Latest news with #SenateJudiciary
Forbes
5 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Artificial Intelligence Collaboration and Indirect Regulatory Lag
WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 16: Samuel Altman, CEO of OpenAI, testifies before the Senate Judiciary ... More Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law May 16, 2023 in Washington, DC. The committee held an oversight hearing to examine A.I., focusing on rules for artificial intelligence. (Photo by) Steve Jobs often downplayed his accomplishments by saying that 'creativity is just connecting things.' Regardless of whether this affects the way you understand his legacy, it is beyond the range of doubt that most innovation comes from interdisciplinary efforts. Everyone agrees that if AI is to exponentially increase collaboration across disciplines, the laws must not lag too far behind technology. The following explores how a less obvious interpretation of this phrase will help us do what Jobs explained was the logic behind his genius The Regulatory Lag What most people mean when they say that legislation and regulation have difficulty keeping pace with the rate of innovation because the innovation and its consequences are not well known until well after the product hits the market. While that is true, it only tells half of the story. Technological innovations also put more attenuated branches of the law under pressure to adjust. These are second-order, more indirect legal effects, where whole sets of laws—originally unrelated to the new technology—have to adapt to enable society to maximize the full potential of the innovation. One classic example comes from the time right after the Internet became mainstream. After digital communication and connectivity became widespread and expedited international communication and commercial relations, nations discovered that barriers to cross-border trade and investment were getting in the way. Barriers such as tariffs and outdated investment FDI partnership requirements—had to be lowered or eliminated if the Internet was to be an effective catalyst to global economic growth. Neoliberal Reforms When the internet emerged in the 1990s, much attention went to laws that directly regulated it—such as data privacy, digital speech, and cybersecurity. But some of the most important legal changes were not about the internet itself. They were about removing indirect legal barriers that stood in the way of its broader economic and social potential. Cross-border trade and investment rules, for instance, had to evolve. Tariffs on goods, restrictions on foreign ownership, and outdated service regulations had little to do with the internet as a technology, but everything to do with whether global e-commerce, remote work, and digital entrepreneurship could flourish. These indirect legal constraints were largely overlooked in early internet governance debates, yet their reform was essential to unleashing the internet's full power. Artificial Intelligence and Indirect Barriers A comparable story is starting to unfold with artificial intelligence. While much of the focus when talking about law and AI has been given to algorithmic accountability and data privacy, there is also an opportunity for a larger societal return from AI in its ability to reduce barriers between disciplines. AI is increasing the viability of interdisciplinary work because it can synthesize, translate, and apply knowledge across domains in ways that make cross-field collaboration more essential. Already we are seeing marriages of law and computer science, medicine and machine learning, environmental modeling, and language processing. AI is a general-purpose technology that rewards those who are capable of marrying insights across disciplines. In that sense, the AI era is also the era of interdisciplinary boundary-blurring opportunities triggered by AI are up against legal barriers to entry across disciplines and professions. In many professions, it requires learning a patchwork of licensure regimes and intractable definitions of domain knowledge to gain the right to practice or contribute constructively. While some of these regulations are generally intended to protect public interests, they can also hinder innovation and prevent new interdisciplinary practices from gaining traction. To achieve the full potential of AI-enabled collaboration, many of these legal barriers need to be eliminated—or at least reimagined. We are starting to see some positive movements. For example, a few states are starting to grant nurse practitioners and physician assistants greater autonomy in clinical decision-making, and that's a step toward cross-disciplinary collaboration of healthcare and AI diagnostics. For now, this is a move in the right direction. However, In some other fields, the professional rules of engagement support silos. This must change if we're going to be serious about enabling AI to help us crack complex, interdependent problems. Legislators and regulators cannot focus exclusively on the bark that protects the tree of change, they must also focus on the hidden network of roots that that quietly nourish and sustain it.
