The Supreme Court appears poised to deliver a contradictory message to the American people: Some independent agencies deserve protection from presidential whim, while others do not. The logic is troubling, the implications profound and the damage to our civil service system could be irreparable.

In December, during oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, the court’s conservative majority signaled it would likely overturn or severely weaken Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 90-year-old precedent protecting independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission from at-will presidential removal. Chief Justice John Roberts dismissed Humphrey’s Executor as “just a dried husk,” suggesting the FTC’s powers justify unlimited presidential control. Yet just weeks later, during arguments in Trump v. Cook, those same justices expressed grave concerns about protecting the “independence” of the Federal Reserve, calling it “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity” deserving special constitutional consideration.

The message is clear: Wall Street’s interests warrant protection, but the rights of federal workers do not.

The MSPB: Guardian of civil service protections

This double standard becomes even more glaring when we consider Harris v. Bessent, where the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in December 2025 that President Donald Trump could lawfully remove Merit Systems Protection Board Chairwoman Cathy Harris without cause. The MSPB is not some obscure bureaucratic backwater — it is the cornerstone of our merit-based civil service system, the institution that stands between federal workers and a return to the spoils system that once plagued American government with cronyism, inefficiency and partisan pay-to-play services.

The MSPB hears appeals from federal employees facing adverse actions including terminations, demotions and suspensions. It adjudicates claims of whistleblower retaliation, prohibited personnel practices and discrimination. In my and Harris’ tenure alone, the MSPB resolved thousands of cases protecting federal workers from arbitrary and unlawful treatment. In fact, we eliminated the nearly 4,000 backlogged appeals from the prior Trump administration due to a five-year lack of quorum. These are not abstract policy debates — these are cases about whether career professionals can be fired for refusing to break the law, for reporting waste and fraud or simply for holding the “wrong” political views.

The MSPB’s quasi-judicial function is precisely what Humphrey’s Executor was designed to protect. This is what Congress intended to follow in 1978 when it created the MSPB in order to strengthen the civil service workforce from the government weaponization under the Nixon administration. The 1935 Supreme Court recognized that certain agencies must be insulated from political pressure to function properly — agencies that adjudicate disputes, that apply law to fact, that require expertise and impartiality rather than ideological alignment with whoever currently occupies the White House. Why would today’s Supreme Court throw out that noble and constitutionally oriented mandate?

A specious distinction

The Supreme Court’s apparent willingness to treat the Federal Reserve as “special” while abandoning agencies like the MSPB rests on a distinction without a meaningful constitutional difference. Yes, the Federal Reserve sets monetary policy with profound economic consequences. But the MSPB’s work is no less vital to the functioning of our democracy.

Consider what happens when the MSPB loses its independence. Federal employees adjudicating veterans’ benefits claims, processing Social Security applications, inspecting food safety or enforcing environmental protections suddenly serve at the pleasure of the president. Career experts can be replaced by political loyalists. Decisions that should be based on law and evidence become subject to political calculation. The entire civil service — the apparatus that delivers services to millions of Americans — becomes a partisan weapon to be wielded by whichever party controls the White House.

This is not hypothetical. We have seen this movie before. The spoils system of the 19th century produced rampant corruption, incompetence and the wholesale replacement of experienced government workers after each election. The Pendleton Act of 1883 and subsequent civil service reforms were not partisan projects — they were recognition that effective governance requires a professional, merit-based workforce insulated from political pressure.

The real stakes

The Supreme Court’s willingness to carve out special protection for the Federal Reserve while abandoning the MSPB reveals a troubling hierarchy of values. Financial markets deserve stability and independence, but should the American public tolerate receiving partisan-based government services and protections?

Protecting the civil service is not some narrow special interest. It affects every American who depends on government services. It determines whether the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspectors can enforce workplace safety rules without fear of being fired for citing politically connected companies. Whether Environmental Protection Agency scientists can publish findings inconvenient to the administration. Whether veterans’ benefits claims are decided on merit rather than political favor. Whether independent and oversight federal organizations can investigate law enforcement shootings in Minnesota without political interference.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, during the Cook arguments, warned that allowing presidents to easily fire Federal Reserve governors based on “trivial or inconsequential or old allegations difficult to disprove” would “weaken if not shatter” the Fed’s independence. He’s right. But that logic applies with equal force to the MSPB. If presidents can fire MSPB members at will, they can install loyalists who will rubber-stamp politically motivated personnel actions, creating a chilling effect throughout the civil service.

