Reason

Court Finds AI Hallucinations in Filing by Former State Senate Candidate

Tricia S. Lindsay, attorney for plaintiff Sai Malena Jimenez-Fogarty, responded to two motions to dismiss by filing a pair of memoranda of law that cited to numerous nonexistent cases. In response, the Court ordered Lindsay to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for her misleading filings. Upon consideration of Lindsay's response to these orders, we find that she should be sanctioned in the amount of $2,500.00 …. [T]wo briefs were signed by Lindsay, and each contained a number of fabricated citations. When we say "fabricated," we do not mean citations that arguably contain typographical errors—for example, Lindsay's citations to cases that exist and support the propositions for which they were cited but are not located in the volume or at the page of the reporter (or database identifier) given. Similarly, we exclude any otherwise correct citations that give the wrong case name. We also exclude those instances where the cited case covers the same topic as the proposition for which it is cited but where the case's holding is completely mischaracterized, although such a citation is itself grossly misleading and perhaps deserving of sanctions. Instead, we consider only citations to cases that cannot be located at all by

Policymakers consider limits on self-checkout, backed by labor unions

Labor Unions Self-Checkout Is Under Fire Across the Country. Is Theft Really the Reason? The restrictions are often framed as a crime prevention measure. But the fine print points to a different motivation: adding union jobs. C. Jarrett Dieterle | 5.2.2026 7:00 AM (Illustration: Lex Villena; Daria Nipot | Dreamstime.com) Self-checkout machines are in the crosshairs. In recent months, numerous states and localities have considered legislation to curtail the use of automated checkout in grocery stores. These bills are often positioned as part of an effort to cut down on retail theft, but it appears the driving force behind them is to create more unionized jobs. According to USA Today, at least six states have considered rules that would restrict self-checkout machines. The states range from blue Connecticut to red Ohio, but it doesn't stop there. Two cities in California already have self-checkout limits in place, while New York City is currently considering restrictions as well. Self-checkout restrictions are often framed as a commonsense crime prevention measure that protects grocery store workers and cuts back against the recent uptick in retail theft nationwide. But when it comes to these bills, the fine print points toward a different motivation. For instance,

5th Circuit Panel Blocks 2023 Mifepristone Telemedicine Approval

It has been a very busy 48 hours for Louisiana. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court decided Callais. The following day, the Governor announced he would suspend the upcoming primary elections to allow the legislature to redistrict. There is also litigation before the Supreme Court about the issuance of the judgment in Callais. Earlier today, the Governor was sued to enjoin the cancellation of the election. And just a few moments ago, the Fifth Circuit panel granted a stay in Louisiana's challenge to the mifepristone telemedicine approval from 2023. What, you thought the case was over after Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine? You have not been following the Fifth Circuit closely enough. For now, I will just paste the introduction of Judge Kyle Duncan's panel opinion. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), the Supreme Court returned the regulation of abortion to the states. In response, the Biden Administration directed federal agencies to "expand access to . . . medication abortion." Exec. Order No. 14076, 87 Fed. Reg. 42053 (July 8, 2022). The next year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) formally altered its safety guidelines for the abortion drug mifepristone. Under the new regulation, the drug could

First Circuit Stays Court Order Commandeering New Hampshire (Though Doesn't Rely on Anti-Commandeering Arguments)

Yesterday a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit stayed a district court injunction, pending appeal, that would have commandeered New Hampshire by requiring it to maintain a vehicle emissions inspection program to comply with the federal Clean Air Act. As I explained here and here, the court's order violated the anti-commandeering doctrine (though the state had not made much effort to make this argument). The unsigned order (on behalf of Chief Judge Barron and Judges Aframe and Dunlap) concluded (correctly) that New Hampshire was likely to prevail on the merits, even if it did not conclude that the order violated the anti-commandeering doctrine. Rather, the court concluded that Gordon-Darby, which had sued New Hampshire in order to protect its lucrative vehicle emissions testing contract, was premature in alleging the state was "in violation of" the Clean Air Act when it sued under the law's citizen suit provision, as the state law terminating the vehicle emissions inspection program had not yet taken effect. While the relevant case law allows citizen suits for past or present violations, the district court, in effect, allowed a suit for (and entered an injunction against) wholly prospective violations. Having concluded New

The Major Questions Doctrine Constrains Presidential Power Over Elections

NA Donald Trump has been trying to "nationalize" (his term, not mine) control over elections, claiming sweeping presidential power to control voting processes in a variety of ways. In a compelling recent post at the Election Law Blog, Richard Bernstein explains why these moves run afoul of the major questions doctrine: Briefing has begun in the cases challenging President Trump's latest attempt to arrogate power over federal elections to the federal executive branch—EO 14399's direction that the USPS provide lists states of voters eligible to vote by mail and to block the mail-in votes of those not on the USPS lists. The Society for the Rule of Law (with me as counsel) filed an amicus brief arguing, at pages 10-14, that the major questions doctrine applies to interpretations of federal agency authority on elections issues. That brief is linked here. The lack of authority for EO 14399 is so clear that a federal court does not need to rely on the major questions doctrine in order to invalidate EO 14399. But it should, as an alternative holding…. Before a federal agency has authority to regulate a major question, a statute must provide "clear congressional authorization." West Virginia v. EPA, 597

