Democrats in Congress have reintroduced a bill that would revive the ability to sue federal law enforcement officers for constitutional violations like excessive force, following a series of Supreme Court decisions that have made it practically impossible to do so.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D–R.I.) and Reps. Hank Johnson (D–Ga.) and Jamie Raskin (D–Md.) reintroduced the Bivens Act in the Senate and House, respectively, this week. The legislation would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1871—a federal statute that allows people to sue the government for civil rights violations—to include federal officials acting under the color of law, as well as state and local officials.

"Public officials at all levels of government, including law enforcement, should have a clear, fair standard of accountability when they break the law," Whitehouse said in a press release. "Our Bivens Act would end the confusing judicial precedent that for too long has prevented victims from holding federal officials accountable and securing compensation for constitutional violations."

In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics that federal agents may be sued when they violate someone's rights. But subsequent Supreme Court rulings over the years have steadily narrowed the scope of so-called Bivens claims to the point where it's a dead letter.

In the most recent case, Egbert v. Boule, the Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that a bed-and-breakfast owner could not sue a Border Patrol agent who had allegedly assaulted him and then retaliated after he complained. Reason's Damon Root summarized the case: 

At issue were the actions of a border patrol agent who sought to question one of the guests at a Washington state bed-and-breakfast about the guest's immigration status. When owner Robert Boule told the agent, Erik Egbert, to leave his property, Egbert allegedly assaulted Boule. Then, when Boule complained about the alleged assault to the agent's superiors, Egbert allegedly retaliated by asking the IRS to investigate Boule, who was audited.

The Court ruled 6–3 that Boule could not bring a claim against Egbert for excessive force or First Amendment retaliation. 

That same term, the Court declined to hear petitions involving cases where a St. Paul police officer invented a fake sex-trafficking ring and jailed a teenage girl for two years on trumped-up charges and where a Department of Homeland Security agent allegedly tried to kill a man because of an argument involving his son.

As Reason's Billy Binion wrote at the time, "A federal badge will now serve as an impenetrable shield against civil liability for violating the same laws agents are charged with upholding."

That's not just the opinion of some whacky libertarians either. Federal Judge Don Willett complained in a 2021 opinion that the Supreme Court has gutted Bivens to the extent that "if you wear a federal badge, you can inflict excessive force on someone with little fear of liability."

The Bivens Act is supported by numerous civil rights and watchdog groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Drug Policy Alliance, and the Project on Government Oversight.

The post New Bill Would Revive the Right To Sue Federal Cops for Constitutional Violations appeared first on Reason.com.

The question of why the chicken crossed the road is of secondary importance to who gets to claim the bird's carcass if it's killed while attempting the crossing.

For a long time, the rule in a majority of the country was the government got to keep the deceased animal. State laws prohibited drivers from claiming the meat of animals killed on public roads and highways for food. Instead, ownership of the corpses defaulted to whichever agency maintained the roads, wasting countless tons of farm-fresh, slightly battered flesh to rot.

In recent years, a growing number of states have been loosening their highway harvesting bans. The Associated Press reported in 2022 that "30 or so" states now allow people to harvest roadkill. The pace of reform doesn't appear to be slowing down.

Come July, a new Virginia law allowing anyone to claim roadkill all year round will go into effect. Current law allows only the driver who the killed animal to claim the carcass, and only if they hit the animal during hunting season.

Liberalizing roadkill harvesting also stands to unite animal rights activists and fiscal conservatives.

The animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has endorsed roadkill as superior to supermarket-sold meat.

"Animals killed on the road were not castrated, dehorned, or debeaked without anesthesia, did not suffer the trauma and misery of transportation," says the organization on its website.

Virginia Del. Tony Wilt (R–Harrisonburg), the author of Virginia's new law, advocated for the policy change as a way of reducing the burden on the state's transportation department.

"Currently, if nobody takes the animal, it falls back onto [the Virginia Department of Transportation]. There are certain times of the year when those things can stack up," he said during a committee hearing earlier this year, per reporting from WRIC.

Libertarians would obviously be on board with these policies as well. Under an ideal regime of privatized roads, it's possible that road companies might claim animal carcasses for themselves. But so long as the public owns and operates the highways, it seems only fair that the public be allowed to harvest whatever animals are killed on them as well.

The open road, and all it has to offer, has long been associated with a particularly American vision of freedom. Expanding that freedom to what lies on the side of the road can only be considered a win for individual liberty.

The post New Virginia Law Will Let Anyone Harvest Roadkill Anytime of Year appeared first on Reason.com.

