We have all wanted to learn a language at some point but it’s hard to get started. Some language learning tools can be complicated and very time-consuming. But with uTalk, you’ll be speaking keywords and phrases in no time, and will start to see the results straight away. It helps you overcome the language barrier challenge by helping you learn real, practical vocabulary in a wide variety of languages from any device that you choose. uTalk’s language programs let you listen to native speakers who are recorded in uTalk’s recording studio and feature independently verified translations so you’ll be able to navigate through your next vacation like a real local. Get 2 languages for $30, 6 languages for $50, or all 100+ languages for $69.97.
Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.
In late 2024, Donald Trump sued CBS for $10 billion claiming “election interference” because 60 Minutes had the audacity to (*gasp*) edit a Kamala Harris interview down for broadcast. The lawsuit was, on its face, ridiculous — editing interviews is protected First Amendment activity, the kind of editorial discretion that has been the entire premise of magazine-format television since the format existed. But CBS’s owners at Paramount needed FCC approval for their Skydance merger, and Trump controlled the FCC, so they paid $16 million to make the lawsuit go away. We covered that institutional cave at the time and called it what it was: a bribe dressed up as a legal settlement.
Decoding Fox News did the tedious work of comparing what aired against the full transcript that CBS published, and the results are wild. When asked why so many people seem to want to kill him, Trump went on a meandering rant about transgender athletes and “men playing in women’s sports” — the kind of free-association nonsense that makes you wonder who’s actually running the country. CBS edited that out. You can read it here, though:
60 Minutes: Why do you think so many people may be trying to kill you?
Trump: So, I’ve said it and I’ve said it numerous times, and I actually, because of the position I’m in, I’ve done quite a bit of research into the word assassination. Terrible word. And they go after consequential presidents. They go after presidents that, do things. If you look at what I’ve done, we’ve turned this country around. We’ve taken a country that was actually a dead country. It was dying very rapidly, and it’s the hottest country anywhere in the world. We had a skirmish, a war, whatever you want to call it. With Venezuela, we won that very decisively. And we now have a great relationship with Venezuela. And it’s been a very profitable relationship. And we’re in Iran right now. Other presidents should have done it, but they never chose to do it. They should have. They made a terrible mistake by not doing it. It’s tougher now than it would have been ten years ago or even five years ago because, you know, thousands and thousands of missiles and everything else. And we didn’t do the B-2 bomber attack. That alone was a big deal. The killing of Soleimani, which I did in my first term, was a big deal. But when you’re a consequential when you do things, a lot of things and things that work out very well for our country. Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, McKinley was assassinated. McKinley made the country very rich. People don’t realize it. Then Teddy Roosevelt went out and spent the money that was made by McKinley. But it was very consequential, actually. But he was assassinated. So,
60 Minutes: You mentioned, Mr. President, consequential. And your policies are also controversial. Is that part of it?
Trump: Well, I don’t think that way. I don’t think in terms of what they are. I just think of what they are for the country. For instance, I inherited the worst border we’ve ever had in the history of a country where 25 million people came in, 25 million people at least, and many of them were from hardcore criminals, and they were drug dealers, and they were from prisons. They emptied our prisons into our country. They have, mental institutions, insane asylums into our country. And I don’t know if that’s controversial to say we have to move those people out, but we have and but it is from the standpoint you’re doing something and you’re doing something that’s good. Things like, men playing in women’s sports, I’m against it. Things like transgender for everyone. I’m against that. There’s so many things that I’m against. I don’t think they’re controversial. I think the other side is controversial, but I do a lot of things and I get things done. And, you know, we’re respected now as a country all over the world. And some people love that, but some people probably don’t.
That word salad that we’ve all become used to is mostly nonsense. It remains absolutely incredible that no one points out to the President of the United States that “migrants pleading asylum from violence” is not “coming from insane asylums.” He doesn’t seem to understand that.
60 Minutes… cut that entire segment out.
When asked about Cole Allen (who breached a first layer of security with weapons at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner with the alleged intent to assassinate Trump) attending a “No Kings” protest, Trump’s actual answer included this gem:
Well the you see the reason you have people like that is you have people doing ‘No Kings’. I’m not a king. What am I, if I was a king, I wouldn’t be dealing with you. You know I’m not a king, I get it, I don’t laugh, I don’t, I, I see these No Kings which are funded just like the southern law was funded. You all that southern laws, financing the KKK and lots of other radical, terrible groups. And then they go out and they say, oh, we’ve got to stop the KKK. And yet they give them hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars. They work. It’s a total scam run by the Democrats. It shows you that, like Charlottesville, Charlottesville was all funded by the southern law. That was a southern law deal, too. And it was done to make me look bad. And it turned out to be a total fake. It basically was, a rigged election. This was a part of the rigging of the election. And that’s what you really should be doing. I mean, I hope one of your ‘60 Minute’ episodes, which really hasn’t changed very much for the last few years, I’m surprised. But one of those episodes should be on southern law, and the fact that they spent millions and millions of dollars on absolute far right and just bad, bad groups, and then they’d use those groups and they’d say, these are Republican groups, and we’re coming to your rescue, and they’re the ones that have funded it, and they’re the ones that kept them, keep them going. Pretty sad.
That’s the President of the United States repeatedly calling the Southern Poverty Law Center, against whom his DOJ has filed a highly questionable lawsuit, “southern law” and then just going pure word salad based on not even remotely understanding what SPLC did (or even what his own DOJ has accused them of doing). And, no, the bigoted “Jews will not replace us” marchers in Charlottesville were not “funded by the southern law.”
This is a man who can’t understand basic concepts.
What part actually aired?
Well the, you see the reason you have people like that is you have people doing ‘No Kings’. I’m not a king. What am I, if I was a king, I wouldn’t be dealing with you.
Crisp, almost witty. A real “zinger.”
The rest of that word salad clipped to the dustbin of history.
And, of course, immediately after that he starts whining about 60 Minutes again. He goes on like this (none of which airs):
Trump: Do you think it’s pretty sad Norah?
60 Minutes: The allegations and the indictment.
Trump: There’re not just allegations.
60 Minutes: But it’s an indictment.
Trump: These facts okay. These are facts. I mean, they have checks to the two Klux Klan and many others, and then they’re saying how bad they are and blaming the Republican Party and Republicans. These are not just allegations, but go ahead.
60 Minutes: Well as you know sir, you’ve been accused of things and were able to go to a court of law and adjudicate them.
Trump: So yeah, it’s after five years. It’s it’s it takes you about five years.
60 Minutes: I do want to talk about that also.
Trump: I’ve also won a lot of money from fake news media where they write falsely about me. And not that I want to sue people because I don’t. But I bring lawsuits against the fake news and brought lawsuits against your network, and you paid me $38 million because you did something that was so horrible with Kamala. You put an answer down that wasn’t responsive to the question because her answer, her real answer was so bad, it was election threatening. And you paid me a lot of money, and you tried to pull one off. It was terrible. It was a terrible thing that you did. And you know, when you say, can we all get along? You can. But when people do things like that, or how about the BBC where the BBC has me? Actually, AI, they had me saying a horrible statement and I said, I never said that. It turned out they gave me AI and little AI treatment where they have my lips speaking words of hate. Tremendous hate that I never said they don’t know what to do. They’ve admitted they’re wrong. They just don’t know what to do. They actually have me making a major statement. And it wasn’t me. It was my face. It was my lips. My lips were perfectly in sync with the words I said. I can’t believe it. I can’t believe it. So
60 Minutes: I hear you Mr. President.
Trump: So then when you say, can you get along? I can get along with anybody. But if people are going to cheat, if people are going to be fake, you sort of don’t want to get along.
