A Setback for Homeless Rights in the United States
On June 28, 2024, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (Grants Pass), its most significant case on homelessness in decades. The decision overturned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s 2018 decision in Martin v. Boise (Martin), which mandated that cities allow unhoused individuals to sleep in public spaces when shelter beds were not available. The decision fails to consider the root causes of homelessness in the United States and exacerbates the already fragmented regulatory landscape governing the vulnerable community of the unhoused.
Continue reading >>
Poverty as a Crime
In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Opinion City of Grants Pass v. Johnson held that the Constitution does not guarantee individual protection against the criminalisation of homelessness. Similarly, in May 2024, the European Court of Human Rights found the case concerning the criminalisation of begging, Dian v. Denmark, inadmissible. Both of these judicial decisions are disputed since the criminalisation of poverty cannot solve the problem of homelessness or begging. Rather, it violates the fundamental dignity of the individual.
Continue reading >>
Online Speech at the US Supreme Court in Moody v. Netchoice
The First Amendment of the US Constitution raises some of the most difficult legal hurdles for regulating the global digital public sphere today. In Moody v. Netchoice, the US Supreme Court heard appeals from two judgments, an appeal from a decision of the Fifth Circuit declaring that Texas’ social media law H.B. 20 did not violate the First Amendment, and an appeal from a decision of the Eleventh Circuit finding Florida’s social media law S.B. 7072, instead, unconstitutional. These laws are similar in that they both attempt to impose must-carry and non-discrimination obligations on social media platforms, which in practice amounts to requiring them not to discriminate against conservative users’ posts. The compatibility of these two laws with the First Amendment cuts across a plethora of crucial issues on the future of social media regulation which the court could, but didn’t fully, address.
Continue reading >>
The Supreme Court v. the Administrative State II
The outlook is not rosy for Democrats, neither politically nor in court. Democrats’ hopes that President Biden – who, according to some polls, is trailing Trump in all seven swing states – could turn the odds in his favor in an early debate have been dashed by his disastrous performance. To add insult to injury, in three 6-to-3 rulings along ideological lines, the Supreme Court further reigned in on administrative agencies, putting Biden’s regulatory agenda at risk. The most far-reaching of these decisions is, undoubtedly, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This case marked a milestone for the conservative legal movement’s fight against the administrative state.
Continue reading >>Rethinking the History & Tradition Approach
In a landmark 8-1 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Rahimi that the federal government has the authority to disarm individuals deemed by courts to be credible threats to their partners or children, consistent with the Second Amendment. This ruling marks a significant shift from the Court's previous stance in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which had established a stringent history and tradition test for evaluating gun regulations that undermined key tenets of the rule of law – clarity, consistency, and predictability.
Continue reading >>Ein König zum Unabhängigkeitstag
Der U.S.-amerikanische Supreme Court hat entschieden, dass offizielle Amtshandlungen von Präsidenten Immunität genießen. Anlass war das Verfahren gegen Donald Trump, der sich wegen seiner Beteiligung am versuchten Aufstand vom 6. Januar 2021 vor einem Gericht verantworten muss. Die Entscheidung ist ein voller Erfolg für Trump und wird nicht nur weitere Strafverfahren beeinflussen, sondern auch über den aktuellen Fall hinaus weitreichende Konsequenzen zeitigen. Der Supreme Court hat den USA in der Woche des 248. Unabhängigkeitstages einen neuen König geschenkt.
Continue reading >>
Elektroautos, „Strafzölle“ und Klimaschutz
Internationale Wirtschaftsbeziehungen stehen selten im Zentrum öffentlicher Berichterstattung. Zwei Entscheidungen in den USA und der EU innerhalb von wenigen Wochen haben indes weitreichende Aufmerksamkeit gefunden. Es geht um die Erhebung von Zusatzzöllen auf Elektroautos aus China. Die Maßnahmen der USA verstoßen gegen das Recht der Welthandelsorganisation (WTO) und sind völkerrechtswidrig; bei den Maßnahmen der EU ist fraglich, ob Klimaschutz durch Verfügbarkeit günstiger Elektroautos hinreichend berücksichtigt wird.
Continue reading >>
Lessons from New York
Von Januar bis Ende Mai war ich als Gastprofessor an der New York University (NYU). Dort habe ich die Studierendenproteste gegen den Gaza-Krieg hautnah miterlebt. Ich habe dabei gesehen, wie wichtig es ist, dass die unterschiedlichen Lager zu Wort kommen und gehört werden. Beides ist derzeit kaum möglich. Dies ist kein klassischer Blogpost, sondern ein persönlicher und natürlich subjektiver Erfahrungsbericht aus meiner Zeit in New York.
Continue reading >>The Abrogation of Asylum
Migration and border control are amongst the most pressing topics throughout the regions in this global super-election year. How to tackle this issue seems to be the million-dollar question and the urgency of this topic seemingly has pushed President Joe Biden – who previously pledged to reverse restrictive migration policies – to drastic measures. After failed attempts to pass a bipartisan immigration deal earlier this year, Biden is now in a race with Republican candidate Donald Trump to show a “tough stand” on the matter while ignoring core refugee law principles and arguably with little lasting effects on numbers of arrivals at the southern border.
