The Right to an Attorney

The last part of the 6th Amendment relates to the right to have a lawyer. 

Here's a related story related to how that is implemented: 

- Some Harris County court-appointed lawyers handle hundreds of felony cases while earning millions.

 

The Extradition Clause - Article 4, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution

This is the constitutional clause at the root of the dispute in the conflict in the story below: 

- ICE agent at center of extradition fight released from Texas jail.

For more: 

- From the Constitution Annotated.

- Dear ChatGPT: What is the extradition clause? 

Title 19 of the Texas Administrative Code

Where you can find the rules related to public education in Texas including a list of what you were to know about government beginning in kindergarden. 

- Try to find it, start here.   

From the Washington Post: Are public schools unconstitutional? A Nebraska court will decide.

An opinion piece written by a person affiliated with the Heritage Foundation. 

- Click here for it.  

In 2021, Columbia University law professor Philip Hamburger argued that the U.S. public school system violates the First Amendment. “Education,” he wrote, “consists mostly in speech, and parents have a right under the First Amendment to exercise authority over what their children hear.” Forcing families to accept government messaging — or pay a steep price to escape it — amounts to unconstitutional pressure.

A lawsuit filed in Nebraska on Aug. 13 brings that argument into court — and could open a path toward universal school choice.

Justin Jacobsen and Timothy and Joanna Menter, parents in the Lincoln Public Schools district, are suing state and local officials in Lancaster County District Court. Represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, they are challenging Nebraska’s combination of compulsory education and public-school-only funding.

. . . Nebraska law requires parents to enroll children in a “public, private, denominational or parochial school” or to home-school them. Noncompliance is a Class 3 misdemeanor punishable by up to three months in jail and a $500 fine.

. . . Both families withdrew most of their children because remaining in public schools meant adopting educational speech they reject. The Menters’ elementary school displayed a classroom door sticker promoting alternative sexuality and transgender ideologies and pressed climate-change views the parents found fear-based. The Jacobsens’ school taught transgender ideology; the children were also exposed to divisive narratives suggesting certain races were victims and others were oppressors because of their skin color.

The parents’ complaint rests on three theories. First, the combination of a criminal education mandate and funding limited to government viewpoints directly abridges parents’ free-speech rights under the First Amendment. Education is inherently speech, and parents hold the primary right to speak or to choose who speaks on their behalf. Second, the same facts violate the Nebraska Constitution’s free speech clause, which state courts treat as mirroring the federal guarantee. Third, the arrangement creates an unconstitutional condition: that is, the state may not condition a valuable public benefit on the surrender of a constitutional right.

Regarding the Core Curriculum

- Texas Core Curriculum.

- UH removes over 45% of courses from its ‘core’ curriculum to comply with SB 37.

- University of Houston slashes 40% of courses from its core curriculum.

- University of Houston regents approve removal of 133 courses from its core curriculum.

- University of Houston cuts 40% of core curriculum, including climate change and LGBT studies courses.

 

From Oyez: Torcaso v. Watkins

I had a recent discussion about this case. 

It prevents states from requiring a belief in a deity on order to hold public office. 

An example of limited government.

- Click here for the case. 

From Lawfare: The Military and Elections, Part II: Deploy First, Litigate Later

A continuation of the previsous post.

- Click here for the article.

As we discussed in our companion piece, a longstanding legal regime protects against use of the military in connection with elections. As an overarching matter, the military’s authority to operate domestically is circumscribed; constitutional and statutory law both establish distinct roles for civilian law enforcement and members of the armed forces. Additional legislation, codified in law and preserved uninterrupted since the mid-19th century, specifically insulates elections from military interference.

This seems like good news for those who fear military involvement in the 2026 election and beyond. But zooming out, the picture blurs. While it’s true that numerous laws restrict use of the military domestically and for elections in particular, other laws affirmatively permit domestic deployments under certain, sometimes ill-defined, circumstances. Still other legal authorities at least arguably permit the use of the military, even if they don’t do so explicitly.

Democrats in Congress seem to fear the existing rules aren’t enough: Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee reportedly attempted last month to amend the National Defense Authorization Act to bar the use of any funds to deploy federal troops to seize ballots, voting rolls, voting machines, or other election materials—and to require Congress to be notified of any federal troop deployment to polling places. Republicans on the committee blocked the measure. In mid-June, a group of Democratic senators also introduced a bill to modify § 592 to require a Joint Resolution before the President could invoke the “armed enemies” exception. It has not come up for a vote.

The power to involve the military in U.S. elections could conceivably come from two places: statute and the Constitution. Statutory sources include the Insurrection Act (an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act) and National Guard authorities under Title 32 and Title 10. Constitutional theories include the “protective power” and the Article II power to respond to attacks on the United States. An expansive reading of any of these might support an argument that the laws restricting use of the military, including those specific to elections, can be overcome by relying on these permissive authorities.

Such expansive readings are dubious. Sounder analysis would likely conclude that the military generally cannot be used in elections. But our purpose here is to outline what authorities might be cited in support of such deployments, not to evaluate whether those claims would prevail in court. After all, that’s how it would play out on the ground: A president could deploy troops for elections on the basis of a weak legal theory, the deployments would be challenged as unlawful, parties would litigate, and—likely months later—a court would adjudicate. But in the meantime, the deployment already happened.

Many commentators worry that a president might invoke the Insurrection Act to sidestep other statutory limits. That’s a reasonable concern. But the Insurrection Act is not the only mechanism for a president to deploy the military at or near a polling site in a manner at least arguably consistent with the law. And it may not be the most likely option for a president eager to use the troops. That’s particularly true because the interaction of these legal regimes—one permitting the president’s use of the military, the other restricting it—remains largely untested. A president with a propensity for pushing the limits of executive authority, including with respect to domestic deployments specifically, might be tempted to capitalize on the uncertainty by sending in the troops first and letting legal challenges follow.

. . . 

- Click here for a summary from ChatGPT. 

Central Thesis

The article's central argument is:

The greatest danger is not that the law clearly authorizes military involvement in elections, but that uncertain legal authorities could be exploited before courts have time to intervene.

Even if a court eventually ruled a deployment unlawful, elections occur on a single day. Litigation would almost certainly take weeks or months.

From Lawfare: The Military and Elections, Part I: The Legal Wall

What are the president's constitutional powers regarding elections? 

What are the limits?  

- Click here for the article.