What’s next

The Supreme Court has an opportunity to apply its principles consistently. If the Federal Reserve deserves independence to insulate monetary policy from short-term political pressure, then the MSPB deserves independence to insulate personnel decisions from political retaliation. If “for cause” removal protections serve an important constitutional function for financial regulators, they serve an equally important function for the guardians of civil service protections.

The court should reject the false distinction between agencies that protect Wall Street and agencies that protect workers. Both serve vital public functions. Both require independence to function properly. Both should be subject to the same constitutional analysis.

More fundamentally, the court must recognize that its removal cases are not merely abstract exercises in constitutional theory. They determine whether we will have a professional civil service or return to a patronage system. Whether government will be staffed by experts or political operatives. Whether the rule of law or the whim of the president will govern federal employment decisions.

A strong civil service is just as important to American democracy as an independent Federal Reserve. Both protect against the concentration of power. Both ensure that critical governmental functions are performed with expertise and integrity rather than political calculation. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence should reflect that basic truth, not create an arbitrary hierarchy that privileges financial interests over the rights of workers and the integrity of government.

The court will issue its decisions over the next several months and when it does, it should remember that protecting democratic institutions is not a selective enterprise. The rule of law requires principles, not preferences. Because in the end, a government run on political loyalty instead of merit is far more dangerous than a fluctuating interest rate.

Raymond Limon retired after more than 30 years of federal service in 2025. He served in leadership roles at the Office of Personnel Management and the State Department and was the vice chairman of the Merit Systems Protections Board. He is now founder of Merit Services Advocates.

The post The Supreme Court’s dangerous double standard on independent agencies first appeared on Federal News Network.

© AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

A federal judge revealed a previously undisclosed ~$800 million, six-year partnership between Epic Games and Google tied to Unreal Engine services and joint marketing. It raises questions about whether the deal influenced Epic's willingness to settle its antitrust case over Android. The Verge reports: [California District Judge James Donato] allowed Epic and Google to keep most of the details of the plan under wraps. But during the hearing, he quizzed witnesses, including Epic CEO Tim Sweeney and economics expert Doug Bernheim, on how it might impact settlement talks -- revealing some hints in the process. "You're going to be helping Google market Android, and they're going to be helping you market Fortnite; that deal doesn't exist today, right?" Donato asked Bernheim, who answered in the affirmative. He also described it as a "new business between Epic and Google." Sweeney's testimony cracked the mystery a little further. He referred to the agreement as relating to the "metaverse," a term Sweeney has used to refer to Epic's game Fortnite. "Epic's technology is used by many companies in the space Google is operating in to train their products, so the ability for Google to use the Unreal Engine more fullsome... sorry, I'm blowing this confidentiality," Sweeney said. Donato then offered a hard dollar figure on one part of the deal: "An $800 million spend over six years, that's a pretty healthy partnership," he said. We soon learned that refers to Epic spending $800 million to purchase some sort of services from Google: "Every year we've decided against Google, in this year we're deciding to use Google at market rates," he said. Sweeney did throw cold water on the idea that Epic and Google are jointly building a single new product together, though. "This is Google and Epic each separately building product lines," he clarified, when Judge Donato asked what the term sheet referred to with the line "Google and Epic will work together." Donato seemed potentially leery of the partnership, asking Bernheim whether it could constitute a "quid pro quo" that reduced Epic's incentive to push for terms that would benefit other developers. Currently, Epic is backing a settlement that would see Google reduce its standard app store fees worldwide and allow alternative app stores to register for easy installation on Android. Sweeney disputed the notion that Epic might be getting paid off to soften its terms, when it's the one paying out. "I don't see anything crooked about Epic paying Google off to encourage much more robust competition than they've allowed in the past," he said. "We view this as a significant transfer of value from Epic to Google." He also says the Epic Games Store won't get any special treatment from Android in the future under this deal. It appears that the settlement arrangement is tied to the business deal. Judge Donato suggested that Epic and Google would only make the deal if the settlement goes through. Sweeney says the specific terms of the deal have not yet been reached, but admitted that he expects them to. He told Judge Donato that yes, he considers the settlement and deal "an important part of Epic's growth plan for the future."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Snap has settled a social media addiction lawsuit just days before trial, while Meta, TikTok, and Alphabet remain defendants and are headed to court. "Terms of the deal were not announced as it was revealed by lawyers at a California Superior Court hearing, after which Snap told the BBC the parties were 'pleased to have been able to resolve this matter in an amicable manner.'" From the report: The plaintiff, a 19-year old woman identified by the initials K.G.M., alleged that the algorithmic design of the platforms left her addicted and affected her mental health. In the absence of a settlement with the other parties, the trial is scheduled to go forward against the remaining three defendants, with jury selection due to begin on January 27. Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify, and until Tuesday's settlement, Snap CEO Evan Spiegel was also set to take the stand. Snap is still a defendant in other social media addiction cases that have been consolidated in the court. The closely watched cases could challenge a legal theory that social media companies have used to shield themselves. They have long argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects them from liability for what third parties post on their platforms. But plaintiffs argue that the platforms are designed in a way that leaves users addicted through choices that affect their algorithms and notifications. The social media companies have said the plaintiffs' evidence falls short of proving that they are responsible for alleged harms such as depression and eating disorders.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The cryptocurrency market has shown choppy and uneven momentum in the past week. Bitcoin’s price recently climbed to an eight-week high above $97,000, but it has since retraced to trade around the low $90,000s.

