January 30, 2024

The Courts

People United for Privacy: Expect More IRS Mischief After DOJ Goes Soft on Trump Tax Return Leaker

By Luke Wachob

.....This week, a federal judge handed down a five-year prison sentence to Charles Littlejohn for stealing and leaking the tax returns of thousands of American citizens, including former President Donald Trump.

“Let me be absolutely clear: What you did, in targeting the sitting president of the United States, was an attack on our constitutional democracy,” said Judge Ana C. Reyes, an appointee of President Biden.

Littlejohn pled guilty last year to the unauthorized disclosure of tax returns. As a contractor with the IRS, he abused his position to access and leak this highly sensitive information to multiple media outlets in a personal political crusade. Judge Reyes called Littlejohn’s crimes “the biggest heist in IRS history.”

Contrasting the scale and nature of Littlejohn’s crimes with the five-year sentence he received makes two things clear. First, the IRS wields tremendous power over American citizens through the personally sensitive tax information the agency collects. Second, privacy violations at the IRS are not taken as seriously as they should be.

In particular, Judge Reyes appeared perplexed by the Justice Department’s decision to charge Littlejohn with only one felony count.

“The fact that he did what he did and he’s facing one felony count, I have no words for,” Reyes said.

Rob a bank, and you might spend 20 years in prison. Hatch an elaborate scheme to rob the IRS and thousands of Americans of their personally sensitive data? Apparently, that’s only worth five.

ABC News: Judge orders Oregon newspaper not to publish documents linked to Nike lawsuit

By Associated Press

.....A federal judge has ordered an Oregon newspaper not to publish documents that it obtained regarding a sex discrimination lawsuit against sports behemoth Nike.

The Oregonian/OregonLive reported that an attorney who represents plaintiffs in the case sent the documents to one of its reporters on Jan. 19 and then asked for them back. When the news outlet declined, the attorney filed a court motion requesting they be returned.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jolie Russo approved the motion on Friday and ordered the news outlet to return the documents...

The Oregonian/OregonLive said it planned to appeal.

“Prior restraint by government goes against every principle of the free press in this country,” said Editor and Vice President of Content Therese Bottomly. “This is highly unusual, and we will defend our First Amendment rights in court.”

Congress

CNN Business: House Democrats propose crackdown on fake, AI-generated robocalls

By Brian Fung

.....US lawmakers say they’re fighting back against the rise of artificial intelligence-powered scams and fraud with new legislation to overhaul the nation’s robocall rules.

The sweeping proposal by House Democrats is a direct response to incidents including the recent deepfake impersonating President Joe Biden, which targeted thousands of New Hampshire voters, or fraudsters cloning a loved one’s voice to trick victims into believing a kidnapping has occurred...

The new bill would vastly expand the definition of a robocall to include any call or text message that includes artificially generated or prerecorded messages, according to a summary of the legislation reviewed by CNN. And it would double the potential fines for violations of US robocall rules that involve the use of AI to impersonate people...

The new restrictions would apply equally to political and non-political robocalls, said a spokesperson for Rep. Frank Pallone, the leading Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and a leading sponsor of the bill, known as the Do Not Disturb Act.

Free Expression

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Against Political Statements by Academic Departments

By Keith E. Whittington

.....The University of California system is debating whether to allow academic departments to issue political statements. Barnard College is currently in the midst of a campus controversy over college officials removing a political statement from a department's website.

Should departments be issuing such statements, and who should be understood to control the content of a departmental website or social media account? In an essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education, I argue that such political statements have no place in academia. They invite a further erosion of public support for higher education, and they threaten the foundations of individual academic freedom.

Here's a taste:

The States

Liberty Justice Center: Oregon School District Violates First Amendment: The Liberty Justice Center Demands End to Unconstitutional Limits on Parents’ Free Speech

.....On January 29, the Liberty Justice Center sent a demand letter on behalf of an Oregon mother who alleges that a local school district’s social media and public comment policies have violated her First Amendment rights.

Glenda Scherer, education advocate and mother of two, argues that the Gladstone School District has unconstitutionally suppressed her speech online and at public meetings. She reports that the District has prohibited her from posting in a publicly-accessible Facebook group for parents at the school, unless and until administrators approve her post’s content. She also reports that the District has required she submit her comments and questions to be pre-screened by the Board before open meetings, has sought to ban her from attending any school board meetings in person without the Superintendent’s prior approval, and has banned any discussion of current or former school employees—a ban that prevented her from sharing her concerns after the District failed to discipline an employee who had been investigated for abusing her son.

KSL: Proposed bill to eliminate AI used in political campaign advertisements

By Adam Small

.....A Utah lawmaker wants to put regulations around using AI in political campaign advertisements. The bill would create laws for using AI in political campaign ads. 

Sen. Wayne Harper, R-Taylorsville, is sponsoring SB 131 and says the purpose of the bill is to ensure the public isn’t receiving misinformation.