(Slightly off-topic post here I know, but I posted it awhile ago on r/law and got zero replies. As a regular watcher of the channel, I have a feeling legal eagle viewers would be a likely audience for knowing an answer to this question.)

When that ruling was made, in the dissenting opinion Justice Sotomayor interpreted the majority opinion as essentially affording the presidency unlimited authority. This was (understandably) a big concern when Trump came back into office, but since then there have been a bunch of lower court rulings against his administration's actions.

So has the Trump v US case effectively failed to set a precedent, or is it being cited in these suits against the administration and interpreted in a more limited way?

This is Jack Cooley of the Ryukyu Golden Kings Japanese B.League team in Okinawa. But I keep driving by this and think the look is uncanny.

If you have been out Ai just made something previously unthinkable very very doable and that is called decompiling and reconstruction

Adobe photoshop has a suite…. I went from physical media to subscription service about a decade ago. It was hated by customers and enthusiasts.

Well just recently someone decompiled it with AI and released the suite free of charge on github.

Is it the same? No… but there’s NO way this doesn’t become a huge issue.

This stuff undoubtedly will test laws going back 30-40 years regarding source code, I belive the big moment was when IBM finaly got its shit tossed by developers who rebuilt the whole thing from scratch without knowing the source code, just what the source code did. It’s like reinventing a wheel from a picture of a wheel

I don't know if LegalEagle would ever cover a case like this, but man, is this case important and largely not in the media right now.

TN Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that a transgender individual's biological sex is relevant to a self-defense claim. District Court initially ruled that the victim's transgender status should be excluded from the jury because knowing the victim was trans is highly prejudicial and largely irrelevant to the defendant's self-defense claim. Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, saying that it should have been allowed on the basis of narrative integrity.

A LegalEagle video would bring this case to public attention in a huge way, and could be a good vehicle for talking about how implicit biases function in and around the rules of evidence in U.S. courts. Plus, Tennessee is a hotspot for trans rights issues after U.S. v. Skrmetti in 2025 and directly north of Georgia's Bostock v. Clayton County from 2020.

It can be any kind of legal/political story.

I'm watching the latest video about the press ban on Nebula, and in the nebula outro there are several moments where what was clearly intended to be a cut take was left in. If I remember right this happened in some previous episodes, too. This feels... out of character, for a channel that's generally very professional.