Just this year, President Trump said he regrets that he did not order the National Guard to seize voting machines after the 2020 elections. Steve Bannon urged Trump to “call up the 82nd and 101st Airborne” in 2026 to “get around every poll” and make sure that only citizens are voting. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, when asked whether he would refuse an order to deploy troops to polling places during the midterms, avoided answering—and falsely claimed that troops were deployed to polling places in 15 states under Joe Biden.

Critics are alarmed. They see these statements as harbingers of attempts to interfere with the midterm elections in November. “He’ll just claim that there’s some problem with an election—and then he’s got troops on the ground that can take control,” said Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker. “Let’s be clear,” said Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), “we know Trump is laying the groundwork and planning to send troops to polling places to intimidate Americans and interfere in our elections.”

Whether these fears are justified is not just a question of politics—it’s also a question of law. Does the president actually have the legal authority to use the military in connection with the elections?

Yes, there are limitations on using the military for elections, both because there are specific laws protecting elections from military interference and because there are broader (but still uncomfortably vague) legal restrictions on domestic deployments of the military. But the laws have exceptions, and the president’s Article II powers can serve as the basis for claims of inherent authority. That means that evaluating the threat of military interference in elections requires analyzing an intricate patchwork of statutes and constitutional powers—whose interaction is mostly untested.

This article describes the relevant limitations on the president’s use of the military for elections. In a companion article, we discuss the authorities the president may cite in support of his efforts to deploy troops notwithstanding those limitations. The pull and push between these restrictions and the powers the administration may insist it has to overcome them is where the uncertainty lies.

. . . 

- Click here for a summary from ChatGPT.

Main Argument

The authors make five central points:

- Federal law strongly disfavors military involvement in elections.
- Several statutes specifically prohibit troops from interfering with voting or election administration.
-  The Constitution does not expressly forbid domestic military deployments.
-  Presidents possess significant constitutional and statutory authority over the armed forces.
-  Because these authorities have rarely been tested in court during election-related disputes, legal uncertainty remains.

What is "filibustering?"

Note: Not the current legislative use of the word, the 19th Century land acquisition - piracy- use of it. 

In the 19th century, "filibustering" referred to unsanctioned, private military expeditions launched from the U.S. to invade foreign territories, primarily in Latin America and the Caribbean. Adventurers aimed to seize control of land and annex it to the United States, often driven by the ideology of Manifest Destiny and a desire to expand slave-holding territory. 

These unofficial conquests were technically illegal under U.S. Neutrality Laws but were often wildly popular with the American public. 

Famous Filibuster Expeditions

William Walker in Nicaragua (1855–1857): The most infamous filibuster, William Walker, used a private mercenary army to take advantage of political instability in Nicaragua. He briefly seized power, declared himself president in 1856, and legalized slavery before a coalition of Central American armies forced his surrender. 

William Walker in Mexico (1853–1854): Before his Nicaraguan campaigns, Walker attempted to invade the Mexican states of Baja California and Sonora. He proclaimed the "Republic of Lower California" but failed due to lack of supplies and stiff resistance from Mexican forces. 

Narciso López in Cuba (1849–1851): Supported by wealthy Southern slaveholders, a Venezuelan-born adventurer named Narciso López led several armed expeditions to Cuba. His goal was to overthrow Spanish rule and annex Cuba to the U.S. as a slave state. The campaigns ultimately failed, and López was executed by firing squad in Havana in 1851. 

Motivations and Consequences

Expansion of Slavery: Many filibusters originated in the American South and aimed to conquer new agrarian lands where they could establish new slave states. 

Geopolitical Tension: These freelance invasions severely strained U.S. diplomatic relations with Great Britain, Spain, and several Latin American countries, which viewed filibusters as acts of state-sanctioned piracy. 

While the term "filibuster" originates from the Spanish filibustero (meaning pirate) and was tied to these land invasions in the 1850s, the political use of the word today refers to delaying tactics used in the U.S. Senate to block legislation.

From Wikipedia: Treaty of Tordesillas

The treaty signed by Portugal and Spain dividing up the new world - the entire world it seems - between the two. 

Other European powers would challenge them of course, including England. Indogenous populations also pushed back though less successfully.

- Click here for entry.

The Treaty of Tordesillas, signed in Tordesillas, Spain, on 7 June 1494, and ratified in Setúbal, Portugal, divided the newly discovered lands outside Europe between the Kingdom of Portugal and the Crown of Castile, along a meridian 370 leagues (1,281 mi; 2,062 km) west of the Cape Verde islands, off the west coast of Africa. That line of demarcation was about halfway between Cape Verde (already Portuguese) and the islands visited by Christopher Columbus on his first voyage (claimed for Castile and León), thought then to be Cipangu and Antillia, but in fact Cuba and Hispaniola; the treaty itself does not mention Cipangu or Antillia.

The lands to the east would belong to Portugal and the lands to the west to Castile, modifying an earlier bull by Pope Alexander VI. The treaty was created on 7 June 1494, then ratified by Spain on 2 July 1494, by Portugal on 5 September 1494, and by Pope Julius II on 24 January 1506. The other side of the world was divided a few decades later by the Treaty of Zaragoza, signed on 22 April 1529, which specified the antimeridian to the line of demarcation specified in the Treaty of Tordesillas. Portugal and Spain largely respected the treaties, while the Indigenous peoples of the Americas did not acknowledge them.

Dear ChatGPT: What impact did the Treaty of Tordesillas have on european settlement of the new world? 

Overall Historical Significance

The Treaty of Tordesillas was one of the most consequential diplomatic agreements in world history because it:

- Prevented immediate conflict between Spain and Portugal over overseas expansion.
- Enabled Spain and Portugal to build the first global colonial empires.
- Led to the Portuguese colonization of Brazil.
- Concentrated Spanish settlement across most of the Americas.
- Accelerated Catholic missionary activity in the New World.
- Established patterns of language, religion, and law that continue to shape the Western Hemisphere.
- Prompted England, France, and the Netherlands to develop alternative legal justifications for overseas colonization, laying the groundwork for later competition and the eventual settlement of much of North America.

1000 word essay topic for Summer 2 students

Explain a decision from the recent Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court has recently wrapped up its October 2025 term. It issued decisions on 67 cases. For general information about the term click here, and here. For info on the court and its procedures click here.

I want you to explain one of them to me.

Below you will see a list of those deemed most important. You will be assigned one. I want you to read though the decision - to the best of your ability - and explain the facts of the case, the constititional issue involved, and the reasoning behind the decision as well as the reasoning against it, if the exists.