Trump's Iran War Continues to Violate the Constitution - and Now Also the War Powers Act of 1973

The administration is wrong to claim that the 60-day time limit in the Act is "stops" due to the ongoing ceasefire. | 5.1.2026 4:20 PM Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. (Kyodonews/Zuma Press/Newscom) In my March 5 Dispatch article on the Iran War and the Constitution, I explained why Donald Trump's initiation of the war without congressional authorization is unconstitutional. As of today, it is also in violation of the War Powers Act of 1973. Enacted in the wake of the Vietnam War, the WPA requires the president to secure congressional approval within 60 days of entering U.S. troops into "hostilities" or situations "where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." The president can seek a 30 day extension without additional congressional authorization, but Trump has not done so in this case. The sixty day deadline expires today. Therefore, Trump is now in violation of the WPA, as well as the Constitution. Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth claimed that the WPA clock "stops" because of the ongoing ceasefire with Iran, curently still (tenuously) in effect. But the WPA doesn't just apply to situations where US forces are in active combat. It also applies "where imminent involvement in

Short Circuit: An inexhaustive weekly compendium of rulings from the federal courts of appeal

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice. IJ is going to The Show for the 14th time! On Monday, the Supreme Court announced that it was granting review in the case of Sun Valley Orchards, which the Department of Labor started targeting for penalties in 2015. Represented by IJ, Sun Valley fought back, and last year the Third Circuit unanimously held that DOL's in-house courts violated the Constitution. Now the Supreme Court has a chance to extend that ruling nationwide. New on the Short Circuit podcast: The government's power over home distilling and virtual school vaccinations. Whistleblower goes to the media with information about misconduct by a large company. The SEC opens an investigation and asks the whistleblower for information, which he provides. The whistleblower then files an application for a monetary award, available to individuals who "voluntarily" provide "original information" to the SEC. SEC: Sorry, the disclosure wasn't made "voluntarily" because we asked you for the information after we saw the news stories. C. Circuit: Which is a fine interpretation of "voluntarily." But the SEC can also waive that requirement and needs to explain

"Gaslighting" Isn't "Abuse" for Child Custody Law Purposes

From Oregon Court of Appeals Judge Ramón Pagán, joined by Judges Robyn Aoyagi and Jacqueline Kamins, Wednesday in Estens v. Wells: [In a child custody hearing, w]itnesses testified to an incident in which mother took the child on vacation to Hawaii and claimed to father that she had been bumped from her flight, requiring her to return the child late. Mother's boyfriend testified that she had not been bumped from the flight. Mother was also found to be evasive about details of the child's medical care. She denied, but then later admitted, that she had cancelled or skipped medical appointments. The parties also testified about text messages between mother and father where mother had greatly exaggerated the number of times that child had attended a particular extracurricular activity in what appeared to be an attempt to have father help pay for the activity. In its decision, the trial court explained that one of the factors it was considering was that mother had abused father: "Another factor that I may have skipped over is the abuse of one parent by the other. There has been no allegation of abuse. However, I find that Mother's communication with Father and the testimony amounts

Gov. Newsom's Defamation Lawsuit Against Fox News Over "Gavin Lied About Trump's Call" Claim Can Go Forward

An excerpt from Delaware Superior Court Judge Sean Lugg's 42-page opinion yesterday in Newsom v. Fox News Network, LLC: In the midst of civil unrest in Los Angeles, California, Governor Gavin C. Newsom spoke on the telephone with President Donald Trump. The call took place after 10:00 p.m. on the night of Friday, June 6, 2025 (Pacific Daylight Time) (after 1:00 a.m. on Saturday, June 7, 2025 (Eastern Daylight Time)). The two did not speak again before President Trump, at a Tuesday, June 10, 2025, Oval Office press conference, was asked when he last spoke with Governor Newsom; President Trump responded that he and Governor Newsom spoke "[a] day ago." Soon thereafter, Governor Newsom posted on X that "[t]here was no call." President Trump then provided Fox News Network ("FNN") reporters a "phone log" evidencing the Friday night / Saturday morning call he had with Governor Newsom. On this information, FNN published—through nationally televised reporting overlaid by chyron—that "Gavin Lied About Trump's Call." … The court allowed Newsom's defamation case to go forward: Delaware's pleading standards at the motion to dismiss stage are minimal…. A complaint is sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under [Delaware] Rule 12(b)(6) "[if] a

Federal vs. state power: Who regulates prediction markets?