Dogecoin’s movement has mirrored this mixed mood. A brief rally lifted it close to resistance around $0.15 last week, but the meme coin has since slid back below $0.13, weighed down by profit-taking among investors.

Against this backdrop of consolidation and short-term corrections, technical analysis shared recently by a crypto analyst on X highlighted a setup in the BTC/DOGE cross-pair chart that shows Dogecoin is going to outperform Bitcoin if current technical patterns play out as expected.

BTC vs DOGE: What the Technicals Suggest

Technical analysis of the BTCUSDT/DOGEUSDT chart shows the two crypto heavyweights trading in an ascending channel that has repeatedly tested its upper boundary without a convincing breakout, a sign that the uptrend may be weakening. In technical trading frameworks, failure to sustain momentum at resistance often precedes a reversal. 

In this case, the declining slope of recent attempts to push higher in the BTC/DOGE ratio indicates that Bitcoin may be losing relative strength to Dogecoin in the short term. As it stands, the BTC/DOGE pair looks like it is now rejecting at the upper boundary of this ascending channel, and the next move is a push downwards.

This interpretation of the ratio doesn’t comment on the absolute price of both cryptocurrencies but only the performance comparison of the two assets. If the ratio breaks down below the channel’s lower trendline, then it could be interpreted as a signal that Dogecoin is gaining relative performance against Bitcoin, and this could cause crypto traders to reallocate capital into the relatively stronger asset.

What Dogecoin Outperforming Bitcoin Might Look Like

Bitcoin’s price action over the past several days has been defined by volatility around the mid-$90,000 level. Easing inflation fears and the United States Supreme Court declining to rule on international trade tariffs helped lift BTC close to $97,000 last week. However, the leading cryptocurrency is now back to trading around $93,030 at the time of writing.

Meanwhile, Dogecoin’s trajectory has matched Bitcoin’s price action and the wider crypto market trend. DOGE faced rejection following spikes to resistance around $0.15, which prompted a slide back to $0.127, just below the $0.13 price level that has acted as a support in recent months.

If the technical prediction on the BTC/DOGE ratio unfolds as anticipated, the outperformance by Dogecoin against Bitcoin could play out in many ways. The outperformance could appear not necessarily as DOGE exploding upward in isolation, but also as DOGE holding stronger or falling less than Bitcoin during corrections.

A British painter who argued that her ex-husband had signed over their $2 million north London home through WhatsApp messages has lost her High Court appeal after the judge ruled that the sender's name appearing in a chat header does not constitute a legal signature. Hsiao-mei Lin, 54, presented messages from her former husband Audun Mar Gudmundsson, a financier, in which he stated he would transfer his share of their Tufnell Park property to her. Lin's lawyers argued that because Gudmundsson's name appeared in the message header on her phone, the messages should be considered signed. Mr Justice Cawson disagreed, finding that the header identifying a sender is analogous to an email address added by a service provider -- a mechanism for identification rather than part of the message itself. The judge also found the content of the messages did not actually amount to Gudmundsson relinquishing his share.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Nicholas Moore, a 24-year-old Tennessee man, pleaded guilty to using stolen credentials of authorized users to hack into computer systems of the Supreme Court, VA, and AmeriCorps, obtaining sensitive information and then posting it online to his Instagram account.

