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.”

Her Instagram account is peppered with dubious wellness claims such as “rosemary and sage decrease Alzheimer’s risk.” In another, she gathered friends for a “turmeric and cinnamon infused anti-inflammatory tea (yes, @drop__rx) … Topped off with a glass of champagne.”

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.

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.

She never heard from him again.

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.

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.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackSocial. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

1. disregarding a federal injunction.
2. demonstrated unwillingness to follow clear law.
3. abuse of administrative authority.
4. substituting his judgment for the judgment of the entire Alabama Supreme Court, including failure to abstain from public comment about a pending proceeding in his own court.
5. interference with legal process and remedies in the United States District Court and/or Alabama Supreme Court related to proceedings in which Alabama probate judges were involved.
6. failure to recuse himself from pending proceedings in the Alabama Supreme Court after making public comment and placing his impartiality into question.

A normal person may have decided to recede from the public eye and head to the private sector. But because Trump was now president, Roy Moore decided his past judicial indiscretions made him a perfect GOP candidate for a contested Senate seat.

Then came the steady stream of personal indiscretions, which began shortly after Moore tossed his tainted hat into the ring. The list of sexual misconduct allegations is so voluminous it requires its own Wikipedia page.

Moore’s alleged interactions with females as young as age 14 added to the self-inflicted damage Moore had created while still an Alabama judge.

Multiple entities reported on this. Moore responded by issuing legal threats and filing lawsuits. He also sued comedian Sacha Baron Cohen over being duped into an “interview” with a supposed Israeli newscaster (Baron Cohen) who subjected Moore to a supposed “pedophile detection device” created by the Israeli Army. The “device” lit up when Moore was scanned.

Moore’s cause of action in that case was one of the best worst things I’ve ever seen:

Had Judge Moore and Mrs. Moore known that Defendant Cohen had fraudulently induced Judge Moore into this interview, which as a “set up” to harm and thus damage Plaintiffs and the rest of their entire family, Judge Moore would not have agreed to appear.

Amazing. It’s like arguing in traffic court that if you had known there would be a speed trap set up to catch speeders, you wouldn’t have been speeding when you passed through it.

Suffice to say, Roy Moore has been suing a lot and losing a lot. Somehow, his lawsuit against a political action committee (the Senate Majority PAC) survived several motions to dismiss and was handed over to a jury. This jury awarded Moore $8.2 million in damages because the ad run against Moore’s Senate campaign featured consecutive (sourced!) quotes that may have led viewers to believe he had attempted to talk a 14-year-old “Santa’s helper” into sex while working at a Gadsden, Alabama shopping mall.

While it’s true the consecutive quotes dealt with two separate sets of allegations — the first being Moore’s banishment from the mall for constantly sexually harassing female workers and the second being a separate conversation with the “Santa’s helper” — the jury decided these quotes appeared close enough to each other in the PAC’s ad to infer a connection between these two otherwise unrelated incidents.

In 2019, Moore sued the Senate Majority PAC, claiming that the group libeled him and subjected him to false light invasion of privacy by suggesting that he sought sex from a 14-year-old girl working as a “Santa’s helper” at a shopping mall in Gadsden, Alabama.

At issue was an ad aired by SMP in the closing weeks of the election that included several frames displaying quotes from the news articles about Moore’s alleged conduct. One frame quoted a New American Journal article that reported “Moore was actually banned from the Gadsden Mall . . . for soliciting sex from young girls.” An immediately subsequent frame quoting the same article read “[o]ne he approached ‘was 14 and working as Santa’s helper.’”

While that may have been enough to convince a jury to give Moore an unearned win and $8.2 million in PAC cash, the Eleventh Circuit Appeals Court says [PDF] what’s seen in the ad doesn’t actually add up to a win for Roy Moore.

First off, even Roy Moore admits the quotations used in the ad are factually direct quotes from other sources.

Here, frame 2 of SMP’s ad contained the following quote: “Moore was actually banned from the Gadsden Mall . . . for soliciting sex from young girls.” The frame included a citation for the quote, and Moore admits that this quote is an accurate excerpt from the cited article. Frame 3 contained the following language: “One he approached ‘was 14 and working as Santa’s helper.’” The frame included a citation for the direct quote, and Moore does not dispute that the directly quoted phrase—“was 14 and working as Santa’s helper”—was an accurate excerpt from the AL.com article.

Since Moore has conceded that, all he can argue is that the quotes appearing consecutively in SMP’s ads add up to SMP deliberately creating a narrative that those making the ad absolutely knew wasn’t true (the actual malice standard).