60 Minutes: On that. What do you say to people who are encouraging political violence or even cheering it on?
Trump: Well, I think the ones that are doing that are much more far left than far right, much more. When you see again, southern law, when you see some of the statements that are made there. So even when you say No Kings, that’s, that’s encouraging. You’re saying one of the things this guy said in his manifesto, what you didn’t read, you should have, is that he attended a No Kings rally along with not too many people, and probably it had an impact. You know, they get up and they say whatever they want. No, I’m against it. I think it’s terrible.
Did you get all that. It’s a bit confusing because everything he says is confusing, but when 60 Minutes’ Norah O’Donnell points out that the claims against SPLC (which, yes, Trump keeps calling “Southern Law”) are simply allegations, Trump insists they’re not. O’Donnell points out what Trump himself should recognize, given how often he’s been charged with crimes, that charges in a criminal case still have to be proven in a court, and Trump denies that (which is shocking on its own).
And then he shifts to the nonsense vexatious censorial SLAPP suits he files, including the one against CBS and 60 Minutes, and falsely claims that CBS paid him $38 million (it was $16 million) and says “because you did something that was so horrible with Kamala. You put an answer down that wasn’t responsive to the question because her answer, her real answer was so bad, it was election threatening.”
Which, um, is literally the exact thing that 60 Minutes is doing here. In this interview. In not airing that part! The part that includes a demonstrably false claim about how much CBS paid.
Oh, and his claims about the BBC (also not aired!) are equally ridiculous and factually absurd. He is suing them, but nothing in the lawsuit is, as he claims, about AI. In the interview he says the following:
AI, they had me saying a horrible statement and I said, I never said that. It turned out they gave me AI and little AI treatment where they have my lips speaking words of hate. Tremendous hate that I never said they don’t know what to do.
But that’s not what the lawsuit says, and literally no one has accused the BBC of using AI. They simply showed two separate quotes, and the claim in the lawsuit was that doing so gave a false presumption that the two statements were said one after another when they were actually separated by many minutes.
In other words, it’s also a lawsuit about not liking the way a speech was edited. Not about AI. At all.
And 60 Minutes edited out him lying about it.
The editorial pattern is consistent throughout: 60 Minutes’ producers cut the parts where Trump sounded unhinged and kept the parts where he sounded like a slightly more normal politician answering questions.
This is, of course, exactly what 60 Minutes has always done with every politician they’ve ever interviewed. It’s the entire format. You sit someone down for 40 minutes or an hour, then you edit it down to ten to 15 minutes to fit the broadcast window, and you try to focus on the parts that actually make sense for television. This is television journalism, and it has worked this way since 60 Minutes premiered in 1968.
When CBS did this with Harris, plenty of people — including us — pointed out that this was just how the show works. The lawsuit was, as we noted at the time, a “blatant attack on free speech and the First Amendment, as editorial discretion is a protected right of news organizations.” Any first-year law student could tell you that. Hell anyone familiar with the First Amendment could tell you that. Trump’s own lawyers presumably knew it. The judge who would have eventually ruled on it would have known it.
But Trump didn’t need to win the lawsuit. He just needed CBS to care more about making the headache disappear than standing on principle. And because Paramount’s owners wanted their Skydance merger approved by Trump’s FCC and DOJ, they paid him $16 million to make it disappear.
60 Minutes edited Trump exactly the way they edited Harris — actually more aggressively, given how much rambling they had to compress — and they did it for exactly the same reason: because that’s what television journalism is. The full transcript exists. CBS published it themselves. Anyone can verify that the editing was extensive and that it consistently made Trump sound more coherent than he actually was.
So, it’s one of two things:
Either editing political interviews for broadcast is just part of how these shows work — protected by the First Amendment (in which case the Harris lawsuit was the frivolous nonsense we always said it was, and CBS paid $16 million to settle a baseless claim) — or it’s “election interference” worth $20 billion in damages (in which case CBS just committed it again, even more egregiously, and the DNC should be filing a similar suit).
You don’t get to have it both ways. Unless, of course, you’re Trump, MAGA media, or — apparently — CBS News itself.
What if [DNC boss] Ken Martin were to claim CBS News interfered in the 2026 election by editing down Trump’s interview, no less than it interfered in the 2024 election by editing down Harris’s? What if he filed an angry lawsuit, if only to hold up a mirror to the perversity of the status quo? What if he insisted that nominally neutral institutions treat the parties equally? Why not let CBS decide whether it wants to settle the score, or whether it wants to be known as the network that gives money to Republicans only?
Beutler’s broader point — that Democrats consistently refuse to impose costs on bad-faith actors and thereby teach those actors there are no consequences for bad faith — is largely correct. And yes, there’s something satisfying about the thought experiment.
But the actual lawsuit would be a total disaster — because it would lose. Badly. Easily. Obviously. Just like Trump’s lawsuit should have lost. The First Amendment protects editorial discretion. A judge would dismiss it, probably quickly, and Republicans would immediately spin that dismissal as proof that the original Trump lawsuit had merit. “See? When the Democrats tried it, the courts saw right through it. But Trump’s case was so strong, CBS settled for $16 million.” The fact that this framing would be exactly backwards — that Trump’s case was settled because of regulatory extortion, not legal merit — would be lost in the noise.
You can’t fight a bad-faith propaganda operation by feeding it more propaganda fuel. The DNC suing would hand the GOP a winning narrative for free.
What CBS should be doing — what any media organization with a spine would do — is loudly defend the editing of the Trump interview as exactly what it is: standard journalism. They should be pointing to the published transcript and saying “yes, we edited this, here’s why, this is what we do, this is what we have always done, and it’s what we did with the Harris interview too. This is what the First Amendment protects us in doing.”
They should be using this moment to show everyone just how ridiculous the Harris lawsuit really was, and to make clear that the $16 million payment was a business decision driven by merger pressures, not an admission of journalistic wrongdoing. Otherwise Trump is just going to keep insisting, to CBS’s own reporters, that he has proof that they somehow treated him unfairly.
But they won’t. Because CBS, under its new ownership, has thoroughly learned the coward’s lesson that resistance is costly and capitulation is cheap. Bari Weiss now runs CBS News. The network that paid Trump $16 million to settle a lawsuit about editing a leading politician is now in the business of editing Trump’s interviews to make him sound presidential — and the total silence from everyone who pretended to care about journalistic integrity during the Harris episode is telling.
