Bernard Law Office

Get in touch

480-227-4984

info@bernardlawaz.com

Bernard Law Blog

AZ Supreme Court Ruled Enhanced Sentencing Unconstitutional for Gang Ties

By site-R4BE-w • September 15, 2020

Sentence Enhancement Violates Due Process

Az County Prosecutor to dismiss Marijuana cases

By Gill • September 1, 2020

New Policy on Marijuana Cases

AZ Supreme Court Ruled Enhanced Sentencing Unconstitutional for Gang Ties

By site-R4BE-w • September 15, 2020

Sentence Enhancement Violates Due Process

Az County Prosecutor to dismiss Marijuana cases

By Gill • September 1, 2020

New Policy on Marijuana Cases

News

Trump’s Latest ‘Con’ Is Designed To Turn The Public Against Lawyers

How long will lawyers allow Trump to use them as his 'punching bag'? The post Trump’s Latest ‘Con’ Is Designed To Turn The Public Against Lawyers appeared first on Above the Law.

Pour One Out For Judge Boasberg. He Got The Signalgate Case.

Dumb f'kn luck! The post Pour One Out For Judge Boasberg. He Got The Signalgate Case. appeared first on Above the Law.

Are Associates Going To Go On Strike Over Biglaw’s Cowardice?

If Biglaw won't stand up for the rule of law, who will? The post Are Associates Going To Go On Strike Over Biglaw’s Cowardice? appeared first on Above the Law.

Can The IRS Legally Disclose Taxpayer Information To DHS To Deport Undocumented Aliens?

President Trump has taken unprecedented steps using every federal resource to combat illegal immigration. The post Can The IRS Legally Disclose Taxpayer Information To DHS To Deport Undocumented Aliens? appeared first on Above the Law.

Over 50 Bar Organizations Stand Up For The Rule Of Law

Bowing for none beside the rule of law! The post Over 50 Bar Organizations Stand Up For The Rule Of Law appeared first on Above the Law.

Elite Biglaw Firm Will No Longer Participate In Law School On-Campus Interview Programs

How will this affect law students? And how many other Biglaw firms will reject OCI? The post Elite Biglaw Firm Will No Longer Participate In Law School On-Campus Interview Programs appeared first on Above the Law.

Republicans Want To Eliminate Federal Courts Because They’re Checking And Balancing Donald Trump

The GOP's takeover of all aspects of American government reaches a new low. The post Republicans Want To Eliminate Federal Courts Because They’re Checking And Balancing Donald Trump appeared first on Above the Law.

Anne Wojcicki Had A Fully Financed Plan To Take 23andMe Private. Then It Fell Apart.

A month before 23andMe’s bankruptcy filing, CEO Anne Wojcicki had a fully financed proposal to take the genetic testing company private. The financing fell apart, and a series of alternative proposals by Wojcicki did not result in a deal. The post Anne Wojcicki Had A Fully Financed Plan To Take 23andMe Private. Then It Fell Apart. appeared first on Above the Law.

Morning Docket: 03.26.25

* AI bias harder to fight after latest Trump action. [Bloomberg Law News] * "Florida debates lifting some child labor laws to fill jobs vacated by undocumented immigrants" in case you were wondering where we were on the dystopian hellscape chart. [CNN] * Law school out of compliance. [ABA Journal] * Mike Johnson floats eliminating whole district courts if they don't rule his way. [Reuters] * Delaware corporate law changes move a step closer. [Delaware Business Court Insider] * Judge skeptical of Trump orders. No kidding. [Law360] The post Morning Docket: 03.26.25 appeared first on Above the Law.

Elon Musk Sets His Sights On Skadden — See Also

Announcing Battle By Tweet: Biglaw firm in the hot seat for challenging conspiracy laden Dinesh D’Souza film. Jenner & Block Joins The Trump Hit List: Let's see how they respond! Due Process So Bad That Godwin's Law Showed Up: D.C. Circuit judge says that Nazis had better due process than Venezuelan nationals. American Constitutional Society Calls Out Law School Deans: Who will be the next to speak up? Time Flushes Out The Nonsense: And this Paul Weiss interview aged horribly. The post Elon Musk Sets His Sights On Skadden — See Also appeared first on Above the Law.