"When will traffic at the Strait of Hormuz return to normal?" Depending on when you believe this will happen and which prediction market you're using, a $100 position on this event contract could net as much as $400. But if you live in one of the states suing the prediction market Kalshi, you might not be able to profit off your hunch. In April, Wisconsin sued Kalshi and several other prediction markets—platforms that let people make bets on the outcomes of various events—alleging that they facilitate illegal sports gambling. The platforms, and their millions of users, have found an unlikely ally: the federal government. Shortly after Wisconsin filed suit, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—the federal body that regulates prediction markets—filed a legal challenge against the state. The CFTC argues that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) gives it "exclusive jurisdiction" in the "operation of federal law in regulating financial markets," including prediction markets, which operate more like marketplaces than gaming houses. Wisconsin isn't the only state treating prediction markets as traditional gambling. Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have all pursued legal action against these platforms. The CFTC has countersued these states too, and has filed amicus briefs

A journalism tax is a new front in Australia's war on American tech

Australia A new bill would compel Meta, Google, and TikTok to pay for Australian journalism. Meagan O'Rourke | 5.1.2026 12:38 PM (Jonathan Raa/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom/Envato) The Australian government, which has already imposed strict regulations on American tech firms operating in the country, now expects these companies to pay taxes to support Australian journalism. On Tuesday, Australia unveiled draft legislation for a "News Bargaining Incentive," which would require major tech companies, including Meta, Google, and TikTok, to make commercial deals with news organizations or face a 2.25 percent tax on local revenue, reports The Wall Street Journal. Companies would be incentivized to comply by receiving offsets of either 150 or 170 percent, effectively reducing the tax. The legislation would not apply to AI companies. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters that the bargaining incentive would bring in an expected 200 to 250 million Australian dollars, "every single dollar" of which "will go back to journalists." Australia's communications minister, Anika Wells, pitches this as a way to fix the country's old News Media Bargaining Code, which took effect in 2021. Like the legislation introduced this week, that code pressured designated tech companies to pay journalistic outlets for news. Google and Meta initially entered into

SELF DRIVE Act vs. Stay in Your Lane Act: What to know about the fight over autonomous cars

To put American traffic deaths in perspective, consider the Miami Marlins. Since 2012, the baseball team has played its home games at the stadium now called LoanDepot Park. The field's official capacity is 36,742, roughly the number of Americans who die in traffic crashes every year. America loses a baseball stadium's worth of lives to vehicular accidents every 12 months. For the first time, there's a way to prevent many, and perhaps most, of those deaths: self-driving cars. But self-driving cars are controversial. Some worry about safety. Others worry about jobs. Opposition from unions and local political figures has slowed their rollout in cities like Washington, D.C., and Boston. And Congress has now taken up the task of writing a law that would govern how self-driving cars operate and what safety measures they must meet. The bulk of current efforts has produced not one bill but two, which pull in opposite directions. On one side is the SELF DRIVE Act, which would create the first federal statute on automated vehicle (A.V.) safety. Along with companion legislation, the bill would require manufacturers to self-certify their systems against a "safety case" standard, i.e., a structured and evidence-based argument that their system won't

Workers keep revolting against the Teamsters

Like hundreds of her coworkers, Kira Junod never voted to join the Teamsters. The massive Lamb Weston plant in American Falls, Idaho, where Junod works, is one of the world's largest suppliers of frozen french fries and other potato products. The employees there voted decades ago to unionize. Now, even with Idaho's right-to-work laws that allow workers to opt out of paying dues, the local Teamsters union was the only entity allowed to negotiate with management on behalf of Junod and her colleagues. When you got a job at Lamb Weston, you were subject to the union contract. That's just how it was. "There's a lot of people that have been there 30, 40 years that are set in their ways and they're union," says Junod. "And I'm like, 'Why are you in the union?' And they're like, 'I don't know.'" Junod and some of her coworkers began to question that arrangement when they discovered the benefits offered to workers at the nonunion Lamb Weston plant in Twin Falls, a few hours away. Those included more paid sick leave, higher differentials for overnight and weekend shifts, and quarterly bonuses for meeting quotas. "That's free money, even if it's 20 bucks

Congress passes spending bill ending Department of Homeland Security shutdown

DHS funded. Congress has passed a spending bill that ends the monthslong shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). On Thursday, the House approved a bill that funds the department—except for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection. The Reason Roundup Newsletter by Liz Wolfe Liz and Reason help you make sense of the day's news every morning. The 76-day shutdown began in February, when Democrats refused to fully fund the department after immigration officers fatally shot two U.S. citizens in Minnesota. Before they would send the agency money, the no voters wanted reforms, including requirements that immigration officers wear body cameras and get judicial warrants before entering private property. To keep the lights on, the Trump administration continued to pay for immigration enforcement out of other pots of money. With that cash running low, the Senate passed a bipartisan funding bill in March that excluded immigration enforcement. That measure stalled in the House under opposition from conservatives who opposed any DHS funding bill that did not include immigration enforcement money. But yesterday, the House approved the measure, after Senate Republicans started a reconciliation process that will allow them to pass a DHS funding bill with their