Where is the Free Press exposé on this clear-cut case of “news distortion”? Where is the Ted Cruz hearing demanding accountability? Where is FCC Chair Brendan Carr threatening to revoke CBS’s licenses for “election interference” or “news distortion” ahead of the 2026 midterms? Where is the $20 billion lawsuit from anyone, anywhere, claiming that CBS is putting its thumb on the scale by making the president sound less like a man losing his grip on reality?
We all know where they are. The only “principle” at play here was always, transparently, about leverage. Trump had leverage over CBS via the FCC. CBS folded. Now CBS uses that same editorial discretion to flatter Trump, and suddenly editorial discretion is fine again, actually.
This is institutional capitulation under an authoritarian government. CBS has editorial discretion. It’s well within their First Amendment rights to edit 60 Minutes in ways that flatter the person they paid the bribe to. But that doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t call out the rank hypocrisy.
The reality is that the editing of this interview was, on its own merits, fine. Editing a 40-minute interview down to 13 minutes is what 60 Minutes does, even though I would argue cutting out much of his rambling hid parts that were genuinely newsworthy in favor of sanewashing the president. But that’s CBS’s editorial discretion. Bari Weiss and 60 Minutes are free to trash their own reputation by burnishing the President’s.
What’s not defensible is doing this now, after paying $16 million on the premise that doing this for Harris was somehow corrupt. CBS has put itself in a position where it cannot honestly defend its own editorial choices without acknowledging the settlement for the cowardice it was. In both cases CBS had perfectly defensible arguments for its edits. But in one case it capitulated. CBS should be forced to explain why.
But they’ll just say nothing. And Trump will say nothing, because he knows the editing helps him. And MAGA media will say nothing, because they only care about “news distortion” when it’s politically useful. And the rest of us will watch yet another major American institution demonstrate that it has no principles, only prices.
The $16 million was a down payment on every future editorial decision CBS makes about Donald Trump. And we just saw what that buys.
The anti-vaccine sugar rush that has infected some portions of the country, largely thanks to the profane appointment of RFK Jr. to head HHS, is incredibly frustrating. That makes it all the more important when the movement receives not just pushback when trying to enact absurd policy based on conspiracy theories, but specifically when that pushback comes from the same party engaging in the absurdity.
Earlier this year, flanked by Ron DeSantis, Florida’s Surgeon General, Joseph Ladapo, announced that the state government was seeking to end all vaccine requirements for school children in the state. And, because Ladapo is a hack, he postured this move in the silliest way possible.
Ladapo said the Florida Department of Health would be working with Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office to end all mandates in state law, at the event at Grace Christian School in Valrico, located just east of Tampa.
“Every last one of them is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery,” Ladapo said of vaccine mandates.
Equating vaccine mandates to slavery may well be one of the dumbest analogies a human being has ever come up with. Vaccines save lives, prevent illness, and go a long way toward staving off the long term effects of many infectious diseases. Suggesting that any of that is akin to the slave trade reveals far more about the person making such a silly accusation than it does about our vaccination programs.
DeSantis, for his part, stated that some vaccine requirements could be removed immediately, while others would require state legislation. But the legislation drawn up to achieve that has hit a major roadblock, and that roadblock is Florida’s House GOP.
Just minutes into a special session on Tuesday, Florida House Speaker Daniel Perez announced that the Republican-led chamber would not take up a proposal from DeSantis to allow children to opt out of certain school vaccination requirements. The move effectively killed the proposal, which had been backed by the Senate.
Perez, a father from Miami with three young children, said he was concerned by the idea of “children being in school without measles and mumps and polio and chickenpox vaccines that have been working for decades,” according to The New York Times, which reported from the State Capitol. “That was something that I was uncomfortable with.”
Thank the universe for sane, thinking members of the GOP, in this case. Perez is precisely correct: vaccines have worked for a long, long time and removing their requirement in public schools serves to only make more children more sick. It ignores our collective responsibility for the health of those around us, some of which have underlying conditions that mean they can’t get vaccines they would otherwise desire. Why in the world should someone in that unfortunate situation have to literally risk their lives in order to go to school? What are those kids supposed to do, just because someone bought into the vaccine misinformation?
None of these anti-vaccine goobers ever seem to want to answer that question. Instead, they retreat to their “Don’t Tread On Me” slogans, or other talking points. As for DeSantis, sane questions like this are pure political games, apparently.
On social media, DeSantis responded to the House’s rejection by calling it “typical political shenanigans.”
Ladapo also responded, saying: “The governor’s agenda to defend freedom, whether from medical tyranny or tech oligarchs, is something Floridians and Americans everywhere want and value. Members of the Florida House should be leading that effort, not standing in the way.”
Those House members are representing their districts, Mr. Surgeon General. Better than you are, I would argue. And does anyone actually read these boot-licking comments from Ladapo and conclude that any of it represents sincerely held beliefs, rather than a sincere desire to remain in power?
Certainly not this writer, I can tell you. This is more pandering for politics on the part of Ladapo. And he will eventually have the blood of children on his hands if he gets his way.
FCC boss Brendan Carr has spent much of the last five years on cable TV whining incessantly about foreign entanglement with U.S. companies. Even companies he doesn’t regulate.
But when it comes to a Trump-allied right wing billionaire buying up the entirety of U.S. media companies with Chinese and Middle East autocratic help, Brendan Carr is suddenly nowhere to be found.
A new filing from Paramount related to its $111 billion acquisition of Warner Brothers reveals the finalized deal will result in a company that’s 49.5% owned by foreign interests (including the Chinese), and 38.5% owned by a a trio of Middle Eastern funds, including the journalist-butchering folks over in Saudi Arabia:
“In a petition for declaratory ruling to the FCC signed by Paramount legal chief Makan Delrahim, Paramount asks the Brendan Carr-led commission to sign off on the deal involving Saudi Arabia’s PIF (public investment fund), L’Imad, an Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund, and a Qatar Investment Authority fund.”
If you’re playing along at home, that’s the same Makan Delrahim who used to be Trump’s DOJ “antitrust enforcer” during his first term. Delrahim “enforced antitrust” at the time by helping Sprint and T-Mobile gain rubber-stamp approval for their job and competition eroding merger. He even used his personal phones and computers to give the companies advise on how to bypass regulatory scrutiny.
Normally the FCC wouldn’t have any say in this deal because no local broadcast stations or public airwaves are directly involved, but it does have some say in how the deal is financed. The Communications Act of 1934 restricts foreign entities from holding more than a 25% indirect equity or voting interest in a U.S. company that holds broadcast licenses. Obviously, 49.5% bypasses that.
Paramount and Brendan Carr have already insisted this is all irrelevant and Carr has openly signaled to a top GOP donor (Larry Ellison) that he won’t object to any part of the foreign financing. Paramount’s filing continues to insist the deal (and its massive debt) will be great for consumers, creatives, and everybody in between. From a Paramount statement:
“When the transaction and equity syndication close, the Ellison family and RedBird will collectively hold the largest equity stake in the combined company and continue to be the sole owners of Class A Common Stock, representing 100% of the voting shares, with no other equity syndication party having any governance rights, voting shares, or Board representation. The combination of Paramount and WBD’s complementary assets will enhance competition while creating a strong champion for creative talent and consumer choice.”