The post Hacker Pleads Guilty to Access Supreme Court, AmeriCorps, VA Systems appeared first on Security Boulevard.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Monsanto's argument that federal pesticide law should shield it and parent company Bayer from tens of thousands of state lawsuits over Roundup since the Environmental Protection Agency has not required a cancer warning label. The case could determine whether federal rules preempt state failure-to-warn claims without deciding whether glyphosate causes cancer. The Los Angeles Times reports: Some studies have found it is a likely carcinogen, and others concluded it does not pose a true cancer risk for humans. However, the court may free Monsanto and Bayer, its parent company, from legal claims from more than 100,000 plaintiffs who sued over their cancer diagnosis. The legal dispute involves whether the federal regulatory laws shield the company from being sued under state law for failing to warn consumers. [...] "EPA has repeatedly determined that glyphosate, the world's most widely used herbicide, does not cause cancer. EPA has consistently reached that conclusion after studying the extensive body of science on glyphosate for over five decades," the company told the court in its appeal. They said the EPA not only refused to add a cancer warning label to products with Roundup, but said it would be "misbranded" with such a warning. Nonetheless, the "premise of this lawsuit, and the thousands like it, is that Missouri law requires Monsanto to include the precise warning that EPA rejects," they said. On Friday, the court said in a brief order that it would decide "whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning." The court is likely to hear arguments in the case of Monsanto vs. Durnell in April and issue a ruling by late June.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Nicholas Moore pleaded guilty to stealing victims’ information from the Supreme Court and other federal government agencies, and then posting it on his Instagram @ihackthegovernment.

A 24-year-old from Tennessee is expected to admit to accessing the Supreme Court’s electronic filing system without authorization dozens of times throughout 2023.

A former Expedia Group employee who amassed 20 terabytes of illicit footage of women by hiding spy cameras throughout the company’s headquarters — including bathrooms — was sentenced to four years in prison Friday in King County Superior Court in Seattle. 

Marcelo Vargas-Fernandez, 44, pleaded guilty in December to 14 counts of first-degree voyeurism and two counts of violating a sexual assault protection order for contacting one of the victims in October 2025 in an attempt to convince her not to testify.

Before handing down the sentence, Superior Court Judge Janet Helson heard statements read on behalf of several victims, identified in court only by their initials, who described the lasting trauma and “shattered” sense of security caused by the invasion of their privacy.

“I will wonder for the rest of my life whether there is more footage of me somewhere,” said one of the victims in her statement. “The constant question, ‘am I being watched?’ is exhausting.”

Gary Ernsdorff, senior deputy prosecuting attorney, described the scope of the case as “staggering,” noting that investigators identified nearly 60 potential victims in the 20 terabytes of data seized from Vargas-Fernandez. Ernsdorff told the court that the defendant meticulously organized the illicit footage by name, description, and activity.

“We could spend, frankly, a career going through the evidence and parsing out and trying to identify more victims,” Ernsdorff said.

In addition to bathrooms, prosecutors said in court Friday that cameras were also found mounted under desks to record people sitting in chairs, hidden inside the door and dashboard of his vehicle to record passengers, and even installed inside the bathroom and living room of one victim’s private apartment.

Vargas-Fernandez sat in red prison garb, his hands clasped on a piece of paper on the table, at one point removing his glasses to wipe his eyes as one statement was read.

Later, addressing the court, Vargas-Fernandez apologized to the victims, his family, and his former employer, admitting that he “failed trust” and created “pain and fear.” He told the judge he should have asked for help to deal with depression and personal issues.

“This is my fault,” he added.

His attorney, Court Will, emphasized Vargas-Fernandez’s efforts toward rehabilitation over the past two years, noting that he has completed a psychosexual evaluation, attended weekly sex offender treatment, and installed accountability software on his devices.

“He’s not before the court to make any excuses whatsoever,” Will said. 

In addition to the prison term, Judge Helson sentenced Vargas-Fernandez to up to 36 months of community custody and issued no-contact orders to protect the victims.

“These are not victimless crimes,” Judge Helson told him. “These are crimes with real victims who experience serious consequences in their lives.” 

Expedia Group temporarily closed its Seattle headquarters for three days following the discovery to conduct security sweeps but found no additional devices at that time.

