Tag: Supreme Court

Back to Commandeering Again: David Sacks, the AI Moratorium, and the Executive Order Courts Will Hate

Why Silicon Valley’s in-network defenses can’t paper over federalism limits.

The old line attributed to music lawyer Allen Grubman is, “No conflict, no interest.” Conflicts are part of the music business. But the AI moratorium that David Sacks is pushing onto President Trump (the idea that Washington should freeze or preempt state AI protections in the absence of federal AI policy) takes that logic to a different altitude. It asks the public to accept not just conflicts of interest, but centralized control of AI governance built around the financial interests of a small advisory circle, including Mr. Sacks himself.

When the New York Times published its reporting on Sacks’s hundreds of AI investments and his role in shaping federal AI and chip policy, the reaction from Silicon Valley was immediate and predictable. What’s most notable is who didn’t show up. No broad political coalition. No bipartisan defense. Just a tight cluster of VC and AI-industry figures from he AI crypto–tech nexus, praising their friend Mr. Sacks and attacking the story.

And the pattern was unmistakable: a series of non-denial denials from people who it is fair to say are massively conflicted themselves.

No one said the Times lied.

No one refuted the documented conflicts.

Instead, Sacks’ tech bros defenders attacked tone and implied bias, and suggested the article merely arranged “negative truths” in an unflattering narrative (although the Times did not even bring up Mr. Sacks’ moratorium scheme).

And you know who has yet to defend Mr. Sacks? Donald J. Trump. Which tells you all you need to know.

The Rumored AI Executive Order and Federal Lawsuits Against States

Behind the spectacle sits the most consequential part of the story: a rumored executive order that would direct the U.S. Department of Justice to sue states whose laws “interfere with AI development.” Reuters reports that “U.S. President Donald Trump is considering an executive order that would seek to preempt state laws on artificial intelligence through lawsuits and by withholding federal funding, according to a draft of the order seen by Reuters….”

That is not standard economic policy. That is not innovation strategy. That is commandeering — the same old unconstitutional move in shiny AI packaging that we’ve discussed many times starting with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act catastrophe.

The Supreme Court has been clear on this such as in Printz v. United States (521 U.S. 898 (1997) at 925): “[O]pinions of ours have made clear that the Federal Government may not compel the States to implement,by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs.”

Crucially, the Printz Court teaches us what I think is the key fact. Federal policy for all the United States is to be made by the legislative process in regular order subject to a vote of the people’s representatives, or by executive branch agencies that are led by Senate-confirmed officers of the United States appointed by the President and subject to public scrutiny under the Administrative Procedures Act. Period.

The federal government then implements its own policies directly. It cannot order states to implement federal policy, including in the negative by prohibiting states from exercising their Constitutional powers in the absence of federal policy. The Supreme Court crystalized this issue in a recent Congressional commandeering case of Murphy v. NCAA (138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018)) where the court held “[t]he distinction between compelling a State to enact legislation and prohibiting a State from enacting new laws is an empty one. The basic principle—that Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures—applies in either event.” Read together, Printz and Murphy extend this core principle of federalism to executive orders.

The “presumption against preemption” is a canon of statutory interpretation that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held to be a foundational principle of American federalism. It also has the benefit of common sense. The canon reflects the deep Constitutional understanding that, unless Congress clearly says otherwise—which implies Congress has spoken—states retain their traditional police powers over matters such as the health, safety, land use, consumer protection, labor, and property rights of their citizens. Courts begin with the assumption that federal law does not displace state law, especially in areas the states have regulated for generations, all of which are implicated in the AI “moratorium”.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this principle. When Congress legislates in fields historically occupied by the states, courts require a clear and manifest purpose to preempt state authority. Ambiguous statutory language is interpreted against preemption. This is not a policy preference—it is a rule of interpretation rooted in constitutional structure and respect for state sovereignty that goes back to the Founders.

The presumption is strongest where federal action would displace general state laws rather than conflict with a specific federal command. Consumer protection statutes, zoning and land-use controls, tort law, data privacy, and child-safety laws fall squarely within this protected zone. Federal silence is not enough; nor is agency guidance or executive preference.

In practice, the presumption against preemption forces Congress to own the consequences of preemption. If lawmakers intend to strip states of enforcement authority, they must do so plainly and take political responsibility for that choice. This doctrine serves as a crucial brake on back-door federalization, preventing hidden preemption in technical provisions and preserving the ability of states to respond to emerging harms when federal action lags or stalls. Like in A.I.

Applied to an A.I. moratorium, the presumption against preemption cuts sharply against federal action. A moratorium that blocks states from legislating even where Congress has chosen not to act flips federalism on its head—turning federal inaction into total regulatory paralysis, precisely what the presumption against preemption forbids.

