Grant Wu
LightNews LightNews
grantwu.bsky.social
Grant Wu
@grantwu.bsky.social
50 followers 99 following 230 posts
propic @dum.bsky.social
Posts Replies Media Videos
grantwu.bsky.social
I'm not seeing that on my machine. Perhaps I need to have my Yubikey plugged into my machine to have it displayed. I can't test it because my Yubikey 4 is not capable of creating a passkey, despite being perfectly fine for U2F.
A screenshot of a Chrome modal window for adding a new passkey. Passkeys Use your phone or tablet Scan this QR code with the camera on the device where you want to create and save your passkey for (a censored domain). (a censored QR code) Back button, cancel button.
August 18, 2025 at 12:21 AM
grantwu.bsky.social
I was reading through this opinion and I'm a bit confused by this paragraph - should it be "Respondents also rely heavily on..." ? I don't understand why the petitioners would be the ones citing this case.
Abu Ali v. Ashcroft, 350 F. Supp. 2d 28 - Dist. Court, Dist. of Columbia Petitioners also rely heavily on Keefe v. Dulles, a case that at least involved an American citizen. Keefe was a private in the United States army stationed in France who had pled guilty to a charge that he had beaten a cab driver and stolen his taxi. See 222 F.2d at 391. He was serving a five year sentence in French prison pursuant to the sentence of a French court. Id. Keefe's wife filed a habeas petition against several United States officials challenging the failure of the officials to obtain his release. The court assumed that the only role the United States was alleged to have played in the case was in "not preventing the French from taking, trying, convicting, and confining him." Id. The court then framed the relevant legal question as "whether Keefe is held in actual or constructive custody by the respondents named in the petition, or by any other person or persons subject to the jurisdiction of the District Court." Id. at 392. In a brief, two-sentence discussion, the court concluded that his detention by French authorities meant that Keefe was not in the custody of the respondents, or any other individual within the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and therefore denied the habeas petition. See id.
April 5, 2025 at 12:30 AM
grantwu.bsky.social
@rahaeli.bsky.social another citation to Moody v. NetChoice!
Excerpt from WilmerHale complaint [Paragraph] 168. Furthermore, the First Amendment protects WilmerHale attorneys’ expressive choices about which clients and causes they choose to represent. The Supreme Court has held that “the First Amendment offers protection when an entity engag[es] in expressive activity, including compiling and curating others’ speech.” Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707, 731 (2024). That principle applies not only to newspapers, bookstores, and social media companies, but also to attorneys’ decisions about which clients to associate with—particularly when it comes to pro bono matters. WilmerHale attorneys have a First Amendment right to take on pro bono clients
March 28, 2025 at 2:39 PM