In Case You Missed It (Law)
Digest for Thursday February 16, 2023

First, from slate.com: Gun laws after Bruen: Clarence Thomas can’t read the Framers’ minds.
This article examines the concept of jurisprudence in relation to the Second Amendment and modern gun control laws in the U.S. It argues that the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen to uphold a litmus test for gun control laws, and a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in U.S. v. Rahimi to invalidate a federal law aimed at keeping guns from those adjudicated to be domestically abusive to their intimate partners, have resulted in a narrow view of what the framers of the Second Amendment might have required. The article suggests that a broader approach to looking at the Second Amendment might lead to a more generous interpretation of gun control laws.

Next, from www.washingtonpost.com: Youngkin opposes effort to shield menstrual data from law enforcement
Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin's administration helped to defeat legislation that would have put menstrual data stored on period-tracking apps beyond the reach of law enforcement. The measure was proposed by Senator Barbara Favola to protect the privacy of individuals' health data, but was rejected based on the administration's concerns that it would limit search warrant powers. Abortion rights advocates accused the administration of trying to criminalize patients and medical providers, though Youngkin and prominent Republicans have denied this. Senator Scott Surovell proposed a bill prohibiting the sale or dissemination of menstrual data to third parties without the consumer's consent.

Finally, from www.platformer.news: Yes, Elon Musk created a special system for showing you all his tweets first
Elon Musk recently revealed that it cost him $44 billion to prove to the world his own insecurities. His outburst at his engineering team to make sure his tweets were the most popular has been met with criticism from the public.

---

Today's paper of the day is Analysis of Over 2,200 Life Science Companies Reveals a Network of Potentially Illegal Interlocked Boards by Mark A. Lemley, Anoop Manjunath, Nathan Kahrobai, and Ishan Kumar. This paper studies the potential of anticompetitive behavior in the life sciences industry, specifically the prevalence of interlocking directorates, which is illegal. Findings show that 10-20% of board members are interlocked, with the number of interlocks doubling in the last two decades. Companies in oncology, neurology, immunology, and respiratory disease are particularly affected by interlocking directorates, and over half of all companies with more than $5 million in revenue are interlocked.

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 ~