New legislation would repeal parts of the Comstock Act, a Victorian-era law that's being revived to attack abortion pills.

Passed in 1873, the Comstock Act was a big deal in earlier eras, sending people to prison for publishing information about birth control, critiques of marriage, and more.

The law is vague and broad, banning the mailing of any "article, matter, thing, device, or substance" that the government deems "obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile," along with anything "designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use." Essentially, the Comstock Act weaponizes the U.S. Postal Service to give the federal government an in against things that otherwise wouldn't be its business.

"Anthony Comstock, the law's namesake and an anti-smut crusader, lobbied for and personally enforced the law as a special agent of the U.S. Postal Service," noted the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) lawyer Robert Corn-Revere in a recent piece for Reason about efforts to posthumously pardon publisher D.M. Bennett. "Under the law's broad mandate, everything that Comstock considered immoral was by definition obscene and, therefore, illegal. Comstock's concept of immorality included blasphemy, sensational novels and news stories, art, and even scientific and medical texts." (You can read more about Comstock, "the prodigal censor," here.)

The Comstock Act lay dormant for a while, rendered toothless in part by court interpretations of the First Amendment that were more vigorously protective of free speech. But these days, activists and politicians opposed to abortion are trying to revive the law, seeing its potential usefulness in going after mifepristone and misoprostol, the two-pill regimen approved to end first-trimester pregnancies.

The resurgence of interest in the Comstock Act underscores the need to repeal bad laws, not simply assume them defanged by decades of latency.

The Biden administration certainly isn't going to start prosecuting people under the Comstock Act, but a more conservative future administration could. "[Donald] Trumps' [sic] advisors are…arguing that the Comstock Act is a de facto national abortion ban already on the books," says Madison Roberts, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "They are wrong. The Department of Justice has made clear and federal appeals courts have uniformly held for almost a century that the Comstock Act does not apply to legal abortion care. But anti-abortion extremists have manipulated the law to ban abortion before, and there's no reason to think they won't try it again."

Moreover, the law was cited in a legal challenge to abortion pills and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's decision to let them be sent via mail. The district judge who first heard the case (and sided with the plaintiffs) wrote that "dispensing of chemical abortion drugs through mail violates unambiguous federal criminal law." That case was shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court last week on procedural grounds, but it certainly won't be the last attempt to stop the prescription and mailing of abortion pills. Nor is it likely to be the last time Comstock is invoked for this purpose—unless the act is revised or repealed.

"It is too dangerous to leave this law on the books," Sen. Tina Smith (D–Minn.) said in a statement.

The Stop Comstock Act, which Smith is slated to introduce soon (no draft has been released yet, however), would repeal the parts of the law "that could be used by an anti-abortion administration to ban the mailing of mifepristone and other drugs used in medication abortions, instruments and equipment used in abortions, and educational material related to sexual health," per Smith's press release. A companion bill will be introduced in the House by Rep. Becca Balint (D–Vt.).

This is good, but not far enough, if it only partially repeals the law.

Why stop with repealing the parts that could be used to target abortion? The Comstock Act's reach is much more broad than that, and every bit could do some damage in the wrong hands.

Here's the full spate of things that the Comstock Act declares criminal to mail:

Every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; and

Every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and

Every written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, or how, or from whom, or by what means any of such mentioned matters, articles, or things may be obtained or made, or where or by whom any act or operation of any kind for the procuring or producing of abortion will be done or performed, or how or by what means abortion may be produced, whether sealed or unsealed; and

Every paper, writing, advertisement, or representation that any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing may, or can, be used or applied for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and

Every description calculated to induce or incite a person to so use or apply any such article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing.

It's time to repeal the whole thing.

Today, it's only the abortion part of the law that people are trying to revive. But a few years ago, most of us weren't expecting a Comstock revival at all. Who's to say that a few years from now, people won't try to use it against all sorts of information, art, etc. that they don't like?

If we want to stop the Comstock Act from ever again being used to suppress speech, restrict access to contraceptives, punish people for homosexuality, and more, then we need to stop the Comstock Act entirely.

The post The Stop Comstock Act Doesn't Go Far Enough appeared first on Reason.com.

U.S. Reps. Grace Meng and Tim Kennedy, both Democrats from New York, have introduced a bill that bar the sale, transfer, or possession of Level 3 body armor to anyone but the military or police officers. Level 3 armor is designed to stop rifle rounds such as 7.62 mm. The bill is named for Aaron Salter Jr., a retired police officer who died trying to stop a 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo. Kennedy said Salter fired on and hit the gunman but the gunman was wearing body armor and was not stopped.