Plenty of resources exist. Use them.

Here are two I find useful:

-ScotusBlog.
-Oyez.

Wikipedia pages are also acceptable. You are also free to use ChatGPT. Just be sure to submit your own work as the final product.

Here is a full list of the cases they heard

These are the ones I want you to select from:

Abouammo v. United States.
Barrett v. United States.
Berk v. Choy.
Blanche v. Lau.
Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections.
Case v. Montana.
Chatrie v. United States.
Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.
Chiles v. Salazar.
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment.
Ellingburg v. United States.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (Cuba).
Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.
Fernandez v. United States.
First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin.
Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock.
Hamm v. Smith.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.
Hunter v. United States.
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.
Little v. Hecox.
Louisiana v. Callais.
Monsanto Company v. Durnell.
Mullin v. Doe.
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission.
Noem v. Al Otro Lado.
Pitchford v. Cain.
Pung v. Isabella County.
Salazar v. Paramount Global.
Trump v. Barbara.
Trump v. Cook.
Trump v. Slaughter.
United States Postal Service v. Konan.
United States v. Hemani.
Villarreal v. Texas.
Watson v. Republican National Committee.
West Virginia v. B.P.J.
Wolford v. Lopez.

For the final submission:

Aside from the word length please:

1 - use at least three references
2 - use whatever format works best for you
3 - use a language that at least approximates English

Note that you may write as much as you want.

Dear ChatGPT: What is a mandatory arbitration clause?

Besides something you often have to agree to, but limits your access to the courts. 

- Click here for the full answer.
|
A mandatory arbitration clause is a contract provision that requires the parties to resolve certain disputes through arbitration rather than by filing a lawsuit in court. These clauses are common in employment agreements, consumer contracts, credit card agreements, cell phone contracts, software terms of service, nursing home admissions, franchise agreements, and many commercial contracts.

How arbitration works

Arbitration is a private dispute-resolution process in which a neutral third party (the arbitrator) hears evidence and issues a decision.

The typical process is:
- A dispute arises.
- Instead of filing a lawsuit, one party demands arbitration.
- An arbitrator (or panel of arbitrators) is selected.
- The parties exchange evidence, usually through more limited discovery than in court.
- A hearing is held.
- The arbitrator issues an award.
- Courts generally enforce the award and have only limited authority to overturn it.

Why it is called "mandatory"

The clause is "mandatory" because the parties agree in advance that arbitration will be the exclusive forum for resolving covered disputes.

For example: "Any dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be resolved exclusively by binding arbitration."

If such a clause is enforceable, a court will usually dismiss or stay a lawsuit and require the parties to arbitrate instead.

Common features
- Mandatory arbitration clauses often specify:
- whether arbitration is binding or non-binding (most are binding)
- which disputes are covered
- where arbitration will occur
- which arbitration organization will administer the case
- how arbitrators are selected
- who pays the arbitration costs
- what law governs the dispute
- whether appeals are permitted (usually they are very limited)

Many also contain class-action waivers, preventing consumers or employees from participating in class-action lawsuits.

Advantages

Supporters argue arbitration offers several benefits:
- Faster resolution
- Lower litigation costs
- Greater privacy
- Flexible procedures
- Decision-makers with subject-matter expertise
- Less formal than court

Businesses often argue that arbitration reduces legal expenses and discourages frivolous litigation.

Criticisms

Critics argue mandatory arbitration can:
- Limit access to the courts
- Restrict discovery
- Make appeals extremely difficult
- Favor repeat corporate participants over one-time consumers or employees
- Keep disputes confidential, reducing public accountability
- Prevent class actions, making small-value claims economically impractical

Whether arbitration is actually less expensive than litigation varies depending on the type of dispute and the arbitration provider's fee structure.

Legal basis in the United States

The principal federal law is the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), enacted in 1925.

The FAA establishes a strong federal policy favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements. It generally requires courts to enforce valid arbitration clauses according to their terms, subject to traditional contract defenses such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability.
Important Supreme Court decisions

Several Supreme Court decisions have expanded enforcement of arbitration agreements:

 AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion held that the FAA generally preempts state laws invalidating arbitration agreements because they prohibit class actions.

 American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant upheld class-action waivers even when individual arbitration might be economically impractical.

 Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis held that employers may require employees to resolve workplace disputes through individual arbitration rather than class or collective actions.

 Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela ruled that class arbitration generally cannot be compelled unless the contract clearly authorizes it.

Limits on mandatory arbitration

Not every dispute can be forced into arbitration. Congress has created exceptions in some areas. For example, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 allows individuals alleging sexual assault or sexual harassment to choose whether to pursue their claims in court rather than being compelled to arbitrate under a pre-dispute arbitration agreement.

Courts may also refuse to enforce an arbitration clause if it is invalid under generally applicable contract principles, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability.
Example

Suppose you sign a credit card agreement containing this provision: "Any claim arising from this agreement shall be resolved by binding arbitration. Neither party may participate in a class action."

If a dispute later arises over fees or billing practices, the issuer may ask the court to compel arbitration. If the clause is enforceable, the court will usually require the dispute to proceed before an arbitrator instead of a judge or jury, and you generally would have to pursue your claim individually rather than as part of a class action.

In short, a mandatory arbitration clause is an advance agreement to resolve specified disputes through a private arbitration process rather than through litigation in court. Under current U.S. law, such clauses are generally enforceable, though they remain the subject of ongoing legal and policy debate regarding consumer protection, employment rights, and access to the judicial system.

Today's Clips - 6.26.2026

- Click here. 

Some highlights: 

Editorial: The real problem with the Texas schools curriculum discussion.

Article: What to know about the push to make Bible stories required reading in Texas public schools.

Article: Texas might require Bible readings in schools. Some religious scholars fear the consequences.

Article: John Cornyn says Donald Trump needs reality check on SAVE Act.

Article: NRG Energy opens first power plant in over a decade with funding from the Texas Energy Fund.

Guest Commentary: Guest commentary: Property taxes aren't bad, they protect us.

Among others

Dear AI Overview: What does the future of agriculture in Texas hold?