Nope, says the Eleventh:

Lastly, Moore contends that SMP must have intended or recklessly disregarded that the ad conveyed the defamatory implication because SMP vetted or fact-checked the ad before publishing it. Moore asserts that because SMP’s research team “read all of the articles” cited in the ad and attempted to ensure the ad’s accuracy, and none of the articles supported the assertion that Moore solicited a 14-year-old girl working at the mall for sex, it necessarily follows that SMP intended, or recklessly disregarded, the ad’s defamatory implication. We disagree.

Before we get to the conclusion that undoes the jury verdict, let’s pause for a moment to appreciate the fact that Moore’s argument here isn’t that he did not solicit a 14-year-old girl for sex, but that he did not solicit a 14-year-old girl for sex at this particular mall.

Given that it’s come to this, it would have made far more sense for Moore to simply maintain his innocence and hope that his GOP voting bloc would simply issue a “who among us” shrug at the long list of alleged sexual harassment. Instead, Moore’s appears to be trying to line his pockets while being forced to state things like this on the public record, which includes the “had I known I was being tricked, I never would have agreed to be tricked” detailed in the opening of this post.

Anyway, this is how it’s going for Moore:

In sum, Moore points to, and our independent review has revealed, no other evidence in the record showing that SMP intended or recklessly disregarded that its ad implied that Moore solicited sex from Miller when she was 14 and working as Santa’s helper. Because the evidence discussed above is inadequate to support a finding of the necessary intent to defame for purposes of actual malice in a defamation-by-implication case, Moore’s defamation and false-light claims necessarily fail. As a result, the jury verdict cannot stand.

Moore is still out whatever he’s paid to fail repeatedly in US courts. He can, of course, appeal this ruling. But I can’t imagine the Supreme Court cares one way or another about Moore’s attempts to enrich himself by portraying protected speech as defamation. Moore did a considerable amount of damage to his own reputation long before he started suing. Whatever reputational damage has occurred since is so incremental it’s a rounding error. It certainly isn’t $8.2 million.

Carr has sent a letter to ABC/Disney saying he’s accelerating the review of their existing broadcast licenses. It’s very clearly because the Trump administration wants to annoy, harass, and pressure ABC into firing Kimmel. But since that’s a direct assault on the First Amendment, they’re trying to do an end around and pretend that the review is because ABC is “violating DEI requirements.”

Carr’s underlying legal argument is genuinely and profoundly stupid. He’s claiming that ABC’s ordinary, modest, and inconsistent corporate diversity practices are racist against white men, and therefore violate the already fairly thin anti-discrimination components of the Communications Act.

It’s absolute fucking gibberish. But you’ll notice that most outlets, including this piece from CNBC, try to make the effort sound like sensible policy being conducted by reasonable adults:

“The letter orders the company to file for early renewal for ABC-owned television stations and notes the action is related to an investigation into Disney’s DEI efforts, which began last year.

Disney confirmed on Tuesday that it received the FCC’s order initiating an accelerated review of its licenses. The FCC said in the letter that Disney now has 30 days — or until May 28 — to file for the renewals.”

As we noted previously, ABC only actually owns about eight licenses to begin with. Most ABC broadcast licenses (230 or so) are actually owned by right-wing friendly local broadcasters already loyal to the president. We’ve noted how these stations routinely air right wing agitprop, and have been rewarded by Trump and Carr with a series of merger approvals that violate existing media consolidation limits.

The actual process of yanking a broadcast license is also a complicated, difficult, and extremely time consuming affair. Were Carr to actually do this (beyond sending Disney a stern letter to put on a show for the press), you’re talking about potentially years of legal wrangling. A fight Carr would very likely lose, because, again, his entire underpinning argument is baseless and stupid.

Carr doesn’t actually want a legal showdown with deep-pocketed Disney over this turd of a case. They’re just hoping to make life so costly and annoying for ABC/Disney that the company not only fires Kimmel, but thinks twice about supporting any journalist, satirist, or comedian who dares challenge the administration. It’s also a message to other networks that host voices critical of the unpopular president.

This is, if the pathetic U.S. press coverage of this FCC inquiry is any indication, already having an effect. A good chunk of the news reports on this inquiry (see: this Semafor piece) can’t be bothered to be honest about the pathetic, baseless nature of this censorship effort. Many outlets seem dedicated to helping Trump and Carr pretend this is any sort of above-board review. They’re enablers.

Anna Gomez, the FCC’s lone Democratic official (because Republicans refuse to fill the other seat), correctly notes that this whole dumb First Amendment violating gambit will fail:

“This is the most egregious action this FCC has taken in violation of the First
Amendment to date. As part of its ongoing campaign of censorship and control, the
White House called publicly for the silencing of a vocal critic, and this FCC has now
answered that call. This is an unprecedented and politically motivated attempt to
interfere with how broadcasters operate, and this unlawful overreach will fail.”

You know it’s bad when even Ted Cruz is blasting your baseless censorship campaign as stupid:

“It is not government’s job to censor speech, and I do not believe the FCC should operate as the speech police.”