Supreme Court upholds regulation on "ghost guns”

ShareThe Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Biden-era rule regulating so-called “ghost guns” – untraceable weapons without serial numbers, assembled from components or kits that can be bought online. By a vote of 7-2, the justices held that the Gun Control Act of 1968 allows the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to regulate at least some ghost guns, although they left open the possibility that the rule might not apply in individual challenges to particular ghost guns. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s decision, complaining that it had agreed to “rewrite statutory text.” Justice Samuel Alito wrote his own dissent in which he contended that his colleagues had resolved the dispute based on an issue that the lower court had not reached and the parties had not really addressed. The ATF adopted the rule in 2022 to address what it characterizes as an “exponential” increase in ghost guns. The Gun Control Act

The morning read for Wednesday, March 26

ShareFollowing opinion announcements, the Supreme Court will hear arguments this morning in FCC v. Consumers’ Research, a challenge to a FCC program that subsidizes telephone and internet services to schools, libraries, and underserved areas. The case has the potential to significantly curtail the power of federal agencies as challengers are also inviting the justices to revive the nondelegation doctrine, a legal theory conservative lawyers and business groups have been urging the court in recent years to bring back. The court last used the nondelegation doctrine in 1935. Listen to arguments live just after 10 a.m. EDT. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Wednesday morning read: Supreme Court declines appeal from youths seeking to force action on climate crisis (John Fritze, CNN) A Landmark Lawsuit, Where Kids Sued America, Comes to an End (Karen Zraick, The New York Times) A new Supreme Court case

Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, March 26

ShareOn Wednesday, March 26, we will be live blogging as the court releases opinions in one or more argued cases from the current term. Click here for a list of FAQs about opinion announcements. The post Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, March 26 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Supreme Court to hear "nondelegation” challenge to telecom access program

ShareThe Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in a major challenge to the federal “E-rate program,” which subsidizes telephone and high-speed internet services in schools, libraries, rural areas, and low-income communities in urban areas. The stakes are high, not only because of the program’s size but also because the theory at the center of the challengers’ case, known as the nondelegation doctrine, is one that conservative lawyers and business groups have been urging the justices in recent years to revive. If the justices accept that invitation, it could be another step in the court’s recent efforts to curtail the power of federal agencies. The subsidy program is the latest chapter in Congress’s efforts to provide access to the same kinds of telephone (and later internet) services at roughly the same rates to all U.S. residents and businesses. Until the late 20th century, this universal service was funded through implicit subsidies

The morning read for Tuesday, March 25

ShareThe justices this morning will hear two disputes on which federal courts should handle lawsuits over the Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC and Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency. Listen live at 10 a.m. EDT. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Tuesday morning read: Supreme Court to mull jurisdiction for Clean Air Act disputes (Marc Heller, E&E News) Resurrected Consumer Group Leads Next Attack on Regulators (Lydia Wheeler, Bloomberg Law) Supreme Court confronts another challenge to the Voting Rights Act (Nina Totenberg, NPR) A new Supreme Court case seeks to revive one of the most dangerous ideas from the Great Depression (Ian Millhiser, Vox) Law in Mahmoud Khalil’s Case Was Once Struck Down — by Trump’s Sister (Adam Liptak, The New York Times) Coming up: On Wednesday, March 26, the court expects to issue one or more opin

Trump asks justices to block ruling on rehiring federal employees

ShareThe Trump administration came to the Supreme Court on Monday morning, asking the justices to pause an order by a federal judge in San Francisco that would require the federal government to immediately reinstate more than 16,000 probationary employees who were fired from six agencies in February. The ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge William Alsup, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the justices, lets third parties hijack the employment relationship between the federal government and its workforce.” Harris also asked the court to quickly impose an administrative stay, a temporary freeze of the district court’s order while the justices consider the government’s request. The lawsuit was brought by nonprofit groups that contend that layoffs could lead to fewer government services, affecting their members. On March 14, Alsup issued a preliminary injunction that requires six departments in the federal government – Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agri

