6 ms·
Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law
- BobbyTables2 3mo agoI don’t understand - was this site or company based in Texas? Otherwise the general idea seems absurd that an individual state could freeze a domain impacting for the whole Internet… (EDIT: I won’t lose any sleep at the loss of such scum but the general principle seems a bit strange.)
- jagged-chisel 3mo agoI think it remains to be seen whether Verisign follows through.
- jerrythegerbil 3mo agohttps://dnschecker.org/#A/motherless.com https://dnschecker.org/#A/motherless.com
- EmbarrassedHelp 3mo agoSo he managed to block the site globally for not forcibly violating the privacy of its users with mandatory age verification. The US court system really needs to do something about this, and overturn Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton in favour of Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union.
- reactordev 3mo agoThe US court system is completely hamstrung by the current administration.
- applfanboysbgon 3mo agoFWIW, the site isn't blocked globally. They just moved to a new domain. I do generally agree that local governments trying to forcefully exert their influence beyond their jurisdiction is deeply problematic. It wouldn't even be possible to host a website on the internet if this becomes normalized, due to being held to thousands of contradicting standards. At most Texas should have the authority to tell Texas ISPs to block traffic.
- WillPostForFood 3mo agoAllowing states to force ISPs to block websites might be an even bigger can of worms.
- inigyou 3mo agoMotherless shouldn't have used a domain under Texan jurisdiction if they didn't want this to happen.
- toomuchtodo 3mo agoIt operates in Texas if it is serving Texas users. > Kick Online, which openly describes itself as a “moral free” company, ignored the lawsuit and refused to comply with the court’s order. It continued publishing and distributing harmful sexual material that was accessible to minors in Texas. This is the same website with a forum with millions of users trading information on how to assault their partner. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2026/03/world/expose-rape-assault-online-vis-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2026/03/world/expose-rape-as... FAFO.
- pixl97 3mo agoAll fun and games till religions get in battles and shut down websites talking about gods and beliefs they don't like.
- BobbyTables2 3mo agoIndeed. Does this mean Texas can shutdown other websites in other states that provide abortion support? I’m sure there are those who would argue such to be harmful to children…(not to mention the fetus)
- toomuchtodo 3mo agoAll speech does not deserve the same protection, certainly not unlimited protection, says SCOTUS. Supreme Court allows Texas to enforce law requiring age verification and parental consent on apps - https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/07/supreme-court-allows-texas-to-enforce-law-requiring-age-verification-and-parental-consent-on-app/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/07/supreme-court-allows-texa... - July 6th, 2026 Supreme Court allows Texas’ law on age-verification for pornography sites - https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on... - June 27th, 2025 https://mashable.com/article/all-the-states-and-countries-with-age-verification-laws https://mashable.com/article/all-the-states-and-countries-wi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_age_verification_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_age_verification_...
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisign (Under "Controversies".) > In March 2012, the U.S. government declared that it has the right to seize domains ending in .com, .net, .cc, .tv, .name, and .org if the companies administering the domains are based in the U.S. The U.S. government can seize the domains ending in .com, .net, .cc, .tv, and .name by serving a court-order on Verisign, which manages those domains.
- what 3mo agoTexas isn’t the US government?
- 8note 3mo agois verisign a texas company? id assume delaware, and so delaware, and the federal government have jurisdiction, not texas
- randbyte 3mo agoWhen people say “US government” they usually mean the federal government…
- what 3mo agoThat was my point?
- TylerE 3mo agoNo more than the government of France is the EU government.
- Cpoll 3mo ago> The Office of the Attorney General will continue to use every available legal mechanism, including writs of attachment against domain names, to enforce Texas law and ensure that no company, regardless of where it is incorporated, can profit from exposing Texas children to harmful content. And Kick Online Entertainment S.A. appears to be incorporated in Luxembourg. The "S.A." is a mostly European thing, kind of like a "limited" company.
- BLKNSLVR 3mo ago> obtained a court-ordered writ directing Verisign, the company that maintains the “.com” domain registry, to place the domain “motherless.com” on a registry lock, hold, or similar status. So they're using the fact that Verisign is a US company and can therefore be leaned on. I'm not sure how I feel about this. What do other countries do who don't have Verisign to lean on? US companies really don't like being told what to do by governments of other countries, but when the shoe is on the other foot...
