Legal News for Tues 5/13 - Trump Ousts Copyright Office Chief After AI Report Critical of Musk Position, Texas Hands $1b to Private Schools and Starves Public Ones, Trump Undercuts Tax Compliance Podcast Por arte de portada

Legal News for Tues 5/13 - Trump Ousts Copyright Office Chief After AI Report Critical of Musk Position, Texas Hands $1b to Private Schools and Starves Public Ones, Trump Undercuts Tax Compliance

Legal News for Tues 5/13 - Trump Ousts Copyright Office Chief After AI Report Critical of Musk Position, Texas Hands $1b to Private Schools and Starves Public Ones, Trump Undercuts Tax Compliance

Escúchala gratis

Ver detalles del espectáculo

Acerca de esta escucha

 This Day in Legal History: Brady v. MarylandOn May 13, 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Brady v. Maryland, fundamentally reshaping criminal procedure and the obligations of prosecutors. The case involved John Brady, who was convicted of murder in Maryland state court. Although he admitted involvement, he claimed he did not commit the actual killing. During the trial, the prosecution withheld a statement from Brady’s co-defendant that supported this claim. After Brady was sentenced to death, his attorneys discovered the statement and appealed, arguing that suppression of such exculpatory evidence violated his constitutional rights.The Supreme Court agreed, holding in a 7–2 decision that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process, regardless of whether the prosecution acted in good faith or bad faith. This principle became known as the Brady Rule, and it remains one of the cornerstones of a fair trial in American criminal justice. The Court emphasized that the goal of a trial is not to win a case but to ensure justice is done.The Brady decision led to a broader understanding of prosecutorial obligations and placed enforceable limits on government discretion. Over time, it has been extended and clarified through subsequent cases, shaping what material must be disclosed and when. Still, Brady violations continue to arise in courts, often forming the basis for appeals or post-conviction relief. The ruling reflects a deep constitutional commitment to due process and underscores the state’s duty to act not only as an advocate but also as a guardian of fairness.President Donald Trump abruptly fired Shira Perlmutter, the Register of Copyrights, on May 10, 2025, just two days after also dismissing Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden, who had appointed Perlmutter in 2020. The U.S. Copyright Office confirmed the termination via a statement, noting that Perlmutter received an email from the White House informing her that her role was ended “effective immediately.” The administration has not publicly explained the firing, and Perlmutter has not commented.The move came shortly after the Copyright Office released a report addressing how generative AI models interact with copyright law. The report urged caution on government intervention and emphasized the importance of voluntary licensing systems. It drew a line between research-related uses of AI, which are unlikely to harm copyright holders, and commercial uses that replicate copyrighted content, especially when done through unauthorized access—arguing the latter may exceed fair use.Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) condemned the dismissal, calling it an "unprecedented power grab" and linking it to Perlmutter’s refusal to support Elon Musk’s push to use copyrighted material for AI training. The timing of her removal, coming one day after the report’s release, has intensified speculation about political motives behind the firing.Trump Terminates US Copyright Office Director in New Shakeup (1)Everything is bigger in Texas, including policy failures. The latest—an expensive exercise in public policy theater that trades taxpayer dollars for ideological victory laps. With Governor Greg Abbott poised to sign Senate Bill 2 into law, Texas is now on track to funnel $1 billion away from public education and into private schools, starting in the 2026-27 school year. And make no mistake: this isn’t about "school choice"—it’s about abandoning public schools under the rhetorical cover of parental empowerment.Supporters say it’s about letting families choose the education that “fits their child’s path,” but the real fit here is between a regressive policy and a Republican donor wishlist. Up to 20% of the funds will be available to families earning over $160,000—so yes, the state is subsidizing private tuition for households that already have the means. Meanwhile, the public schools left behind are told to make do with less.Texas already ranks 38th in the nation in per-student funding, and public schools are still reeling from the $7.6 billion lawmakers withheld last session to hold them hostage for this very proposal. Districts have been cutting staff, closing campuses, and hiring uncertified teachers to stay afloat. Now they’re being told they can have their crumbs—so long as a chunk of the loaf goes to private institutions that aren’t accountable to the same standards, can't be compelled to admit students, and won’t have to administer the same state tests used to judge public schools.This is a policy that spends public money without public accountability. It privileges private choice over public obligation. And it’s being sold with the same warmed-over talking points that ignore what the data keeps telling us: vouchers don’t reliably improve academic outcomes, especially not for the low-income students lawmakers claim to be championing.But the most ...
adbl_web_global_use_to_activate_T1_webcro805_stickypopup
Todavía no hay opiniones