The post Brickbat: Naked and Afraid appeared first on Reason.com.

Today's technology companies are increasingly sandwiched between the regulatory requirements of the European Union (E.U.) and those of California. While the U.S. federal government may adopt a light touch, pro-innovation approach, California's state legislation can undermine this with a regulatory approach with impacts far beyond its borders.

A new California bill imposes a rigorous regulatory regime on Artificial Intelligence (AI), making it the latest technology caught in this potentially innovation-stifling squeeze between Brussels and Sacramento. The term "Brussels Effect" often refers to the outsize influence of E.U. policy—particularly in technology—as a de facto global standard. But now, companies are also experiencing the "Sacramento Effect," where California's stringent regulations effectively set de facto federal policy for the rest of the country.

California is not the only state diving into significant tech policy legislation. Colorado recently enacted notable AI regulations, Montana attempted to ban TikTok, and many states are pursuing data privacy or youth online safety regulations.

For better or worse, states can move faster than Congress, acting as laboratories of democracy. However, this agility also risks creating a fragmented tech policy landscape, with one state's regulations imposing heavy burdens on the entire nation. This is particularly pronounced with California.

The impact is profound not just because many leading tech companies are based in California but rather because of the nature of the technologies California seeks to regulate. For example, in some cases, the only feasible way to implement regulations is at a national level. In data privacy, the laws apply to California residents even when their actions are not occurring within the state's borders, pushing companies toward broader compliance to avoid legal pitfalls.

While some of these laws could be challenged under the dormant commerce clause, without judicial intervention, they become de facto federal policy. Many companies find it easier to comply with California's stringent regulations rather than juggling different standards across states and risking non-compliance.

This dynamic was evident in 2018 when California enacted its regulatory approach to data privacy. Now, we could soon see California—either by regulation or legislation—disrupting the crucial AI innovations currently taking place. Unlike some technologies, such as autonomous vehicles, the development of large language models and other foundational AI models cannot, in most cases, simply be removed from a state due to regulations.

Perhaps the "best-case scenario" from the actions of states like California and Colorado might be a problematic patchwork of AI regulations, but more realistically, California's proposal (if it becomes law) would deter innovation by creating a costly compliance regime. This would limit AI development to only the largest companies capable of bearing these costs and would come at the expense of investments in product improvements.

Moreover, beneficial AI applications could be thwarted by other proposals California's legislature is currently considering. As R Street's Adam Thierer notes in an analysis of state laws surrounding the AI revolution, the California legislature has considered a variety of anti-AI bills that could "ban self-checkout at grocery and retail stores and ban the use of AI in call centers that provide government services, making things even less efficient."

It is not only legislation that could result in California derailing a pro-innovation approach to AI. The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA), established under California's data privacy laws, has proposed a regulatory framework for "automated decision-making." The E.U.'s General Data Protection Regulation shows how data privacy regulation can inadvertently stifle AI development by imposing compliance requirements designed for older technologies. Regulating "automated decision-making" could give the CPPA an unintended yet significant role in obstructing AI and other beneficial algorithmic uses.

America's tech innovators and entrepreneurs are already facing challenges from the E.U.'s heavy-handed AI regulations. In the absence of federal preemption or an alternative framework, they may also be hindered by the heavy hand of Sacramento. Such a sandwiching of significant regulation could harm not only the tech sector's economy but also all Americans who stand to benefit from AI advancements, as a single state or region's policy preferences dictate the national landscape.

The post AI Could Become the Next Victim of the 'Sacramento Effect' appeared first on Reason.com.

The recent wave of headlines about shoplifting and retail theft, accompanied by viral videos of people brazenly walking out of stores with stolen goods, has captured the attention of the media and politicians. The tough-on-crime crowd has advocated for a crackdown on shoplifters through more aggressive prosecution and harsher penalties. Others have emphasized the need for rehabilitation for offenders. 

One group of progressive California lawmakers claims to have found an even better solution: banning self-checkout machines from stores in the name of fighting crime. In reality, this "anti-crime" bill is nothing more than naked protectionism for union jobs. 

The proposed legislation would prohibit groceries and other retail stores from using self-checkout machines unless a host of conditions are met. These include having at least one staffed employee for every two self-checkout machines (and the employee must be exempt from any other duties), only permitting the machines to be used by shoppers with 10 items or fewer, and ensuring at least one regular cashier lane is also available at all times.

The bill's sponsor, state Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D–Los Angeles), calls her approach "smart" on crime instead of "hard on crime," telling The New York Times: "We have so many bills in this Legislature that are trying to increase penalties….We know that what makes our community safe is not more jail time and penalties. What makes our community safe is real enforcement, having real workers that are on the floor." 