Class-action lawsuits have been filed over the case, including one against both Expedia Group and its security contractor, Securitas. The suits allege negligence, claiming that the security team failed to act on the initial report of hidden cameras in December 2023, allowing the recording to continue for weeks before police were finally notified in January.

“Expedia is committed to protecting the privacy, safety, and security of our employees and guests across all offices,” an Expedia spokesperson said in a statement today. “We fully cooperated with law enforcement throughout this investigation and are pleased that our support contributed to holding the individual accountable.”

The investigation by Seattle police began after hidden cameras were discovered under the sinks of single-occupancy, gender-neutral bathrooms at the company’s campus on the Seattle waterfront. According to court records, an employee first spotted a recording device taped under a sink on Dec. 4, 2023, and reported it to onsite security. However, the devices were not immediately identified as cameras or turned over to police at that time.

The cameras reappeared weeks later.  On Jan. 11, 2024, an employee discovered the devices again and alerted security, who then contacted Seattle police. Witnesses reported seeing Vargas-Fernandez acting suspiciously in the area while the restrooms were closed.

Following his identification as a suspect, Seattle police executed a search warrant at Vargas-Fernandez’s home in Lynnwood on Feb. 1, 2024. An electronics sniffing dog was used to sweep the apartment. The search recovered substantial evidence, including at least 33 spy cameras, 22 SD cards, and six hard drives.

Ernsdorff, the prosecuting attorney, said in court that investigators found no evidence the footage was uploaded or shared online, despite finding evidence that Vargas-Fernandez had visited websites featuring similar illicit content. However, he acknowledged that victims may never have complete certainty about whether their images were distributed.

Bitcoin Magazine

Will a Supreme Court Ruling Against Trump Cause a Bitcoin Crash?

Bitcoin is trading near $90,000, extending a fall-off after spending several days above $92,000. The crypto now faces a fresh macro test as markets brace for a U.S. Supreme Court decision that could land Friday on the legality of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs.

The case centers on tariffs imposed in early 2025 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 statute typically used for sanctions during national emergencies. 

Trump used the law to justify “Liberation Day” tariffs ranging from 10% to 50% on global imports, alongside targeted duties on China, Canada, and Mexico tied to fentanyl trafficking concerns. 

His administration argued that persistent trade deficits and national security risks met the threshold for an emergency.

Lower courts disagreed. Both the U.S. Court of International Trade and a federal appeals court ruled that Trump exceeded his authority, emphasizing that Congress holds primary power over tariffs. 

The Supreme Court heard arguments in November, with skepticism voiced across ideological lines. While the court does not preannounce decisions, it has signaled rulings could be released on Jan. 9.

If the tariffs are struck down, the financial implications could be large. Reuters reported that more than $133.5 billion in duties could be subject to refunds, raising questions about timing, fiscal impact, and replacement policies. 

Trump has claimed the tariffs generated roughly $600 billion in revenue, a figure that has shaped market anxiety around refunds and Treasury financing.

The ruling’s impact on Bitcoin

All traders are watching this situation closely, not because tariffs directly affect Bitcoin’s network, but because macro shocks in all markets often ripple through risk assets. During prior trade escalations, Bitcoin tended to sell off alongside equities as liquidity tightened and risk appetite faded.

Warnings have grown louder on social media. Semi-popular trader Wimar.X called Friday “the worst day of 2026,” arguing that a negative ruling could force markets to price refund obligations, emergency policy responses, and retaliation risks at the same time. “That’s not clarity. That’s chaos,” he wrote.

Prediction markets reflect those concerns. 

On Polymarket, odds imply a strong chance (76%) the court invalidates the tariffs, suggesting traders see downside risk as under-appreciated. Still, not all expect a lasting selloff. 

For Bitcoin, the near-term risk appears tied to volatility rather than direction. The asset remains sensitive to shifts in yields, equities, and dollar liquidity. A sharp risk-off move could push prices lower, especially with Bitcoin still below key resistance near $94,000 to $95,000. A ruling that reduces uncertainty could also produce a brief relief rally.

The larger question is not whether Bitcoin crashes on a headline, but whether a court decision reshapes the macro backdrop for BTC. 

This post Will a Supreme Court Ruling Against Trump Cause a Bitcoin Crash? first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

A ban on public cannabis use in a proposed adult-use legalization measure in Florida is misleading because citizens might still smell it, the state attorney general recently claimed.

