Tag: judges

Court Backs DMCA Takedown of Public Meeting Videos

The US copyright system is often used as a tool of censorship, and a recent court ruling shows that there is little to stop this from happening.

The way the system is set up, it provides a powerful tool for anyone to unceremoniously remove content from the internet, with no questions asked. At least not initially.

That tool is the DMCA takedown notice, and the law that underpins it, and the whole system, is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). One of its sections, 512(f), is meant to deter abuse of this process, but as the court decision shows, it is toothless.

The case concerns a local news outlet in Massachusetts that had its YouTube channel taken down because of videos it posted about local government meetings.

The city of Waltham had outsourced the recording of its meetings to a contractor, Waltham Community Access Corporation (WCAC), and it was this entity that sent the DMCA notices to YouTube, targeting 15 videos on the Channel 781 News outlet.

This resulted in YouTube temporarily deactivating the channel.

But the court found that WCAC had done nothing wrong, and that its consideration of the fair use doctrine was sufficient, even though it was minimal.

The court’s decision was to grant summary judgment to WCAC and dismiss the claim that the takedowns were a misrepresentation under Section 512(f) of the DMCA.

We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.

Keep reading

The Biden-Era C.B.P. Fabricated a Document Used to Imprison a Top-Level Brazilian Official. A U.S. Federal Judge Just Ordered Full Disclosure.

In a case with serious repercussions for U.S. national security and for Brazil, a Clinton-appointed U.S. federal judge concluded that an immigration record entered in the Customs and Border Protection system during the Biden administration was fraudulent. The fraudulent record reflected a non-existent entry into the U.S. by the national security advisor to former President Jair Bolsonaro. The fabricated entry was then somehow obtained and used by a controversial Brazilian Supreme Court judge to imprison that national security official.

Beyond concluding that the C.B.P. document was fake, the federal judge, Gregory A. Presnell of the Middle District of Florida, berated U.S. government lawyers for their refusal to produce all documents in the government’s possession concerning who was responsible for this fraudulent record and how it ended up being used in Brazil to imprison one of Bolsonaro’s closest advisors. I obtained a copy of the transcript from that U.S. judicial hearing and first reported the developments in Folha de S.Paulo, Brazil’s largest newspaper, on Friday.

The judge’s orders were issued as part of a lawsuit brought in U.S. federal court late last year by Filipe Martins, the top Bolsonaro advisor on international relations who was preventively imprisoned for six months in 2024 based on this false C.B.P. immigration entry. At the time, Martins was awaiting trial on charges that he had participated with Bolsonaro in plotting a coup after Lula’s narrow victory over Bolsonaro in the 2022 presidential election.

The judge overseeing the cases involving the alleged coup is Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who has become a political lightning rod not just in his own country but also around the world. He has overseen a censorship scheme so severe that even The New York Times cited internet freedom experts calling it “a potentially dangerous, authoritarian expansion of power.” On other occasions, the Times — obviously hostile to Bolsonaro — raised serious questions about whether Moraes has become a grave threat to Brazilian democracy in the name of saving it.

This is the same judge who ordered both Rumble and Twitter be blocked across Brazil for refusing to comply with all of his censorship orders. When he was unable to collect a massive fine he had imposed on Twitter due to its lack of bank accounts in the country, he simply ordered the funds removed from Starlink’s accounts, a completely different Musk-linked company. Last year, the Trump administration imposed personal financial sanctions on Moraes, alleging that Moraes carried out tyrannical attacks on the free speech rights of U.S. companies and has corrupted Brazilian justice for nakedly partisan ends. The Trump administration appears poised to impose sanctions on him once again.

Moraes has repeatedly demonstrated a particular obsession with punishing Martins, who was appointed by Bolsonaro to be his national security advisor at the age of 31. Brazilian law is similar to American law when it comes to a defendant’s rights regarding pre-trial imprisonment: defendants are typically allowed to remain free prior to trial, absent very narrow circumstances (such as proof of witness tampering or a plan to flee the country). Moraes somehow obtained the false C.B.P. entry showing Martins left Brazil for the U.S. and never returned, and then used that false evidence to order his preemptive imprisonment before trial by claiming it proved Martins sought to flee justice. Moraes had Martins placed in a particularly harsh prison, clearly hoping to induce “confessions” that would implicate Bolsonaro and other political enemies of the judge.