The future of Texas agriculture is a balancing act of technological innovation and intense strain on natural resources. While producers face threats from urban sprawl, water scarcity, and extreme weather, the industry is combating this by embracing AI-driven precision farming, automated robotics, and a push for conservation easements. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Several key drivers will define the state's agricultural landscape in the coming decades:

1. Land & Development Pressures

Rapid Urbanization: Texas contains the highest concentration of threatened agricultural land in the country, with millions of acres at risk of being converted to real estate developments or industrial sites by 2040. [1]

Energy & Data Center Booms: Sprawling solar, wind, and massive data center projects are increasingly encroaching on productive family farms, sparking debates over grid reliability and land use. [1, 2, 3]
Preservation Efforts: Organizations like the Texas Agricultural Land Trust are utilizing voluntary conservation easements to keep working lands in production and out of developers' hands. [1]

2. Technology & Innovation

Precision Agriculture: Through research from institutions like Texas A&M AgriLife, producers are adopting AI-powered tools and automated greenhouse robotics to boost efficiency and safeguard food security. [1, 2]

Biotechnology: Advanced genetics and drought-resistant crop varieties are being tailored to survive the state's increasingly volatile weather patterns and water shortages. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

3. Resource Management

Water Scarcity: Extended droughts and La Niña climate patterns create massive uncertainty for major row crops like cotton, making water conservation and efficient irrigation central to long-term farm viability. [1, 2]

Policy Shifts: State leaders and advocacy groups are pushing to protect agricultural strongholds through concepts like "Agriculture Freedom Zones," aiming to establish responsible guardrails that prioritize food production over permanent industrial land conversion. [1, 2]

4. Generational Transition

Aging Demographics: The vast majority of Texas farms are family-owned, but the economic stressors of weather disasters and high input costs are making it difficult for younger generations to take over. [1, 2, 3]

Next-Gen Education: The focus is shifting heavily toward cross-training young producers to be business-minded, tech-savvy, and effective advocates for the industry.

- AGRICULTURE CODE: TITLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS: CHAPTER 2. STATE AGRICULTURAL POLICY.

- Opinion: For the Future of Texas, Pause Data Centers.

- Texas Legislature: Bills By SubjectGeneral Subject Index: Agriculture.

- The Texas Bison Association.

- Opinions for Tuesday, June 23.

- New York’s primary went from celebrity contest to AI proxy war. See live election results.

- New York's 12th Congressional District.

- 

Dear ChatGPT:

 - What were the top national political stories from June 1 - June 15, 2026?

1. Immigration Enforcement Funding and Border Policy
2. Supreme Court End-of-Term Decisions
3. Trump Administration vs. Democratic Governors
4. Executive Power and Federal Agency Control
5. Congressional Polarization and Funding Battles
6. Federal Response to Protests and Civil Disorder
7. Foreign Policy and Domestic Politics


- What were the top political stories in Texas from June 1 - June 15, 2026?

1. Texas Congressional Redistricting and the 2026 Elections
2. Fallout from the 89th Legislature's Major Policy Changes
3. Governor Abbott's New Focus on Data Centers and the Electric Grid
4. Texas Republican Convention in Houston
5. Election Administration and Voting-Rights Disputes
6. Rising Concern About Water and Infrastructure Policy
7. Early Positioning for the 2026 Midterm Elections


- What were the top political stories from the Houston area from June 1 - June 15, 2026?

1. Houston City Council Approves Whitmire's $7.5 Billion Budget
2. The New Houston Trash Fee Controversy
3. Harris County Flood-Control Projects Face Delays and Funding Questions
4. Judicial Accountability Questions in Harris County
5. Houston's World Cup Preparations Become a Political Issue
6. Harris County Public Health Expansion in Third Ward
7. Houston Park Investment Proposal
8. Ongoing Fallout from the 2026 Primary Elections
9. Investigation Into a Whitmire Adviser
10. Houston-Area Flooding and Emergency Response

From the Miller Center: James Madison: Life Before the Presidency

In Federalist 10 James Madison argues that people are driven by personal interests. 

What were his? 

- Here's one way to find out.


Land was the lifeblood of the Madison family wealth, and James would come to consider it the lifeblood of the nation. In 1722, James Taylor II (1674−1729) patented 13,500 acres in the Piedmont of central Virginia. He was one of twelve men to survey the region with Governor Alexander Spotswood, a group known as the Knights of the Golden Horseshoe, a mark of Taylor’s affluence. One year later, Taylor’s daughter Frances and her husband, Ambrose Madison, settled on almost 3,000 acres of the land. Like most affluent Virginians, they planted tobacco, a crop that wreaks havoc on the soil’s nutrients and necessitates continual expansion to new, fertile grounds.

In Virginia, owning vast acreage went hand-in-hand with enslaving men, women, and children to work the land and run the plantation. Ambrose and Frances’s son, James Madison Sr., and his wife Eleanor (Nelly) Conway grew the family land holdings, which expanded slavery on their plantation. As slaveholding became a mark of wealth in the colony, the Madisons’ dozens of enslaved laborers, who helped build the fine brick house called Montpelier, marked them among the most prominent families in Virginia and the most prominent of Orange County.

James Madison Jr. was born on March 16, 1751, in Port Conway, Virginia, and spent his early years at a farm house in Orange county, Virginia. Montpelier was completed when he was nine years old, one year after he inherited an enslaved infant held in trust by his father. For the young Madison, the social order of master and slave seemed as natural as parent and child.

For 6.16.2026

- Here are the PACs spending big on Texas statewide and legislative elections.

- HillCo Partners.

- Oyez: Buckley v. Valeo.

- AISD 2024 Bond Proposal. 

- What Does the Constitution Say About the Right to Vote?

 

2305

Elections

US Constitution
- Article 1
- - Section 2
- - Section 3
- - Section 4
- Article 2
- - Section 1
- - Section 2
- Article 3
- - Section 1

U.S. Code 
- Title 2 - The Congress
- Title 3 - The President
- Title 5 - Government Organization and Employees
- Title 28 - Judiciary and Judicial Procedure

Texas Constitution
- Article 3
- Article 4
- Article 5
- Article 6

Texas Election Code

City of Pearland Charter.
- Article 5
- Article 6

Brazoria County
- Brazoria County Elected Officials.
- Elections and Voter Registration.

Alvin Independent School District.

Alvin Community College Board of Regents.



Politics

Federalist 10
First Amendment: Political Freedoms
- Speech
- Press
- Assembly
- Petition

How do Interests Organize?

Interest Groups

Political Parties

Independent Expenditure Organizations

Interests over American History.

 

Links for 6.10.2026

- I-45 NHHIP Segment 3 Overview.

