More of the same for the Trump administration — one that seems incapable of achieving its goals without breaking the law or disregarding the Constitution.

Hundreds of judges handling thousands of cases have already told the administration it can’t do the things it thinks it can when it comes to satisfying its anti-migrant bloodlust/Stephen Miller’s 3,000-arrests-per-day quota (they’re the same thing!). And, outside of the Fifth Circuit, where the majority seems to believe Trump should get whatever he wants, this steady stream of judicial rejections continues.

Yet another class-action suit alleging the wholesale violation of Constitutional rights has resulted in a ruling siding with the Constitution. This case is one of several being handled by the ACLU. This particular one originates in Nevada, which at least keeps it out of the hands of the Fifth Circuit. (Unfortunately, the administration knows who’s buttering its bread, which is why detainees are often shipped immediately to detention centers in Texas and Louisiana.)

The administration has only a single argument to present in its defense of its unconstitutional mandatory detention activities. It involves selectively quoting two related (yet distinct!) immigration statutes and pretending that 1+1=whatever the fuck we say it does.

One of the most concise explanations of the administration’s deliberate misreading of these statutes was delivered by Judge Dale Ho of the Southern District of New York last year. The government wants to pretend people who encounter immigration agents while crossing the border are indistinct from migrants who have already been in this country for weeks, months, or years. They’re not the same thing, but the administration insists they are, despite having only convinced the Fifth Circuit that the laws don’t actually say the things they say.

Given that detention under § 1225(b)(2) is essentially mandatory and that detention under § 1226(a) is largely discretionary, it follows that whichever statute Mr. Lopez Benitez is subject to is potentially dispositive here. That is, if Mr. Lopez Benitez was detained as a noncitizen “seeking admission” to the country under § 1225(b)(2) (as Respondents argue), his detention would be mandatory. If, instead, he was detained as a noncitizen “already in the country” under § 1226(a), then his detention is discretionary and he would be, at a minimum, entitled to an appeal before an immigration judge.

To be sure, the line between when a person is “seeking admission” as opposed to being “already in the country” is not necessarily obvious. For instance, someone who has just crossed the border may technically be “in” the country but is still treated as “an alien seeking initial entry.” Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. at 114, 139 (holding that a noncitizen detained “within 25 yards of the border” is treated as if stopped at the border). But there is no dispute that the provisions at issue here are mutually exclusive—a noncitizen cannot be subject to both mandatory detention under 1225 and discretionary detention under § 1226, a point that Respondents conceded.

These are not the same thing. Section 1226 deals with people already in the country, who are given Constitutional protections. Section 1225 deals with people crossing the border who are met immediately by immigration agents, who don’t have access to the same due process rights.

As the court points out in this case, the language of the statutes makes it clear Section 1225 is “temporally and geographically limited to the border” by other language contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The government, however, wants to pretend it’s indistinct from Section 1226, which deals with people who are already in the country and have been there for a significant amount of time.

The only way the government can present its defense of indefinite detention of migrants without bond hearings is to twist the wording of both statutes. The Nevada court [PDF] isn’t going to let that happen. It calls out Trump’s DOJ for its cut-and-paste antics.

The government contends that the plain language of § 1225(b)(2) requires DHS to detain all noncitizens like Plaintiffs, who are present in the U.S. without admission or parole and subject to removal proceedings, regardless of how long they have been in the country or how far from the border they are apprehended. But this Court finds that the government reads § 1225(b)(2 (A) as a fragment of statutory text in isolation.

Context matters. The government knows this, which is why its arguments remove the parts of the law it wants to use from the context that indicates its actions are illegal.

The Court finds the government’s reading of the statutory text inapposite for severalreasons. First, the government distorts the statutory text, including terms of art specially defined by Congress. Second, the government isolates and abstracts the phrases it favors in § 1225(b)(2)(A) from their context within § 1225 and the statutory scheme, while rendering language it finds inconvenient within § 1225(b)(2)(A) both contrary to ordinary meaning and needless surplusage. Finally, the government’s interpretation unnecessarily renders provisions of § 1226(c) superfluous in all but the rarest cases, unjustifiably construes Congress’ addition of § 1226(c)(1)(E) through the 2025 Laken Riley Act to be utterly ineffectual, and creates unnecessary tension between the relevant provisions, §§ 1225 and 1226.

