Features
Alaina Lancaster
A federal appeals court found that law enforcement violated a Google user's constitutional rights when it opened email attachments the platform flagged as child pornography through an automated system.
Features
Robert J. Anello
&
Richard F. Albert
When law enforcement seeks to compel a subject to provide a passcode to allow them to rummage through a cellphone, courts have not spoken with a unified voice. Some, including New Jersey's highest court, have arrived at the dubious conclusion that requiring an individual to communicate cellphone passcodes to the government does not warrant Fifth Amendment protection. Commentators had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would reject that expansive view, however, the Supreme Court declined to wade in, seemingly guaranteeing that continued uncertainty on this critical issue will continue to bedevil criminal practitioners.
Features
Corinne Ball
In an era of increasing participation and regulation by various governmental agencies in businesses eligible for bankruptcy relief, the Third Circuit's decision in Venoco is an important development for assessing the extent to which a distressed business can address action by a governmental unit through a bankruptcy case.
Features
Francis J. Lawall
&
Marcy J. McLaughlin
The Office of U.S. Trustee is known among practitioners as the "watchdog" of the bankruptcy process. To fund the U.S. Trustee, Chapter 11 debtors must pay quarterly fees. Following a recent substantial increase to the U.S. Trustee fee schedule, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found the amended fee schedule to be unconstitutional because it was being applied nonuniformly to Chapter 11 debtors around the country.
Features
Lewis R. Clayton
&
Eric Alan Stone
How, if at all, can a non-injured party that challenges a patent before the PTAB and loses may then demonstrate Article III standing to appeal to the federal courts from the PTAB's decision upholding the patent's validity.
Features
Max Mitchell
A rap video posted to Facebook crossed the line from artistic to threatening when its lyrics described violent acts, named two Pittsburgh police officers and suggested the rappers knew where those officers lived, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said in holding it was not protected by the First Amendment.
Features
Jonathan S. Feld, Dante Stella
&
Christina Brunty
As rapid technological changes in the 21st century continue to expand the types and volume of private electronic information, the Fourth Amendment's privacy protections are evolving. The critical question in Fourth Amendment cases is whether a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy in the information or event.”
Features
Scott Graham
The California Court of Appeal created some First Amendment breathing room for the creators of docudramas — at the expense of legendary actress Olivia de Havilland — when the court ordered her suit against FX Networks over its Emmy Award-winning miniseries Feud be stricken under California's anti-SLAPP law, even if it did play a little fast-and-loose with de Havilland's character.
Features
Stacey C. Kalamaras
<b><i>Refusal Is an Unconstitutional Violation of Free Speech</b></i><p>On Dec. 15, 2017, a unanimous Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that despite Appellant's mark comprising “immoral or scandalous” matter, the PTO could no longer refuse federal registration of such marks on the grounds that this refusal violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