- 2027 State Water Plan.

- Texas Water Code.

- 1919 Transcontinental Motor Convoy.

- Texas’ charter school boom may soon bust, experts caution.

- SH 99 Grand Parkway segment B - I-45 South to SH 288.

- Inflation Jumps as Iran War Intensifies Price Squeeze.

- Iran War Live Updates: A Day After Predicting Peace, Trump Says U.S. Will Strike Iran Again.

- 2025-2026 Term.

- Looking back at 2025: the Supreme Court and the Trump administration.

Comment on the Triumphal Arch at Memorial Circle

Be part of the rulemaking process.

- Click here if you wish. 

 

For 2306 - 6.8.2026

- Texas lawmakers put limits on cities’ abilities to enact progressive policies. Some want to go further.

- Texas now requires cities to do an audit before raising property taxes. Some small towns can’t afford it.

- Texas county rescinds its data center moratorium after $100 million lawsuit from developer.

- Advocates ask court for chance to defend Texas Dream Act, in-state tuition for undocumented students.

- Second screwworm case in Texas confirmed as Abbott expands state disaster declaration.

- Houston may add a trash fee — but not for some affluent areas. They’ll keep getting city subsidies.

- Trump helped Paxton win. Now, Senate Republicans say the president should fund his campaign.

- Sen. Ted Cruz partners with Democrats to protect military bases like Ellington from mission change.

- Barry Klein, a civic activist who helped lead Houston's successful fight against zoning, dies at 82.

 

2305

- Congress.gov.

- Presidential Actions.

- Federal Register.

- United States Courts.



2306

- Texas Legislature Online.

- Office of the Texas Governor.

- Office of the Lieutenant Governor.

- Office of the Attorney General.

- Office of the Comptroller of Public Accounts.

- Office of the Texas Land Commissioner.

- Agriculture Commissioner.    

- The Texas Register.

- Texas Judicial Branch.

The Federalist Papers

What were they?

Fed 10

Fed 51

From Scotusblog: The Roberts court’s record on the First Amendment

For our look at the U.S. Bill of Rights, as well as the impact of the Roberts Court after the addition of Amy Coney Barrett.

- Click here for the article.

The Roberts court is often treated as especially protective of the First Amendment. It is true that the court has reshaped free speech law across such areas as campaign finance, student speech, government speech, and online platforms. It has also transformed religious doctrine through expanding the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, and in several religious-accommodation cases.

But these two First Amendment stories are not the same. The court’s speech cases are often favorable towards speakers, but speech claimants do not win uniformly. Religion is more consistent. Across the Roberts court, religious claimants have done unusually well. That pattern predates Justice Amy Coney Barrett, but it has become sharper since she joined the court. And when cases sit at the boundary between speech and religion, the claimant often fares especially well.

The takeaway is that the Roberts court, particularly post-Barrett, is not simply pro–First Amendment. It is more precise to say that the court is often pro-speech, strongly pro-religion, and most consistent when speech overlaps with religious identity or conscience. That distinction is fundamental for understanding the court’s current direction, including its decision to hear the case of St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, which challenges long-standing religious precedent.

- What is the Roberts Court?

From Governing: How AI, Cameras and Drones Are Reshaping Local Policing

Think of how this impacts the 4th Amendment.

- Click here for the article.  


. . . Raven and the Flock cameras are part of Flock Safety, a security technologies company based in Georgia that uses hardware powered by artificial intelligence to build surveillance networks that combine automated license plate readers, video cameras and audio detection to help solve and deter crimes.

Cities all over Idaho and across the country are using an array of mass surveillance programs, such as Flock cameras, AI-equipped license plate readers, audio detection systems for identifying gunfire and facial recognition software. The rollout of some of these technologies has been quick, and departments are beginning to confront the risks of abusing the technology and changing the way laws are enforced. Other Idaho police departments, such as Boise, Nampa, Twin Falls, and Jerome County, use the same Flock camera systems. The Meridian Police Department uses a similar technology for license plate reader cameras.

Such AI tools are quickly becoming a standard part of the policing toolkit. As of 2025, nearly 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies across the country were actively using AI to assist them, according to a report by the National Council of State Legislatures. About 28% of them use Flock, according to reporting by NPR and Flock Safety’s own website.

But the use of AI, Flock cameras in particular, has come under intense criticism because of concerns about privacy and data sharing.

“We are always hesitant to allow people to forfeit their rights to privacy, their right to due process, and any other individual freedoms in the name of ‘community security,’” Rebecca De Léon, communications director for the ACLU of Idaho told the Statesman via email. “But in the case of Flock cameras, it has been proven that their use goes far beyond what initially justified them.”

From the Houston Chronicle:

- Abbott campaigns against James Talarico as he tries to lift entire GOP ticket.

- What's dividing Harris County commissioners? We analyzed thousands of pages of records to find out.

- Houston police at their biggest numbers in 20 years, matching U.S. trend, experts say.

- 1.9 million Texans voted in Tuesday's runoff elections, shattering state records.

- Texas' controversial migrant deportation law SB4 can take effect, says 5th Circuit Court.

- Greg Abbott and other Republicans back Bo French after warning he'd 'wreck' Texas oil and gas.

Massie vs Gallrein: Can you explain this result?

 

Why did younger voters vote for Massie while older voters voted for Gallrein? 


- What is a congressional district?

- What is the 4th Congressional District of Kentucky? 

- Describe the political culture of Kentucky. Then narrow this down the Kentuck'y 4th congressional district.

- What were the results of the 2026 primary election for Kentucky's 4th Congressional District? 

- How involved was President Trump in the 2026 Republican primary election for Kentucky's 4th Congressional District?

- Describe the sources of campaign financing for the 2026 Republican primary election.

- Why do voters between 17 and 55 vote differently than those over 56?

From Wikipedia: On this day in history: 5.20.2026

1862 – U.S. President Abraham Lincoln signs the Homestead Act into law, opening eighty-four million acres (340,000 km2) of public land to settlers.

1873 – Levi Strauss and Jacob Davis receive a U.S. patent for blue jeans with copper rivets.

1902 – Cuba gains independence from the United States. Tomás Estrada Palma becomes the country's first President.


Here's are ChatGPT's answers to a few related questions. 

- Evaluate the presidency of Abraham Lincoln.

- What was the Homestead Act?

- Outline western settlement policy in the early years of the United States.

- What businesses were involved in westward expansion?