This is what it looks like when you know you can’t win on the merits. This is the government pretending the law says what it wants it to say and hoping to slip it past a judge and under the skirts of Lady Liberty.

Courts aren’t as dumb as the Trump administration hopes. Let’s look at the statutes, the court says, but the whole thing rather than just the things the government thinks might be usable.

The Court cannot accept such a fraught interpretation when a reading devoid of such conflict, which gives each statutory phrase and section independent meaning and force, is far more plausible.

What follows is a few dozen pages making everything summarized above granular and specific. And if Trump doesn’t like it, he can always ask the legislators he treats as extraneous to rewrite the law in his favor. Take it up with Congress if you don’t like the way the law is actually written, the court says without actually saying it:

[E]ven with regards to removal proceedings as opposed to custody determinations, Congress explicitly reflected its understanding of longstanding due process precedent that recognizes the more substantial due process rights of noncitizens already present and residing in the U.S. compared to the minimal rights of noncitizens seeking to enter.

Even a Congress loaded with MAGA bitchboys isn’t going to be able to erase Constitutional protections for migrants no one really seemed to have a problem with until white Christian nationalists took over the West Wing (on two non-consecutive occasions). The current Congress is merely an afterthought in service to Federalist Society theories of unitary executive power — something that surely won’t come back to haunt them when America decides it’s time to hand the reins to the opposition party.

And that’s not all of the bad news for Trump and his enablers. The due process thing is already a known issue and one that has resulted in hundreds of losses for the administration’s lawyers. This court also points out the Fourth Amendment implications of its actions. While this doesn’t necessarily create the sort of precedent that would shut down the DHS’s extremely creative interpretation of the Constitution, it will provide plenty of citation pull-quotes for litigants challenging ICE’s warrantless arrests and home entries.

[N]o administrative warrant requirements exist in the text of § 1225(b)(2)(A) or its implementing regulations. The government’s interpretation of that provision as geographically unlimited is thus in tension with the application of the Fourth Amendment within the country’s interior, which “requires that immigration stops must be based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence, stops must be brief, arrests must be based on probable cause, and officers must not employ excessive force.”

I’m sure this quotation of Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence in Trump v. Illinois is deliberate. The guy behind “Kavanaugh stops” (TL;DR: looking foreign is probable cause when it comes to immigration enforcement) is being directly quoted to reject the government’s reliance on administrative warrants to bypass the Constitution. [Chef’s kiss gesture.]

Great stuff. But, as always, tempered by the realization that this administration will not stop doing illegal things just because a court has directly told them these actions are illegal. The old equation — asking forgiveness > asking permission — doesn’t really apply. This administration will do neither. It will simply DO until it becomes impossible to continue.

Don’t let that discourage you, though. Even if the co-equal branches don’t seem to be living up to the “checks and balances” hype, we’re a nation of millions spread across a considerable number of square miles. They can’t take us all at once.

VPNs (when integrity is maintained and the owners aren’t sleazy scammers) have long been the mortal enemy of shitty, surveillance-happy governments.

And when shitty, surveillance-happy governments try to block or degrade the use of VPNs, bad things can happen. As Russia found out recently when a ham-fisted effort to block VPN users from accessing Telegram resulted in a massive outage for online banking across the entire country.

Last February Russia tried to delete WhatsApp and Telegram from its version of the internet in the hopes of driving Russians to Max, the country’s approved “everything app.” Max has no encryption or privacy protections, making it easier for Vladimir Putin’s government to engage in mass surveillance of the public’s online activities.