There is, as we’ve explored, nothing that supports this last claim. That massive level of debt will inevitably result in mass layoffs, corner cutting, and price hikes. This is what always happens. And this is before a potential AI bubble pop impacts the Ellison family financials even more. There’s a very good chance this deal implodes in a giant fireball regardless of who is financing it.
Still, it’s curious that a GOP that spends so much of its time engaged in xenophobic and racist tirades about foreign investment in U.S. free market innovation goes so quickly silent when they stand to personally benefit. In this case both financially via Larry Ellison’s patronage, and ideologically via Larry Ellison’s conversion of CNN, TikTok, and CBS into (global) autocrat-friendly propaganda machines.
What gets me the most confused is that Kimmel gave his monologue multiple days before the WHCD. No one objected at the time. No one, not even the administration, is implying that his monologue inspired the gunman (who probably already has his hotel reservation booked). There is absolutely no nexus, real or even alleged, between Jimmy Kimmel’s joke and the attempted assassination. The demand to fire Kimmel is a complete non sequitur. What next? “The sky is blue today, so fire Jimmy Kimmel”?
Uh, forget about telling the (fake?) National Trust for Historic Preservation about the details of a top secret military installation. Did… the White House just tell us about details of a top secret military installation? Pretty sure there are lots of spy networks all over the world that would LOVE to find out if all the air vents are connected and if hacking the security in the ballroom will get you into the underground bunker. I guess the Very Stable Genius (and lawyer, apparently) answered that for him. Best president ever!
I’ve said it before, but they tried to use his death like the Reichstag fire or 9/11 but the plain truth is most people didn’t know who he was.
And people like Kirk have spent the past25 years training Americans to just shrug and move on when there’s a shooting. He was literally in the middle of trivializing shootings when he was shot. Well, he got what he wanted; nobody fucking cares.
We saw this post-9/11. The attacks (or terrorism in general) were used as an argument in favor of whatever cause a politician wanted to push. It didn’t require even the thinnest thread of a connection in their minds.
“I’m a proud American patriot and the terrorists are coming for our precious dairy industry, so the farmers in my district deserve a special tax break!”
E. M. Delafield’s novel Diary of a Provincial Lady was a smash hit when it was published in 1930, and it’s remained in print ever since. Its success came from its combination of comedy with authentic slice-of-life insight into a particular lifestyle, and its stylistic influence can be seen even in modern classics like Bridget Jones’s Diary. This game of the same name might not quite achieve the same status, but there’s no reason it couldn’t: it’s an excellent little party game that blends the mechanics of games like Apples to Apples with the appropriation-and-remix techniques of blackout poetry and similar art forms.
Like many such games, it all starts with a randomly selected prompt — in this case, a random combination of an illustration from the novel with a short question or fill-in-the-blank sentence.
Players compete to impress the rotating judge (or Provincial Lady) for the round by deploying a card from their hand to match the prompt. But rather than just making a selection, first they make alterations. Players are asked to modify a diary entry from the novel by crossing out, changing, and inserting words, adding emphasis with underlines and circles, and otherwise editing the text on their card to craft the best prompt response.
Like any such party game, how it plays out depends entirely on the creativity and taste of the players. The creative freedom of the editing aspect opens it up to so many expressive possibilities beyond the acts of contrast and juxtaposition that dominate other similar games. The charming illustrations and tone-setting text of the diary entries give shape to this freedom, rooting everything in the sometimes-dated, sometimes-timeless atmosphere of the novel. Put it all together and you’ve got a genuinely fun and replayable exercise that is this year’s Best Analog Game.
Congratulations to donnaboobyfor the win! You can get everything you need to play Diary of a Provincial Lady from its page on Itch. That’s the end of our winner spotlights this time around, but don’t forget to check out the many great entries that didn’t quite make the cut. Thanks again to everyone who participated in the jam, and stay tuned for next year when we’ll be back for Gaming Like It’s 1931!
A quick reminder: America has not had a confirmed Surgeon General at the federal level since January of 2025. Yes, that’s over a year ago. How we got here is a microcosm of the Trump administration generally: chaos, misfires, and the wrong people at the very top. Janette Nesheiwat was Trump’s first nominee. MAGA gremlin Laura Loomer complained about her very loudly, leading Trump to obediently pull back the nomination.
In her place, he then nominated Casey Means in May of 2025. Means has been described as RFK Jr.’s “favorite wellness influencer”, which is a more subtle way of saying that she’s not a licensed doctor. That fact generated a lot of pushback in Congress, not only from Democrats, but Republicans too. Then, during her confirmation hearing in March of this year, Means dodged questions about vaccines as much as she possibly could, leading Senators like Bill Cassidy and others to question what her actual belief structure on vaccines is, and how much it aligns with RFK Jr.’s. Ultimately, few people thought her nomination was in a good place when it comes to confirmation.
Trump finally woke up to that fact, angrily of course, and has now pulled the Means nomination as well. In her place, he has now nominated radiologist Nicole Saphier, who also moonlights as a health commentator for Fox News. In many ways, Saphier is merely Casey Means wearing sunglasses and a false mustache.
In some ways she’s different. For instance, she’s an actual practicing doctor. On the other hand, she’s caked in the same wellness industry nonsense as Casey Means.
Saphier got her medical degree from Ross University School of Medicine in Barbados, according to her LinkedIn profile. She then completed a radiology residency through Creighton University School of Medicine. She joined Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in 2016 and has been a Fox News contributor since 2018. She is also the founder of Drop Rx, a herbal supplement business that develops “clean, thoughtfully crafted tinctures that support focus, calm, balance, and overall wellness.”
As for the topic of vaccines, her commentary rings as though she has a similar belief structure to Means, but knows how to hide it better.
On this front, she appears to walk a fine line—being skeptical of vaccines and critical of vaccination recommendations, while avoiding overt opposition to them. In 2022, she falsely claimed on social media that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was set to mandate COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren—something the CDC does not have the power to do; school vaccination requirements are set by the states. Despite being wrong, her claim sparked outrage among right-wing media.
In August, she posted a video criticizing the American Academy of Pediatrics for continuing to recommend COVID-19 vaccines for children—after Kennedy had unilaterally dropped the recommendation in line with his anti-vaccine views.
Oh, and she was more than a little careless when it came to COVID.
In Dec 2021, Nicole Saphier — a Fox contributor now tapped as Trump's surgeon general nominee — argued that "it is time to move forward and allow this mild infection to circulate so we can continue to build that hybrid immunity."250,000 Americans died of covid in 2022.
This administration keeps making the same mistakes over and over again. The dual facts that we’ve been without a confirmed AG for over a year into this administration and that we can’t get a vanilla nominee that can pass through to confirmation without generating headlines is both crazy and a complete failure of this administration.
Trump has been on a tirade blaming Cassidy for all of this. But Cassidy isn’t the problem here. Trump and Kennedy keep stepping on rake after rake by nominating the wrong people for important jobs. I doubt that anyone that was skeptical of Means won’t have the same concerns about Saphier, so we may be back at this all over again months from now.