You might recall that the last time Disney capitulated to these dim fascists (temporarily suspending Kimmel because he made some jokes about the deceased right wing social media propagandist Charlie Kirk), it resulted in the company losing millions of streaming video customers and amusement park attendees. Hopefully Disney execs learned their lesson from that experience.

The problem for Trump is that as his health, influence, popularity, and political power wane, he and Carr’s threats will carry less and less weight, even among feckless corporations. They’re just weak men afraid of words, ideas, and comedy, desperately trying to pretend that they have power to permanently stifle jokes. It’s foundationally pathetic and embarrassing, something press coverage should make very clear.

Microsoft did very little to calm the waters in all this speculation. Very little came out from the Xbox team prior to launch, and what did come out was often confusing. What became very obvious, however, was that the lack of clear and direct messaging from Microsoft made a bad situation much worse. The backlash to the requirement rumors was severe and Xbox largely ended up scrapping them.

Fast forward to the present and the internet has exploded the past few days with claims that an update pushed to PlayStation consoles has introduced a 30 day online check in requirement for newly purchased games.

Some PlayStation users have noticed a new online DRM policy for digital games purchased on the PlayStation Store: newly purchased digital games now display a “Valid Period” tag showing a start date, an end date, and a countdown timer. If the console does not connect to the internet within 30 days, the game’s license reportedly expires, and the title becomes unplayable until an online connection is restored.

The story broke over the weekend through Lance McDonald, the well-known modder who managed to patch Bloodborne to run at 60 frames per second. He posted on X: “Hugely terrible DRM has now been rolled out to all PS4 and PS5 digital games. Every digital game you buy now requires an online check-in every 30 days. If you buy a digital game and don’t connect your console to the internet for 30 days, your license will be removed.

We thought about reporting this story as soon as McDonald surfaced it. However, several users also swore they saw nothing of the sort in their libraries, so we waited. Thus far, Sony has not made any official public statement, but a few hours ago, a PlayStation Support assistant confirmed to a user that the 30-day timer is not a bug at all.

That support assistant being referenced is a bot, however, not a human being behind a keyboard. You can see the response it gave in the screenshot below.

That is, at the time of this writing, the most that Sony has said about whatever the hell is going on here. As a result, all kinds of people, big and small within the gaming community, are losing their shit over this new “online DRM requirement” for existing consoles that previously didn’t have it. Oh, and it’s a requirement that Sony mocked Microsoft for trying to require way back in 2013 before the backlash.

The silence is, as they say, deafening. Is this fully intentional? Not all the reporting suggests that at all. Other reports indicate that this is just a bug in the update and this was not intended to be rolled out at all.

Shortly after the issue surfaced, video game preservation site Does it play? weighed in on the matter. It reported hearing from an anonymous insider that the timer was actually just a bug. “From what we gathered, Sony accidentally broke something while fixing an exploit. They’ve known about the confusing UI for a while, but didn’t see it as urgent,” their X post read.

However, many noted that an accidental deployment still implies Sony was testing the concept, since the interface had already been built. Throughout the confusion, Sony has yet to provide an official comment regarding the issue.

That last sentence is the most important one. Hey, Sony: what the actual hell is going on here?

The fact that all of this rumor, speculation, and angst has gone on for at least a couple of days now without a single word being uttered directly from Sony is remarkably stupid. The waters need to be calmed and that’s only going to happen by the company speaking up. Was it a bug? Cool, say so and let’s move on. Is the online requirement DRM now a thing? Much less cool, but at least we’ll know where the company stands (though, then we can start talking about Sony changing its policies on consoles after they are sold).

What can’t happen is this vacuum of information because Sony wants to give the public the silent treatment. That’s just bad business.

Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Pocket Casts, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice — or go straight to the RSS feed.

In this week’s roundup of the latest news in online speech, content moderation and internet regulation, Mike is joined by Jess Miers, law professor at University of Akron School of Law. Together, they discuss:

• AI Chatbots: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
• OpenAI’s Sam Altman apologizes to Canadian community after failing to flag mass shooter’s conversations with its AI chatbot (CNN)
• OpenAI And Sam Altman Could Face Dozens More Lawsuits Over School Shooting In British Columbia, Lawyer Says (Forbes)
• Manitoba premier addresses province’s plan to ban youth from social media, AI chatbots (CTV News)
• Turkey Passes Legislation Barring Children Under 15 From Social Media (NY Times)
• How YouTube Took Over the American Classroom (WSJ)

Support the podcast by joining our Patreon, with special founder membership available until May 28th.

If enacted, the GUARD Act won’t just target a narrow category of risky chatbots. It would require companies to verify the age of every user — then block anyone under 18 from interacting with a huge range of online systems. It would block minors from everyday online tools, undermine parental guidance, and force adults to sacrifice their privacy. In the process, it would require services to implement speech-restricting and privacy-invasive age-verification systems for everyone—not just kids. 