As the Congressional Research Service primer on preemption concludes:

The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause provides that federal law is “the supreme Law of the Land” notwithstanding any state law to the contrary. This language is the foundation for the doctrine of federal preemption, according to which federal law supersedes conflicting state laws. The Supreme Court has identified two general ways in which federal law can preempt state law. First, federal law can expressly preempt state law when a federal statute or regulation contains explicit preemptive language. Second, federal law can impliedly preempt state law when Congress’s preemptive intent is implicit in the relevant federal law’s structure and purpose.

In both express and implied preemption cases, the Supreme Court has made clear that Congress’s purpose is the “ultimate touchstone” of its statutory analysis. In analyzing congressional purpose, the Court has at times applied a canon of statutory construction known as the “presumption against preemption,” which instructs that federal law should not be read as superseding states’ historic police powers “unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.”

If there is no federal statute, no one has any idea what that purpose is, certainly no justiciabile idea. Therefore, my bet is that the Court would hold that the Executive Branch cannot unilaterally create preemption, and neither can the DOJ sue states simply because the White House dislikes their AI, privacy, or biometric laws, much less their zoning laws applied to data centers.

Why David Sacks’s Involvement Raises the Political Temperature

As Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote, the very rich are different. But here’s what’s not different—David Sacks has something he’s not used to having. A boss. And that boss has polls. And those polls are not great at the moment. It’s pretty simple, really. When you work for a politician, your job is to make sure his polls go up, not down.

David Sacks is making his boss look bad. Presidents do not relish waking up to front-page stories that suggest their “A.I. czar” holds hundreds of investments directly affected by federal A.I. strategy, that major policy proposals track industry wish lists more closely than public safeguards, or that rumored executive orders could ignite fifty-state constitutional litigation led by your supporters like Mike Davis and egged on by people like Steve Bannon.

Those stories don’t just land on the advisor; they land on the President’s desk, framed as questions of his judgment, control, and competence. And in politics, loyalty has a shelf life. The moment an advisor stops being an asset and starts becoming a daily distraction much less liability, the calculus changes fast. What matters then is not mansions, brilliance, ideology, or past service, but whether keeping that adviser costs more than cutting them loose. I give you Elon Musk.

AI Policy Cannot Be Built on Preemption-by-Advisor

At bottom, this is a bet. The question isn’t whether David Sacks is smart, well-connected, or persuasive inside the room. The real question is whether Donald Trump wants to stake his presidency on David Sacks being right—right about constitutional preemption, right about executive authority, right about federal power to block the states, and right about how courts will react.

Because if Sacks is wrong, the fallout doesn’t land on him. It lands on the President. A collapsed A.I. moratorium, fifty-state litigation, injunctions halting executive action, and judges citing basic federalism principles would all be framed as defeats for Trump, not for an advisor operating at arm’s length.

Betting the presidency on an untested legal theory pushed by a politically exposed “no conflict no interest” tech investor isn’t bold leadership. It’s unnecessary risk. When Trump’s second term is over in a few years, Trump will be in the history books for all time. No one will remember who David Sacks was.

Marc Andreessen’s Dormant Commerce Clause Fantasy

There’s a special kind of hubris in Silicon Valley, but Marc Andreessen may have finally discovered its purest form: imagining that the Dormant Commerce Clause (DCC) — a Constitutional doctrine his own philosophical allies loathe — will be his golden chariot into the Supreme Court to eliminate state AI regulation.

If you know the history, it borders on comedic, if you think that Ayn Rand is a great comedienne.

The DCC is a judge‑created doctrine inferred from the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), preventing states from discriminating against or unduly burdening interstate commerce. Conservatives have long attacked it as a textless judicial invention. Justice Scalia called it a “judicial fraud”; Justice Thomas wants it abolished outright. Yet Andreessen’s Commerce Clause playbook is built on expanding a doctrine the conservative legal movement has spent 40 years dismantling.

Worse for him, the current Supreme Court is the least sympathetic audience possible.

Justice Gorsuch has repeatedly questioned DCC’s legitimacy and rejects free‑floating “extraterritoriality” theories. Justice Barrett, a Scalia textualist, shows no appetite for expanding the doctrine beyond anti‑protectionism. Justice Kavanaugh is business‑friendly but wary of judicial policymaking. None of these justices would give Silicon Valley a nationwide deregulatory veto disguised as constitutional doctrine. Add Alito and Thomas, and Andreessen couldn’t scrape a majority.