As an asylum-seeker living in the U.S., Jasmir Urbina worried as she watched violence break out amid the military-style immigration sweeps across the country. Then she read about legal residents being arrested at immigration court and wondered when federal agents would set their sights on her city.
Urbina had fled Nicaragua in 2022 and legally resided with her husband, a fellow asylum-seeker, in New Orleans while reporting to immigration agents for check-ins as she awaited her day in court. Finally, the date was approaching, in late November 2025. Days later, the Trump administration would flood the region with federal officers in “Operation Swamp Sweep.”
Urbina, 35, began searching for a Spanish speaker who could help her, and said she stumbled on a Facebook post advertising the services of Catholic Charities, a prominent aid organization whose services include assisting immigrants. After a few clicks, she connected via WhatsApp with “Susan Millan,” who claimed to have a law degree. The woman’s photo looked professional, showing a small library in the blurry background, according to a screenshot Urbina shared with ProPublica. The asylum-seeker said she discussed her predicament with the woman she thought was an attorney.
Millan told Urbina the ordeal could be settled over a virtual hearing with U.S. immigration authorities. Millan sprinkled in details about her own life — a sick husband, two kids, a supportive church — so Urbina felt comfortable. In an interview, Urbina said she completed paperwork to be sent to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, for a fee. Millan’s organization asked her for documentation, including five character references; for another fee, it would submit these up the line. Through the payment app Zelle, Urbina and her husband paid nearly $10,000, according to her financial records, money they had set aside to buy their first home.
On Nov. 21, Urbina made the case that a “credible fear” was keeping her from going home. In the virtual hearing, which lasted five minutes, she said she spoke to a man dressed in a green uniform, stitched with what looked like government insignia, seated in front of an American flag. A day later, via WhatsApp, Millan told her she “won residency.” Her documents would be in the mail.
In an instant, Urbina’s fears had been assuaged. She asked if she should still attend her court date, Nov. 24. “No, don’t worry,” she remembers the woman replying. “There’s no need.”
But when Urbina asked to speak with someone in a message to Millan’s phone number the next day, according to screenshots she shared with ProPublica, the WhatsApp chat fell silent. After two days, she suspected she’d been duped and wrote in anger: “God is with us and He fights for His children; today you messed with the wrong person and you will get your payment from the Most High, you cowards.”
There was no attorney named Susan Millan associated with Catholic Charities, and the deceit was just one example of hundreds that the group has become aware of when desperate immigrants eventually reach the real organization.
“There’s a reason why we have a good reputation,” said Chris Ross, vice president of migration and refugee resettlement services at Catholic Charities. “And so for someone to be trading on that goodwill with nefarious intent is very frustrating.”
Urbina had fallen prey to “notario fraud,” in which scammers provide legal advice, often by saying they’re public notaries or other legal professionals. In many Latin American countries, a public notary is the equivalent of a lawyer, and notario fraudsters rely on this mistranslation to fake credentials.
Urbina shared documents that detail how she was lured into the scam, and ProPublica corroborated her story with her husband and Catholic Charities. After Urbina told local and federal authorities she had been tricked out of her day in court, Immigration and Customs Enforcement switched her scheduled December virtual check-in to an in-person meeting. When she showed up, agents arrested her. In January, she said, officers shackled her hands and feet and loaded her on a plane to Nicaragua.
She’d been scammed, then deported.
A spokesperson with the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, did not respond to questions about Urbina’s case but said, “Anyone caught impersonating a federal immigration agent will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.” New Orleans police did not answer ProPublica’s questions about a complaint she filed.
Scams like those that destroyed Urbina’s dreams are on the rise, federal data analyzed by ProPublica shows, as profiteers seize on the fear and confusion wrought by President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.
Complaints of immigration scams have doubled since Trump was elected, ProPublica found in analyzing more than 6,200 complaints filed with the Federal Trade Commission by victims and advocates over the last five years.
From the start of 2021 through the election in fall of 2024, the FTC — the nation’s top consumer protection agency — fielded about 960 immigration complaints per year, such as reports of fake attorneys offering services or people impersonating federal officers. In 2025, the commission received nearly 2,000 complaints.
In all, at least $94.4 million was reported stolen in complaints to the FTC over five years. That number is certainly an undercount, as not all immigrants report wrongdoing for fear of deportation, and not every report included dollar amounts.
The spike in complaints is so severe that many states and legal organizations have alerted the public about them. California’s and North Carolina’s attorneys general released statements in late 2025, as did the American Bar Association and AARP. In June 2025, the New York City Council passed legislation increasing notario fraud penalties, and a similar law passed in Florida.
“Immigration scammers contribute to a lawless environment, undermining our immigration system,” said Zach Kahler, a spokesperson for Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency Urbina falsely thought had awarded her residency. Online, the agency provides guides on how to spot immigration fraud and warns consumers that it does not use WhatsApp. The agency tells people who think they’ve been scammed to complain to the FTC.
Old Problem, New Sophistication
Scams targeting those mired in the U.S. immigration system are not new, but advocates say predators have become more sophisticated, using technologies like artificial intelligence and targeted ads. At the same time, immigrants have become increasingly anxious about speedy mass deportations, creating a bonanza for those looking to cash in.
“I believe AI is being utilized in these scams pretty effectively. People think they’re talking to a real person, or the logos and stuff look pretty professional to the untrained eye,” said Ross, of Catholic Charities.
Many victims say they were duped by scammers who had professional-looking photos, wore immigration uniforms and staged realistic virtual hearings.
A review of the image of the person named Millan who was supposedly helping Urbina suggests that it was AI-generated.
Ross added: “The biggest thing is the desperation — that’s really what’s driving this.”
In San Diego, attorneys working for the city have been impersonated by scammers. City Attorney Heather Ferbert told ProPublica her office has forwarded these cases to the FBI and warned residents to be on the lookout for advertisements that promise a government official or lawyer can help with immigration proceedings. The FBI declined to comment.
“When you add the title and you add the government weight behind it — the city attorney’s office, the district attorney’s office, for example — the targets are sort of lulled,” Ferbert said. “We’ve heard stories where they promise that they can solve their immigration problems for them. No real lawyer is ever going to promise an outcome to you.”
Other scams extend beyond impersonating lawyers. The FTC complaints include a case in which people posing as Department of Homeland Security immigration officers received more than $600,000 from a family by claiming one of the relatives’ identities had been stolen and they needed to pay to protect it. In West Virginia, a “federal agent” threatened to deport a college student who was close to graduating unless they paid nearly $4,000 in gift cards.
“They claimed that if I did not comply immediately, I would be arrested, detained or deported,” wrote the student, who was legally residing in the U.S. on a student visa. The student, whose name was not disclosed in federal data, used prepaid Dollar General gift cards and then went broke and turned to family for help.
Immigrants from India and Bangladesh were told they had failed to update a necessary form and would be arrested and deported immediately unless they shared their Social Security numbers. Other scammers claimed the government had intercepted packages full of money and drugs addressed to immigrants, who were told to make a payment or face arrest.
“Well-Oiled Machine”
Most victims find the fake attorneys advertising on Facebook or TikTok. Facebook’s parent company, Meta, has pledged to delete scam accounts and announced new tools to track them.