One of the many questions that have never been answered — beyond the key question of who fabricated this document — is how this false C.B.P. entry fell into the hands of Brazilians attempting to imprison Martins. The first time this false C.B.P. record emerged publicly was when a Brazilian reporter known to be very close to Moraes, Guilherme Amado, published a news report full of falsehoods, clearly designed to implicate Martins, starting with the highly accusatory (and false) headline: “Under investigation, former Bolsonaro aide went to Orlando in 2022 and evaporated.”

Just two weeks later, the same reporter announced that Moraes himself had begun using this allegation, speaking off the record to various journalists and politicians to tell them that Martins had gone to the U.S. and “disappeared,” clearly laying the groundwork to order his arrest. Weeks later, Moraes did exactly that, issuing an order that relied upon a police report featuring the fraudulent C.B.P. record to claim that Martins had gone to the U.S. and never returned to Brazil (i.e., “evaporating”).

Not only is it now indisputable that the document on which this story was based was fraudulent, as even the C.B.P. admits, but it was so obviously fraudulent from the start. Indeed, within two days of investigating the case back in 2024, I had obtained so much definitive proof that Martins had never left Brazil that not even my meticulous editors at Folha de S.Paulo attempted in any way to dilute the strong language of my reporting — published shortly after Moraes’ original order of imprisonment — stating that Martins had been imprisoned based on clear fraud.

Keep reading

Major First Amendment Victory: D.C. Circuit Overturns Verdict Against James O’Keefe, Rules Undercover Journalism Is Protected Speech

In a major First Amendment and investigative-reporting win, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has overturned a jury verdict and damages award against James O’Keefe and undercover journalist Allison Maass stemming from a Project Veritas investigation into Democracy Partners.

The panel ruled 2-1 that the First Amendment protects publishing undercover footage and that the damages improperly punished protected journalistic activity.

O’Keefe announced the decision in a video posted on his X account Friday evening, saying his faith in the future of journalism has been restored after the appellate court, including a Democrat-appointed judge, set a powerful precedent for undercover work nationwide.

Keep reading

Federal judge blasts Rubio’s 75-country visa freeze as ‘Orwellian,’ strikes down policy

A federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s freeze on immigrant visas from 75 countries Friday, ruling Secretary of State Marco Rubio lacked the legal authority to order denials for applicants otherwise found eligible to enter the United States.

U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas, a Biden appointee in Manhattan, vacated the State Department policy and any visa refusals based solely on it, directing the government to revisit those cases.

“The Court holds that the Policy is contrary to law and was issued in excess of Secretary Rubio’s statutory authority,” Vargas wrote in her 61-page opinion.

The State Department enacted the policy in January, suspending immigrant visa issuance to nationals of 75 countries the department deemed at high risk of becoming dependent on public benefits. The list spans Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East.

Rubio’s policy instructed consular officers to review each applicant individually. But even applicants who passed that review showed “additional evidence that demonstrates he or she overcomes the public charge refusal” and had no other reason to be denied were still refused visas if they came from one of the 75 designated countries.

“While the Policy permits consular officers to exercise their normal functions up to a point, whatever determinations they make as to eligibility for the applicants subject to the Policy are ultimately irrelevant,” Vargas wrote. “The outcome is predetermined. The visa will be refused.”

The judge said the directive effectively imposed a nationality-based ban on immigrants from nearly 40% of the world’s countries and sidelined the consular officers Congress charged with deciding whether individual applicants qualify for visas.

Keep reading

Appeals Court Rules Trump Didn’t Have Authority to Appoint Federal Prosecutor Who Subpoenaed Letitia James

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that President Trump did not have the authority to appoint Acting US Attorney for the Northern District of New York, John Sarcone.

A three-judge panel in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 vote, said John Sarcone was unlawfully appointed when he subpoenaed New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The three-judge panel included: Judge Guido Calabresi (Clinton), Judge Michael Park (Trump), and Judge Maria Kahn (Biden).