VPN use makes that harder. An estimated 50 million Russians still use VPNs to access Telegram, according to CEO Pavel Durov (happily posting away over at Elon Musk’s right wing propaganda website):

So last May, Russia’s Digital Minister Maksut Shadayev announced an effort to “reduce VPN ​usage.” But Durov says those efforts have been a broad failure, recently resulting in a massive outage (Bloomberg paywalled, Gizmodo alternative) for all online banking apps in Russia:

“But amid its effort to weaken VPNs on Friday, according to Bloomberg, accounts from “The Bell and other Russian media” banking apps were disrupted. This disruption might have been, “caused by an overload in the filtering systems run by Russia’s communications watchdog, according to the reports,” Bloomberg explained, “with experts warning that major restrictions risk undermining network stability.”

Something similar happened in 2018. Whoops. Apparently the Russian government was so eager to ban VPNs, they erroneously targeted IP addresses tied to banking infrastructure owned by Sberbank, VTB, and T-Bank, demonstrating the fragile nature of centralized financial infrastructure. The outage briefly made mobile payment apps unusable, making cash the only viable transaction option for part of a day.

Given that shitty autocratic governments (like our own) are incapable of learning anything useful from experience, you can expect the problem to repeat itself.

This week, we’ve got a double-winning comment from Shannon Vanshoon that took first place on the insightful side and second place on the funny side. It’s a response to a particular passage in our post about the scammy AI company that fooled the New York Times:

Or in other words…

“So to my friends and family members wondering why I haven’t built my own billion-dollar AI company: apparently the missing ingredient wasn’t AI — it was being willing to run a deepfake-powered spam operation selling potentially inert pills to desperate people.“

Or, to quote my partner, ‘I’d be rich if I was just a little more evil.’

In second place on the insightful side, it’s a comment from Thad about the depths of dysfunction in American government and beyond:

I forget who said it, but I once saw it framed as “If you want to know whether this is a Trump problem or a GOP problem, consider that the two most pro-Trump justices on the Supreme Court were appointed by the Bushes.”

That comment was a reply to Heart of Dawn‘s comment raising the subject, so we’ll start with that comment for our first editor’s choice on the insightful side:

What gets me is not the pedophile war monger’s unhinged rant, crashing of the global economy, or taking a sledgehammer to America’s status as an ally to the West and a global superpower- it’s that despite all this, he still has full support of Congress, the Supreme Court, and 30% of the US population.

The country has a rot to it’s very core that won’t be removed by ousting Trump alone.

Next, it’s an anonymous comment about the limits of the DMCA and the companies that go beyond them:

But, as bad as the law is, it doesn’t actually allow for takedowns of references to copyright infringement (unless perhaps judges invented such a requirement via case law). Google apparently chose to allow people to use notices that way, despite a lack of any legal basis. And other search engines kind of copied from them. Maybe the film companies applied pressure as advertisers.

By contrast, in the old days, I don’t think anyone ever had their phone number removed from the phone book, or disconnected altogether, based purely on unproven accusations of illegal activity (like maybe a video store that was a little shady regarding copyright law). I’m not sure that was even an option after a court found someone guilty or liable.

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is MrWilson with another comment about Medvi and the New York Times:

I’m half expecting an announcement that Elizabeth Holmes has endorsed MEDVI from her cell and is being given a seat on the board.

We’ve already had our second place funny winner above, so we’ll head straight on to the editor’s choice, starting with That One Guy and a comment passing on a famous book passage that suits Congress’s latest attempt to put the law behind a paywall:

‘Publicly acessible’ doesn’t mean ‘Publicly accessible in a usable format’

And the bill is sneaky about it: it includes a provision requiring that incorporated standards be made “publicly accessible online,” which the bill’s supporters point to as proof of their commitment to transparency.

” …You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.’

‘But the plans were on display…’

‘On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.’

‘That’s the display department.’

‘With a torch.’

‘Ah, well the lights had probably gone.’

‘So had the stairs.’

‘But look you found the notice didn’t you?’

‘Yes,’ said Arthur, ‘yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of The Leopard”.’ –Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, Douglas Adams.

Finally, because someone had to say it, it’s an anonymous comment about the prosecutors who are still trying to convict a 62-year-old woman for wearing a 7-foot-tall inflatable penis costume to a protest:

Somehow isn’t the biggest dick of this story.

