional? appeared first on Reason.com.

Federal judges will be limited from enhancing defendants' sentences based on conduct a jury acquitted them of, a practice that has drawn condemnation from a wide range of civil liberties groups, lawmakers, and jurists.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission, a bipartisan panel that creates guidelines for the federal judiciary, voted unanimously Wednesday to adopt an amendment prohibiting judges from using acquitted conduct when calculating a defendant's sentencing range under those guidelines. The only exception is if the conduct "also establishes, in whole or in part, the instant offense of conviction."

"Not guilty means not guilty," U.S. District Judge Carlton W. Reeves, the chair of the Sentencing Commission, said in a press release. "By enshrining this basic fact within the federal sentencing guidelines, the Commission is taking an important step to protect the credibility of our courts and criminal justice system."

Although it sounds antithetical to what everyone is taught about the American justice system, at the sentencing phase of a trial, federal judges could enhance defendants' sentences for conduct they were acquitted of if the judge decided it was more likely than not—a lower standard of evidence than "beyond a reasonable doubt"—that the defendant committed those offenses. This raised defendants' scores under the federal sentencing guidelines, leading to significantly longer prison sentences.

For example, Reason's Billy Binion reported on the case of Dayonta McClinton, who was charged with robbing a CVS pharmacy in Indiana at gunpoint and killing one of his accomplices during a dispute after the robbery. A jury convicted McClinton of robbing the pharmacy but acquitted him of killing his accomplice. A federal judge nevertheless used the accomplice's death to enhance McClinton's sentence from the 57–71 months recommended under the guidelines to 228 months.

McClinton filed a petition to the Supreme Court challenging the use of acquitted conduct at his sentencing, but despite several Supreme Court justices previously expressing doubt about the constitutionality of the practice—including Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas—the Court declined to take up the case last June. Reuters reported that four of the justices signaled they would defer to the Sentencing Commission.

The Justice Department opposed a previous proposal by the Sentencing Commission to limit the use of acquitted conduct.

"Curtailing courts' discretion to consider conduct related to acquitted counts would be a significant departure from long-standing sentencing practice, Supreme Court precedent and the principles of our guidelines," Jessica Aber, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, testified before the Commission last February.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the new policy.

The practice also outraged members of Congress. For the past several years, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D–Ill.) have introduced legislation to ban the use of acquitted conduct at sentencing in federal trials, but so far none have passed.

In a statement today, Durbin continued to call for the passage of his and Grassley's Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act, saying "this unjust practice must be prohibited under federal law."

"Under our Constitution, defendants can only be convicted of a crime if a jury of their peers finds they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," Durbin said. "However, federal law inexplicably allows judges to override a jury verdict of 'not guilty' by sentencing defendants based on acquitted conduct. This practice is inconsistent with the Constitution's guarantees of due process and the right to a jury trial. That's why I applaud the Sentencing Commission's important step to limit the use of acquitted conduct."

The post U.S. Sentencing Commission Restricts Federal Judges' Ability To Use Acquitted Conduct at Sentencing appeared first on Reason.com.

Is it a crime to learn something by reading a copyrighted book? What if you later summarize that book to a friend or write a description of it online? Of course, these things are perfectly legal when a person does them. But does that change when it's an artificial intelligence system doing the reading, learning, and summarizing?

Sarah Silverman, comedian and author of the book The Bedwetter, seems to think it does. She and several other authors are suing OpenAI, the tech company behind the popular AI chatbot ChatGPT, through which users submit text prompts and receive back AI-generated answers.

Last week, a federal judge largely rejected their claims.

The ruling is certainly good news for OpenAI and for ChatGPT users. It's also good news for the future of AI technology more broadly. AI tools could be completely hamstrung by the expansive vision of copyright law that Silverman and the other authors in this case envision.

The Authors' Complaints and OpenAI's Response

Teaching AI to communicate and "think" like a human takes a lot of text. To this end, OpenAI used a massive dataset of books to train the language models that power its artificial intelligence. ("It is the volume of text used, more than any particular selection of text, that really matters," OpenAI explained in its motion to dismiss.)

Silverman and the others say this violates federal copyright law.

Authors Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad filed a class-action complaint to this effect against OpenAI last June. Silverman and authors Christopher Golden and Richard Kadrey filed a class-action complaint against OpenAI in July. The threesome also filed a similar lawsuit against Meta. In all three cases, the lead lawyer was antitrust attorney Joseph Saveri.

"As with all too many class action lawyers, the goal is generally enriching the class action lawyers, rather than actually stopping any actual wrong," suggested Techdirt Editor in Chief Mike Masnick when the suits were first filed. "Saveri is not a copyright expert, and the lawsuits…show that. There are a ton of assumptions about how Saveri seems to think copyright law works, which is entirely inconsistent with how it actually works."

