The Latest Breaking News from the Seventh Circuit

From yesterday's order by Chief Judge Nancy Rosenstengel (S.D. Ill.) in Robe Probe v. McGehee: Two amorphous plaintiffs, Robe Probe John Doe, initiated this action on October 2, 2023, against various personnel of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Illinois along with Judge John McGehee. {In the Complaint, Robe Probe…

Voting districts, work uniforms, and hunter harassment.

An illustration that courts are often willing to reconsider stipulated sealing and pseudonymization decisions when members of the public or media object.

From U.S. v. Holden, decided Friday by the Seventh Circuit (Judge Frank Easterbrook, joined by Judges Diane Wood and Doris Pryor); seems quite correct to me: "Our legal system provides methods for challenging the Government's right to ask questions—lying is not one of them. A citizen may decline to answer…

The Seventh Circuit so holds, applying Wisconsin tort law, and not reaching the 47 U.S.C. § 230 issue.

"[A]n individual's name is not sensitive data in and of itself, and Plaintiff does not explain how publication of Plaintiff's name would place Plaintiff's data at further risk."

OK, not really, but the judge partly denied the motion for summary judgment, which would allow it to go to trial.

Words from the Seventh Circuit, in Singh v. Amar, 2023 WL 3267851, handed down Wednesday. One can debate the merits of these conclusions, or argue that they are somewhat overstated (e.g., perhaps there might be some basis for sealed appeals in some extraordinary national security cases); and the Seventh Circuit…

Disparaging scientists, disappearing warrants, and disgruntled lawyers.