Under the GUARD Act’s broad definitions, a high school student could be barred from asking homework help tools questions about algebra problems. A teenager trying to return a product could be kicked out of a standard customer-service chat. 

The concerns behind this bill are serious. There have been troubling reports of AI systems engaging in harmful interactions with young users, including cases involving self-harm. Those risks deserve attention. But they call for targeted solutions, like better safeguards and enforcement against bad actors, not sweeping restrictions. The bill’s sponsors say they’re targeting worst-case scenarios — but the bill regulates everyday use. 

The GUARD Act’s Broad Definitions Reach Everyday Tools

The problem starts with how the bill defines an “AI chatbot.” It covers any system that generates responses that aren’t fully pre-written by the developer or operator. Such a broad definition sweeps in the basic functionality of all AI-powered tools. 

Then there’s the definition of an “AI companion,” which minors are banned from using entirely. An AI companion is any chatbot that produces human-like responses and is designed to “encourage or facilitate” interpersonal or emotional interaction. That may sound aimed at simulated “friends” or therapy chatbots. But in practice, it’s much fuzzier. 

Modern chatbots are designed to be conversational and helpful. A homework helper might say “good question” before walking a student through a problem. A customer service chatbot may respond empathetically to a complaint (“I’m sorry you’re having this problem.”) A general-purpose assistant might ask follow-up questions. All of these could be seen as facilitating “interpersonal” interaction — and triggering the GUARD Act. 

Faced with steep penalties and unclear boundaries, companies are unlikely to take chances on letting young people use their online tools. They’ll block minors entirely or strip their tools down to something less useful for everyone. The result isn’t a narrow safeguard—it’s a broad restriction on everyday online interactions.

Homework Question? Show ID And Call Your Parents

Start with a student getting help with homework. Under the GUARD Act, the service must verify the user’s age using more than a simple checkbox—it must rely on a “reasonable age verification” measure, which could require a government ID or a third-party age-checking system. If the system decides a user is under 18, the company must decide if its tool qualifies as an “AI Companion.” If there’s any risk it does, the safest move is to block access entirely. 

The same logic applies to everyday customer service. A teenager trying to fix an order issue gets routed to a chatbot, and the company faces a choice: build a full age-verification system for a routine interaction, or restrict access to avoid liability. Many will choose the latter.

This isn’t a narrow restriction aimed at a few risky products. It’s a compliance regime that pushes companies to block or limit any product that generates text for minors, across the board. 

ID Checks for Everyone

The GUARD Act doesn’t just affect minors. The bill takes a big step towards an internet that only works when users are willing to upload a valid ID or comply with other invasive age-verification schemes. Companies must verify the age of every user—not through a simple self-declaration, but through a “reasonable age verification” system tied to the individual. 

In practice, that means collecting sensitive personal information: government IDs, financial data, or biometric identifiers. Companies can outsource verification, but they remain legally responsible. And the law requires ongoing verification, so this isn’t a one-time check. Worse, studies consistently show that millions of people have outdated information on their IDs, such as an old address, or do not have government ID. Should services require ID, many folks without current or any ID will be shut out. 

And for those who do have compliant ID, turning over this information repeatedly creates obvious risks. Databases of sensitive identity information become targets for breaches. Anonymous or pseudonymous use of online tools becomes harder or impossible. 

To keep minors away from certain chatbots, the GUARD Act would require everyone to prove who they are just to use basic online tools. That’s a steep tradeoff. And it doesn’t actually address the specific harms the bill is supposed to solve.

Vague Definitions, Huge Penalties

The GUARD Act’s broad scope is enforced with steep penalties. Companies can face fines of up to $100,000 per violation, enforced by federal and state officials. At the same time, key terms like “AI companion” rely on vague concepts such as “emotional interaction.” That combination will lead to overblocking. Faced with legal uncertainty and serious liability, companies won’t parse small distinctions. They’ll restrict access, limit features, or block minors entirely.

That is the unfortunate result of the GUARD Act, even though the concerns animating it are worthy of fixing. But the GUARD Act’s broad terms will apply far beyond the concerning scenarios. 

In the end, that means a more restricted and more surveilled internet. Teenagers would lose access to tools they rely on for school and everyday tasks. Everyone else faces new barriers, including ID checks. Smaller developers, who aren’t able to absorb compliance costs and legal risk, would be pushed out, leaving the largest companies even more dominant. 

Young people — and all people — deserve protection from genuinely harmful products. But this bill doesn’t do that. It trades away privacy, access, and useful technology in exchange for a blunt system that misses the mark. 

Congress could act soon. Tell them to reject the GUARD Act. 

Republished from the EFF’s Deeplinks blog.