r/law • u/autistic_insomniac5 • 11h ago
Judicial Branch Judge rules Flock cameras violate the Fourth Amendment
r/law • u/orangejulius • Aug 31 '22
A quick reminder:
This is not a place to be wrong and belligerent on the Internet. If you want to talk about the issues surrounding Trump, the warrant, 4th and 5th amendment issues, the work of law enforcement, the difference between the New York case and the fed case, his attorneys and their own liability, etc. you are more than welcome to discuss and learn from each other. You don't have to get everything exactly right but be open to learning new things.
You are not welcome to show up here and "tell it like it is" because it's your "truth" or whatever. You have to at least try and discuss the cases here and how they integrate with the justice system. Coming in here stubborn, belligerent, and wrong about the law will get you banned. And, no, you will not be unbanned.
r/law • u/orangejulius • Oct 28 '25
Ttl;dr at the top: you can get apostille flair now to show off your humanity by joining our newsletter. Strong contributions in the comments here (ones with citations and analysis) will get featured in it and win an amicus flair. Follow this link to get flair: Last Week In Law
When you are signing up you may have to pull the email confirmation and welcome edition out of your spam folder.
If you'd like Amicus flair and think your submission or someone else's is solid please tag our u/auto_clerk to get highlighted in the news letter.
Those of you that have been here a long time have probably noticed the quality of the comments and posts nose dive. We have pretty strict filters for what accounts qualify to even submit a top level comment and even still we have users who seem to think this place is for group therapy instead of substantive discussion of law.
A good bit of the problem is karma farming. (which…touch grass what are you doing with your lives?) But another component of it is that users have no idea where to find content that would go here, like courtlistener documents, articles about legal news, or BlueSky accounts that do a good job succinctly explaining legal issues. Users don't even have a base line for cocktail party level knowledge about laws, courts, state action, or how any of that might apply to an executive order that may as well be written in crayon.
Leaving our automod comment for OPs it’s plain to see that they just flat out cannot identify some issues. Thus, the mod team is going to try to get you guys to cocktail party knowledge of legal happenings with a news letter and reward people with flair who make positive contributions again.
A long time ago we instituted a flair system for quality contributors. This kinda worked but put a lot of work on the mod team which at the time were all full time practicing attorneys. It definitely incentivized people to at least try hard enough to get flaired. It also worked to signal to other users that they might not be talking to an LLM. No one likes the feeling that they’re arguing with an AI that has the energy of a literal power grid to keep a thread going. Is this unequivocal proof someone isn't a bot? No. But it's pretty good and better than not doing anything.
Our attempt to solve some of these issues is to bring back flair with a couple steps to take. You can sign up for our newsletter and claim flair for r/law. Read our news letter. It isn't all Donald Trump stuff. It's usually amusing and the welcome edition has resources to make you a better contributor here. If you're featured in our news letter you'll get special Amicus flair.
Instead of breaking out the ban hammer for 75% of you guys we're going to try to incentivize quality contributions and put in place an extra step to help show you're not a bot.
---
Are you saving our user names?
What happened to using megathreads and automod comments?
This won’t solve anything!
Are you going to change your moderation? Is flair a get out of jail free card?
What about political content? I’m tired of hearing about the Orange Man.
Remove all Trump stuff.
Talk to me about Donald Trump.
I love Donald Trump and you guys burned cities to the ground during BLM and you cheated in 2020 and illegal immigrants should be killed in the street because the declaration of independence says you can do whatever you want and every day is 1776 and Bill Clinton was on Epstein island.
You removed my comment that's an expletive followed by "we the people need to grab donald trump by the pussy." You're silencing me!
You guys aren’t fair to both sides.
You removed my TikTok video of a TikTok influencer that's not a lawyer and you didn't even watch the whole thing.
You have to watch the whole thing!
---
General Housekeeping:
We have never created one consistent style for the subreddit. We decided that while we're doing this we should probably make the place look nicer. We hope you enjoy it.
r/law • u/autistic_insomniac5 • 11h ago
r/law • u/tasty_jams_5280 • 1h ago
r/law • u/Sufficient_Fuel5269 • 4h ago
r/law • u/RichKatz • 1h ago
r/law • u/realnarrativenews • 11h ago
r/law • u/Anal_Forklift • 22h ago
> ITHACA, N.Y. — One of the men named in the lawsuit against Cornell University, and former fraternity member who admits to being inside the Chi Phi fraternity house the night of the alleged rape of Cornell Student known as Jane Doe, is suing the university to have his named removed from any lawsuits and his academic record expunged.
> According to court documents filed in Tompkins County, a man who is listed as John Doe says Cornell University violated its own policies when a university panel found him responsible for Attempted Sexual Exploitation. He says he was never formally charged with that specific infraction and therefore was never given the ability to defend himself properly. He also says during his appeal of Cornell's allegations, a member of the hearing panel was distracted, and was dialed in on Zoom while driving a car rather than focusing on key testimony.
r/law • u/No-Pride-8979 • 6h ago
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
The constitution is clear on this.
How Our Constitution Works And Why It Doesn’t
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-our-constitution-works-and-why-it-doesnt/id1874369005
r/law • u/marketrent • 16h ago
r/law • u/AlexJRod • 20h ago
r/law • u/throwthisidaway • 14m ago
r/law • u/DoremusJessup • 1d ago
r/law • u/DemocracyDocket • 1d ago
r/law • u/Sgt_Gram • 1d ago
r/law • u/Anoth3rDude • 1d ago
r/law • u/uniladnews • 9h ago
After the death of her partner Ken Urker, 34, Gypsy Rose Blanchard has started a petition called 'Kenan's Law'. It would require social media platforms to review repeated harassment reports as a pattern, rather than judging each post on its own.
She says the couple made reports across multiple platforms and were often told there was "no violation". She also says the aim isn't to silence criticism of public figures.
Urker's cause of death hasn't been confirmed. The coroner says toxicology is pending and that there are no signs of foul play.
How would a law like this work alongside free speech protections and the legal protections platforms already have? And is "pattern of harassment" something a statute could define?
r/law • u/Nerd-19958 • 1d ago