Earlier this year, a federal judge disqualified the Trump-appointed US Attorney for the Northern District of New York overseeing investigations into New York Attorney General Letitia James.

US District Judge Lorna Schofield, an Obama appointee, disqualified acting US Attorney John Sarcone and quashed two subpoenas issued to Letitia James.

John Sarcone was investigating Letitia James’s lawfare civil suit against President Trump and her lawsuit against the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Letitia James asked the judge to quash two subpoenas, arguing that Sarcone was unlawfully appointed and given a “special attorney” status.

Keep reading

Justice Gillian Roberts cuts violent sex offender’s sentence over looming deportation

An Ontario judge reduced the prison sentence of a permanent resident convicted of a violent sexual assault, ruling that his near-certain deportation would make his punishment more severe.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Gillian Roberts sentenced 31-year-old Sergio Reyes Loor to four years in prison for sexual assault causing bodily harm, despite finding that five years would otherwise have been a fit sentence.

“The conviction will have devastating immigration consequences, making any punishment I impose more severe than it otherwise would be,” Roberts wrote. “As a result, I decrease the sentence to four years.”

Reyes Loor, an Ecuadorian permanent resident who first came to Canada in 2015, was convicted after Roberts found he sexually assaulted a severely intoxicated woman at his Toronto apartment in April 2023.

The woman remembered only fragments of the assault. Roberts found beyond a reasonable doubt that Reyes Loor knew she was too intoxicated to consent.

The injuries were severe.

“She was bruised all over, and the skin of her genitals torn,” Roberts wrote. The judge found Reyes Loor had taken advantage of the woman’s condition to “violently sexually assault her,” adding that he bit her, did not use a condom and caused significant physical and psychological injuries.

The Crown sought five years in prison. According to Roberts, defence counsel also agreed five years would be appropriate based on the facts as she found them, although counsel disputed those findings and launched what Roberts described as a “shockingly sexist and misogynistic attack on the complainant.”

Reyes Loor maintains his innocence and has no previous criminal record.

His lawyer told the court that if the conviction stands, Reyes Loor will lose his permanent resident status and be deported.

Roberts acknowledged that the seriousness of the crime meant a sentence avoiding immigration consequences was out of the question. However, she concluded that deportation itself should still be treated as a collateral consequence when determining a proportionate sentence.

“The circumstances of this case are far too serious to impose a sentence that will not have immigration consequences,” Roberts wrote.

Nonetheless, she reduced the sentence by one year, saying the “near certain immigration consequences” would make Reyes Loor’s punishment harsher than it otherwise would have been.

Under federal immigration law, permanent residents convicted of serious criminality can be found inadmissible to Canada and removed from the country.

Keep reading

Texas Appeals Court Slashes Alex Jones’ $50 Million Sandy Hook Judgment by More Than $43 Million

A Texas appeals court on Friday delivered a significant victory to Infowars founder Alex Jones, drastically reducing the massive $50 million judgment against him in one of the Sandy Hook defamation cases.

The Texas Third Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing parents Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis to exceed the state’s strict statutory cap on punitive (exemplary) damages.

The court ordered the punitive damages reduced from roughly $45.2 million down to $1.5 million, $750,000 for each parent, in line with Texas law, according to Reuters.

Jones still faces the roughly $4.1 million in compensatory damages the jury awarded, plus interest and fees, bringing the total Texas judgment to around $5.5–6 million.

More than $43 million was wiped from the judgment. That is a massive cut from the original figure.

In the 2022 trial, a jury found Jones liable and awarded the parents more than $50 million. Texas law generally caps non-economic punitive damages at $750,000 per plaintiff.

The trial judge allowed the parents’ lawyers to amend their claims after the liability verdict but before the final damages ruling, arguing that the trauma somehow counted as a “disability” that would let them blow past the cap.

Keep reading

Court: First Amendment Protects Recording Police in Public

Here’s a ruling that is at the same time a major victory and a disappointment for digital and civil rights. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has for the first time recognized that the First Amendment protects the right to record law enforcement activity in public.