In both complaints against OpenAI, Saveri claims that copyrighted works—including books by the authors in this suit—"were copied by OpenAI without consent, without credit, and without compensation."

This is a really weird way to characterize how AI training datasets work. Yes, the AI tools "read" the works in question in order to learn, but they don't need to copy the works in question. It's also a weird understanding of copyright infringement—akin to arguing that someone reading a book in order to learn about a subject for a presentation is infringing on the work or that search engines are infringing when they scan webpages to index them.

The authors in these cases also object to ChatGPT spitting out summaries of their books, among other things. "When ChatGPT was prompted to summarize books written by each of the Plaintiffs, it generated very accurate summaries," states the Silverman et al. complaint.

Again, putting this in any other context shows how silly it is. Are book reviewers infringing on the copyrights of the books they review? Is someone who reads a book and tweets about the plot violating copyright law?

It would be different if ChatGPT reproduced copies of books in their entirety or spit out large, verbatim passages from them. But the activity the authors allege in their complaints is not that.

The copyright claims in this case "misconceive the scope of copyright, failing to take into account the limitations and exceptions (including fair use) that properly leave room for innovations like the large language models now at the forefront of artificial intelligence," OpenAI argued in its motion to dismiss some of the claims.

It suggested that the doctrine of fair use—designed in recognition of the fact "that the use of copyrighted materials by innovators in transformative ways does not violate copyright"—applies in this case and the case of "countless artificial intelligence products [that] have been developed by a wide array of technology companies."

The Court Weighs In

The authors prevailing here could seriously hamper the creation of AI language learning models. Fortunately, the court isn't buying a lot of their arguments. In a February 12 ruling, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed most of the authors' claims against OpenAI.

This included the claims that OpenAI engaged in "vicarious copyright infringement," that it violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and that it was guilty of negligence and unjust enrichment. The judge also partially rejected a claim of unfair competition under California law while allowing the authors to proceed with that claim in part (largely because California's understanding of "unfair competition" here is so broad).

Silverman and the other authors in these cases "have not alleged that the ChatGPT outputs contain direct copies of the copyrighted books," Martínez-Olguín noted. And they "fail to explain what the outputs entail or allege that any particular output is substantially similar – or similar at all — to their books."

The judge also rejected the idea that OpenAI removed or altered copyright management information (as prohibited by Section 1202(b) of the DMCA). "Plaintiffs provide no facts supporting this assertion," wrote Martínez-Olguín. "Indeed, the Complaints include excerpts of ChatGPT outputs that include multiple references to [the authors'] names."

And if OpenAI didn't violate the DMCA, then other claims based on that alleged violation—like that OpenAI distributed works with copyright management information removed or engaged in unlawful or fraudulent business practices—fail too.

More AI/Copyright Battles To Come

This isn't the end of the authors vs. OpenAI debate. The judge did not yet rule on their direct copyright infringement claim because OpenAI did not seek yet to dismiss it. (The company said it will try to resolve that later in the case.)

The judge also will allow the parties to file an amended complaint if they want to.

Given the lameness of their legal arguments, and the judge's dismissal of some of the claims, "it's difficult to see how any of the cases will survive," writes Masnick. (See his post for a more detailed look at the claims involved here and why a judge dismissed them.)

Unfortunately, we're almost certain to keep seeing people sue AI companies—language models, image generators, etc.—on dubious grounds, because America is in the midst of a growing AI tech panic. And every time a new tech panic takes hold, we see people trying to make money and/or a name for themselves by flinging a bunch of flimsy accusations in lawsuit form. We've seen this with social media companies and Section 230, social media and alleged mental health harms to teens, all sorts of popular tech companies and antitrust law.

Now that artificial intelligence is the darling of tech exuberance and hysteria alike, a lot of folks—from bureaucrats at the Federal Trade Commission to enterprising lawyers to all sorts of traditional media creators and purveyors—are seeking to extract money for themselves from these technologies.

"I understand why media companies don't like people training on their documents, but believe that just as humans are allowed to read documents on the open internet, learn from them, and synthesize brand new ideas, AI should be allowed to do so too," commented Andrew Ng, co-founder of Coursera and an adjunct professor at Stanford. "I would like to see training on the public internet covered under fair use—society will be better off this way—though whether it actually is will ultimately be up to legislators and the courts."

Unlike many people who write about technology, I don't foresee major disruptions, good or bad, coming from AI anytime soon. But there are many smaller benefits and efficiencies that AI can bring us—if we can keep people from hampering its development with a maximalist reading of copyright law.

Today's Image

The post Sarah Silverman's Lawsuit Against OpenAI Is Full of Nonsense Claims appeared first on Reason.com.