This Day in Legal History: Dr. Spock Indicted
On this day in legal history, January 5, 1968, a noteworthy moment in the intersection of legal and social history unfolded as Dr. Benjamin Spock, a renowned child psychologist, faced indictment by a federal grand jury. He, along with several others, was charged with conspiring to assist individuals in evading the draft during the Vietnam War. This act was a bold statement against the contentious military draft and the war itself, reflecting the era's intense political and social turmoil.
Dr. Spock, already famous for his influential book on child rearing, became a symbol of anti-war activism. His indictment was not just a legal proceeding but a cultural event, marking a stark confrontation between the U.S. government and war dissenters. The trial that ensued was a high-profile affair, drawing widespread public attention and media coverage.
In the trial, the prosecution argued that Dr. Spock and his co-defendants had willfully conspired to undermine the draft system. Defense attorneys, however, presented their actions as an exercise of free speech and a moral stance against an unjust war. The courtroom became a venue for broader debates on civil liberties, government authority, and individual conscience.
Ultimately, Dr. Spock was convicted, a decision that sent shockwaves across the nation. However, this was not the end of the story. The case ascended to the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals, where a crucial development occurred. In a landmark decision, the appellate court overturned Dr. Spock's conviction. The ruling in United States v. Spock was a significant moment in legal history, underscoring the delicate balance between government authority and individual rights.
The case of Dr. Spock remains a vivid chapter in American legal and social history. It highlights the power of the judicial system to both enforce and check governmental power and reflects the era's profound struggles over war, peace, and freedom of expression. This episode, while rooted in its time, continues to resonate, illustrating the ongoing tensions between civic duty and personal beliefs.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul has proposed an innovative plan to extend paid family leave benefits to include prenatal care, aiming to establish New York as the first state in the nation to offer such a program. Emphasizing the severity of the maternal and infant mortality crisis, Hochul, speaking in New York City, expressed a personal commitment to addressing these issues with supportive policies. This initiative surpasses even progressive states like California in broadening the social safety net, as it would allow New Yorkers to use 40 hours of paid leave for prenatal care, expanding beyond the current short-term disability benefits available only in the final weeks before childbirth.
The funding details for this proposal are expected to be revealed in the upcoming state budget, following Hochul's State of the State address. The plan also includes the elimination of co-pays and out-of-pocket costs for pregnancy-related care in state-controlled insurance plans, and aims to remove referral requirements for doula services.Â
During the announcement, Assemblymember Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams emphasized the potential impact of this expanded support on reducing the disproportionately high mortality rates among infants and minority mothers. Bichotte Hermelyn, highlighting her own experience with maternal loss, voiced strong support for the governor's comprehensive approach to improving maternal health and combating rising infant mortality rates.
Hochul Aims for Nation’s First Paid Prenatal Leave Benefit in NY
New York City has initiated a lawsuit against 17 bus companies for their role in transporting over 33,000 migrants from Texas, a move prompted by Texas Governor Greg Abbott's campaign to send migrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally to Democrat-led cities. Filed in a Manhattan state court, the city is seeking $708 million for costs incurred in providing shelter and services to these migrants over the past two years. Texas itself is not a defendant in this case, but the focus is on the bus companies, primarily based in Texas, which the city alleges earned millions from these transports.
The legal action claims these companies violated a 19th-century New York law that mandates anyone bringing a "needy person" likely to seek government aid to New York from another state to cover their expenses. Additionally, some companies are accused of not complying with a New York City order requiring bus operators to notify the city if they transport 10 or more passengers likely to need emergency shelter.
Governor Abbott started sending buses of migrants to cities like New York in 2022 as a response to what he perceives as inadequate federal action on the high numbers of illegal border crossings. He has been a vocal critic of President Joe Biden's immigration policies and has introduced various measures to discourage illegal migration. In contrast, Abbott defends the busing initiative, asserting the migrants traveled voluntarily and were authorized by the Biden Administration to remain in the U.S.
This lawsuit comes in the wake of the Biden administration's own legal challenge against a new Texas law granting state officials extensive authority to arrest, prosecute, and deport migrants. The conflict underscores the growing tensions between state and federal approaches to immigration and the burden on cities like New York to accommodate an unexpected influx of migrants.