And then there’s Ted Cruz — Scalia’s former clerk — loudly cheerleading a doctrine his mentor spent decades attacking.

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023): The Warning Shot

Andreessen’s theory also crashes directly into the Supreme Court’s fractured decision in the most recent DCC case before SCOTUS, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (2023), where industry groups tried to use the DCC to strike down California’s animal‑welfare law due to its national economic effects.

The result? A deeply splintered Court produced several opinions.  Justice Gorsuch  announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III, IV–A, and V, in which Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan and Barrett joined, an opinion with respect to Parts IV–B and IV–D, in which Justice Thomas and Barrett joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV–C, in which Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.  Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part, in which Justice Kagan joined.  Justice Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Alito, Kavanaugh and Jackson joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Got it?  

The upshot:
– No majority for expanding DCC “extraterritoriality.”
– No appetite for using DCC to invalidate state laws simply because they influence out‑of‑state markets.
– Multiple justices signaling that courts should not second‑guess state policy judgments through DCC balancing.
– Gorsuch’s lead opinion rejected the very arguments Silicon Valley now repackages for AI.

If Big Tech thinks this Court that decided National Pork—no pun intended—will hand them a nationwide kill‑switch on state AI laws, they profoundly misunderstand the doctrine and the Court.

Andreessen didn’t just pick the wrong legal strategy. He picked the one doctrine the current Court is least willing to expand. The Dormant Commerce Clause isn’t a pathway to victory — it’s a constitutional dead end masquerading as innovation policy.

But…maybe he’s crazy like a fox.  

The Delay’s the Thing: The Dormant Commerce Clause as Delay Warfare

To paraphrase Saul Alinksy, the issue is never the issue, the issue is always delay.  Of course, if delay is the true objective, you couldn’t pick a better stalling tactic than hanging an entire federal moratorium on one of the Supreme Court’s most obscure and internally conflicted doctrines. The Dormant Commerce Clause isn’t a real path to victory—not with a Court where Scalia’s intellectual heirs openly question its legitimacy. But it is the perfect fig leaf for an executive order.

The point isn’t to win the case. The point is to give Trump just enough constitutional garnish to issue the EO, freeze state enforcement, and force every challenge into multi‑year litigation. That buys the AI industry exactly what it needs:  time. Time to scale. Time to consolidate. Time to embed itself into public infrastructure and defense procurement. Time  to become “too essential to regulate” or as Senator Hawley asked, too big to prosecute?

Big Tech doesn’t need a Supreme Court victory. It needs a judicial cloud, a preemption smokescreen, and a procedural maze that chills state action long enough for the industry to entrench itself permanently.  And no one knows that better than the moratorium’s biggest cheerleader, Senator Ted Cruz the Scalia clerk.

The Dormant Commerce Clause, in this context, isn’t a doctrine. It’s delay‑ware—legal molasses poured over every attempt by states to protect their citizens. And that delay may just be the real prize.

AI’s Legal Defense Team Looks Familiar — Because It Is

If you feel like you’ve seen this movie before, you have.

Back in the 2003-ish runup to the 2005 MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. Supreme Court case, I met with the founder of one of the major p2p platforms in an effort to get him to go legal.  I reminded him that he knew there was all kinds of bad stuff that got uploaded to his platform.  However much he denied it, he was filtering it out and he was able to do that because he had the control over the content that he (and all his cohorts) denied he had.  

I reminded him that if this case ever went bad, someone was going to invade his space and find out exactly what he was up to. Just because the whole distributed p2p model (unlike Napster, by the way) was built to both avoid knowledge and be a perpetual motion machine, there was going to come a day when none of that legal advice was going to matter.  Within a few months the platform shut down, not because he didn’t want to go legal, but because he couldn’t, at least not without actually devoting himself to respecting other people’s rights.

Everything Old is New Again

Back in the early 2000s, peer-to-peer (P2P) piracy platforms claimed they weren’t responsible for the illegal music and videos flooding their networks. Today, AI companies claim they don’t know what’s in their training data. The defense is essentially the same: “We’re just the neutral platform. We don’t control the content.”  It’s that distorted view of the DMCA and Section 230 safe harbors that put many lawyers’ children through prep school, college and graduate school.

But just like with Morpheus, eDonkey, Grokster, and LimeWire, everyone knew that was BS because the evidence said otherwise — and here’s the kicker: many of the same lawyers are now running essentially the same playbook to defend AI giants.

The P2P Parallel: “We Don’t Control Uploads… Except We Clearly Do”

In the 2000s, platforms like Kazaa and LimeWire were like my little buddy–magically they  never had illegal pornography or extreme violence available to consumers, they prioritized popular music and movies, and filtered out the worst of the web

That selective filtering made it clear: they knew what was on their network. It wasn’t even a question of “should have known”, they actually knew and they did it anyway.  Courts caught on. 