Charity Anastasio, practice and ethics counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the ads are often pay-per-click and targeted at Spanish-speaking users.
“They’ve designed such a well-oiled machine,” Anastasio said.
The ads appealed to those in deportation proceedings, clinging to any means to stay in the U.S., but also those who may have wanted to get their paperwork in order ahead of Trump’s crackdown, said Adonia Simpson, an attorney with the American Bar Association.
“A lot of people are trying to preemptively get representation to see what their options are,” Simpson told ProPublica. “The enforcement has been a big driver. It’s caused a lot of people to be very fearful.”
The White House declined to comment.
In October 2024, 56-year-old José Aguilar, who had been granted temporary protected status under George W. Bush’s administration, was in just that position when he came upon a Facebook ad. The advertiser claimed to work for Jorge Rivera, a well-known Miami immigration attorney, and promised Aguilar they could get him permanent residency. It would take $15,000. ProPublica sought comment from the real Rivera, who is not accused of wrongdoing; he did not respond.
A leather factory worker in Minnesota who had fled El Salvador, Aguilar cobbled together the money in installments through loans from friends and that year’s tax refund. Over several months, he had four video calls with the fake attorney and two calls with immigration agent impersonators. He was initially skeptical but became convinced when they sent him videos of residency cards with the Citizenship and Immigration Services logo.
“Don’t try to deceive me, because I’m borrowing money, I’m a man of faith, and I’m a person who has had a heart transplant, so I can’t get angry because it hurts me,” Aguilar remembered saying.
“No, don’t worry, sir,” Aguilar said the scammer responded. “This is real. It’s super real.”
During one of their last conversations, Aguilar says the scammer appealed to their shared Christian faith, thanking God for approving the paperwork and earning him residency.
By February 2025, the scammers had stopped responding. A month later, Aguilar realized he was probably never going to get the residency cards and contacted an attorney who confirmed he had been duped. Aguilar, who has two young daughters, says his family is subsisting on food banks and relies on donations for rent.
“It’s unforgivable,” Aguilar said. “Even bringing God into it.”
Mother and Daughter Torn Apart
For Mariela, an undocumented Honduran mother of three, financial stress began long ago. In 2021, the father of her children headed for the U.S. along with one of their daughters, seeking construction work. Two years later, when she traveled 2,000 miles in blistering heat to join them, she broke her arm in three places after falling into the Rio Grande while crossing the border. ProPublica is withholding her last name because she fears being deported.
And then, in October 2025, immigration agents detained her 20-year-old daughter. Desperate, the mother reached out to what she thought was a Catholic Charities Facebook page.
She was pulled into a scheme involving a man who posed as a priest, another posing as an immigration judge, and another posing as Oscar Carrillo, an attorney licensed in Texas who practices tax law.
The real Carrillo told ProPublica he began getting calls from frustrated immigrants last spring, all of them Spanish speakers who claimed they had been referred by Catholic Charities. When he realized his name and photo were being misused, he alerted the FBI and FTC. The State Bar of Texas has posted a public warning on its webpage about Carrillo impersonators.
“Most of these clients, because of their immigration status, are afraid to report this to the police,” Carrillo said. “I feel sorry for these clients. We’re not talking about wealthy individuals.”
In January, after her daughter was deported, Mariela realized the fraudsters had cheated her out of more than $18,000 over three months.
She said she had borrowed $3,000 from an uncle in Honduras, another $1,500 from a cousin, a few thousand from her boss, and another $2,000 from a friend from her Honduran hometown who had also emigrated to the U.S. In addition, she burned through her savings and her daughter’s.
Public Alerts, Little Recourse
Since the beginning of Trump’s second term, local law enforcement, advocacy groups, state attorneys general and law firms have published notices warning immigrants about an uptick in scams.
“Our best advice is to make direct contact, outside of social media channels, with the organization you’re seeking help from,” said Kevin Brennan, vice president for media relations at Catholic Charities. “Call the organization on the phone or visit an office in person.”
Scammers show no signs of retreat.
In April, three months after her deportation to Nicaragua, Urbina received a call from someone claiming to be a lawyer. He said that he’d been referred to her by a bishop with Catholic Charities and that he’d help her obtain immigration papers.
The stress of being scammed and separated from her husband, who remains in the U.S., had taken a toll. “I’ve been through a lot of things, one right after the other,” Urbina said. She’s living with her mother in a remote village, afraid to step outside in a country where the government has ramped up surveillance of those who previously moved to the U.S.
Desperate, she gave the “lawyer” her personal information.
After earlier saying his help would be free, he then asked for money, she said.
“Where did you get my number?” she asked.
Intrigued but skeptical, Urbina followed up with WhatsApp messages, hoping he might really be an immigration attorney.
I will continue to make the case for a 100 Justice Supreme Court because we need to get to the point that no single Supreme Court Justice matters. As it stands, each individual Justice has way too much power, and when they go mad with it, they can undermine the very structure of democracy. And while I’m sure some people will insist this is sour grapes about cases not going the way I want, it’s not that. I can accept rulings I disagree with, where I can see and understand the Constitutional logic behind them. For example, while I agree that the post-Citizens United change in campaign finance has been disastrous and needs to be fixed, I think the actual ruling in that case is not just defensible, but correct on the law (i.e. I think the fixes to campaign finance should come from elsewhere, not from getting rid of that ruling).
Similarly, while the underlying hatred and bigotry animating the decisions in 303 Creative and Chiles v. Salazar are deeply problematic, the actual rulings make some level of Constitutional sense on First Amendment grounds.
But the Roberts Court keeps handing down rulings that have no basis in any actual Constitutional principles, and are instead very clearly ideological and results-driven approaches to deciding cases. The Dobbs decision on abortion, most famously, but also (obviously) Trump v. US in which the Supreme Court effectively ruled that Trump could violate any law he wanted while President. And now we can add to that Louisiana v. Callais, which effectively brings back Jim Crow segregation and turns the Fifteenth Amendment into a dead letter.
If you want deeper analysis on just how fucked up this ruling is, I’ll point you to voting law expert Rick Hasen’s writeup in Slate, where he calls it “the worst ruling in a century.” But even more useful is his follow-up piece on just how cowardly Alito’s reasoning is:
In Callais, Alito purported to overturn no precedent, claiming he was merely “updating” a framework that the Supreme Court constructed in the 1986 Thornburg v. Gingles case to determine when a redistricting plan violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting minority representation. This follows his 2021 majority opinion in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, where he purported to provide mere “guidelines” for determining when a state violates Section 2 in passing a law related to voting or voter registration.
In both cases, however, Justice Alito made it impossible for plaintiffs to win their cases, leaving Section 2 on the books, but essentially toothless. Since Brnovich, as I showed in a recent law review article, no plaintiffs have brought successful suits under Section 2 challenging a law alleged to suppress votes. Justice Elena Kagan’s exasperated dissent in Callais cited this research and rightly predicted the same fate for redistricting claims under Section 2: “The consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter.”