That’s all for this week, folks!

It’s time for the third in our series of spotlight posts looking at the winners of our eighth annual public domain game jam, Gaming Like It’s 1930! We’ve already covered the Best Adaptation and Best Deep Cut winners, and this week we’re looking at the winner of Best Visuals: As I Lay Flying by Geouug.

In a first for these game jams, Geouug is a double winner, having taken the prize in two different categories with two different games. As I Lay Flying is the more ambitious submission of the two: it’s a challenging physics-based game based on William Faulkner’s 1930 novel As I Lay Dying, which tells the story of the Bundren family’s effort to return their recently deceased aunt’s body to her hometown. In the book, it’s a journey of diverse trials and tribuilations; in the game, it’s a slapstick adventure about launching a wagon through the sky.

It’s a fun if slightly finnicky challenge that’s easy to understand but hard to master. There’s more than just the core physics gameplay too: progressing requires purchasing upgrades using the money you earn with each attempt, and the selection of these upgrades is crucial to finishing each stage.

The resource management layer turns As I Lay Flying into a complete game, and it was a strong competitor for Best Digital Game. But even more than that, the game stands out for its graphical ambition, completeness, and attention to detail. Everything is designed to fit into the style and setting, and no interface element is left plain and generic: they are rendered in wood and paint and cloth, with little touches like period-appropriate stamps to mark purchased upgrades. During the main gameplay there are parallax-scrolling backgrounds and physics-based animation of the wagon and its occupants, and the levels are bookended by dialogue and narration scenes illustrated with photos and original character portraits.

Though most of the graphics are composed of very simple pieces (stock grass textures and vector tree silhouettes abound), the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. No corners are cut and nothing feels overlooked. For achieving such a comprehensive graphical style that ties together every element of the game, and with some fun gameplay to boot, it’s this year’s winner for Best Visuals.

Congratulations to Geouug for the win! You can play As I Lay Flying in your browser on Itch. We’ll be back next week with another winner spotlight, and don’t forget to check out the many great entries that didn’t quite make the cut. And stay tuned for next year, when we’ll be back for Gaming Like It’s 1931!

Last month, we discussed NVIDIA’s demo video for its forthcoming DLSS 5 technology and the controversy surrounding it. While I’m going to continue to be of the posture that an injection of nuance is desperately needed in the reaction to AI tools and the like, our comments section largely disagreed with me on that post. That’s cool, that’s what this place is for, and I still love you all.

But this post is not about DLSS 5. Rather, it’s about the video itself and how it was briefly taken down over automated copyright claims thanks to an Italian news channel. Please note that the source material here was written while the video was still down, but it has since been restored.

And now, here we are in April, and NVIDIA’s DLSS 5 announcement trailer is no longer available to watch on YouTube on the company’s official GeForce channel. And no, it’s not because NVIDIA is responding to the feedback and retooling the technology for a re-reveal or re-announcement; it’s now blocked on “copyright grounds.”

A clear mistake, but also one that highlights the limitations of Google’s automated system for YouTube. Apparently, the Italian television channel La7 included footage from the DLSS 5 reveal in a recent broadcast and has since copyrighted it. From there, essentially every video on YouTube with DLSS 5 trailer footage was issued a copyright strike and said to be in violation, with the videos taken down with the following message: “Video unavailable: This video contains content from La7, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.”

Yes, this was clearly a mistake. But it’s a mistake that I’m frankly tired of hearing about, all while Google does absolutely nothing to iterate on its copyright process and systems to mitigate such mistakes. The examples of this very thing are so legion as to be laughable. Whether due to error or due to malicious intent, videos that include content from other videos for the purposes of reporting and commentary, which are then copyrighted and result in takedowns of the source material, happens all the damned time.

This is almost certainly all automated, which means there are no human eyes looking for an error in the flagging of a copyright violation. It just gets tagged as such and taken down. And, no, the irony is not lost on me that we need human eyes to keep an automated copyright takedown on a video about AI from occurring.