- 15155 3mo ago> What do other countries do who don't have Verisign to lean on? They lean on their ISPs, see Spain and the La Liga controversy.
- BLKNSLVR 3mo agoBut that, more appropriately, only affects internet users in that country (ignoring the cloudflare network blocking that causes various other sites to also be blocked). This appears to basically wipe the site from the entire internet, for all countries.
- 15155 3mo agoWhen you create the infrastructure, you make the rules. If a party doesn't like those rules, they are free to create their own replacement infrastructure and obtain global buy-in. ccTLDs already exist and their respective countries have sovereignty over those TLDs: the UK can disappear any .uk domain name it wants from the global internet. The .com TLD is American, and is therefore subject to American legal proceedings.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- wizcaps 3mo agoI think you know how absurd it sounds to say in response “well you can go and create your own internet”
- comrade1234 3mo agoIt's not confusing and you should understand what's happening for your own safety. This has been happening for a couple of decades internationally and now with USA states. This result means that Texas can take various means to block motherless. But more importantly no motherless employees should travel to Texas without risk of arrest. Same for abc/youtube/facebook employess traveling to India. You should be aware of this and monitor it in your industry.
- TurdF3rguson 3mo agoI would think it only applies to named employees, right?
- antonvs 3mo agoEven people with mothers shouldn't travel to Texas.
- gnabgib 3mo ago> Even people with mothers shouldn't travel to Texas. You know real, friendly, generous humans live in Texas, right?
- kibwen 3mo agoThe friendly, generous humans who resoundingly endorse the corrupt Ken Paxton's actions and will overwhelmingly vote for him to serve them in the senate this year? Actions speak louder than words. With friends like Texans, who needs enemies?
- clipsy 3mo agoReal, friendly, generous humans live in Haiti, too. That doesn't make it a good travel destination.
- cindyllm 3mo ago[dead]
- tailscaler2026 3mo ago[flagged]
- WhyNotHugo 3mo ago> I won’t lose any sleep at the loss of such scum but the general principle seems a bit strange. That's generally key in making a precedent. The first case is someone nobody really cares for, but it's built a precedent where the next case must follow suit.
- throwaway81523 3mo agoThe domain name is motherless.com if that's what you wanted to know. It's a porn site.
- zzril 3mo agoMore interesting would be the IP!
- regecks 3mo agoYou don't need it, they've migrated to motherless.xxx.
- toomuchtodo 3mo ago> Stuart Lawley, the CEO of ICM Registry--the company behind the XXX top level domains, says XXX sites should help empower parents to keep their kids away from adult content. https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/man-behind-xxx-domains-says-theyll-help-parents-protect-kids/ https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/man-behind-xxx-domains-say...
- gpm 3mo agoAlso in the US - strange choice
- odo1242 3mo agoWell that's kinda the whole idea of having an "adult content" tld; it's so you can block all .xxx domains instead of having to create a blocklist of sites. Like an opt-in nsfw flag for the internet, basically.
- wildzzz 3mo agoSure but that doesn't really work with the existing age verification laws. Unless .xxx is requiring domains to implement age verification or there's some sort of global redirect to a verification portal, that site is back in the same legal jeopardy of having Texas confiscate their domain again.
- ofewfewhw 3mo agoDefinitely bad overall and opposed to the principle by which this is being done, but I am at least glad it happened to motherless. The last I saw of that site it had terrible moderation and hosted quite a bit of dubious material.
- ActorNightly 3mo ago[flagged]
- paxys 3mo agoSo it's bad but you're okay with it because it's being done to someone you don't like.. This is exactly how we lose all our rights.
- ofewfewhw 2mo ago> bad overall > opposed to the principle I'm... okay with it? Where do I say this.
- rblatz 3mo agoDefault judgement, absolutely meaningless at this point as to how a court would rule against a plaintiff that actually showed up, respected the court’s authority, and defended itself.
- trhway 3mo agoThat is the strategy - you start with the easy cases - somebody who wouldn’t or couldn’t defend themselves and who is “bad” in public perception.
