This is the bit of the majority opinion that I was remembering. "reasonably interpreted as" advocating illegal drug use. The last paragraph here at least leaves open that the analysis could have been different if it were a political or religious message.

I think this is best understood as “no governance rights [beyond those of an ordinary common-stock shareholder].”

As opposed to a transaction where a major new investor gets a seat on the board with their shares, for example.

Sound on

Small potatoes in the current government situation, but the FCC's Universal Licensing System has not been doing well lately

Another technical question: 8 USC 1227(a)(1)(B) appears on its face to render a person deportable if their visa is revoked under 1201(i), which are the statutes cited in the application. Is there a missing link that makes that not how it works?

My favorite part is the "concierge service" where you can apparently show up at any airport without any documentation, claim to be an _alien_, and get a free flight to some other country + a cash bonus on landing.

I'm sure nobody will use this to start life over with a new name and some $$.

Equal value is hard, but maybe two cats being cute together can equal the value of one NASA cat.

This is also, um, not what you want the caption of the order to look like if you are Apple. Usually the judge will throw the losing party some kind of a bone. Order granting motion to enforce, but also denying their motion to immediately light Tim Cook on fire. SOMETHING.

Confirmed on the Senator's official account x.com/ChrisVanHoll...

Well said. I find myself returning again and again to Solzhenitsyn, _The Gulag Archipelago_, chapter 1, _arrest_.

The court of appeals has not rescued us BUT IT MIGHT!

What is even going on here? Scare quotes? Asterisks instead of an ellipsis? Who edited this?