Continue reading >>
Untying the Gordian Knot
Much like Alexander the Great’s “untying” of the mythical Gordian Knot in ancient Persia, tracking defamation litigation in this year’s US Presidential election season would appear to not only require formal legal training, but resort to some fairly unconventional tactics. But rather than slicing the metaphorical knot with brute force (as legend has it), this article shines a modest but revealing light on the history and principles of US defamation law to assist foreign jurists with its many technicalities and often perplexing uses.
Continue reading >>
„Mr. President, Does the TikTok ban conform with the Constitution?“
Der US-Kongress hat ein Verbot von TikTok beschlossen, dies im Rahmen von zwei Gesetzen, welche sich – aus Gründen der nationalen Sicherheit und des Datenschutzes – gegen von feindlichen ausländischen Staaten (Foreign Adversary Countries) beherrschten Unternehmungen richten. Damit soll es in den USA nunmehr zwei Standards bei Plattformregulierungen geben: Sehr liberale als Normalfall, und strenge in Zusammenhang mit sog. Foreign Adversary Countries.
Continue reading >>
Bitte keine Störung?
In den USA lässt sich momentan in Echtzeit beobachten, wie Universitäten zu Brennpunkten einer politischen Auseinandersetzung werden, in der es um grundlegende Fragen des demokratischen Zusammenlebens, des Umgangs mit politischen Konflikten und der Notwendigkeit unabhängiger Bildungsinstitutionen und kritischer Wissenschaft geht. Daher ist es ein Gebot intellektueller Aufrichtigkeit und politischer Verantwortung genauer hinzusehen – ein Gebot, dem sich deutsche Medien scheinbar immer weniger verpflichtet fühlen, wenn sie die ideologisch extreme Position reproduzieren, dass propalästinensische Proteste an sich bereits als Bedrohung anzusehen sind und die Repression daher gerechtfertigt sei.
Continue reading >>From Gaza to Manhattan and Back
The real protectors of the universities.
Continue reading >>
The Digital Services Act as a Global Transparency Regime
On both sides of the Atlantic, policymakers are struggling to reign in the power of large online platforms and technology companies. Transparency obligations have emerged as a key policy tool that may support or enable achieving this goal. The core argument of this blog is that the Digital Services Act (DSA) creates, at least in part, a global transparency regime. This has implications for transatlantic dialogues and cooperation on matters concerning platform governance.
Continue reading >>
A2D for Researchers in Digital Platforms
Over the past decade, access to data (A2D) in digital platforms has emerged as a significant challenge within the research community. Researchers seeking to explore data hosted on these platforms encounter growing obstacles. While legal policies in the US have generally focused on establishing safeguards for researchers against the restrictions on access imposed by private ordering, the recent EU Digital Service Act (DSA) introduces a legal framework, which enables researchers to compel platforms to provide data access. These complementary legal strategies may prove instrumental in facilitating A2D for research purposes.
Continue reading >>
A Systemic Approach to Implementing the DSA’s Human-in-the-Loop Requirement
Policymakers and the public are increasingly concerned about a lack of transparency and accountability in content moderation. Opaque and incontestable content moderation decisions have potential impacts on freedom of expression and media freedom, and well-known issues of discrimination and bias. Our focus here is on how Article 20 DSA can and should be interpreted going forward. Specifically, does Article 20 require a human content moderator to review every content moderation decision on request? And should it?
Continue reading >>
Who’s Afraid of Militant Democracy, U.S. Style
Yesterday, Professor Samuel Issacharoff asked “Can it really be that one public official in Maine can remove a national presidential candidate on her say-so?” Professor Issacharoff and I, as well as every proponent of disqualification I know of, agree on a basic point. Right-wing populist authoritarianism cannot be defeated by legal decree. Government by the people cannot be maintained by means other than government by the people. Disqualifying individual candidates who resort to violence when they lose the vote, however, does not raise the difficulties that concern Professor Issacharoff and are consistent with democratic rule.
Continue reading >>
Trump’s Trials for Democracy
It is hard to imagine a stable democracy having to confront the legal challenges presented by Donald Trump’s bid for reelection. Courts have found him to be responsible for sexual assault, defamation and fraud, all in relatively quick succession. Taken together with repeated acts of demagogy and cruelty, the various legal proceedings reinforce the sense that Trump simply does not belong within the bounds of legitimate democratic contestation. But the charges against him thus far are civil claims that have no formal bearing on his bid for office. Nor do they seem to affect public opinion as the polarized electoral environment has little intermediate play that might be swayed by scandal, legal condemnation, or even the sense that enough is enough.
Continue reading >>A Hobgoblin Comes for Internet Regulation
Recent laws in the US, along with the Digital Services Act (DSA), seek to provide “due process” for individual content moderation decisions. Due process, understandably enough, often contains a component of treating like cases alike. It seems to follow, then, that if two relevantly similar users are treated differently, there is a problem of inconsistency, and that problem might be addressed by requiring more “due process” in the forms of appeals and clear rules and explanations of those rules to offenders. But it is said that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. In internet regulation, it is a damaging goal if taken as a mandate to make individual decisions uniformly consistent with each other.
Continue reading >>