- Describe the history of dry goods stores in the United States.

- Can clothing styles be patented?

- What is the history of relations between the United States and Cuba?

From the New York Times: I.R.S. to Drop Audits of Trump and Family

 - Click here for the story.

The Justice Department has granted President Trump, his family and businesses immunity from ongoing inquiries into their taxes, a potentially lucrative arrangement that could shield the president from significant financial liability.

The provision, quietly inserted on Tuesday as a supplement to a remarkable deal that also created a $1.8 billion fund aimed at benefiting Mr. Trump’s allies, protects the president, his relatives and his businesses from pending audits and tax prosecutions.

The one-page document, signed by the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, said that the government would be “FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED from prosecuting or pursuing” pending tax claims against Mr. Trump, his family members and businesses.

The provision invited immediate criticism as tax experts raised the possibility that it was illegal.

That the addendum to the deal was posted, without fanfare, on the department’s website belied its bare-knuckled audacity. It revealed the determination of Mr. Trump and his appointees to ram through maximalist measures with minimum outside scrutiny at a moment when they still have uncontested control of government.

The provision was the latest in a series of maneuvers this week that blurred the all-but-vanished boundary between official department business and the private interests of a president intent on using his power to extract financial gain from the federal government for himself and his allies.

Dear ChatGPT: What is presidential immunity?  

Presidential immunity is a legal concept that protects a president from certain types of legal liability while in office—and sometimes even after leaving office—so they can perform their duties without constant fear of lawsuits or prosecution.

In simple terms it means the president cannot always be sued or prosecuted for actions tied to their official role. . . .

Critics argue it could:
- Put presidents above the law
- Make it harder to hold them accountable

Supporters argue it:
- Preserves effective leadership
- Prevents politically motivated legal attacks

More on presidential immunity:

- Presidential immunity in the United States.

- ‘Forever Barred and Precluded’: Trump’s IRS Settlement and the Architecture of Federal Immunity.

The top political story the week of May 11 - 18, 2026: Trump’s Escalating War Against Republican Dissenters

Via ChatGPT: 

One of the defining stories was President Donald Trump intensifying his campaign against Republican incumbents who oppose elements of his agenda, especially Rep. Thomas Massie in Kentucky’s GOP primary.

The Kentucky 4th District race became the most expensive House primary in U.S. history, with more than $32 million spent. Trump endorsed challenger Ed Gallrein and framed the contest as a loyalty test within the Republican Party. The battle highlighted divisions between populist Trump allies and libertarian/conservative Republicans skeptical of executive power and foreign intervention.

This story mattered nationally because it previewed how Trump intends to shape the 2026 midterms and consolidate ideological control over the GOP.

Related articles: 

- Takeaways from primaries where Trump demonstrated power over GOP.

- The Trump paradox: What’s good for him is weighing down his party.

- Trump’s Spring Revenge Tour Routed G.O.P. Foes. But Fall Headwinds Loom.

- Candidates Backed by Trump, Ocasio-Cortez Triumph in Key House Primaries.

Dear ChatGPT: What were the top political stories of the week of May 11- 18, 2026?

Some more things you shoudl consider going over. 

- Click here for the full reply.

The basics:

1. Trump’s Escalating War Against Republican Dissenters
2. The 2026 Midterm Election Landscape Intensified
3. Iran and U.S. Foreign Policy Continued to Dominate Washington
4. Trump’s China Trip Reframed U.S.–China Politics
5. Courts, Tariffs, and Executive Power Became a Major Legal-Political Story
6. Redistricting and Democratic Institutions Remained Flashpoints
7. Political Upheaval Abroad Influenced U.S. Political Debate
8. Immigration and Border Enforcement Stayed Politically Central

The dominant political themes from May 11–18, 2026 were:

- Trump’s consolidation of control within the GOP
- The emerging battle for the 2026 midterms
- Executive power and constitutional conflict
- Foreign policy spillover into domestic politics
- Inflation, energy, and economic anxiety
- Global populist instability and democratic stress

Together, these stories reflected a political environment increasingly shaped by institutional conflict, geopolitical uncertainty, and early positioning for the 2026 elections.

From Wikipedia: On this day in history: 5.19.2026

1749 – King George II of Great Britain grants the Ohio Company a charter of land around the forks of the Ohio River.

1828 – U.S. President John Quincy Adams signs the Tariff of 1828 into law, sparking outrage in the South and leading to the Nullification crisis.

1848 – Mexican–American War: Mexico ratifies the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, thus ending the war and ceding California, Nevada, Utah and parts of four other modern-day U.S. states to the United States for US$15 million.

1921 – The United States Congress passes the Emergency Quota Act establishing national quotas on immigration.


I asked ChatGPT for additonal information about each. Here goes: 

- What relationship did King George II have with the American colonies?

- What was the Ohio Company? Who invested in it? What did it accomplish? Explain its history.

- Describe the early history of land speculation in the United States.

- Evaluate the presidency of John Quincy Adams.

- Outline the history of American Tariff policy since 1879.

- Describe tariffs within the broader context of American tax policy.

- Detail the controveries associated with the Tariff of 1828.

- What was the nullificaton crisis?

- Describe the causes and consequences of the Mexican American War.

- Describe the history of treaties in the United States.

- What was the Emergency Quota Act?

- Outline the history of American immigration policy.
 

The top political story the week of May 4 - 11, 2026: The Iran Crisis and the Strait of Hormuz Conflict

According to ChatGPT: 

The single biggest story was the continuing confrontation between the United States and Iran after weeks of military escalation in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

Major developments included:

-President Donald Trump threatening renewed bombing campaigns if Iran targeted U.S. naval forces.
-U.S. military strikes against Iranian targets after attacks on American destroyers in the Gulf.
-Fragile ceasefire negotiations involving a U.S. 14-point proposal to Iran.
-Rising oil and gasoline prices becoming a major domestic political issue.
-Debate inside the U.S. over whether the administration was drifting toward a larger regional war.

The conflict became both a foreign-policy and economic story because fuel prices surged nationwide, putting pressure on the White House and Congress.

Here are few questions that tie this into the material covered in this class. 

- What role does the president play in establishing foreign policy?
- What is the history of American involvement in Iran?
- What groups have the most influence on Trump Administration's policies regarding Iran? 

What other questions do you think are important?

The top political stories of May 4 - 11, 2026 - according to ChatGPT.

For my brand new GOVT 2305 mini mester students.