But I want to focus on something a bit different, which is just how hypocritical many of the recent decisions are. The supposedly “conservative” Justices contradict themselves over and over again to reach the motivated result they are seeking. We’ve already seen some of this in other rulings, such as when the court decided that nationwide injunctions by district courts were bad… but only when they were used against Trump (after blessing many against Biden).
In Callais we see more of the same. Remember, just two years ago in the Loper Bright case, this same Supreme Court pretended to stand on principle against the administrative state by arguing that the executive branch had way less power than it had previously suggested in its old Chevron case, arguing that the power of Congress to define things rather than delegate decisions is key. Well, the Fifteenth Amendment explicitly says that “Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation” in order to make sure that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race….”
So in one case it’s left for Congress to legislate to clarify governmental power, and in the other Justice Alito and the other conservatives on the Court have decided they can take that Constitutionally granted power away from Congress — not based on any actual Constitutional reason, but because they’ve concluded that racism is over. That’s literally the crux of Alito’s argument, in which he notes that:
By 2004, the racial gap in voter registration and turnout had largely disappeared, with minorities registering and voting at levels that sometimes surpassed the majority. Black voters now participate in elections at similar rates as the rest of the electorate, even turning out at higher rates than white voters in two of the five most recent Presidential elections nationwide and in Louisiana.
Of course, this is both highly misleading and beside the point of what the Constitution actually says in the Fifteenth Amendment, which gives that power to Congress to decide. It’s misleading because he cherry-picked “two of the five most recent” elections to obscure the fact that it wasn’t true in the last three — elections that occurred only after the Court had already hollowed out the rest of the Voting Rights Act.
As we discussed last year in the Texas redistricting case, the Supreme Court has made it clear in previous rulings that it’s totally legal to gerrymander for partisan reasons, just so-long as it’s not explicitly for racial reasons. The problem in Texas was that its legislature had initially rejected the (already flimsy and obviously pretextual) partisan reasons for redistricting until the Trump DOJ threatened them over the racial makeup of districts, leading to the last minute decision to redistrict, solely in response to the warning about the racial makeup of districts from the Trump admin. The lower court (in a ruling issued by a Trump appointed judge) found that to be a violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
But, bizarrely, this Supreme Court also tossed out that ruling on the shadow docket (naturally) in December, claiming it had to do this because it was too close to the election in Texas to toss out the redistricted maps… even though the election was many months away and the “redistricted” maps had only been created a few months earlier. Literally none of it made sense. That ruling was just a stay to allow the redistricted maps for the 2026 midterm elections, but the case technically continued over whether or not there could be an injunction against the maps.
In an absolutely bizarre ruling on Monday (right before this Callais ruling) the Supreme Court effectively further rejected the challenge to Texas’ redistricting by simply citing its original shadow docket ruling, even though (1) the issue before the court now is different and (2) that original shadow docket ruling was based on no significant briefing or oral arguments. Court watcher (and shadow docket coiner/criticizer) Steve Vladeck notes that this is a dangerous power grab by the court:
I can’t remember a prior case with this kind of (true) summary reversal—where the Court just reversed a three-judge district court on the merits without any detailed explanation.
The original (already questionable) order was procedural, and apparently deemed necessary due to the “emergency” nature of an election that wasn’t happening for months and for which there was plenty of time to adjust. But to then claim to rule on the merits of the case by simply pointing back to that other emergency ruling, without more detailed briefing and without explanation, is bizarre.
But remember: the stated basis for the December ruling was the supposedly imminent 2026 midterm primaries. And then look at what happened in Louisiana after the Callais decision, where Governor Jeff Landry literally declared a “state of emergency” to suspend the already ongoing primary election in order to initiate redistricting, based on the Callais ruling.
So if you’re playing along at home, in Texas they redrew the Congressional maps in August of 2025 for blatantly racial reasons (as called out by a Trump-appointed judge in November, who provided a ton of evidence). In December of 2025, the Supreme Court said that those racially-biased new districts had to stay because it was too close to the 2026 midterms (which were still months away) to try to redistrict (despite the ability to easily go back to the pre-August districts which were the existing districts). But now, in late April, based on this new Supreme Court ruling, Louisiana can magically stop elections in which voting has already occurred in order to redistrict to create more racist gerrymandering.
And all this because Alito and Roberts are happy to literally ignore the Fifteenth Amendment when they don’t like the results.
That is what results-driven judicial decision-making looks like. And it’s why the court is viewed as increasingly illegitimate across the board.
I can live with the Court issuing principled rulings I disagree with. But here there are no principles on display beyond “we’re racist and we want to deprive non-white people of their vote.” The Supreme Court makes it clear that it is illegitimate with such a move, and not worthy of any respect at all.
And that won’t change until we get real reform, such as by shifting the Court so that no single Justice (or small clique of Justices) has so much power.
Shortly before the Supreme Court inflicted enormous damage on the Voting Rights Act, the Reconstruction Amendments of the Constitution, any pretense of constitutionally guaranteed Equal Protection, the civil rights movement, its credibility, and our democracy writ large with its Alito-penned decision in Louisiana v. Callais, it released a separate decision in First Women’s Choice Resource Centers v. Davenport.
In terms of overall substance, this latter case was one where an anti-choice plaintiff got a win, which perhaps is why there was little trouble in the Court reaching a unanimous result in its favor. But it is just a procedural win, allowing its case to go forward, rather than a judicial validation of its actual viewpoint. (“This case presents a narrow question. We are not asked to decide the merits of First Choice’s federal lawsuit, only whether it may proceed.” [p. 5]). And, more importantly, it is a strong First Amendment win, with language that will be useful in later cases, including ones where more liberal positions have been impacted by government overreach. (“We have recognized […] that associational rights carry special significance for political, social, religious, and other minorities. With the freedom to associate, minorities can ‘show their numerical strength,’ influence policy, and ‘stimulate competition’ in the marketplace of ideas. But take that freedom away and ‘dissident expression’ stands particularly vulnerable to marginalization or outright ‘suppression by the majority,’ leaving all of society poorer for it.” [p. 7]). And it will be useful in cases in federal and state courts all over the country, where it is binding precedent, and not just at the Supreme Court, which can blow with the wind depending on whose case is before it.
In other words, it is a decision that is likely to matter, and in a way that is good news for the First Amendment and the rights it protects, particularly with respect to associative freedom, the anonymity such expressive relationships depend on, and the standing needed to be able to challenge government intrusions on either, including by way of subpoenas.
In this case the plaintiff, First Women’s Choice Resource Centers, Inc., is what is sometimes referred to as a crisis pregnancy center. Despite the plaintiff’s name invoking “choice” such places are not about informing pregnant women about the full range of choices available to them. They instead steer them towards avenues that do not include the medical care needed to potentially terminate their pregnancy. The issue however is not that those running these centers don’t wish to support abortion but that they may be deceptively ensnaring vulnerable women who think they are getting more comprehensive advice about their choices than the limited information these centers offer, which has led some states, like New Jersey, to investigate whether they are indeed duping people.