What makes this alarming is that the video was taken down with seemingly no human interaction or input, as it’s clear that NVIDIA not only created DLSS 5, for better or worse, but also the trailer that has been a hot topic of discussion this year. We’re assuming this will be resolved fairly quickly. Still, it will be interesting to see whether YouTube responds to this case and claims that false copyright infringement notices like this are prevalent on the platform.

Google hasn’t been terribly interested in commenting on the plethora of cases like this in the past, so I strongly doubt it will now. Which is a damned shame, honestly, because the company really should be advocating for all of the users on its platform, if not especially those that are negatively impacted by this haphazard process.

But, for now, the video is back, so you can go hate-watch it again if you like.

The Trump administration’s AI policy is two-faced, torn between deregulation and despotism.

In March, the administration released its National AI Legislative Framework, directing Congress to “prevent the United States government from coercing technology providers, including AI providers, to ban, compel, or alter content based on partisan or ideological agendas.” This policy against government interference with AI is consistent with the administration’s purported light-touch approach to regulating the technology—but contrary to its recent actions.

In February 2025, Vice President Vance denounced “excessive regulation of the AI sector,” endorsing a “deregulatory flavor” of AI policy. Several months later, the administration released its AI Action Plan, pledging to “dismantle unnecessary regulatory barriers” and “onerous regulation.”

At first, the Trump administration followed through on this deregulatory promise. Three days into his second term, President Trump revoked an Executive Order from President Biden which established a government-wide effort to regulate and guide the development of the AI industry. Next, as directed by President Trump’s AI Action Plan, the Office of Science and Technology Policy initiated a proceeding to identify federal rules and regulations “that unnecessarily hinder” AI in order to implement “regulatory reform” and “promote” the technology. Last December, the Federal Trade Commission, led by two Trump appointees, set aside a Biden-era enforcement action against Rytr, an AI-powered writing assistant. The FTC explained that, “after reviewing the final order in response to President Trump’s AI Action Plan,” it concluded “the order unduly burdens innovation in the nascent AI industry.”

Despite the laissez-faire gesturing, however, the administration demonstrates a tyrannical impulse to control AI. In the same breath as denouncing excessive regulation, Vice President Vance demanded that “AI must remain free from ideological bias.” President Trump’s AI Action Plan echoed this command, directing AI companies to design their models “to pursue objective truth rather than social engineering agendas.” This rhetoric elides the fact that the First Amendment bars the government from deciding what constitutes “truth.”

In recent months, the administration has sought to exert control over the industry under the guise of combatting so-called “woke AI.” Last July, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government, prohibiting government procurement of AI models unless they are ideologically “neutral,” i.e., “nonpartisan tools that do not manipulate responses in favor of ideological dogmas such as DEI.” In January, Secretary of Defense Hegseth issued a memo instructing the Department of Defense to “utilize models free from usage policy constraints” and banning the DoD from “employ[ing] AI models which incorporate ideological ‘tuning.’”

The memo set the stage for the ongoing dispute between the administration and Anthropic, an American AI company. In July 2025, the DoD contracted with Anthropic to deploy its AI models for national security applications like intelligence analysis, modeling and simulation, operational planning, and cyber operations. In the contract, Anthropic stipulated that the government could not use its models for mass domestic surveillance or to power fully autonomous weapons—arguably violating Hegseth’s rule against usage constraints.

Consequently, in late February, Hegseth threatened to cut ties with Anthropic unless the company allowed the military to use its AI for “all lawful purposes.” When Anthropic refused, President Trump directed federal agencies to “IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic’s technology,” deriding the firm as “A RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY.” He threatened to “use the Full Power of the Presidency to make [Anthropic] comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow.”

The DoD then designated Anthropic a “supply chain risk” under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018, defined as an entity that “may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, extract data, or otherwise manipulate” the technology it provides “so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise manipulate” the use of the technology or the “information stored or transmitted” thereon. The government has never applied this designation to a U.S. company; it is typically reserved for foreign intelligence agencies, terrorists, and hostile actors. As a result, Anthropic may not provide products or services to the DoD, and contractors may not use its products while working on DoD projects. 