This is the ninth US federal circuit court to do so, and as an appeals ruling it is binding in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont.

But the same ruling, issued on Monday, upheld the qualified immunity of the officers who made the arrest, which means the plaintiff, Keith Massimino, loses his case despite the court establishing the principle in his favor.

Massimino was arrested on October 30, 2018, for filming the outside of the Waterbury Police Department from a public sidewalk. The incident was far from an isolated one, as the man, represented by the ACLU of Connecticut, describes himself as a “First Amendment auditing hobbyist.”

During the 2018 incident, officers Matthew Benoit and Frank Laone confronted him, and Massimino gave them vague responses about his purpose, and refused to show his ID, which the officers said was a “lawful order.”

He was arrested for obstruction under a Connecticut statute (obstructing, resisting, hindering or endangering a peace officer), held for several hours, and released. The charge was dismissed in May 2021.

In August 2021, Massimino sued the two police officers with three claims: a First Amendment claim (right to record police), a Fourth Amendment claim (unlawful detention and arrest without probable cause), and a malicious prosecution claim.

But even though the Second Circuit panel recognized the First Amendment right, they upheld the district court’s decision to grant the officers qualified immunity because the right had not been “clearly established” in the Second Circuit at the time.

And although the right is now clearly established in that circuit, thanks to this ruling, that came too late to help Massimino in his case.

The ruling is a victory of sorts, as it means that going forward, police in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont may no longer expect to have qualified immunity if they arrest someone for filming them in public.

The court also rejected Massimino’s Fourth Amendment and malicious-prosecution claims, finding that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop him and probable cause to arrest him after he refused to show his ID.

But in the opinion written by Judge Myrna Pérez, the court held that the right to record “encompasses Massimino’s recording of the exterior of a police station from a public sidewalk,” and had this to say: “When the government wants to preserve its privacy, it may build a fence or close a door – but not ban speech.”

Keep reading

Judge John Roach Recused from Karmelo Anthony Murder Appeal After Defense Challenged His Post-Trial Comments About the Verdict

A Texas judge has granted a motion to recuse Collin County District Judge John Roach Jr. from presiding over the appeal proceedings for Karmelo Anthony, the 19-year-old who was found guilty of murder in the fatal stabbing of 17-year-old Austin Metcalf at a high school track meet and sentenced to 35 years in prison.

This development comes as Anthony’s new legal team continues its aggressive push for a new trial, citing alleged “irregularities” while the underlying facts of the killing remain undisputed.

Anthony, who is black, was convicted in June after a nearly weeklong trial for the April 2, 2025, stabbing of Metcalf, who was white, during a rainy track meet at David Kuykendall Stadium in Frisco.

Witnesses testified that Anthony was in the tent belonging to Metcalf’s Memorial High School team, refused repeated requests to leave, reached into his bag, and warned “Touch me and see what happens” before pulling out a pocketknife and stabbing Metcalf in the chest.

Metcalf died while being held by his twin brother.

The jury deliberated for less than three hours before rejecting Anthony’s “self-defense” claims and handing down the 35-year sentence.

Following the conviction, Anthony’s trial team was replaced by a pro bono appellate group led by attorney Russell Wilson.

Keep reading

Obama-Appointed Judge Who Blocked FBI from Moving Headquarters to Reagan Building Donated Almost $6k to Dems

The Obama-appointed judge who ruled that the FBI cannot relocate its headquarters to the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center has donated thousands of dollars to Democrats and has a history of ruling against President Donald Trump.

Judge Theodore D. Chuang, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, found on Monday that the administration’s plan cannot proceed. As CBS News reported:

Last November, the state of Maryland sued Patel and the bureau, alleging that the Trump administration had attempted to “unlawfully sabotage” the 2023 plan and illegally divert funding that Congress had designated for the plan — over $323 million — away from it.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang sided with Maryland, writing in a 47-page opinion that the Trump administration’s move to divert the funding and cancel the plan was “arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law,” in addition to other violations of federal law.

In December, FBI Director Kash Patel said that moving the headquarters to the Reagan Building would save billions in taxpayer funds.

Keep reading