- walrus01 3mo agoWhy should a Netherlands based company that publishes content on the internet entirely outside of this state's borders and jurisdiction be required to show up or respect its authority? By this logic if I'm sued in Turkey for publishing content on my web server hosted in California insulting Erdogan, I should have to go show up and defend myself in some kangaroo court.
- fwip 3mo agoIf you want to keep the domain name you got from a TLD that they control, yes. Or did you mean, like, morally?
- walrus01 3mo agoBut does a US State control a TLD, really? Is that even something that's within the legitimate legal power of an individual state? Previous .com seizures have been done at the federal court level. The federal government reserves the authority to regulate all inter-state commerce. The entire history of how the .com TLD is run by Verisign is federal government related. Doing this at the state court level is as nonsensical as an individual state deciding it doesn't like a law or regulation that's part of the jurisdiction of the FAA or FCC, and wants to do its own unique weird local thing.
- calvinmorrison 3mo ago
- EmbarrassedHelp 3mo agoThere's no such thing as "reasonable age verification measures". Its lie spread by fascists like Ken Paxton, the Heritage Foundation, and ton of other evil people.
- tamimio 3mo agoSo, what’s the safest domain tld that’s safe from all that craziness out there?
- shitter 3mo ago.onion
- timbit42 3mo agoWhat about .i2p?
- inigyou 3mo agoYour local country, provided that it is not crazy. Then you are only accountable to one country's jurisdiction.
- linzhangrun 3mo agoHard to say. .cn is of course always strictly regulated: every website needs to be reviewed and registered with the police, and open its data to them. But we can also see that .uk from the supposedly "free west" is moving closer to this.
- inigyou 3mo agoIf you're in China or in the UK, this is already true for your business, whether you have the domain or not.
- DenisM 3mo agoRegister two domains in different jurisdictions, with neither serving its own jurisdiction, and a redirect for stray users.
- msftgreed 3mo agoSo a state (or municipality or anyone capable of making laws) has the ability to say, "You don't meet our local laws, take down your URL" now? This is going to be a real problem when states start nuking whole parts of the internet from orbit. A state has a law against conversion therapy and starts to remove sites with that? A state has a law against trans people? Or abortion? Or medical misinformation? Suddenly we just start purging sites back and forth? Battlegrounds end up as torn up, muddy, desolate places. Turning the domain registry into a battleground is a bad idea. Over the long term, no one wins if we choose to fight there.
- inigyou 3mo agoIn the US, if you used a US domain or registrar, this is possible. If you are Dutch and registered a .nl domain with a Dutch registrar, this is not possible.
- ranguna 3mo agoI thought this was always the case? But what people do instead is to disable access for people from that specific state.
- TurdF3rguson 3mo agoIt seems like it's pretty easy to comply. Pornhub and others don't have any problems complying with TX.
- abraham 3mo agoAccording to this pornhub is blocked in 25 states including Texas. https://mashable.com/article/pornhub-blocked-states-2025 https://mashable.com/article/pornhub-blocked-states-2025
- Zak 3mo agoYou wrote this in the passive voice; it doesn't say who is doing the blocking. Pornhub itself is doing the blocking; it uses geolocation and denies services to IP addresses from jurisdictions with age verification laws. The laws are usually not structured so as to require a third party such as an ISP to block noncompliant sites; instead, the governments of the states with those laws can sue the porn sites and their service providers (Verisign in the case of .com domains).
- charcircuit 3mo agoI wonder when browsers will follow Brave's lead and support decentralized domains that can't be censored due to laws from half way across the world.
- walrus01 3mo agoThe idea that a state court in one particular state can enforce such an absurd law against a company that likely has no business operations or servers in the state is ridiculous. I don't care if you like the porn site in question or not, or condone or endorse its content. This is a slippery slope towards every regional tinpot dictator legislature attempting to censor the internet by having an entity's domain name revoked. .com in particular has also been well proven over the past 5 to 10 years to be vulnerable to federal court orders to seize domains at the registrar level. That's not really anything new. It's a known risk for anyone building a corporate brand/identity around a specific .com domain name. What's new is this is being done from the state court level. (Edit: To be clear, in my opinion, a US State court completely lacks jurisdiction on this matter).
