This newsletter is a roundup of recent developments in artificial intelligence technology and policy including agency activities, legislation, hearings, international developments, other articles of interest, and a list of relevant events. This time we have included a few items related to privacy that may also be of interest
In a new Federalist Society Regulatory Transparency Project podcast, Ashley Baker, director of public policy at the Committee for Justice, and Jennifer Huddleston, research fellow at the Mercatus Center, discuss the implications of the Supreme Court's decision that the warrantless seizure of the cell phone location records violate the Fourth Amendment.
With emerging debates around facial recognition technology, the issue of regulating biometric access technologies has become more prominent. San Fransisco, notably, has banned government use of facial recognition, and states like Illinois and Texas have also begun more agressive regulations on biometrics.
The Committee for Justice joined a group of 71 free-market organizations and activists, lead by Americans for Tax Reform, in opposing Speaker Pelosi's proposal to impose a 95 percent tax on pharmaceutical manufacturers.
The Committee for Justice joined a group of free-market organizations and activists, lead by the American Conservative Union, in supporting the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act, H.R. 2426.
Emanating from another Eastern District of New York prosecution, an octogenarian Mafioso, Vincent Asaro, who may or may not have been involved with the famous Lufthansa heist so epically depicted in Martin Scorsese’s classic Goodfellas, has filed a cert petition with the Supreme Court, requesting it resolve: “Whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments prohibit a federal court from basing a criminal defendant’s sentence on conduct underlying a charge for which the defendant was acquitted by a jury.”
NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), and its progeny held that courts should apply narrow tailoring to violations of the freedom of association. Has that requirement been overruled such that the right to associate privately does not enjoy the strong protective standard that applies to other First Amendment rights, which this Court has held requires narrow tailoring regardless of the level of scrutiny?
The Court should also grant review to revisit the concept of deference and the scope of deference granted to an executive agency. The power to determine the meaning of a law is vested in the judiciary. Judicial deference raises questions of separation of powers – especially where it results in authorizing an agency to formulate law, interpret law, and enforce that law.
Please join the Arlington/Falls Church Young Republicans on Monday, September 16th, at Summers Restaurant in Courthouse. Our guest speaker will be Ashley Baker, policy director at the Committee for Justice. Ashley will discuss the Supreme Court’s last term and offer a preview of the term that begins in October, as well as current topics related to the federal judiciary.