This should us understand how the material covered in class applies to current events. 

I asked "What were the top political stories of the week of May 4 - 11, 2026?"

- Here is the full response.

And here is the list it provided: 

1. The Iran Crisis and the Strait of Hormuz Conflict
2. Supreme Court Decisions Reshaping Redistricting and Voting Rights
3. Trump’s Expanding Effort to Influence Election Administration
4. Inflation, Gas Prices, and Trump’s Economic Dilemma
5. Abortion and the Mifepristone Fight Returned to Center Stage
6. Pentagon Budget Battles and Congressional Oversight
7. The 2026 Midterm Environment Began Taking Shape
8. Trump’s Personalization of the Presidency Continued

I'll start going over these one by one in subsequent posts. 

Credentials of Value

NCLS: Credentials of Value.

THEBD: Funding Student Success: Credentials of Value & Fundable Outcome Refinements. 

THECB: Credentials of Value:Community College Finance Model.

THECB: Credentials of Value Methodology.

Texas 2036: Credentials of value 101: What is the minimum value threshold?

TLO: 88(R) HB 8.

 

From Wikipedia: Accessory Transit Company

This builds on the entry below.

There was lots of money in getting people from one place to another in the 19th Century, still is. 

- Click here for the entry. 


The Accessory Transit Company was a company set up by Cornelius Vanderbilt and others during the California Gold Rush in the 1850s, to transport would-be prospectors from the east coast of the United States to the west coast.

At the time, an overland journey across the US was an arduous undertaking and could last many weeks. The Accessory Transit Company instead took passengers by steamer from New York to Grey Town in Mosquitia. From there, they travelled up the Rio San Juan to Lake Nicaragua, crossing the lake to the town of Rivas. A stagecoach then crossed the narrow isthmus to San Juan del Sur, where another steamer travelled to San Francisco.

The ATC provided the cheapest route to California from the east coast, and was soon carrying 2,000 passengers a month at a fare of $300 each (equivalent to about $11,600 in modern money), later reduced to $150. The wealth generated by the route attracted efforts to take it over, and in 1854 the US Navy bombarded San Juan del Norte in response to demands from the town authorities that the company vacate their premises immediately.

On this day in history (1855): American adventurer William Walker departs from San Francisco with about 60 men to conquer Nicaragua.

He was executed by Honduras instead, but many Americans wanted to annex lands around the gulf.

19th Century people were a different breed.

- Click here for the entry on William Walker.


William Walker (May 8, 1824 – September 12, 1860) was an American journalist and mercenary. In the era of the expansion of the United States, driven by the doctrine of manifest destiny, Walker organized unauthorized military expeditions into Mexico and Central America with the intention of establishing colonies. Such an enterprise was known at the time as "filibustering".

After settling in California, motivated by an earlier filibustering project of Gaston de Raousset-Boulbon, Walker attempted in 1853–54 to take Baja California and Sonora. He declared those territories to be an independent Republic of Sonora, but he was soon driven back to California by the Mexican forces. Walker then went to Nicaragua in 1855 as leader of a mercenary army employed by the Nicaraguan Democratic Party in its civil war against the Legitimists. He took control of the Nicaraguan government and in July 1856 set himself up as the country's president.

Walker's regime was recognized as the legitimate government of Nicaragua by US President Franklin Pierce, and it initially enjoyed the support of some important sectors within Nicaraguan society. As ruler of Nicaragua, Walker relegalized slavery, with the goal of creating a new society of dominant white people and subordinate Black and Indigenous laborers. However, he never succeeded in implementing slavery. He also threatened the independence of neighboring Central American republics. Walker antagonized the powerful Wall Street tycoon Cornelius Vanderbilt by expropriating Vanderbilt's Accessory Transit Company, which operated one of the main routes for the transport of passengers going from New York City to San Francisco. The British Empire saw Walker as a threat to its interests in the possible construction of a Nicaragua Canal. A military coalition led by Costa Rica defeated Walker and forced him to resign the presidency of Nicaragua on May 1, 1857.

From Community Impact: Pearland - Friendswood - Manvel

- The Orchard at Lower Kirby mixed-use development along Hwy. 288 in Pearland advances.

- H-GAC officials launch new transportation website ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

- Texas has some of the nation’s highest home insurance costs. What’s driving rates?

- Corporate Personhood.

- Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

- Delaware General Corporation Law.

From the Houston Chronicle: FIFA expects to make $11B from the World Cup. Host cities like Houston will be lucky to break even.

Houston is spending money to be a tourist destination. 

Is the investment wise? 

How we measure that?

- Click here for the article. 

Host cities and their local organizing committees will pay for security at the matches, cover the cost of retrofitting their stadiums to better accommodate soccer and operate fan festivals in addition to the main matches. Originally, they were supposed to pay to transport FIFA officials to all matches, as well, though that requirement has been waived, according to Houston organizers.

The cities get little tangible benefit in return. They do not see a slice of game-day revenues from ticket sales, concessions and merchandise, or parking. Even selling tickets or suites in exchange for corporate sponsorships — usually a key revenue generator for local organizers — was restricted by FIFA this year.

Cities had to agree to FIFA’s demands before the U.S., Mexico and Canada even submitted their bid in 2017 to host the World Cup, and many of those host city contracts remain secret. Now, as the event nears, some cities are questioning whether those agreements will leave them paying for more than they get in return.

“Everybody signed an agreement that was very, very one-sided,” said Alan Rothenberg, who is on the Los Angeles host committee for the 2026 World Cup and was the president of U.S. Soccer the last time the country hosted the tournament in 1994.

Then, some host cities would get a slice of game-day revenues, such as a share of the money made from selling food and drinks at the matches. U.S. Soccer also covered the bill for security at the games and other organizing expenses, Rothenberg said. That helped cities take in more money than they spent, making hosting a more attractive endeavor.

This time around, the agreement was so lopsided that at least one city, Chicago, withdrew during the bidding. And in some cities that moved forward, concerns have grown as the matches near. Officials in Foxborough, Massachusetts, threatened in February to withhold permits for the matches unless FIFA or the owner of the Patriots committed to paying $7.8 million in security costs ahead of time. Foxborough ultimately approved the permits after local World Cup organizers agreed to pay the bill in advance.

“At this point, I think a lot of people are looking at Chicago and thinking they were the smart ones,” Rothenberg said. “They looked at the terms of the agreement and said, ‘No, thanks.’ I don’t think anybody in the 11 host cities thought it would be as tough as it seems to be.”