- bmelton 3mo agoHow do you feel about GDPR?
- walrus01 3mo agoI worry about it about as much as I worry about getting extradited to Thailand to face court for violating a law insulting the Thai king. I am unaware of even a single person of my nationality who has been extradited to Europe to face some kind of GDPR tribunal. If I were running a business that had any operations or clients whatsoever in Europe my opinion on this topic would be different (in terms of legal liability to the corporation, and necessity of compliance to ensure ongoing revenue from European customers, etc), but I am not.
- bmelton 3mo agoThanks for the answer! It wasn't a gotcha, I was genuinely just curious.
- applfanboysbgon 3mo agoThe GDPR doesn't try to remove anything from the global internet. You're free to not serve your site in the EU. Texas is free to block sites in Texas. But Texas trying to remove the ability of Europeans to access European websites is a completely different matter.
- nadermx 3mo agoI guess by default all .com's have US jurisdiction? Because even if it's a default judgment, and the registrar is based out of the US, which seems to the case here, any court order from the US is able to take a domain down. Found the case, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/07-16788/07-16788-2011-02-25.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/07... The Ninth Circuit held that the U.S. court had jurisdiction to proceed because VeriSign—the registry for all .com domains—was located in the United States.
- inigyou 3mo agoEvery TLD that is not a ccTLD is effectively a US ccTLD. This has always been the case, and perhaps the US has tricked us into becoming complacent. If the world was fair they would all be underneath .us. I want to see other countries start rejecting the ICANN root and forcing all the US domains under .us, but it will never happen. It would break their vhosts for one thing. Doing it at the browser level could avoid that.
- Scaled 3mo agoI vaguely recall some crypto project that was 'blockchain for domain names'. I scoffed at it at the time, but maybe there is a real need for something like that after all. (Or some other system for domain names you truly own and can't be rugpulled.)
- inigyou 3mo agoProbably Namecoin, but there are several now. Probably ENS (Ethereum name service) is the most notable. But keep in mind Zooko's triangle - you can't have all three of secure, human-readable, and decentralised. In Zooko terms, blockchains are secure, human-readable, centralised registries - there is only one, and you have to stay connected to it. Onion domains (which are public key hashes) are secure, unreadable, and decentralised. Petnames (as used in I2P) are insecure, readable, and decentralised.
- monksy 3mo agoThis kills their operations in other states that do not have this. Not sure how this does not violate interstate commerce. Contact your congress criter: https://www.congress.gov/ https://www.congress.gov/ BTW: Kick - Melborne, AU. US Operations: SanFran CA. Registar: Verisign - Reston, VA.
- missingcolours 3mo agoCommon complaint is that government enforcement of laws is insufficient, i.e. fines are only x% of their worldwide revenue. Sounds like this way has teeth and might force companies to actually obey the law?
- 8note 3mo agoit doesnt have teeth if its unconstitutional otherwise they could just send the texas rangers to canada to go kill the execs in montreal
- jfengel 3mo ago"Unconstitutional" is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.
- fc417fc802 3mo agoTexas rangers vs RCMP sounds like it would make for a decent arena bloodsport matchup. Back on topic, does the constitutionality matter if the business is destroyed by the process? How long might they be without their domain name even if they prevail in the end? I somehow doubt texas would ever get stuck paying out damages.
- wolpoli 3mo agoHonest question: what is the ultimate end game if at some point a court in another country orders a domain be reinstated? Do we end up with a domain registration system per country?
- walrus01 3mo agoI think given the history and "ownership" of the specific TLD of .com by verisign and verisign's relationship with the US federal government, it then proceeds to ignore any court orders to reinstate the ownership issued by a court in any other country that is not the USA.
- fc417fc802 3mo agoPresumably that would depend entirely on the extent to which verisign has any business dealings in the country in question. The more assets that could be seized or customers lost the more likely they are to comply.
- inigyou 3mo agoWe literally already have one of those. Each country has a .XX TLD, and all other TLDs are for the USA.
- fragmede 3mo agoEven .horse?
- inigyou 3mo agoYes, .horse is a USA TLD. It works this way because we let the USA have the exorbitant privilege of controlling the DNS root, and they realized they could make up new TLDs for money.
- walrus01 3mo agoTake a look at the list of new generic TLDs that are run by Donuts LLC now Identity Digital, a US based company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Digital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Digital
- jmclnx 3mo agoWell the site does not present Texas in a good light. Their .gov site presents me with this. Looks like they need to worry about their own site instead of worrying about out of state sites. >Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead > Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to www.texasattorneygeneral.gov. If you visit this site, attackers could try to steal information like your passwords, emails, or credit card details.
- mjmas 3mo agoPerhaps you could take it up with your ISP or whoever is doing mitm?
- harshreality 3mo agoIt's being served by cloudflare and gets A+ from ssllabs. Maybe there's something going on with your network or your browser's TLS support.
- inigyou 3mo ago> served by cloudflare Maybe that's the security threat. Cloudflare MITMs all traffic.
- Bender 3mo agoIf you add this [1] function to your shell and do fp www.texasattorneygeneral.gov What do you see? Do you get the same fingerprint? I get: Testing via IPv4: texasattorneygeneral.gov. 104.18.152.79 104.18.94.91 sha1 Fingerprint=D7:6B:D1:D8:58:5B:16:4A:0B:D8:41:5F:FF:4E:DA:2F:FA:90:4F:4D sha256 Fingerprint=94:4F:66:36:A5:AA:AF:17:3A:FD:9C:B6:F0:79:95:17:62:1C:8A:B8:B3:44:61:DD:61:BB:C1:26:C6:77:4F:0F notBefore=Jul 4 12:45:24 2026 GMT notAfter=Oct 2 13:45:15 2026 GMT Testing via IPv6: texasattorneygeneral.gov. # ( no IPv6 here ) Are you by chance somehow going to the APEX of the domain? The cert is only signed for www, not alt names. [1] - https://nochan.net/b/Text-Crap/function_fingerprint.sh https://nochan.net/b/Text-Crap/function_fingerprint.sh
- 3mo ago
- kazinator 3mo agoSo basically this whole thing is a ploy to get rid of porn: basically, censorship that vaguely tries not to look like censorship. 1. Instigate a completely impractical, rights-violating scheme for age verification that nobody in their right mind wants to implement. 2. Then, enforce it against whatever porn sites land in your jurisdiction at all, knowing that they, like everyone else, don't do the verification. Am I close? Suppose the porn site tries to implement it. How many people are going to hand over their personal info to a shady porn site? Most visitors are there anonymously for whatever free stuff they can watch. Either way, the porn site is ... screwed. Implement age verification: 99% visitors now back-button out and find another porn site. Don't implement it: blocked or shut down.
- behringer 3mo agoThe sooner the US loses control over the internet the better.
- ButlerianJihad 3mo agoJust for clarity's sake, what is "the Internet", and how does "the United States" have "control" over it? https://youtu.be/iDbyYGrswtg?si=AL91MHC5q5yg2jnA https://youtu.be/iDbyYGrswtg?si=AL91MHC5q5yg2jnA
- inigyou 3mo agoThe USA controls ICANN and IANA, who together control the DNS root, as well as controlling all so-called "generic" TLDs through ICANN. Only some country TLDs are actually outside of US jurisdiction, as many of the delegate to USA-based registry providers. ICANN/IANA still control whether or not those countries even get to have domains, so the USA could decide that if the Netherlands wouldn't block motherless-dot-nl then .nl shall no longer exist. DNS being centralised in the USA was potentially problematic when they weren't abusing their power. Now that they are actually abusing their power, it is actually problematic.
- walrus01 3mo agoARIN is also a US non-profit corporation, located in Virginia, but the people who run RIPE and APNIC and AFRINIC might disagree that the Internet is entirely "controlled" by Americans.
- inigyou 3mo agoRIPE, APNIC and AfriNIC (you forgot LACNIC or deliberately excluded it because South America is technically America) don't control the DNS.