In Grokster,  the Supreme Court side stepped the hosting issue and essentially said that if you design a platform with the intent to enable infringement, you’re liable.

The Same Playbook in the AI Era

Today’s AI platforms — OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, Google, and others — essentially argue:
“Our model doesn’t remember where it learned [fill in the blank]. It’s just statistics.”

But behind the curtain, they:
– Run deduplication tools to avoid overloading, for example on copyrighted books
– Filter out NSFW or toxic content
– Choose which datasets to include and exclude
– Fine-tune models to align with somebody’s social norms or optics

This level of control shows they’re not ignorant — they’re deflecting liability just like they did with p2p.

Déjà Vu — With Many of the Same Lawyers

Many of the same law firms that defended Grokster, Kazaa, and other P2P pirate defendants as well as some of the ISPs are now representing AI companies—and the AI companies are very often some, not all, but some of the same ones that started screwing us on DMCA, etc., for the last 25 years.  You’ll see familiar names all of whom have done their best to destroy the creative community for big, big bucks in litigation and lobbying billable hours while filling their pockets to overflowing. 

The legal cadre pioneered the ‘willful blindness’ defense and are now polishing it up for AI, hoping courts haven’t learned the lesson.  And judging…no pun intended…from some recent rulings, maybe they haven’t.

Why do they drive their clients into a position where they pose an existential threat to all creators?  Do they not understand that they are creating a vast community of humans that really, truly, hate their clients?  I think they do understand, but there is a corresponding hatred of the super square Silicon Valley types who hate “Hollywood” right back.

Because, you know, information wants to be free—unless they are selling it.  And your data is their new oil. They apply this “ethic” not just to data, but to everything: books, news, music, images, and voice. Copyright? A speed bump. Terms of service? A suggestion. Artist consent? Optional.  Writing a song is nothing compared to the complexities of Biggest Tech.

Why do they do this?  OCPD Much?

Because control over training data is strategic dominance and these people are the biggest control freaks that mankind has ever produced.  They exhibit persistent and inflexible patterns of behavior characterized by an excessive need to control people, environments, and outcomes, often associated with traits of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.  

So empathy will get you nowhere with these people, although their narcissism allows them to believe that they are extremely empathetic.  Pathetic, yes, empathetic, not so much.  

Pay No Attention to that Pajama Boy Behind the Curtain

The driving force behind AI is very similar to the driving force behind the Internet.   If pajama boy can harvest the world’s intellectual property and use it to train his proprietary AI model, he now owns a simulation of the culture he is not otherwise part of, and not only can he monetize it without sharing profits or credit, he can deny profits and credit to the people who actually created it.

So just like the heyday of Pirate Bay, Grokster & Co.  (and Daniel Ek’s pirate incarnation) the goal isn’t innovation. The goal is control over language, imagery, and the markets that used to rely on human creators.  This should all sound familiar if you were around for the p2p era.

Why This Matters

Like p2p platforms, it’s just not believable that the AI companies do know what’s in their models.  They may build their chatbot interface so that the public can’t ask the chatbot to blow the whistle on the platform operator, but that doesn’t mean  the company can’t tell what they are training on.  These operators have to be able to know what’s in the training materials and manipulate that data daily.  

They fingerprint, deduplicate, and sanitize their datasets. How else can they avoid having multiple copies of books, for example, that would be a compute nightmare.  They store “embeddings” in a way that they can optimize their AI to use only the best copy of any particular book.  They control the pipeline.

It’s not about the model’s memory. It’s about the platform’s intent and awareness.

If they’re smart enough to remove illegal content and prioritize clean data, they’re smart enough to be held accountable.

We’re not living through the first digital content crisis — just the most powerful one yet. The legal defenses haven’t changed much. But the stakes — for copyright, competition, and consumer protection — are much higher now.

Courts, Congress, and the public should recognize this for what it is: a recycled defense strategy in service of unchecked AI power. Eventually Grokster ran into Grokster— and all these lawyers are praying that there won’t be an AI version of the Grokster case. 

It comes full circle–Chief Justice Roberts raises some of the same issues as I raised in 2020 at MusicBiz

The Chief asks the most relevant foundational question in the first five minutes–and it was straight downhill for TikTok after that. See transcript at p. 8.

TikTok v Garland Transcript Oral Argument 24-656_1an2Download

And see the class materials from the MusicBiz Association Conference panel I moderated in 2020

musicbiz-tiktok-materials-v-2-2Download