New York City sues bus companies for transporting migrants from Texas | Reuters
SpaceX has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), following accusations by the NLRB that the company illegally terminated employees critical of CEO Elon Musk. The fired employees had sent a letter branding Musk as "a distraction and embarrassment" and accusing him of making sexist remarks. This case, filed in Brownsville, Texas, challenges the NLRB's structure, arguing it violates the U.S. Constitution due to the protected status of board members and administrative judges, who can only be removed for cause, not at will.
The NLRB's complaint against SpaceX concerns the firing of eight workers in 2022 who signed the letter critical of Musk. This case is set to be heard by an administrative judge and a five-member board appointed by the President, with the option to appeal their decisions in federal court.
SpaceX's lawsuit aims to halt the NLRB's proceedings against them. This legal strategy mirrors SpaceX's previous approach in a case involving the U.S. Department of Justice, where the company contested the hiring process for refugees and asylum recipients. In that instance, a federal judge in Brownsville paused the administrative case, citing constitutional concerns over the appointment of administrative judges.
This lawsuit against the NLRB reflects SpaceX's broader legal strategy to challenge administrative procedures and the structure of federal agencies. The NLRB itself is facing a similar challenge in a separate case involving a Starbucks Corp employee contesting the unionization process at her workplace.
SpaceX sues US agency that accused it of firing workers critical of Elon Musk | Reuters
Policy groups are advocating for an exemption to the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, allowing independent hackers to legally circumvent digital security measures to examine artificial intelligence (AI) models for bias and discrimination. This proposal, part of a triennial review by the US Copyright Office, aims to increase transparency and trust in AI technology. It would enable researchers to access the models behind generative AI products from companies like OpenAI Inc., Microsoft Corp., Google, and Meta Platforms, Inc., to test for potential biases.
The proposal, initially put forward by a graduate student, Jonathan Weiss, suggests that such access is crucial for ensuring AI models are free from biases, especially as they are increasingly used in decision-making. The Copyright Office has advanced this proposal along with others for review, with virtual public hearings scheduled in the spring.
Supporters of the exemption, including the Hacking Policy Council and OpenPolicy, argue that it would allow researchers to expose and address biases and other harmful outputs in AI systems, leading to more reliable and fair technology. They stress that without such an exemption, there could be a chilling effect on research due to fear of legal repercussions.
Critics, however, are expected to emerge, particularly from companies that consider their AI models confidential and proprietary. The exemption is seen as different from traditional concepts of fair use, and while it aims to facilitate independent research, it is not intended as a blanket protection for malicious hacking. The discussion around this exemption reflects the evolving relationship between AI development and the need for independent oversight to ensure fairness and reliability in these technologies.
AI Copyright Hacking Exemption Would Boost Trust, Advocates Say
The unsealed ruling from the US International Trade Commission (ITC) reveals why certain Apple Watch models were initially banned from importation. Apple Inc.'s argument that it would face "unquantifiable harm" from the ban was rejected by the ITC due to a lack of evidence. This decision came after the ITC ruled that Apple's smartwatches infringed on patents held by Masimo Corp., a medical-device maker.
Despite Apple's claim, the Commission found no evidence to support the alleged harm Apple would suffer from the import ban, which only affected a portion of one product line. Apple had gained a temporary reprieve from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, allowing the sale of Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 to resume. However, this stay is only until the appeals court decides whether to extend it for the duration of Apple's appeal.
The ITC also noted that while Masimo might suffer some harm from the stay, it wouldn't lose substantial revenue since Masimo is not selling its competing product, the W1 Watch, in significant quantities in the US. Additionally, the Commission dismissed Apple's vague reference to a potential detrimental impact on the healthcare field, finding that the public interest does not support a stay pending appeal.
Apple is pursuing a multi-faceted strategy to overcome the ITC's decision, including redeveloping software for non-infringing versions of its watches and continuing its appeal. The US Customs and Border Protection is considering Apple's case, with a decision possibly impacting sales as soon as January 12. The Federal Circuit has given the ITC until January 10 to respond to Apple's request for a stay during the appeal.
Unsealed Apple Ruling Reveals Why Watch Was Initially Banned
Legal News for Fri 1/5 - NY Prenatal Leave Plan, NYC Lawsuit Against Bus Companies, SpaceX v. NLRB, AI Hacking Copyright Exemptions and the Whys of the Import ban on Apple Watch