To underscore her point, Smallwood-Cuevas cites a study suggesting that retail theft is up to 16 times more likely to occur at self-checkout machines than at traditional registers, leading to an estimated $10 billion in annual losses for retailers. 

A closer look at the fine print of the bill, however, reveals the true intent behind it. The legislation mandates that any store seeking to install self-checkout machines must first produce a study analyzing, among other things, the number of employees "whose duties would be affected by the workplace technology," as well as the "total amount of salaries and benefits that would be eliminated as a result of the workplace technology." The study must then be provided to employees potentially impacted by the technology (or their collective bargaining representatives) and posted "in a location accessible to employees and customers."

Were this a game of poker, this mandated study would be the tell: Smallwood-Cuevas and her fellow progressives are trying to tuck a pro–union jobs bill inside the Trojan horse of crime prevention. 

Smallwood-Cuevas was a labor organizer before her legislative career, and some of the bill's biggest sponsors are labor unions. A press release on the United Food and Commercial Workers' website lauds the legislation, with the president of the local chapter complaining that "employers have increasingly implemented automated checkout to drastically cut staffing and reduce labor costs." The press release does not mention the word crime at all and only uses theft twice and shoplifting once. In contrast, jobs, staffing, and worker displacement are referenced a total of 10 times. 

Efforts to limit self-checkout in other blue states provide corroborating evidence, such as a proposed anti-self-checkout ballot initiative in Oregon that labor interests tried to get on the 2020 ballot, explicitly positioned as a pro–union jobs measure. 

While a pro-labor bill in California may seem utterly unremarkable, some on the right may be buying the bill's anti-crime framing. Both Fox Business and the New York Post ran articles highlighting the bill as an anti-theft measure, with little reference to the real motivations behind the legislation. Given the right's increasing embrace of labor unions, it is not hard to envision an unholy alliance of pro-labor progressives and tough-on-crime populist conservatives supporting bills around the country to eliminate self-checkout.

Supporters of the bill and numerous media outlets have cited two examples of large retail chains making their own internal decisions to reduce or remove self-checkout machines to clamp down on theft. The aforementioned statistics about self-checkout lanes leading to more shoplifting are also frequently referenced. But these points ironically cut against the need for government involvement: If self-checkout machines are really leading to massive inventory losses for stores, then retailers themselves have a direct bottom-line incentive to scrap self-checkout. 

No one cares more about inventory loss than store owners, whose entire business model is predicated on customers actually paying money for their products. That is why some retailers are reevaluating the efficacy of self-checkout and experimenting with new monitoring tactics such as "smart video" cameras that can halt the self-checkout process if they notice a customer declining to scan any items. 

There already is a built-in market response to theft concerns around self-checkout—more government interference is simply not needed. If lawmakers still want to ban self-checkout machines anyway, they should at least be honest about why.

The post The Real Reason for Self-Checkout Bans appeared first on Reason.com.

On Wednesday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a bill banning the sale or production of lab-grown meat in the state. While a press release framed the bill as an attempt to advance Floridans' freedom by protecting them from the "World Economic Forum's goal of forcing the world to eat lab-grown meat and insects," all the legislation really does is stile competition for the state's meat producers. 

"Today, Florida is fighting back against the global elite's plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs to achieve their authoritarian goals," DeSantis said in a Wednesday press release. "Our administration will continue to focus on investing in our local farmers and ranchers, and we will save our beef."

Cultivated, or "lab-grown," meat has been available in the United States on an extremely limited basis, generally limited to individual restaurants, since last year, after the Food and Drug Administration approved two different kinds of cultivated chicken for sale.

However, despite DeSantis' supposed fears about a lab-grown meat takeover, the small cultivated meat industry is struggling. The product isn't currently available anywhere in the United States, let alone in Florida.

Nonetheless, the governor signed Senate Bill 1084, which enacts a wide-ranging ban on cultivated meat, making it illegal "for any person to manufacture for sale, sell, hold or offer for sale, or distribute cultivated meat in" Florida. Violators of the law face misdemeanor penalties, and businesses caught selling the product could have their licenses suspended.

"We must protect our incredible farmers and the integrity of American agriculture," Florida Commissioner of Agriculture Wilton Simpson said in the press release. "Lab-grown meat is a disgraceful attempt to undermine our proud traditions and prosperity, and is in direct opposition to authentic agriculture."