Alito and Gorsuch call for court to reconsider confrontation clause precedent

ShareThe Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause gives defendants in criminal cases the right to “be confronted with the witnesses against” them. The Supreme Court on Monday morning declined to decide when a statement that is made out of court to an agency responsible for making bail recommendations is the kind of “testimonial” statement to which the Sixth Amendment applies. However, two justices – Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch – suggested that the court may need to reconsider its cases under the confrontation clause more broadly. The court’s order denying review in Franklin v. New York was part of a list of orders released on Monday morning from the justices’ private conference on March 21. The justices did not add any new cases to their docket for the 2025-26 term. Cid Franklin was arrested in New York and then questioned (without a lawyer) by a publicly funded agency that makes bail recommendations to the judges who arraign defen

Court weighs Louisiana redistricting with second majority-Black district

ShareIt was not clear at oral arguments on Monday how the Supreme Court will rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s latest redistricting plan. The state and a group of Black voters ask the justices to reinstate a congressional map, enacted by the Louisiana legislature last year, that created a second majority-Black district. A federal court threw the map out, agreeing with a group of voters who describe themselves as “non-African American” that the new map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander — that is, it sorted voters primarily based on race. Several of the court’s conservative justices expressed skepticism about the map and about whether the 2022 ruling on which Louisiana relied to justify the creation of a second majority-Black district in the state was actually correct, but it was unclear whether those concerns would be enough to uphold the lower court’s ruling. The court’s ruling, which is expected by late June or early July, could hav

The morning read for Monday, March 24

ShareThe Supreme Court’s March session will begin this morning with oral arguments in voting rights case Louisiana v. Callais. The justices will then hear Riley v. Bondi, a dispute over the 30-day deadline to seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ruling denying withholding of deportation. Listen live at 10 a.m. EDT. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Monday morning read: Supreme Court hears Louisiana racial gerrymandering claim (Lawrence Hurley, NBC News) US Supreme Court to turns away casino mogul Wynn’s bid to challenge NY Times v. Sullivan defamation rule (John Kruzel, Reuters) Louisiana is ‘tired’ of fighting over its congressional maps. The Supreme Court will review its districts anyway. (John Fritze, CNN) Trump, Roberts on collision course as lawsuits creep toward Supreme Court (Zach Schonfeld, The Hill) The Supreme Court Must Rescue Itself From Its Own Madness (Si

"We’re not there to provide entertainment. We’re there to decide cases,” Roberts sternly declared. Or did he? — ChatGPT and the Supreme Court, two years later

Share Just over two years ago, following the launch of ChatGPT, SCOTUSblog decided to test how accurate the much-hyped AI really was — at least when it came to Supreme Court-related questions. The conclusion? Its performance was “uninspiring”: precise, accurate, and at times surprisingly human-like text appeared alongside errors and outright fabricated facts. Of the 50 questions posed, the AI answered only 21 correctly. Now, more than two years later, as ever more advanced models continue to emerge, I’ve revisited the issue to see if anything has changed. Successes secured, lessons learned ChatGPT has not lost its knowledge. It still got right that the Supreme Court originally had only six seats (Question #32) and explained accurately what a “relisted” petition is (Question #43). Many of its responses have become more nuanced, incorporating crucial details that were missing in 2023. For example, when asked about the counter-majoritarian difficulty,

Free Consultation

Sound legal advice is based on years of experience, hard work, and passion, as well as familiarity with legal precedent and sound consideration. You’ll find all that and more at Bernard Law Office.

Contact info

3101 N. Central Ave., Suite 820

602-899-7771

info@bernardlawaz.com

Share by: