Lovingood v. Discovery Commc'ns, Inc.

Liberty011

Without access to the opinion body, the structural impact on liberty—speech, property, bodily autonomy, or protection from arbitrary state action—cannot be determined. The case name suggests a private dispute between an individual and a media corporation, which typically does not implicate constitutional liberty constraints on government action.

Federalist 84 · Hamilton (1788)

“The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY… are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the original constitution] contains.”

In plain EnglishHamilton is listing your most important protections: (1) the government can’t lock you up without telling a judge why (habeas corpus), (2) can’t punish you for something that wasn’t a crime when you did it (ex-post-facto), and (3) nobody gets a fancy title that puts them above the law. These three rules are what really keep you free.

Equality Before the Law011

A private dispute between an individual and a corporation does not inherently raise equal-protection or equal-application concerns unless the opinion addresses statutory or common-law rules applied unequally across similarly situated parties. The available text does not permit this assessment.

U.S. Constitution, Article I §9 · Framers (1787)

“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

In plain EnglishThe Constitution says: Congress can’t write a law that points at one specific person or group and punishes them (bill of attainder), and can’t punish you today for something that was perfectly legal yesterday (ex post facto). Laws have to apply to everyone the same way.

Consent of the Governed011

Judicial review of private disputes does not typically implicate the consent-of-the-governed principle unless the ruling interprets or applies a statute enacted by elected representatives or addresses the scope of delegated authority. The available text does not permit assessment of whether such engagement occurs.

Federalist 22 · Hamilton (1787)

“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.”

In plain EnglishHamilton is saying: government only has real authority when the people agree to let it rule. Power comes from us — not from kings, not from elites deciding what’s best for everyone. If the people don’t consent, the government is acting without permission.

Limited & Divided Power011

A private dispute between an individual and a corporation does not inherently raise structural questions about inter-branch authority or federal-state dynamics unless the opinion addresses the scope of judicial power or the application of federal versus state law. The available text does not permit this determination.

Federalist 51 · Madison (1788)

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition… the interior structure of the government… its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.”

In plain EnglishMadison is saying: don’t trust the people in power to behave on their own. Set up the government so that different parts of it have to watch each other. When each branch is trying to protect its own turf, they keep each other honest — and nobody grabs too much power.

Rule of Law011

All judicial decisions implicate rule-of-law principles to some degree by virtue of being subject to appellate review and reasoned opinion. However, without the opinion text, the specific procedural or substantive rule-of-law impact—whether the ruling clarifies legal standards, enforces transparency, or addresses reviewability—cannot be assessed.

Novanglus No. 7 · John Adams (1774)

“A government of laws, and not of men.”

In plain EnglishAdams is saying: the country should be run by rules that everyone — including the president — has to follow. Not by whatever one powerful person decides to do today. The law is the boss, not any single person.

Minority Protection011

A private dispute does not inherently raise minority-protection concerns (6a individual or 6b sub-federal) unless the opinion addresses whether a majority, acting through legitimate government channels, has constricted a minority's structural footing in rights, participation, or institutional standing. The available text does not permit assessment of whether such engagement occurs.

Federalist 10 · Madison (1787)

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens… united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to… the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

In plain EnglishMadison is warning: when a big group of people all want the same thing, they can use their numbers to hurt people who aren’t part of their group. The Constitution was specifically designed so that the majority — no matter how big — can’t just vote away other people’s rights.

Who is accountable · contributions

Issuing / supporting

Judicial review

Run Your Own Evaluation