- walrus01 3mo agoYes, my point was the dns isn't the "whole" internet. I know network engineers at some major ISPs that would still find a way to communicate with each other if a genie waved a magic wand and all dns infrastructure worldwide went "poof". But also my point was that ARIN specifically is vulnerable to USA originated malicious court actions the same as verisign is.
- earth-tattoo 3mo agoSo, stage set to ban GrapheneOS website internationally?
- etchalon 3mo agoOh look, Ken Paxton is bragging about accomplishing nothing.
- tzs 3mo agoI took a quick look at the Texas law. Like a few other such laws it allows sites to use an external service to do the check, as long as the service uses a "commercially reasonable" method of doing that. That basically means it has to be based on government ID or by inference based on certain types of transaction records they can get access to (e.g., if you have a mortgage they can reasonably infer you are an adult). As far as I can tell it would be possible to build an age verification service based on an open source ZKP implementation such as Google's Longfellow [1] that would be acceptable to these laws, but would allow anonymous age verification. It would be similar to the system the EU is now trialing, except not limited to iOS and to Android devices with Google Play. Longfellow should be able to work with those but also most modern smart phones running any OS the supports the phone's secure element, and also desktop computers that have secure elements, and devices like YubiKeys. You would have to verify your age with the age verification service to set things. The easiest way to make it so that is not a privacy risk is for the age verification service to be offered by some entity that already has your ID documents. In the EU that would be the governments themselves, but I don't think any US state governments are ready to do that. The age verification service doesn't necessarily need to store copies of whatever ID you present. It just needs to know you are when it issues its ID documents that get bound to your device's secure element. If this service was offered by some entity that has a widespread physical presence (a bank would be perfect) you could go in, show ID in person, and get your device enrolled. Even better would be for a trusted non-profit to run this, like the EFF or the ACLU. Yes, I know they don't want age verification to happen at all, but they are going to lose that one, and it would be prudent to try to make it so that people have a privacy preserving way to do it that can be used anonymously when that happens. Anyway, once your device is set up verifying your age to a website would involve a protocol between your device in the website the uses a ZKP (Zero Knowledge Proof) to demonstrate to the website that the identify information the age verification service bound to the secure element on the your devices says your age is acceptable. The ZKP doesn't disclose anything else from your identidy information. (The web server sees your IP address of course, but they would see that without age verification too). Note that the age verification service has no idea when, or were, you age verify at a website. [1] https://github.com/google/longfellow-zk https://github.com/google/longfellow-zk
- walrus01 3mo ago
- NDlurker 3mo agoIsn't motherless a European website? What the ffff? Update: yeah https://opencorporates.com/companies/nl/30159632 https://opencorporates.com/companies/nl/30159632
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- rurban 3mo agoA big blow to the Texas hosting industry. Some of the world's largest hosting sites are in Texas. They'll likely move out to more liberal states.
- 15155 3mo agoAre those states somehow exempt from the United States Constitution's requirement to uphold "judicial Proceedings of every other State?"
- rurban 3mo agoTexas? They'll rather call for the military to protect their "freedoms" (of calling arbitrary court decisions).
- walrus01 3mo agoDo you actually think that an elected state attorney general in Washington or California or New York would shut down a hosting company that, for example, hosts the website of a medical office that ships abortion medication to Texas? That they would send the WSP to a colo in Tukwila near Seattle to pull the plugs on the servers? I highly doubt it. If the Texans don't like something in another state and want to attempt to shut it down, they can bring an action in federal court.
- 15155 3mo ago> Do you actually think that an elected state attorney general in Washington or California or New York would shut down a hosting company I think that if there were any disagreement between the States, it would go to the Supreme Court for an ultimate decision. This is not the default. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States: > Article III > Section I > The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. > Section II > The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. Absent a controversy - i.e. a willingness to object: full faith and credit applies.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- iamnothere 3mo agoIf you publish controversial material, better start embracing onion backup domains now. Most people don’t know how to use them yet, but I get the feeling there will be a turning point soon.
- xtiansimon 3mo agoReminds me of the recent Supreme Court case limiting the use of nationwide (or "universal") injunctions. Trump v. CASA, Inc. (decided June 27, 2025).