Florida adult-use marijuana legalization stinks, state attorney general tells Supreme Court is a post from: MJBizDaily: Financial, Legal & Cannabusiness news for cannabis entrepreneurs

Bitcoin Magazine

Bitcoin Price Teeters Near $90,000 as Early-2026 Rally Falters

Bitcoin hovered just below the $91,000 level today, paring recent gains after an explosive start to the new year that briefly pushed prices toward fresh seven-day highs.

The bitcoin price was trading around $90,815, down roughly 1% over the past 24 hours, according to market data. Daily trading volume stood near $52 billion, while bitcoin’s total market capitalization slipped to about $1.82 trillion, also down around 1% on the day.

The pullback leaves the bitcoin price roughly 3% below its recent seven-day high near $94,700, after prices surged more than 8% in the first days of 2026. That rally carried the bitcoin price above $94,000 earlier this week, fueled by renewed ETF inflows, bullish options positioning and a resurgence of the geopolitical hedge narrative.

Bitcoin’s circulating supply now stands at 19.97 million BTC, inching closer to its fixed cap of 21 million coins.

The latest move marks a pause after bitcoin broke out of a multi-week consolidation range that capped prices through much of December. The $91,000 level, which previously acted as resistance, has now become a key short-term support zone as traders reassess momentum.

Market participants say the retreat reflects profit-taking rather than a decisive shift in trend, particularly after last week’s rapid upside move.

From a technical perspective, a sustained break below $91,000 could expose deeper support near $87,000, while a move back above $94,000 would reopen the path toward resistance in the $98,000–$100,000 range.

Bitcoin price volatility looms ahead of January 9

Beyond near-term technicals, traders are increasingly focused on macro catalysts — particularly a U.S. Supreme Court ruling scheduled for January 9 on the legality of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs.

Prediction markets suggest a high probability the court will strike down the tariffs, a decision that could force the U.S. Treasury to refund as much as $133–$140 billion to importers. Such an outcome could inject volatility across equities, bonds and crypto markets simultaneously.

Bitcoin, which has shown heightened sensitivity to macro and policy shocks, could see sharp price swings depending on how markets reprice fiscal risk and liquidity conditions.

Despite near-term uncertainty, broader bullish signals remain in place. Bitcoin ETFs recently recorded their strongest daily inflows since October, while options markets continue to show heavy positioning for higher prices later in the year.

At the time of writing, the bitcoin price is at $90,860.10.

This post Bitcoin Price Teeters Near $90,000 as Early-2026 Rally Falters first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

One of the first signs of what would become an ongoing attack on scientific research came when the Trump administration ordered the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to radically reduce research funding for universities. These funds, termed indirect costs, are awarded when researchers at an institution receive a grant. They cover costs that aren't directly associated with the research project, such as utilities, facilities for research animals, and building maintenance.

Previously, these costs had been the subject of negotiations and audits, with indirect cost rates for universities in more expensive locations exceeding half the value of the portion of the grant that goes to the researcher. The Trump administration wanted to cut this to a flat rate of 15 percent for everyone, which would be crippling for many universities.

A number of states, later joined by organizations representing a broad array of universities and medical schools, immediately sued to block the policy change. A district court temporarily blocked the new policy from being implemented and later issued a permanent injunction. The government appealed that decision, but on Monday, an appeals court rejected the effort because the first Trump administration had attempted the same move before—and Congress passed a rule to block it. Indirect research funding will remain intact unless the Supreme Court intervenes.

Read full article

Comments

© picture alliance

The Seattle Seahawks gave blind and low-vision fans a new way to follow game action this season as one of several teams testing a device from Seattle startup OneCourt.

OneCourt’s laptop device uses generative audio and haptics to translate live gameplay into trackable vibrations, so fans can follow the action with their fingertips. The users hear the team’s radio broadcast that is synced with the device with almost little to no time delay, according to the Seahawks.

Testers at Lumen Field in Seattle used the devices at games, including against the Indianapolis Colts on Dec. 14, as part of the NFL’s pilot program exploring such accessibility. The Jaguars, Vikings and Falcons were the other teams in the pilot.

Participants shared feedback with the league and the Seahawks about how the device performed and takeaways will be analyzed and applied to an in-stadium accessibility strategy.