Daily Mail
5 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Awkward moment MSNBC anchor has to cover news segment about his WIFE
MSNBC host Chris Hayes awkwardly reported on his wife's congressional testimony, hailing her as 'amazing' as he detailed her battle with the GOP over the unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions against the Trump Administration. Constitutional law professor Kate Shaw appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday as a minority party witness to testify about the 'lawlessness' of Donald Trump. Hayes, who has been married to Shaw since 2007, covered his wife's tense face of with Senator Josh Hawley on his All In With Chris Hayes program and did not shy away from showing where his loyalties lie. 'There's a fun moment in the United States Senate yesterday I'd love to share with you, mostly because it features the amazing constitutional law professor/podcast host/ New York Times contributor Kate Shaw, who's also my wife,' Hayes said. He added: 'And it also features Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, who is amazing in his own way, I guess.' Hayes went on to accuse the senator of 'going to ridiculous lengths to defend the lawlessness of boss Trump', whom he claims Hawley believes is a 'victim' of a 'vast network' biased federal judges. He took aim a Hawley's chart detailing the nationwide injunctions that were issued during the Trump, Biden, Obama and Bush administrations, alluding that the senator's 'big gotcha chart' was joke worthy. The MSNBC host went on to cite his wife's 'more simple explanation', which he suggested disproves Hawley's allegation of bias against trump. 'Hawley had printed out a big gotcha chart, which he seemed to think proved that Donald Trump is a victim of a vast network of biased judges from across the ideological spectrum,' Hayes told the program on Wednesday night. 'Professor Shaw suggested there might be a more simple explanation.' The segment cut to footage from Shaw's testimony on Tuesday which saw Hawley probing the law professor about the significantly higher number of injunctions issued against the president. 'What's the principle of when an injunction binding non-parties, which was never done in this country before the 1960s?' Hawley asked. 'And let's see the chart, the Trump chart, which was done, really, only once Trump came into office for the first time. Now, you don't think this is a little bit anomalous?' Shaw quickly hit back: 'A very plausible explanation, Senator, you have to consider is that he is engaged in much more lawless activity than other presidents, right?' Hawley went on the allege that nationwide injunctions were 'never used before the 1960s' and now are being used by 'Democrat judges' to take aim at the GOP. Shaw disputed his allegation, saying: 'It's Republican appointees as well, Senator. And the 1960s is where some scholars begin, sort of locate the beginning of this -' Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) (C) greets University of Pennsylvania law Professor Kate Shaw (L) and Catholic University law Professor Joel Alicea before a subcommittee hearing on June 3, 2025 about the unprecedented number of nationwide judicial injunctions against the Trump Administration But the lawmaker cut her off, asking her to 'identify' some of the scholars who are experts in nationwide injunctions. The law professor started to answer his question, but Hawley cut her off again, noting how the 'republic endured for 150 years before there was a nationwide injunction'. Shaw, however, claimed the 'federal government was doing a lot less' before and that 'many things that have changed' in the last five to ten decades. Hawley continued to push: 'So, so long as it is a Democrat president in office, then we should have no nationwide injunctions? If it's a Republican president, then this is absolutely fine, warranted, and called for. 'How can our system of law survive on those principles, Professor?' 'I think a system in which there are no meaningful constraints on the president is a very dangerous system,' Shaw answered before the clip came to an end. Hayes, offering his reaction to the exchange, just quoted his wife's testimony, telling the audience: 'A very plausible explanation you have to consider is that he is engaged in much more lawless activities than other presidents.' Hayes and Shaw met in the late 1990s during their freshman year at Brown University. They tied the knot in 2007 and now share three children together. Shaw has made several appearances on Hayes' politics podcast Why Is This Happening?. She was a guest on the podcast twice in 2018 to discuss the 'Rule of Law in the Era of Trump' and appeared on the show again in 2019 to discuss the 'meaning of impeachment'. The pair, both of whom have large media presences, also occasionally collaborate on crossover podcast episodes. The couple are also known share sweet glimpses of their romance and family life on social media.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Hawley clashes with UPenn law professor over judicial injunctions
