KAZANAS LC Law Firm | Blog

The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument today in Trump v. Barbara — the birthright citizenship case that goes straight to the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The line of the day came from Chief Justice Roberts after Counsel for the United States Department of Justice argued that modern realities matter in that we are in a "new world" where billions of people are a plane ride from U.S. citizenship. Chief Roberts pointed out: “Well it’s a new world. [But] It’s the same Constitution.”

The Court’s response was clear: changing circumstances do not rewrite constitutional text.

“When written in Chinese, the word ‘crisis’ is composed of two characters. One represents danger and the other represents opportunity.”

— John F. Kennedy

Things feel uncertain right now. That is real. But tough times bring clarity. They show what is at risk.

Fight the Position, Respect the Person.

Trial advocacy is not personal. It is disciplined conflict. You challenge arguments, not character. You dismantle positions with precision while preserving credibility, professionalism, and the record. Juries notice the difference. Judges expect it. Opposing counsel respect it.

Attack the theory. Expose the weakness. Protect your integrity.

This is how lawyers should do trials. 

In a world of AI, your identity should still belong to you. So we need a law to give people complete control over their face, voice, and body in the digital world. In other words, their likeness is theirs, and nobody can use it in AI without their permission.

Why does this matter? Because deepfakes are not just funny memes anymore. They are being used in: Non-consensual explicit content, Scam calls that clone your voice, and Fake political ads and misinformation.

Right now, no federal law protects you from this in the U.S. We have a patchwork of old state laws that were not built for the AI age.

Imagine if we had a U.S. version—call it the Digital Likeness Rights Act:

1) You own your digital likeness.

2) Platforms have to remove fake content if you demand it.

3) Victims can seek damages.

4) Free speech (satire, parody, news) stays protected.

IN LEGAL WRITING 

The client's question, "You billed nine hours for this? It is only four pages," raises a valid point when considering the precision required in legal writing.

Those four pages were not hastily composed; each sentence was meticulously crafted with a distinct purpose. The arguments presented were strategically structured to not only persuade the judge but also to mitigate the risk of prolonged litigation, preempt amendments by the opposing party, and enhance the likelihood of a dismissal with prejudice.

The nine hours expended were not about filling space with words but rather ensuring that extensive future endeavors would not be necessary.

Strategic legal writing entails risk mitigation, foresight into potential counterarguments, and shaping the course of litigation proactively. It transcends mere knowledge of the law to encompass the art of presenting it in a compelling manner that influences the court and dissuades adversaries from advancing.

As the quote often attributed to Benjamin Franklin (originally from Blaise Pascal) suggests, "If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter." In legal practice, brevity is a product of time and effort. The true value of precision lies not in the document's length but in the complications it helps avert. 

NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT. Today the Federal Trade Commission finalized a rule prohibiting employers from imposing noncompete agreements on their workers, which will see court action by arguing that the FTC’s action exceeds its statutory authority.

The rule will generally ban employers from entering, maintaining or attempting to enter a noncompete agreement with an employee, or conveying—absent a good-faith basis—that a worker is subject to a noncompete clause.

Existing noncompete agreements for senior executives—those earning more than $151,164 annually and in policymaking positions—will be allow to remain in force. The final rule will take effect 120 days after its coming publication in the Federal Register.