Last Friday, in the wake of numerous data breaches, President Obama signed a new Executive Order that will change how federal agencies use payment cards and allow access to certain government portals. Those changes include the adoption of chip-and-PIN (also known as EMV) payment terminals and cards, and the implementation of multi-factor authentication on digital applications where consumers can access personal information.
Stockton Judge: Pension Obligations Are Not Impervious to Impairment In Chapter 9 Bankruptcy. What Comes Next?By Ben Feder
Ed note: This post originally appeared on Bankruptcy Law Insights.
The perception that public employee pension obligations cannot be impaired in bankruptcy suffered a damaging blow several months ago in the City of Detroit bankruptcy case, and has now been fatally wounded by the recent ruling of Judge Christopher Klein in the Chapter 9 case of Stockton, California. Although Judge Klein’s decision is not likely to lead to a spate of municipal bankruptcy filings in an effort to escape burdensome pension liabilities (indeed, it may not even lead to the actual diminishment of pension claims in the Stockton case itself), this is an important decision. Unless reversed on appeal, it will alter the legal landscape for distressed municipalities. Together with the similar Detroit decision, the Stockton ruling will affect negotiations among municipalities, employee unions, pension system representatives and financial creditors across the country.
Ed note: This post originally appeared on CommLawBlog.
With SuperPAC money flowing and political ads running on Internet streams, caution in dealing with political spots is in order.
There may be just a few weeks remaining in this election season, but broadcasters should be paying attention – now and in future elections – to an important aspect of the political advertising business: the extent to which they may be able to demand changes in, or refuse to air, political ads because of their content. One key protection that covers the broadcast of some political spots does not cover all such spots, and it definitely does not appear to cover any non-broadcast distribution of even the spots that are protected when broadcast.
- 8th Circuit, Bill Clinton, Constitutional Law, Elena Kagan, Federal Government, Federal Judges, Judicial Nominations, Politics, SCOTUS, Supreme Court
The latest batch of presidential papers from the Clinton Administration, recently released to the public, contain some fun nuggets for law nerds. We’ve mentioned a few of them already — e.g., the time that a pre-robescent Elena Kagan, then a White House staffer, dropped the f-bomb in a memo to White House counsel Jack Quinn. Another just came to light today: as reported by Tony Mauro, a pre-robescent John Roberts, then in private practice at Hogan & Hartson, came close to representing President Clinton in the U.S. Supreme Court in Clinton v. Jones.
The papers contain other interesting tidbits too — and some are sad rather than salacious. For example, there’s the story of how a brilliant and distinguished circuit judge came thisclose to landing a seat on the Supreme Court, until health problems derailed his nomination….
It’s a Bird…it’s a Plane…it’s a Drone; FAA Approves Limited Use of Drones as Camera Platforms for Film and TV ProductionBy Hilary St. Jean.
Ed note: This post originally appeared on Global Regulatory Enforcement Law Blog.
Unmanned aerial cameras have been legal in other parts of the world but prohibited for commercial use in the United States until last week, with the limited exception of two commercial-drone operations, which the FAA had previously approved for Alaskan oil operations. On September 25, 2014, the FAA announced that it approved certain uses of drones or unmanned aircraft systems (“UAS”) in the National Airspace System for film and TV productions. This is a breakthrough for the entertainment industry because drones allow filmmakers Superman-like abilities to take images at angles never before captured. Drones are able to cover altitudes lower than helicopters but higher than cranes, and can navigate indoor areas that are otherwise difficult or impossible to get to. However, the FAA’s approval is not without restriction.
Ed note: This post originally appeared on CommLawBlog.
Petition against a broadcast license renewal cites offensive nature of “Redskins” name as basis for denial. Should the FCC really be involved with this?
For years there’s been a steady drumbeat for the owners of the Washington, D.C. National Football League team to change the team’s name to something other than “the Redskins”. The contention is that the word “Redskins” is – in the eyes of both American Indians and non-Indians – an offensive ethnic slur. (In response, the team — which has used that name for more than 80 years – says that it’s a tribute to American Indians’ strength and courage, i.e., the antithesis of a slur.)
- Barack Obama, Department of Justice, Eric Holder, Federal Government, Glenn Reynolds, Patrick Fitzgerald, Politics
Now that Eric Holder has announced his departure as attorney general, talk has turned to who his successor will be — and should be. Early buzz has centered around Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, but there are other compelling candidates as well, including lots of legal luminaries that Above the Law readers will recognize.
Who will be our nation’s next AG? And who should be the next AG? Let’s discuss….
Questions about the Truth of Political Ads, What’s a Broadcaster to Do When a Candidate Complains About an Attack Ad? – The No Censorship Rule for Candidate AdsBy David Oxenford
Ed note: This post originally appeared on Broadcast Law Blog.
Every election season there is the same refrain from candidates who are attacked in political ads run on broadcast stations – that ad is unfair and the broadcaster who is running it should take it off the air. Sometime, that request is sent by a lawyer with threats to bring legal actions if the broadcaster does not stop airing the ad. What is a broadcaster to do when it gets one of these requests to pull a political ad from the air? While we have written about this issue many times before (see, for instance, our refreshers on the rules with respect to candidate ads, here, and non-candidate, third-party attack ads, here), questions still come up all the time. Thus, broadcasters need to know the rules so that they don’t pull an ad that they are not allowed to censor under the FCC’s rules, and that they don’t run one for which they could in fact have liability.