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., clashed Tuesday with a University of Pennsylvania law professor over the number of nationwide judicial injunctions imposed by district judges against President Donald Trump's executive actions on matters including deportations, tariffs, and cuts to federal funding and the federal workforce. During the Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing titled "The Supposedly 'Least Dangerous Branch': District Judges v. Trump," Hawley displayed a bar chart to argue that nationwide injunctions against the executive branch, which had not been used until the 1960s, surged when Trump came into office for his first term and then dramatically dropped again during former President Joe Biden's time at the White House. "Now, you don't think this is a little bit anomalous?" Hawley asked University of Pennsylvania law professor Kate Shaw. Trump Criticizes Rand Parl Over Tax Bill Oppostion: 'Votes No On Everything' Shaw, a Supreme Court contributor for ABC News who previously worked for former President Barack Obama's White House Counsel's Office, responded, "A very plausible explanation, senator, you have to consider is that [Trump] is engaged in much more lawless activity than other presidents. Right?" "This was never used before the 1960s," Hawley said. "And suddenly Democrat judges decide we love the nationwide injunction. And then when Biden comes office, no, no." Read On The Fox News App Shaw cited Mila Sohoni, a Stanford Law School professor, as suggesting that the first nationwide injunction came in 1913 and others were issued in the 1920s. "The federal government was doing a lot less until 100 years ago," she said. "There's many things that have changed in the last hundred or the last 50 years." "So as long as it is a Democrat president in office, then we should have no nationwide injunctions?" Hawley shot back. "If it's a Republican president, then this is absolutely fine, warranted and called for? How can our system of law survive on those principles?" Shaw said she believes a system where there "are no legal constraints on the president is a very dangerous system of law," but the Republican from Missouri contended that's not what the law professor believed when Biden was president. "You said it was a travesty for the principles of democracy, notions of judicial impartiality and the rule of law," Hawley said. "You said the idea that anyone would foreign shop to get a judge who would issue a nationwide injunction was a politician, just judges looking like politicians in robes. Again, it threatened the underlying legal system. People are just trying to get the result they wanted. It was a travesty for the rule of law. But you're fine with all of that if it's getting the result that you want." Judge To Block Trump Admin's Harvard Foreign Students Ban Hawley cited Shaw's stance in a specific abortion pill ruling during Biden's presidency. In April 2023, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction on the Biden Food and Drug Administration's mifepristone rules, which Shaw described at the time as "a travesty for the principles of democracy, notions of judicial impartiality and the rule of law." Hawley said she had failed to offer a legitimate principle for issuing nationwide injunctions now. "I understand you hate the president," the senator told Shaw. "I understand that you love all of these rulings against him. You and I both know that's not a principle. You're a lawyer. What's the principle that divides when issuing a nationwide injunction is OK and when it is not? When the Biden administration was subject to nationwide injunctions, you said that they were travesties for the principle of democracy." "When it's Biden, it's OK. When it's Biden, oh, it's a travesty. When it's Trump in office, it's a no holds barred, whatever it takes," the senator added. Hawley said Shaw and his Democratic colleagues were raising "very principled injunctions" to nationwide injunctions issued against Biden just nine months ago and "all that's changed in nine months is the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue." "I realize that my colleagues on this side of the aisle very much dislike that individual," Hawley said, referring to Trump. "And I realize that you think that the rulings that he has lost are fundamentally sound." "I disagree with all of that, but we can put that to one side. The question we're talking about here is, 'Should judges, single judges, district court judges be able to bind nonparties who are not in front of them?' And you used to say no. Now you say yes," he said. "Let's be consistent. I would just suggest to you our system of government cannot survive if it's going to be politics all the way down." Shaw responded that "democracy is not as simple as majority rule," but Hawley interjected, saying, "You would have it as simple as majority rule. When you get the majority you like, you're for the nationwide injunction. When you don't, you're not."Original article source: Hawley clashes with UPenn law professor over judicial injunctions
Fox News
6 days ago
- General
- Fox News
Hawley clashes with UPenn law professor over judicial injunctions
