This Day in Legal History: Project Blue Book Ends
On this day in legal history, December 17, 1969, the U.S. Air Force officially terminated Project Blue Book, its two-decade-long investigation into unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Launched in 1952 during a peak in UFO sightings and Cold War anxiety, Project Blue Book reviewed over 12,000 reports of aerial phenomena. The Air Force concluded that most sightings could be explained by natural phenomena, aircraft, or hoaxes, and found no evidence of extraterrestrial activity or threats to national security. With its closure, the government effectively stepped back from public-facing UFO investigations, although some believe military interest continued behind closed doors.
Legally, the end of Project Blue Book catalyzed decades of litigation and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, as citizens, journalists, and researchers sought access to government-held UFO data. The skeptical legal view has often emphasized that classified information typically relates to military technology or surveillance programs, not alien spacecraft. Despite popular culture’s fixation on extraterrestrials, courts have routinely deferred to executive branch claims of national security in resisting full transparency.
While the project’s conclusion did not trigger direct legislation, it helped shape a legal culture around government secrecy, classification standards, and the public’s right to know. It also fueled persistent legal tension between conspiratorial narratives and evidentiary standards. As UFOs—now reframed as “unidentified anomalous phenomena” (UAPs)—have resurfaced in congressional hearings in recent years, Blue Book remains a touchstone for the limits of disclosure and the enduring gap between public curiosity and provable claims.
Skepticism remains warranted: decades later, no clear evidence has emerged to support the claim of extraterrestrial contact—despite tens of thousands of pages released and re-litigated under FOIA.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston expressed openness to again striking down a Trump policy that allows for the rapid deportation of migrants to third countries without meaningful notice or an opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture. The case challenges Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policies that permit deportation to countries other than a migrant’s country of origin, often with as little as six hours’ notice. Judge Murphy had previously issued an injunction in April to halt such deportations, arguing they violated due process, but the Supreme Court paused that order in June via its “shadow docket” without providing detailed reasoning.
Despite acknowledging the likely involvement of the Supreme Court again, Murphy indicated that he may still rule on the merits of the case, though any decision would likely be temporarily stayed. The lawsuit, a class action, targets a DHS memo from March and guidance from July that permits deportations based on “credible” diplomatic assurances. Plaintiffs argue these policies fall short of constitutional protections, while the Justice Department insists migrants already have opportunities to raise objections during proceedings. The judge criticized the lack of clarity from the Supreme Court’s earlier intervention and emphasized the importance of due process in removal proceedings.
US judge open to again striking down Trump policy on third-country deportations | Reuters
A Trump-appointed federal appeals court judge has argued that constitutional rights do not extend to immigrants who entered the United States unlawfully, a position he laid out in a partial dissent in a Second Amendment case. Sixth Circuit Judge Amul Thapar agreed with upholding a federal ban on firearm possession by undocumented immigrants but rejected the majority’s reasoning. Instead, he argued the case should have been resolved by declaring that only U.S. citizens are included in “the people” protected by the Constitution. Thapar relied heavily on the Constitution’s preamble and an originalist reading of history, asserting that the Founders never intended constitutional protections to apply to non-citizens, especially those unlawfully present.
The majority opinion rejected that framing, pointing to Supreme Court precedent recognizing that non-citizens who develop substantial connections to the country may invoke constitutional rights. Thapar went further, suggesting that even the First and Fourth Amendments were not originally meant to protect non-citizens. The case arose from a challenge by a Guatemalan national convicted of unlawfully possessing firearms, but Thapar’s reasoning reached far beyond gun regulation. His dissent echoes arguments long advanced by the Trump administration and aligns with his status as a former Trump Supreme Court shortlist candidate.
From my perspective, this is a racist, xenophobic, and profoundly ahistorical take that threatens to usher in a shameful new era of American jurisprudence. It reflects either a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional law or a wanton, careerist obsequiousness to Trumpism, delivered with the unmistakable tone of someone auditioning for a Supreme Court seat while extolling the flavor of boot. Judge Thapar is an embarrassment to the bench.
Judge Thapar’s theory represents a fundamental shift away from the traditional understanding of constitutional rights as inherent and inalienable—that is, rights present in every individual that the government is bound to respect, not rights it doles out at its discretion. By asserting that non-citizens, especially those here unlawfully, are not part of “the people” and therefore not entitled to constitutional protections, Thapar effectively treats these rights as government-bestowed privileges rather than limits on state power–that should frighten citizens, as well.
But if rights are inherent, as our legal tradition holds, and yet non-citizens don’t possess them, the implication is clear: they are being denied not because of legal status, but because of a presumed inferiority. That’s not a theory of constitutional law—it’s a supremacist framework gussied up in originalist language.
Trump-appointed judge argues US Constitution’s rights do not extend to non-citizens | Reuters
3-D animator Eric Ryder filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in California federal court against Disney and director James Cameron, alleging that the 2022 film Avatar: The Way of Water copied substantial elements from his science fiction story KRZ. Ryder claims he collaborated with Cameron’s Lightstorm Entertainment in the late 1990s on developing a film based on KRZ, and that key features of Avatar 2—including anthropomorphic beings, a vast oceanic world, and an exploitative Earth corporation mining a moon called Europa—mirror those from his work.
Ryder previously sued over the first Avatar film in 2011, but that case was dismissed when a California state court ruled Cameron had created Avatar before Ryder submitted his material. Ryder insists this new case is not an attempt to relitigate the past, but rather to address new alleged acts of copying specific to The Way of Water, such as the central plot point involving an animal-based substance that extends human life, which he says did not appear in the original Avatar.
Ryder is seeking at least $500 million in damages and a court order to block the release of the upcoming Avatar 3: Fire and Ash. His lawyer described the alleged copying as “blatant and egregious.” Disney and Lightstorm have not yet commented publicly on the lawsuit.
Disney, James Cameron sued for copyright infringement over ‘Avatar’ | Reuters