United Arab Emirates Law and Maine Courts

From last week's Maine high court decision in Aldarraji v. Alolwan, written by Justice Julia Lipe, dealing with Ms. Aldarraji's divorce complaint against Mr. Alolwan:Alolwan was born in Saudi Arabia and is a dual citizen of Saudi Arabia and the United States, having moved to the United States in 2006. Aldarraji came to the United States from Iraq in 2018. The parties met in 2019, and later that year they traveled to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, for a religious marriage ceremony. There was no religious official physically present with the parties in Dubai; an imam affiliated with a mosque in Biddeford, Maine, officiated the ceremony remotely. The ceremony was performed according to the laws of the parties' Islamic faith, and after the ceremony the imam provided them with a certificate of religious marriage. Soon after, the parties had a wedding reception in Turkey, and on January 16, 2020, while in Turkey, the parties and two witnesses signed the certificate of religious marriage that the imam had provided them. The parties then returned to Maine. They never participated in a marriage ceremony in Maine nor took any steps to validate their marriage in accordance with Maine law …. Alolwan filed a

$800K Defamation Damages in "Israeli Spy" Allegations Against Consultant Involved in Examining Hunter Biden's Laptop

See Monday's jury verdict, which awards $75K in compensatory damages plus $125K in punitive damages for each of two statements, and for each of two plaintiffs (Yaacov Apelbaum and his company XRVision). Here's an excerpt of the July decision allowing the case to go forward (Apelbaum v. Bloom): Yaacov Apelbaum is the founder of XRVision, Ltd., a cybersecurity and analytics company. Plaintiffs Apelbaum and XRVision … attracted media attention in 2020 for their role in examining Hunter Biden's laptop computer, purportedly "analyz[ing] the contents" of a copy of the hard drive "to determine the legitimacy of the [l]aptop." [Defendant] Jordan Arthur Bloom … is an independent journalist who maintains a blog on the platform Substack. On January 29, 2024, Defendant published an article, "The Role of Yaacov Apelbaum in the Hunter Biden Drama" ("First Article")…. The alleged defamatory statements in the First Article include: "Yaacov Apelbaum is an Israeli spy, and the sort of Israeli spy who would have good reasons to smear American facial recognition technology, because his company, XRVision, is a competitor." [Emphasis in complaint.] "XRVision has provided sourcing to a bunch of conservative publications, including the Washington Times. So this is an Israeli spy who's deeply involved

California lawmakers are boosting pension benefits as its economy teeters

As Mark Twain wrote, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes." Lately, I've been hearing a recurring rhythm—and getting the blues—as the legislature is about to repeat a grievous mistake. The issue involves public-employee pensions, as the legislature has advanced two bills that would exacerbate the state's pension problems in much the way it did 27 years ago. First the requisite history lesson. In 1999, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 400. The stock market was booming, and the nation's largest pension fund, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, was awash in cash. "Investment earnings had averaged 13.5 percent for a decade, soaring in the two prior years to 20 percent," per Calpensions. The state's pension plans, it noted, were funded at 100 percent to 139 percent. In private 401(k) plans, employees contribute a portion of their income to investment accounts. When the market soars, the employee's account goes up and vice versa. The employee owns what's in the account. With "defined benefit" accounts, the pension fund invests the contributions. Employees receive a guaranteed pension based on a formula. If stocks soar, investment funds are in good shape to pay what's promised. If they tank, it creates shortfalls that are

California can’t define ‘hate speech’ but may mandate workplace training anyway

"Hate speech" is notoriously hard to define and is usually a subjective characterization of harsh words. Though the term is thrown around by people describing comments they don't like, it generally refers to expression that might not be nice but is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as state speech protections. But that's not going to stop California lawmakers from trying to hector people into refraining from voicing nasty sentiments. You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty. Training the Hate Away Existing California law requires employers with five or more employees to provide at least two hours of training regarding sexual harassment to all supervisors, and at least one hour of training to all other employees, repeated every two years. Assembly Bill 1803, introduced by Assemblymembers Josh Lowenthal (D–Long Beach) and Rick Chavez Zbur (D–Los Angeles) and co-authored by Assemblymember Corey Jackson (D–Moreno Valley), "would additionally require that the above-described training and education include, as a component of the training and education, anti-hate speech training." In a press release, Lowenthal claims that "AB 1803 is about making our