The #FOSO25 Fireside Chat is starting now! Join @daphnek.bsky.social, Genevieve Lakier, and Derek Bambauer as they kick off Future of Speech Online 2025 — exploring the new forms of jawboning, and how to balance government communication with protection from coercion.

🔗 standtogether.swoogo...

Proud to be part of the @CDT.org team as we celebrate 30+ years of championing digital rights! Join us at #TechPromCDT on Oct. 23, 2025 for the conversations (and the vibes) that make tech policy exciting. 🎉
cdt.org/event/2025-t...

Age verification mandates, digital ID laws, and policies entrenching digital identification online are fundamentally changing how we access the web and whether we can access it anonymously.

Read my colleague Nick on why a "Papers, Please" web isn't what we want: cdt.org/insights/we-...

NYU-MCC is hiring! Asst. Prof in the area of “Media and Global Cities.” Please help us get the word out.
apply.interfolio.com/174886

Last week, I joined @justinhendrix.bsky.social and Maddy Dwyer @cdt.org to discuss DOGE, AI, and government "efficiency" initiatives for the @techpolicypress.bsky.social podcast. It's a rather grim topic, but I enjoyed making sense of it with Justin and Maddy.

www.techpolicy.press/following-do...

OK, maaaaybe you have to make your arguments in court even if you might prevail. But that is because.... reasons. Reasons that I'm sure have nothing to do with who is requesting emergency relief. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...

One could say that they are “arguably” gaining access to this data in “arguably” unaccountable ways, but that would mean that arguments are allowed. It seems that the courts are currently opposed to that.

This is, up and down, a complete abandonment of the Judicial Branch of the imperative to adjudicate cases fairly and transparently. And the result is that DOGE gains access to massive amounts of personally sensitive data for use in unaccountable ways.

The 4th Circuit takes them up on this, arguing that “statistically” plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail, even if they have *no certainty* that they would fail on the merits of the different aspects of the case.

In sum, the SC grants- without argument and even a signature- emergency requests of the government to stay lower court decisions. It then tells lower courts to treat these shadow docket decisions as controlling.

In support of this conclusion, they cite to the Supreme Court’s unsigned, un-argued decision to grant an emergency petition to allow DOGE access to Social Security data.

www.nytimes.com/2025/06/06/u...

The 4th Circuit rejects the case because “statistically” the plaintiffs failed to show they will prevail on all issues combined in the case (none of which the court could say “with certainty” that they would fail).

This decision is bad on the merits- it’s a horrific violation of the privacy of Americans- but it is also another poisoned fruit of the shadow docket tree.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Tying the funds to BEAD is less ham-fisted than saying that it is important so that Commerce can update its IT systems, but it remains a policy change with no actual connection to the disbursement of funds.

I think that any rational read of the text against the rule should get the provision thrown out. In the current timeline, I'm not sure I'm good at giving odds on anything.

This is a good point, and not pedantic at all! This makes the necessity to throw this out with the Byrd rule all the more apparent.

The Senate should resoundingly reject this provision and the impossible choice between connectivity and consumer protections it would force upon the states.

The decade-long moratorium on state regulation of AI and automated decision systems, particularly in the absence of *any* substantive regulations being offered at the federal level, will harm consumers, workers, and small businesses.

Holding the connectivity of rural and other unconnected Americans hostage does not change this fact.

For more on that, see my blog about the Byrd rule and the House version. cdt.org/insights/thr...

In doing this, they’re conceding that the House’s moratorium on state AI regulation enforcement is a substantive policy change and not a budgetary item. This remains a fundamental policy change unwed to the Federal budget that should be removed as an extraneous matter.

After years complaining about “political” priorities weighing down BEAD funding, Senate Republicans are apparently proposing to make funding Americans’ Internet connectivity contingent on preventing states from enforcing any regulations on artificial intelligence and automated decision systems.