- Houston was pushed to the brink with March's tourism stress test. Are we ready for the World Cup?

- Visit Houston.

- Houston tourism had a record-breaking 2024. Here's how many people visited last year.

- Why I have a hard time recommending Houston to tourists.

Why do lawsuits use the phrase "an individual?"

From AI Overview:


Lawsuits and legal documents use the phrase "an individual" to distinguish a specific human being from a business entity, corporation, or organization.

Here is how the phrase is commonly used:

- Distinguishing People from Entities: Civil litigation involves disputes between parties, which can be people ("individuals") or organizations. Using "an individual" specifies that the party is a person, not a company.

- Naming Defendants in Small Claims: When filing a lawsuit, you must accurately name the defendant. If you are suing a person, you are "[suing an individual]".

- Service of Process: Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4, special rules apply for serving papers on "an individual" compared to a corporation, partnership, or government agency.

- Civil Rights Claims: Under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a person can sue someone acting "under color of law" for violating their constitutional rights. This applies to individual actors (like police officers or state employees), rather than the state itself.

- Litigant Capacity: Legal rules often refer to "an individual who is not acting in a representative capacity" to define their capability to sue or be sued.

- Pro Se Parties: In court documents, an individual representing themselves without an attorney is known as a "[pro se litigant]".

Key Definition:

An individual must generally be at least 18 years old. If the person is under 18, they are considered a minor, which requires specific legal procedures, such as naming a parent or guardian.


For more: 

- Small Claims Cases.

- The Legal Process In The United States: A Civil Case.

- Class Action Lawsuits: An Introduction.

- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The complaints listed in ELON MUSK, an individual, Plaintiff, v. SAMUEL ALTMAN, an individual.

1. PROMISSORY FRAUD

2. CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD

3. AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD

4. VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL CIVIL RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(C)

5. CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE FEDERAL CIVIL RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(D)

6. BREACH OF EXPRESS CONTRACT

7. BREACH OF IMPLIED-IN-FACT CONTRACT

8. BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

9. BREACH OF QUASI-CONTRACT/UNJUST ENRICHMENT

10. FALSE ADVERTISING UNDER THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(A)(1)(B)

11. UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 et seq.

12. FALSE ADVERTISING UNDER CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17500 et seq.

13. AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

14. TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT

15. DECLARATORY RELIEF DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: ELON MUSK, an individual, Plaintiff, v. SAMUEL ALTMAN, an individual, et al

Here is the lawsuit filed by Musk against Altman.

- Click here for it.  

For more: 

- District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

- Elon Musk Sues OpenAI and Sam Altman for Violating the Company’s Principles.

- Et Tu, Brute? What Elon Musk’s Clash With Sam Altman Is Really About.

- Ego, Fear and Money: How the A.I. Fuse Was Lit.

- Takeaways from day 1 of the Elon Musk and Sam Altman trial.

From the Houston Chronicle: Here are the PACs spending big on Texas statewide and legislative elections

 - Click here for the article. 

It lists the top 42 PACs involved in the campaign so far.

Hearst Newspapers analyzed Texas Ethics Commission data from this cycle to find out which general-purpose PACs spent the most on statewide and legislative races.

Our analysis shows a relatively small circle of political action committees pouring tens of millions of dollars into state races, from the state House in Austin to the governor's mansion. Their donations shape primaries, propping up incumbents or trying to remake the ideological makeup of the Capitol. In the fall, they'll have significant influence on the partisan balance of the state Legislature.

The data reflects political spending so far this election cycle, from Jan. 1, 2025 and April 20, 2026. To get the best idea of how the money is shaping individual races, we excluded dollars that committees spent on overhead and investments, which can total as much as $15 million for groups like Texans for Lawsuit Reform. We included spending on political activities like advertising, consulting, events and campaign contributions.

Biometric Identifiers

- DHS: Biometrics.

- What is a biometric identifier?

- How can biometric identifiers be abused?

- What biometric privacy statutes exists in Texas?

From ScotusBlog: Digital location data heads back to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday on "geofence warranting." 

- Click here for the article.

On Monday, April 27, the Supreme Court will hear Chatrie v. United States, a case about police access to geofence data, a digital record of a person’s location. This case could serve as a landmark intervention in Fourth Amendment doctrine in the digital age – or a more limited adjustment of those rules. The court could also greenlight or restrain “reverse” searches, a key investigative tactic of the digital age. Either way, this is the most important case on digital privacy the court has heard in years.

The Supreme Court last weighed in on the digital Fourth Amendment in 2017. In Carpenter v. United States, the court addressed whether the police had to get a warrant before accessing a certain kind of digital location data, cell-site location information. Cell phones generate CSLI anytime they are on by scanning for the nearest cell tower with strong service. When a cell phone connects to a tower, that tower then records that connection in CSLI logs. A phone’s location can be tracked across time and space by reviewing those logs.

Writing for a 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts’ Carpenter opinion held that the police must get a warrant before reviewing seven or more days of CSLI for a person’s phone. According to the court, reviewing that amount of location data without a warrant violates a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy,” which is the legal threshold the court uses to determine whether constitutional protections kick in. The court also enumerated several factors that can be used to measure one’s reasonable expectations of privacy, such as how much the data reveals about a person, the amount of data gathered, and whether the user voluntarily generated the data.

Although Carpenter expanded Fourth Amendment protections for digital location, lower courts have spent the last decade contending with its boundaries.

Among these unsettled questions is whether police need a warrant to access geofence data, another kind of digital location data. Geofence data generally refers to location information collected by cellphone apps. If you have encountered a prompt on your phone that asks you whether you’d like to allow an app to use your location, you’re likely generating the kind of data at issue in Chatrie. Chatrie specifically involved data generated by a Google service called Location History. In Google’s case, this location information was created by combining information from cell towers but also on GPS, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth signals.

In Carpenter, police sought location information about a particular suspect. But the geofence data in Chatrie is useful in a different situation – when the police have no suspect identified. Police can request information from a private company holding app location data for a list of users at a certain location during a certain timeframe to generate leads.

For more: 

- What is a geofence?

- What is a geofence warrant?

- Oyez: Chatrie v. United States.

- ScotusBlog: Chatrie v. United States.

From the Texas Legislature Online: HB 149 Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act

- Click here for it.  

How to Get to Texas State Rep Jeffrey Barry's Pearland office from Robert Turner High School