“Football is at its best when every fan can be part of the moment,” said Jonathan Beane, NFL senior vice president and chief diversity and inclusion officer, in a statement. “The OneCourt pilot showed how innovative technology can bring fans who are blind or have low vision even closer to the game, and the response was incredibly powerful.”

OneCourt was co-founded by a group of University of Washington graduates, including CEO Jerred Mace.

The NBA’s Portland Trail Blazers were the first professional sports team to provide OneCourt devices at every home game.

• Veterans Affairs will no longer perform abortions in emergency cases, in light of a new legal opinion from the Justice Department. The VA started providing abortions to veterans in certain life-threatening circumstances in fall 2022. This comes after the Supreme Court ruling on the Dobbs v. Jackson case. The department began the process of rolling back the policy this summer. That process is still making its way through the official rule-making process.
  (Trump-Vance administration bans abortion care and counseling for veterans - Democracy Forward)
• Another agency CIO is heading out the door. Jeff Seaton, the NASA chief information officer, is retiring after 32 years of federal service. Seaton is taking advantage of the ability to delay his retirement under the deferred resignation program. His last day is Dec. 27. Seaton has been NASA CIO for almost five years and previously worked in senior technology roles at headquarters and at NASA Langley Research Center. The space agency is hiring a replacement for Seaton. Its job announcement said the new CIO will be a career senior executive service member. Applications for the position are due by Jan. 9.
  (NASA to hire new career CIO - USAJobs.com)
• One nonprofit is continuing to press for investigations into potential Hatch Act violations during the government shutdown. In a new letter to the Office of Special Counsel, the legal organization Democracy Forward called on OSC to open Hatch Act investigations, pointing to multiple incidents of partisan messaging during October and November. The group specifically highlights how agencies posted messages to their websites that blamed the shutdown on Democrats. And in a separate letter to the Government Accountability Office, Democracy Forward also raised potential violations of the Antideficiency Act during the 43-day shutdown.
  (Hatch Act letters - Democracy Forward)
• The Missile Defense Agency has tapped more companies to support the Golden Dome initiative. The agency has made over a thousand awards under its Scalable Homeland Innovative Enterprise Layered Defense, or SHIELD, contract worth up to $151 billion. The new awards expand a pool of pre-approved vendors eligible to compete for future task orders, bringing the total number of qualifying offerors to more than 2,000 companies. The agency said it has now transitioned to the ordering phase and drafting solicitations.
  (MDA taps more companies for Golden Dome SHIELD contract - SAM.gov)
• Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has directed all department heads to recognize "outstanding” Defense Department civilian employees with cash bonuses. A new memo authorizes Pentagon leaders to award the top 15% of civilian employees bonuses worth 15% to 25% of their basic pay, capped at $25,000. Hegseth directed department heads to issue the bonuses by Jan. 30. The memo to recognize top talent comes amid Hegseth’s broader push to shrink and reshape the Pentagon’s civilian workforce.
  (Hegseth authorizes cash bonuses of up to $25,000 for top civilian employees - Federal News Network)
• A top official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is no longer reviewing requests for telework as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities. Supervisors have instructed staff to email their medical documentation directly to Lynda Chapman, the agency’s chief operating officer, to “bypass” the traditional reasonable accommodation system, and receive up to 30 days of telework as an interim accommodation. But CDC employees tell Federal News Network that Chapman no longer has access to their reasonable accommodation requests. Former CDC officials say many of the human resources staff trained to handle reasonable accommodation requests were targeted by layoffs earlier this year.
  (As HHS restricts telework, CDC asks employees to ‘bypass’ reasonable accommodation process - Federal News Network)
• House Democrats are pressing the Office of Personnel Management for answers on how the agency is addressing abnormally high volumes of federal retirement applications. In a letter sent this week, the lawmakers raised concerns about the delays retiring federal employees are currently experiencing. That’s after the Trump administration’s deferred resignation program spurred a major influx of retirement applications. The lawmakers are giving OPM Director Scott Kupor until the end of January to respond with more details on OPM’s plans.
  (House Democrats question OPM on retirement processing delays - Federal News Network)
• House Democrats are urging the Transportation Security Administration to preserve union rights for TSA airport screeners. Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and 11 of his colleagues say TSA’s push to end union rights will not improve efficiency or security at airport screening lines. In a new letter, lawmakers urge Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to keep TSA’s 2024 collective bargaining agreement in place. TSA plans to void the collective bargaining agreement effective Jan. 11. The American Federation of Government Employees is urging a federal judge to take action, pointing to a preliminary injunction that blocked TSA’s previous attempt to eliminate the union agreement.
  (House Dems urge TSA to preserve collective bargaining agreement - Federal News Network)
• The owner of a federal contractor is facing up to 90 years in prison after being indicted by a Baltimore grand jury in a scheme to defraud the government that included rigging bids for IT contracts and receiving kickbacks in exchange for influence over IT procurements. Victor Marquez is facing wire fraud charges. The Justice Department said Marquez and his co-conspirators used his access to sensitive procurement information to rig bids for procurements for large government IT contracts. Marquez allegedly received more than $3.8 million in compensation in the form of kickbacks for steering procurements to his co-conspirators, who referred to the payments to Marquez as the “Vic tax.”
  (Federal IT contractor facing charges of defrauding the government - Justice Department)

