Blog

My first published article, Omniveillance, Google, Privacy in Public, and the Right to Your Digital Identity: A Tort for Recording and Disseminating an Individual’s Image Over the Internet, was published in the Santa Clara Law Review.

My second published article, Keeping Pandora’s Box Sealed: Privileges or Immunities, The Constitution in 2020, and Properly Extending the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the States, was published in the Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy.

My third published article, Equal Protection from Eminent Domain. Protecting the Home of Olech’s Class of One, was published in the Loyola Law Review.

All three are Jesuit Universities. Kinda interesting though for an author of the tribe.

But the streak will soon be over, as I have articles forthcoming in the Memphis Law Review, the George Mason Civil Rights Law Journal, and the Cato Supreme Court Review.

Yesterday I blogged about the Supreme Court’s decision to seal the majestic front doors for security purposes. In Justice Breyer’s “dissent,” he noted that this decision works to the detriment of the public at large.

It stands to reason that if the Court refuses to throw the public a bone on something as small as entry through the front door–something very few people will ever be able to actually do–it is likely that the Court seriously does not care enough to allow cameras in the courtroom.

Cameras would be a huge change, and perhaps a boon to the public at large to learn about the proceedings. I personally question whether cameras in SCOTUS would be a good idea, but a significant portion of the public seems to want this. However, I don’t think the Court, other than Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, really consider that public sentiment an important factor in their decision-making process.

If the Congress passes a bill requiring cameras at One First Street, I wonder whether the Court would have the chutzpah to strike down that law as unconstitutional. Now that, would be interesting.

Rather that a classic organized crime RICO prosecution, suit was brought against the producers of Jersey Shore under New Jersey’s Civil Racketeering Statute. That’s a situation!

From the AP:

A judge in New Jersey has agreed to hear a lawsuit that claims producers of MTV’s hit reality show “Jersey Shore” engaged in a “criminal enterprise” by profiting from showing fights that cast members deliberately provoked.

Attorney Eugene LaVergne of Long Branch said Monday that he filed the suit in March. It seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of three clients involved in drunken fights with cast member Ronnie Magro.

On Friday, Superior Court Judge Joseph L. Foster denied a motion to dismiss the claim that the defendants’ conduct violated New Jersey’s racketeering statute.

Oh Jersey Shore. You satiate my reality TV addiction, my need to laugh at my former home of Staten Island, and my law fix. Is there anything you can’t do?

H/T ATL

I’ve been watching this show since I was in Kindergarten. This is definitely one of the coolest opening sketches.

The entrance to the Supreme Court is majestic. But due to security concerns, the Court has decided to close the front doors. Now, visitors will have to enter through the back door.

Curiously, Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Ginsburg, issued a “Statement Concerning the Supreme Court’s Front Entrance.” This basically amounts to a dissent.

And in classic Breyer-Balancing mode, he attempts to weigh the security interests involved.

We certainly recognize the concerns identified in the two security studies that led to this recent decision (which reaffirmed a decision made several years ago). But potential security threats will exist regardless of which entrance we use. And, in making this decision, it is important not to undervalue the symbolic and historic importance of allowing visitors to enter the Court after walking up Gilbert’s famed front steps.

In other words, he doesn’t really care about what professional security analysts say, since he decided that the aesthetics and grandeur of architecture outweigh those concerns.

I think it is somewhat simplistic to note that security threats are different at different exits. I know very little about security, but an entrance right off of First Street, and an entrance on the side street, have different levels of accessibility.

And in an ode to transnationalism, Justice Breyer sees fit to turn to the laws of other nations to inform his decision.

To my knowledge, and I have spoken to numerous jurists and architects worldwide, no other Supreme Court in the world—including those, such as Israel’s, that face security concerns equal to or greater than ours—has closed its main entrance to the public.