On March 9, Anthropic sued the administration in federal court, challenging the designation and seeking an injunction blocking its implementation. The company pleaded that the Trump administration has “harm[ed] Anthropic irreparably,” jeopardizing public and private contracts and costing it “hundreds of millions of dollars in the near-term,” as well as attacking “Anthropic’s reputation and core First Amendment freedoms.”

On March 26, the District Court for the Northern District of California sided with Anthropic and granted a preliminary injunction barring a variety of federal agencies from terminating their contracts. The court also blocked the DoD and Hegseth from implementing the supply chain risk designation. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin observed that the Trump administration is “punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government’s contracting position,” which “is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation.” Last week, the administration appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit.

Hegseth accused Anthropic of “duplicity,” but it is the Trump administration that has been duplicitous about its approach to AI. Despite championing deregulation, the administration has weaponized the federal government to punish an American AI company for refusing to bend to its will. Abusing the government procurement process to crush domestic AI firms is the opposite of light-touch regulation.

Judge Lin described the Trump administration’s actions against Anthropic as “Orwellian.” The administration has shown its ugly side on AI, and it looks a lot like tyranny. 

Andy Jung is associate counsel at TechFreedom, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank focused on technology law and policy.

In case you’ve been asleep, what appears to be an increasingly mentally unstable Donald Trump has further destabilized the middle east with a war nobody asked for or wanted. Most U.S. media coverage of Trump’s disastrous Iran war hasn’t been great, but they’ve still occasionally managed to communicate the pointlessness of the endeavor to the electorate (which speaks more of the unpopularity of the war than their reporting chops).

Trump recently announced a “cease fire” with Iran (which apparently isn’t even a cease fire), but refused to state what the conditions of the cease fire or long term peace actually are. The Iranian Security Council issued a list of ten demands that, if agreed to, would leave Iran in a stronger position than when this whole idiocy started:

Some news outlets, like CNN, simply reported directly on what Iran had claimed. This, as you might expect, upset Donald Trump and his top FCC censor Brendan Carr, who are now threatening an “investigation” of CNN for simply repeating what was publicly stated:

Not mentioned (of course) is the fact that Fox News also reported the Iran statement, yet avoided being called out by the president:

Trump later would issue another statement over at his right wing propaganda website, calling for criminal action against CNN (and CNN only), while making up a whole bunch of nonsense (he may or may not believe is actually true):

Trump’s sensitivity here suggests they’re well aware that a massive, superior military has been getting dog-walked by Iranians because Trump and his advisors were too stupid to understand modern, cheap drone warfare and how shipping in the Straight of Hormuz actually worked. The shipping logjam is driving up gas prices and making life difficult for Republicans ahead of the midterms.

There is, of course, absolutely zero basis for any meaningful criminal action against CNN here of any kind that wouldn’t be laughed out of court on free speech grounds. As we’ve seen with corporate media that doesn’t mean they won’t still capitulate embarrassingly, but so far CNN is standing its ground. As it should, since again, all it did was report on an Iranian statement in a very basic way alongside dozens of other news outlets.

The bigger threat, as I keep noting, is CNN’s looming acquisition by Larry Ellison as part of the Paramount Warner Brothers merger. CNN under current management is already very friendly to right wing ideology (see its enthusiastic platforming of MAGA bullshitter Scott Jennings). Under Ellison’s ownership (see: Bari Weiss at CBS) there’s little doubt CNN will be converted into yet another Trump agitprop network.

At which point, Trump will move on to threatening any remaining U.S. corporate media outlets that haven’t either embarrassingly capitulated or been purchased by a right wing billionaire. This is, as I keep repeating, an exact copy of Victor Orban’s autocratic media policy in Hungary, which involves having party-loyal oligarchs buy up all corporate media outlets and pummel the public with propaganda while the government strangles what’s left of real, independent reporting just out of frame.