The post Veterans Affairs will no longer perform some emergency services first appeared on Federal News Network.

© The Associated Press

The nation's high court won't hear a case challenging federal marijuana laws brought by four licensed cannabis companies.

US Supreme Court rejects federal marijuana prohibition challenge is a post from: MJBizDaily: Financial, Legal & Cannabusiness news for cannabis entrepreneurs

The nation's high court won't hear a case challenging federal marijuana laws brought by four licensed cannabis companies.

US Supreme Court rejects federal marijuana prohibition challenge is a post from: MJBizDaily: Financial, Legal & Cannabusiness news for cannabis entrepreneurs

The U.S. Supreme Court will discuss next month whether to hear a challenge to federal marijuana prohibition.

As marijuana rescheduling stalls, industry turns to Supreme Court is a post from: MJBizDaily: Financial, Legal & Cannabusiness news for cannabis entrepreneurs

(Credit: AndreyPopov/Getty Images)We may have robot frycooks, robot bartenders, and even robot shoe-shiners, but robot lawyers are apparently where we draw the line. Human lawyers have prevented an artificial intelligence-equipped robot from appearing in court, where it was scheduled to fight a defendant’s speeding ticket.

The “robot lawyer” is the latest creation from DoNotPay, a New York startup known for its AI chatbot of the same name. Last year our colleagues at PCMag reported that DoNotPay had successfully negotiated down people’s Comcast bills and canceled their forgotten free trials. Since then, the chatbot has expanded to help users block spam texts, file corporate complaints, renew their Florida driver’s licenses, and otherwise take care of tasks that would be annoying or burdensome without DoNotPay’s help.

But it appears DoNotPay has taken things a bit too far. Shortly after the startup added legal capabilities to its chatbot’s feature set, a user “hired” the bot to fight their speeding ticket. On Feb. 22, the bot was scheduled to “appear” in court by way of smart glasses worn on the human defendant’s head. These glasses would record court proceedings while using text generators like ChatGPT and DaVinci to dictate responses into the defendant’s ear. According to NPR, the appearance was set to become the first-ever AI-powered legal defense.

As human lawyers found out about DoNotPay, however, the chatbot and its defendant were required to revise their plan. DoNotPay CEO Joshua Browder told NPR that multiple state bar associations threatened the startup, even going so far as to mention a district attorney’s office referral, prosecution, and prison time. Such consequences would be made possible by rules prohibiting unauthorized law practice in the courtroom. Eventually, Browder said, the threat of criminal charges forced the startup to wave a white flag.

Unfortunately for Browder, this isn’t the end of DoNotPay’s legal scrutiny. Several state bar associations are now investigating the startup and its chatbot for the same reason as above. Browder reportedly believes in AI’s eventual place in the courtroom, saying it could someday provide affordable legal representation for people who wouldn’t be able to swing a human attorney’s fees. But if DoNotPay hopes to make robot lawyers a real thing, it’ll have to rethink its strategy: It’s illegal to record audio during a live legal proceeding in federal and some state courts, which collapses the whole smart glasses technique.

DoNotPay still lists multiple legal disputes on its website, indicating that the startup might have faith in its ability to escape from these probes unscathed.

Now Read:

• US Marines Defeat DARPA Robot by Hiding Under a Cardboard Box
• Boston Dynamics Atlas Robot Gets Hands to Grab and Throw
• MIT: Taxing Robots Might Stave Off Job Loss, Income Inequality