Dan Epps

No, I thought it was, as far as these lightning docket type opinions go, I thought it was better than some, for sure. And not wholly unpersuasive. There's some other kind of issues in the case. What about, does Congress have mixed motives here, in part because maybe Congress's motivation was not just to prevent data collection, but was to kind of prevent China from using the algorithm to kind of

Put out propaganda, and I guess that would be considered a bad motivation on Congress's part because that's not content neutral. Maybe the government doesn't have a legitimate interest in preventing foreign misinformation, foreign propaganda, which is the position that Francisco represents.

Put out propaganda, and I guess that would be considered a bad motivation on Congress's part because that's not content neutral. Maybe the government doesn't have a legitimate interest in preventing foreign misinformation, foreign propaganda, which is the position that Francisco represents.

explicitly said or arguments that there's no legitimate interest in preventing foreign propaganda, which is interesting.

explicitly said or arguments that there's no legitimate interest in preventing foreign propaganda, which is interesting.

Yeah. But the court doesn't say that. It just says here, the record before us adequately supports the conclusion that Congress would have passed the challenge provisions based on the data collection justification alone. Yeah. So maybe if it's in a different case where it's... Yeah, that's a different way to think about it. Each one is necessary.

Yeah. But the court doesn't say that. It just says here, the record before us adequately supports the conclusion that Congress would have passed the challenge provisions based on the data collection justification alone. Yeah. So maybe if it's in a different case where it's... Yeah, that's a different way to think about it. Each one is necessary.

Maybe, I mean, it comes out the same way, but we don't have this. You can't cite this for that. Okay. We mentioned a few other things to mention. We mentioned Justice Sotomayor. Mm-hmm. Short opinion. And then longer, I mean, not super long, five pages, but longer opinion by Justice Gorsuch, who doesn't go along. He's the only one who doesn't go along with the majority at all.

Maybe, I mean, it comes out the same way, but we don't have this. You can't cite this for that. Okay. We mentioned a few other things to mention. We mentioned Justice Sotomayor. Mm-hmm. Short opinion. And then longer, I mean, not super long, five pages, but longer opinion by Justice Gorsuch, who doesn't go along. He's the only one who doesn't go along with the majority at all.

I mean, he goes along with the result. Yeah, yeah. I mean, he doesn't join any single word of it. He just concurs in the judgment and writes his own thing. Interestingly, kind of at the outset expresses some reservations about the kind of timing of a decision like this.

I mean, he goes along with the result. Yeah, yeah. I mean, he doesn't join any single word of it. He just concurs in the judgment and writes his own thing. Interestingly, kind of at the outset expresses some reservations about the kind of timing of a decision like this.

We have had a fortnight to resolve finally on the merits of major First Amendment dispute affecting more than 170 million Americans. Given those conditions, I can sketch out only a few and admittedly tentative observations. And he's not wildly critical of the majority, by any means, but expresses some of his own views.

We have had a fortnight to resolve finally on the merits of major First Amendment dispute affecting more than 170 million Americans. Given those conditions, I can sketch out only a few and admittedly tentative observations. And he's not wildly critical of the majority, by any means, but expresses some of his own views.

And so second, I am pleased that the court declines to consider the classified evidence the government has submitted to us. And so it does, as I said, the government had given... In some way, I guess the record had been transmitted in some way, maybe the classified stuff given to us, but shielded from petitioners in their council and note some concerns about that. And that does seem legitimate.

And so second, I am pleased that the court declines to consider the classified evidence the government has submitted to us. And so it does, as I said, the government had given... In some way, I guess the record had been transmitted in some way, maybe the classified stuff given to us, but shielded from petitioners in their council and note some concerns about that. And that does seem legitimate.

Third, this is the interesting where it gets interesting. I harbor serious reservations about whether the law before us is content neutral and thus escapes strict scrutiny.

Third, this is the interesting where it gets interesting. I harbor serious reservations about whether the law before us is content neutral and thus escapes strict scrutiny.

But then he says, while I do not doubt that the various tiers of scrutiny discussed in our case law can help focus our analysis, I worry that litigation over them can sometimes take on a life of its own and do more to obscure than to clarify the ultimate constitutional question. Interesting. So there's this thing people have been saying, post-Bruin or the conservative ideology.

But then he says, while I do not doubt that the various tiers of scrutiny discussed in our case law can help focus our analysis, I worry that litigation over them can sometimes take on a life of its own and do more to obscure than to clarify the ultimate constitutional question. Interesting. So there's this thing people have been saying, post-Bruin or the conservative ideology.

hardcore originalist moving away from tears of scrutiny entirely just as kavanaugh says explicitly in rahimi he's against it yeah yeah and he's not walking away from it totally no but he's saying maybe we should put less emphasis on it since they can be help focus our analysis useful maybe they're useful tools so but also let's not let's not focus on too much yeah a kennedy-esque view on them i think