For my money, Paul is probably correct in pointing to some long-run consequences of this week’s FTC v. Wyndham ruling.
Wells C. Bennett was Managing Editor of Lawfare and a Fellow in National Security Law at the Brookings Institution. Before coming to Brookings, he was an Associate at Arnold & Porter LLP.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
Such is the gist of a three-judge panel's quite important opinion, affirming the denial of a motion to dismiss in Federal Trade Commission v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation et al.
Query how much this precedent, regarding the government's own cyber enforcement powers, might bolster private efforts to hold the government to account for its own data security problems.
For those following the Philippines-China South China Sea arbitration, Lawfare alum Sean Mirski has an article over at The Diplomat (“Should the Philippines’ South China Sea Case Against China Proceed?”) that examines one of China’s jurisdictional arguments.
The brief was submitted to the D.C. Circuit yesterday, by the Guantanamo detainee's lawyers. We thus await decision from the appeals court as to whether it will order en banc rehearing in this long-running military commissions case.
It almost certainly won't, in my view—but we'll see soon enough.
Earlier today, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit handed down its quite important decision in United States v. Graham.
Suppose you were the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)—a unit of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Suppose further that in March 2014 you had announced your intention to offload your management of certain functions of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), and to hand that competence over to a broader, mulitnational group. How would you go about doing so?
As is well known, NTIA has mulled the question for roughly a year and a half, and all the while sought input from a diverse group of stakeholders and experts.
The gist of Judge Royce Lamberth's opinion---which I have not yet read---is to deny the detainee's motion to grant his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (As readers know, the motion was founded on the President's statements about the end of the United States' war in Afghanistan.)