xAI and the Future of Executive Enforcement Discretion
Elon Musk was once the poster child for the environmentalism and techno-accelerationism that defined 2010s corporate culture. In his Time Person of the Year interview in 2021, Musk remarks, “I admire anyone who is making a positive contribution to humanity, whether that is in entertainment or technology.” Like many tech CEOs, he has since outlived that vision, embracing artificial intelligence (AI) with the express approval of the federal government, where he once held a vital—and deeply controversial—role. Today, the growing power of American government-corporate syncretism, the future being built by the first American trillionaire and his peers, is currently testing its limits in a federal courthouse in Mississippi.
Read More
Procedure Over Substance: The Limitations of Environmental Review by SEQRA in New York
Oftentimes, the communities most affected by environmental decisions have the least influence over the formal decision-making process. Although environmental review laws provide opportunities for public participation, affected communities struggle to ensure that their environmental concerns guide government decisions when the court’s review prioritizes the satisfaction of procedure over the substance of said concerns. In the case of the controversy surrounding the proposed Manhattan borough-based jail in Chinatown, the approval of the “Megajail” did not consider public participation meaningfully. Contrary to the decision by the Supreme Court of the State of New York in Matter of Neighbors United Below Canal v Mayor Bill de Blasio (2021), the agency approval should be deemed arbitrary and capricious under Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) Article 78 and annulled.
Read More
To Prosecute or Not to Prosecute: Deferred Prosecution Agreements & the Reshaping of Power
“The record of dysfunction that prevailed for many years was astonishing. Today HSBC is paying a heavy price for its conduct,” proclaimed Assistant Attorney General Breuer for the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The “conduct” that Assistant Attorney General Breuer was referring to was HSBC Bank USA’s failure to implement sufficient anti-money laundering controls. From 2006 to 2010, over $881 million, fueled by the international drug trade, would enter the American financial system through HSBC banks. Yet, the “heavy price” that Breuer promised did not involve the prosecution or sentencing of top officials. There was not even a trial. Rather, the DOJ sought to defer prosecution. Instead of pursuing criminal penalties, the DOJ allowed HSBC to demonstrate compliance by entering into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with the firm. The agreement included terms such as replacing the firm’s top leadership executives, retaining an independent compliance monitor, and forfeiting $1.256 billion. In entering a DPA with HSBC, the DOJ registered another entry in its evolving strategy to combat corruption.
Read More
Prepare for the Worst: a Constitutional Examination of Public School Emergency Preparation Procedures
Following the turn of the century and the shooting at Columbine High School in 1999, the United States began implementing “active shooter drills.” According to the New York State Education Department, an active shooter drill, or a “lockdown” drill, is defined as the “essential steps necessary to lockdown in an emergency (clear the hallway, lock/barricade doors, hide from view and remain silent until law enforcement gives the ‘all clear’).” As more tragic events unfolded, lockdown drills rapidly expanded. By 2016, approximately ninety-five percent of public schools reported drilling students on lockdown procedures, making these exercises a routine part of the American educational experience. While lockdown drills have long been conducted, some districts have shifted toward increasingly hyper-realistic active shooter simulations which involve artificial gunfire, victims, blood, and more intense sensory elements designed to replicate an authentic school shooting.
Read More
Sheds Without End: New York City’s Scaffolding Problem and the Fifth Amendment
Stroll the streets of New York City, and chances are, whether the fact has dawned on you or not, you will pass beneath a few—perhaps even 8,500—narrow chutes of metal poles and planking that dot the city’s environs. Otherwise known as sidewalk sheds, or most famously scaffolding, these structures are entrenched in the city’s collective identity every bit as much as hotdog vendors, dollar slice pizzas, or corner bodegas. As of late, property owners throughout the city have been beset by encroaching scaffolding, some of which have persisted for upwards of a decade, depriving neighboring owners of the use and enjoyment of their property and the revenues their businesses would otherwise generate.
Read More
The Listener’s First Amendment: Chatbot Output, Coverage, and the Limits of Liability
When fourteen-year-old Sewell Setzer III took his own life after months of intimate, sexualized exchanges with a companion chatbot, the firm that built it immediately reached for the First Amendment. Character Technologies argued that its users had a First Amendment right to receive what the chatbot produced, and that the precedent shielding books, films, and video games from tort liability should shield a large language model (LLM) as well. Judge Anne Conway denied the motion. She accepted that Character Technologies could assert the First Amendment rights of its users, yet she was “not prepared to hold that Character A.I.’s output is speech” at this stage of the case. [1] The company thus had standing to assert a right to receive speech the court would not yet call speech.
Read More
Why AI-Generated Music Deserves the Same Copyright Rules as Everyone Else
In 2019, a jury decided that Katy Perry owed 2.8 million dollars for a sequence of eight descending notes on a minor scale. The notes formed an ostinato, a short repeating line of notes, in her hit, “Dark Horse,” and the rapper Flame claimed that she took them from his song, “Joyful Noise.” Three years later, the Ninth Circuit threw the verdict out in Gray v. Hudson, stating that the pattern was made entirely of commonplace musical elements that no one can own.[1] The court warned that giving this protection to something as simple as that ostinato could essentially create a precedent of handing one artist a monopoly over a basic building block of music itself. Today, those same eight notes of the ostinato can create a piece of music from a simple text prompt. New AI tools like Suno and Udio generate full songs in minutes, trained on more music than any person could hear in a lifetime. These rapid developments have already pulled such companies into federal court; sooner or later, a court will once again have to refine how musical copyright infringement exists in the context of AI.
Read More
Treating Victims, Not Offenders: The Case for Replicating Los Angeles County’s STAR Court Nationwide
Every year, tens of thousands of children in the United States become victims of commercial sex exploitation (CSE). Yet depending on where they live, these children may be treated very differently by the justice system. Some states divert them into specialized programs designed to promote healing and reintegration into society, while others prosecute them as juvenile offenders. This disparity raises an important question: should a child’s access to justice depend on where they live? Specialized courtrooms such as Los Angeles County’s Succeeding Through Achievement and Resilience (STAR) Court, created to address this disparity, show that these children can be treated as victims rather than offenders. However, replicating this success nationwide demands more than simply copying its court model. That is, states must first enact strong safe harbor protections, specifically immunity paired with mandatory referral, and then commit the sustained funding and institutional coordination needed to sustain programs like this.
Read More
When Patients Are Not Believed: Diagnostic Delay and the Limits of American Tort Law
In 2018, twenty-four-year-old Hannah Catton had symptoms of bloating, extreme abdominal pain, multiple urinary tract infections, significant fatigue, and irregular menstrual cycles. For three years, she went to numerous physicians across Australia and the United Kingdom. Every doctor sent her away, claiming the symptoms were due to stress or hormonal changes. After years of terrible and worsening pain, an ovarian tumor the size of a volleyball was discovered that needed immediate surgery. Catton felt she “knew something was wrong” way before any doctor was ready to believe her.
Read More