However, it seems DeSantis is the real authoritarian in this situation. Instead of letting Floridians decide for themselves whether they want to try lab-grown meat, DeSantis is having the state step in, all in the name of protecting Floridians from an imaginary threat to their freedom.

Florida's lab-grown meat ban is a perfect marriage of protectionism and the culture war. By framing the tiny lab-grown meat industry as a left-wing threat, DeSantis can justify giving government kickbacks to the meat industry, all while protecting meat producers from a source of future competition. Wednesday's press release goes so far as to brag about a litany of recently passed legislation that "support[s] the state's agriculture and meat industry."

Unfortunately, Florida isn't the first state to ban cultivated meat. Alabama passed a ban on lab-grown meat last month, and legislation to ban the product is pending in Arizona and Tennessee. Italy banned it last year.

The post DeSantis Signs Bill Banning Lab-Grown Meat in Florida appeared first on Reason.com.

The censors who abound in Congress will likely vote to ban TikTok or force a change in ownership. It will likely soon be law. I think the Supreme Court will ultimately rule it unconstitutional, because it would violate the First Amendment rights of over 100 million Americans who use TikTok to express themselves.

In addition, I believe the Court will rule that the forced sale violates the Fifth Amendment. Under the Constitution, the government cannot take your property without accusing and convicting you of a crime—in short, without due process. Since Americans are part of TikTok's ownership, they will eventually get their day in court.

The Court could also conclude that naming and forcing the sale of a specific company amounts to a bill of attainder, legislation that targets a single entity.

These are three significant constitutional arguments against Congress' forced sale/ban legislation. In fact, three different federal courts have already invalidated legislative and executive attempts to ban TikTok.

If the damage to one company weren't enough, there is a very real danger this ham-fisted assault on TikTok may actually give the government the power to force the sale of other companies.

Take, for example, Apple. As The New York Times reported in 2021, "In response to a 2017 Chinese law, Apple agreed to move its Chinese customers' data to China and onto computers owned and run by a Chinese state-owned company."

Sound familiar? The legislators who want to censor and/or ban TikTok point to this same law to argue that TikTok could (someday) be commanded to turn over American users' data to the Chinese government.

Note that more careful speakers don't allege that this has happened, but rather that it might. The banners of TikTok don't want to be troubled by anything inconvenient like proving in a court of law that this is occurring. No, the allegation is enough for them to believe they have the right to force the sale of or ban TikTok.

But back to Apple. It's not theoretical that it might turn over data to the Chinese Communist government. It already has (albeit, Chinese users' information). Nevertheless, it could be argued that Apple, by their actions, could fall under the TikTok ban language that forces the sale of an entity: under the influence of a foreign adversary.

(Now, of course, I think such legislation is absurdly wrong and would never want it applied to Apple, but I worry the language is vague enough to apply to many entities.)

As The New York Times explains: "Chinese government workers physically control and operate the data center. Apple agreed to store the digital keys that unlock its Chinese customers' information in those data centers. And Apple abandoned the encryption technology it uses in other data centers after China wouldn't allow it."

This sounds exactly like what the TikTok censors describe in their bill, except so far as we know, only Americans who live in China might be affected by Apple's adherence to China's law. TikTok actually has spent a billion dollars agreeing to house all American data with Oracle in Texas.

Are there other companies that might be affected by the TikTok ban? Commentary by Kash Patel in The Washington Times argues that Temu, an online marketplace operated by a Chinese company, is even worse than TikTok and should be banned. He makes the argument that Temu, in contrast with TikTok, "does not employ any data security personnel in the United States."

And what of the global publishing enterprise Springer Nature? It has admitted that it censors its scientific articles at the request of the Chinese Communist government. Will the TikTok bill force its sale as well?

Before Congress rushes to begin banning and punishing every international company that does business in China, perhaps they should pause, take a breath, and ponder the ramifications of rapid, legislative isolationism with regard to China.

The impulse to populism is giving birth to the abandonment of international trade. I fear, in the hysteria of the moment, that ending trade between China and the U.S. will not only cost American consumers dearly but ultimately lead to more tension and perhaps even war.

No one in Congress has more strongly condemned the historical famines and genocides of Communist China. I wrote a book, The Case Against Socialism, describing the horrors and inevitability of state-sponsored violence in the pursuit of complete socialism. I just recently wrote another book called Deception, condemning Communist China for covering up the Wuhan lab origins of COVID-19.

And yet, even with those searing critiques, I believe the isolationism of the China hysterics is a mistake and will not end well if Congress insists on going down this path.

The post If They Ban TikTok, Is Apple Next? appeared first on Reason.com.