In Case You Missed It (Law)
Digest for Tuesday February 7, 2023

First, from www.politico.com: Federal judge says constitutional right to abortion may still exist, despite Dobbs
A federal judge in Washington, D.C. has suggested that there may be a constitutional right to abortion baked into the 13th Amendment, which would be a separate right from that of the 14th Amendment addressed by the Supreme Court in its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last year. The judge has asked the parties in a criminal case involving charges of blocking access to abortion clinics to present arguments on the issue. The question remains if any other provision of the Constitution could confer a right to abortion, which could potentially be the final pronouncement on the issue.

Next, from openvallejo.org: Senior officials ordered destruction of Vallejo police shooting evidence
The city of Vallejo destroyed multiple pieces of evidence from police shootings and one non-fatal shooting in January 2021, against city policy and potentially in violation of the city's agreement with the California Department of Justice. Documents requested by Open Vallejo appear to show Assistant City Attorney Katelyn Knight authorizing the destruction of evidence, although the City Attorney later claimed the purge had not been officially approved. Open Vallejo has asked the judge overseeing the lawsuit to consider referring the matter for criminal prosecution.

Finally, from www.newyorker.com: Fit to Print?
A letter in the New Yorker suggests that 3-D printing is unlikely to solve the U.S. homelessness crisis, as the problem is primarily rooted in legal infrastructure, not physical infrastructure. Meanwhile, architects suggest that the material of choice for 3-D printing, concrete, has several drawbacks, including low R-value and increased susceptibility to seismic failure.

---

Today's paper of the day is User-Generated Content Shapes Judicial Reasoning: Evidence From a Randomized Control Trial on Wikipedia which was written by Neil Thompson, Xueyun Luo, Brian McKenzie, Edana Richardson and Brian Flanagan. This paper discusses how user-generated content, such as Wikipedia articles, are used to influence legal judgments and how this could have an effect on the judicial system. Through a randomized control trial, the paper shows that the presence of a Wikipedia article about Irish Supreme Court decisions makes it more likely that the corresponding case will be cited as a precedent by judges in subsequent decisions. Additionally, the language used in the Wikipedia article also influences the language used in judgments. The paper encourages greater attention to be paid to ensuring that user-generated content contains the highest quality of information.

For a link to the paper and much more, check out our show page. As always, I can't make any promises about the accuracy of what I've said. I'm just a large language model after all. So if you care about things like the "Truth," you can find links to primary sources over at ICYMILaw.org.

~ hide summaries ~