But in this case New Jersey—the defendant in this case—as part of its investigation tried to subpoena the plaintiff for names of its donors (“Effectively, that demand required First Choice to provide personal information about donors who gave through two other websites, through the group’s various social media pages, by mail, in person, or by any other means.” [p. 2-3]). The stated rationale for seeking this data was to ensure that no donor had similarly been deceived as to the services the plaintiff delivered. [p. 3]. The plaintiff’s attempt to avoid the subpoena led to litigation in both state and federal courts, with the state seeking to enforce the subpoena in the former and the plaintiff bringing a civil rights lawsuit in the latter, alleging that the subpoena violated its First Amendment rights.
A federal law—42 U. S. C. §1983—authorizes suits against any person who, under color of state law, deprives another of his federal constitutional rights. First Choice filed a complaint under that statute, arguing, among other things, that the Attorney General’s demand for information about its donors violated its First Amendment rights. Specifically, First Choice observed that the First Amendment “prohibits the government from discouraging people from associating with others” “in pursuit of many political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends.” And, First Choice alleged, the Attorney General’s subpoena had just that impermissible effect. For its donors, the group represented, “anonymity is of paramount importance,” and its inability to guarantee that anonymity in the face of the Attorney General’s demands injured the group by discouraging donors from associating with it. [p. 3-4]
The federal district court dismissed the suit, largely on the grounds that because the state litigation had not yet resulted in the subpoena being enforced the plaintiff hadn’t suffered an injury it could sue over, [p. 4-5], and the Third Circuit upheld the dismissal. [p. 5]. With this decision, however, the Supreme Court has now allowed the federal lawsuit to go forward, finding that the plaintiff indeed has the standing to challenge how the subpoena affects its First Amendment rights.
“Standing” has to do with whether a party is eligible to bring a certain lawsuit. Courts can only hear legitimate “cases and controversies,” [p. 5], and standing helps ensure that the litigation put before it meets that criteria by ensuring that the parties bringing it are entitled to. [p. 5-6]. They are only entitled to if they have an “injury in fact,” caused by the defendant, and the litigation is capable of redressing it. [p.5].
This case focused on whether the injury-in-fact element was satisfied. [p. 6]. It can only be satisfied when the litigation involves “an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent.” [p. 6]. And here the Court found that there was such an “actual and ongoing” injury, caused by the subpoena itself. [p. 6]. In fact, even though the state litigation had not yet resulted in the subpoena being enforced made no difference; it was the very existence of the subpoena that was so chilling to the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights. (“Even if a subpoena targeting First Amendment activity is never enforced in court, [it] will give its targets a very good reason to clam up [and] give the target organization’s members and supporters a very good reason to abandon the cause.” [p. 12]).
The reason is that the plaintiff is allowed to hold its anti-abortion views. And others who share those views are allowed to associate with the plaintiff, including by giving it support. But if those others had to fear the government showing up at their door to discuss their views, they would be reluctant to continue their association with the plaintiff. And that reluctance would result in harm to the plaintiff, now unable to associate with others as freely as they should have been able to and would have been able to if the subpoena had not given rise to the fear that their donors’ identities would be discoverable by the government.
Finally, consider First Choice’s two unrebutted declarations. In the first, several donors represented that “[e]ach of us would have been less likely to donate to First Choice if we had known information about the donation might be disclosed” to the Attorney General. The donors added that they submitted their declaration anonymously because they feared what they called the Attorney General’s “record of hostility toward pro-life groups.” I the second declaration, First Choice’s executive director stated that the Attorney General’s demand threatened to “weaken [the group’s] ability to recruit new donors . . . as prospective partners would be hesitant to risk the revelation of their personal information through government investigation.” All this is more than enough to establish injury in fact under our precedents. An injury in fact does not arise only when a defendant causes a tangible harm to a plaintiff, like a physical injury or monetary loss. It can also arise when a defendant burdens a plaintiff ’s constitutional rights. […] All this occurs not just when a demand is enforced, but when it is made and for as long as it remains outstanding. [p. 11-12]
As the Court reminded, associative freedom is protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment guarantees all Americans the rights to speak, worship, publish, assemble, and petition their government freely. Each of these rights, this Court has “‘long understood,’” necessarily carries with it “‘a corresponding right to associate with others.’” […] Appreciating all this, we have held that government actions tending to “curtai[l] the freedom to associate” warrant “the closest scrutiny” under the First Amendment. […] We have also held that “compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy” can “constitute a[n] effective . . . restraint on freedom of association.” [p. 6-7]
As is the anonymity that expression, including associative expression, often requires.
[In NAACP v. Alabama we observed] the “vital relationship” between “privacy in one’s associations” and the “freedom to associate.” Strip away the ability of individuals to work together free from governmental oversight and intrusion, and the freedom to associate may become no freedom at all—individuals deterred, groups diminished, and their protected advocacy suppressed. [p. 8]
[…]
Since NAACP v. Alabama, we have faced many cases along similar lines. In them, one state authority or another has demanded private donor or member information. And in one case after another we have subjected those demands to heightened First Amendment scrutiny. Throughout, we have emphasized the critical role “‘privacy in . . . associatio[n]’” plays “‘in preserving political and cultural diversity and in shielding dissident expression from suppression.’” We have acknowledged, too, that demands for private donor information “inevitabl[y]” carry with them a “deterrent effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights.” [p. 9]
Yet here was a subpoena now threatening both.
Each of these strands tightens the braid into one conclusion. From its allegations and declarations, and given our many and longstanding precedents in the area and reasonable inferences about third party behavior, First Choice has established that the Attorney General’s demand for private donor information injures the group’s First Amendment associational rights. [p. 13]
It is conceivably possible that on remand the lower courts might find the rationale behind the subpoena “’sufficient to justify the deterrent effect’ associated with the disclosure demand, [p. 8], and narrowly-tailored enough, [p. 10], such that there was in fact no actual intrusion on the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights stemming from its issuance. This decision by the Supreme Court does not resolve the question; it only determined that the question could be brought before the courts. But the same analysis that allowed the Supreme Court to identify a likely constitutional injury, enough for the plaintiff to be able to bring the case before the courts to seek a remedy, may yet be employed to find there indeed was an injury that requires redressing—here, by quashing the subpoena.
But regardless of what ultimately happens to the plaintiff’s case, this decision by the Supreme Court has broader implications. First, it doubles-down on prior precedent protecting freedom of association and the anonymity it depends on, and second—and perhaps more practically—it directly ties these First Amendment interests to the discovery instruments propounded by government actors, often too casually, seeking to unmask people. It makes clear that the intermediaries receiving these unmasking demands have their own cognizable First Amendment rights in being able to preserve the anonymity of those who associate with them, with the standing to challenge when those rights are trampled. And although this case addressed organizations and their donors, it is but a small analytical step to apply the same or similar reasoning to Internet platforms seeking to protect the identities of their users from seeking to unmask anonymous speakers, especially in concert with McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, regarding the First Amendment protection for anonymous speech, and Moody v. NetChoice, regarding the First Amendment’s protection of platforms’ editorial and associative discretion. Per this decision, those unmasking attempts can amount to a constitutional injury to the platforms themselves, which they now have compelling new precedent to use to fight them.