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., clashed Tuesday with a University of Pennsylvania law professor over the number of nationwide judicial injunctions imposed by district judges against President Donald Trump's executive actions on matters including deportations, tariffs, and cuts to federal funding and the federal workforce. During the Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing titled "The Supposedly 'Least Dangerous Branch': District Judges v. Trump," Hawley displayed a bar chart to argue that nationwide injunctions against the executive branch, which had not been used until the 1960s, surged when Trump came into office for his first term and then dramatically dropped again during former President Joe Biden's time at the White House. "Now, you don't think this is a little bit anomalous?" Hawley asked University of Pennsylvania law professor Kate Shaw. Shaw, a Supreme Court contributor for ABC News who previously worked for former President Barack Obama's White House Counsel's Office, responded, "A very plausible explanation, senator, you have to consider is that [Trump] is engaged in much more lawless activity than other presidents. Right?" "This was never used before the 1960s," Hawley said. "And suddenly Democrat judges decide we love the nationwide injunction. And then when Biden comes office, no, no." Shaw cited Mila Sohoni, a Stanford Law School professor, as suggesting that the first nationwide injunction came in 1913 and others were issued in the 1920s. "The federal government was doing a lot less until 100 years ago," she said. "There's many things that have changed in the last hundred or the last 50 years." "So as long as it is a Democrat president in office, then we should have no nationwide injunctions?" Hawley shot back. "If it's a Republican president, then this is absolutely fine, warranted and called for? How can our system of law survive on those principles?" Shaw said she believes a system where there "are no legal constraints on the president is a very dangerous system of law," but the Republican from Missouri contended that's not what the law professor believed when Biden was president. "You said it was a travesty for the principles of democracy, notions of judicial impartiality and the rule of law," Hawley said. "You said the idea that anyone would foreign shop to get a judge who would issue a nationwide injunction was a politician, just judges looking like politicians in robes. Again, it threatened the underlying legal system. People are just trying to get the result they wanted. It was a travesty for the rule of law. But you're fine with all of that if it's getting the result that you want." Hawley cited Shaw's stance in a specific abortion pill ruling during Biden's presidency. In April 2023, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction on the Biden Food and Drug Administration's mifepristone rules, which Shaw described at the time as "a travesty for the principles of democracy, notions of judicial impartiality and the rule of law." Hawley said she had failed to offer a legitimate principle for issuing nationwide injunctions now. "I understand you hate the president," the senator told Shaw. "I understand that you love all of these rulings against him. You and I both know that's not a principle. You're a lawyer. What's the principle that divides when issuing a nationwide injunction is OK and when it is not? When the Biden administration was subject to nationwide injunctions, you said that they were travesties for the principle of democracy." "When it's Biden, it's OK. When it's Biden, oh, it's a travesty. When it's Trump in office, it's a no holds barred, whatever it takes," the senator added. Hawley said Shaw and his Democratic colleagues were raising "very principled injunctions" to nationwide injunctions issued against Biden just nine months ago and "all that's changed in nine months is the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue." "I realize that my colleagues on this side of the aisle very much dislike that individual," Hawley said, referring to Trump. "And I realize that you think that the rulings that he has lost are fundamentally sound." "I disagree with all of that, but we can put that to one side. The question we're talking about here is, 'Should judges, single judges, district court judges be able to bind nonparties who are not in front of them?' And you used to say no. Now you say yes," he said. "Let's be consistent. I would just suggest to you our system of government cannot survive if it's going to be politics all the way down." Shaw responded that "democracy is not as simple as majority rule," but Hawley interjected, saying, "You would have it as simple as majority rule. When you get the majority you like, you're for the nationwide injunction. When you don't, you're not."
Time of India
6 days ago
- General
- Time of India
‘Why only Trump?': Sen. Hawley spars with law professor in fiery clash over nationwide injunctions
In a fiery exchange, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) clashed with Kate Shaw, a University of Pennsylvania law professor and an ex-Obama White House lawyer, during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on nationwide injunctions. Hawley questioned the dramatic rise in court orders blocking Trump administration policies, claiming a partisan double standard by judges. He presented data showing a disproportionate number of injunctions targeting US President Trump compared to past presidents and questioned the legitimacy of such rulings. Show more Show less
