2025-05-10 08:36:40
CBS News:
The Trump administration is “actively looking at” the possibility of suspending the writ of habeas corpus to handle people the administration says aren’t in the country legally, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said Friday.
A writ of habeas corpus requires authorities to produce in court an individual they are holding and justify their confinement. Article I of the Constitution says the “privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
Miller made the comments to reporters at the White House Friday when a journalist asked if President Trump is weighing the possibility of suspending habeas corpus to handle illegal immigration.
“Well, the Constitution is clear — and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land — that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion,” Miller said. “So it’s an option we’re actively looking at. Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.”
There clearly is no “invasion”. An invasion hasn’t happened here since the War of 1812, when the British got us good and burned down the White House and set fire to the Capitol.
You can say, Hey man, look, I’m with you Grubes, but I don’t go to Daring Fireball to read Trump stuff. I swear I’m trying — I’ve been trying since before he took office again — to pay attention only to what Trump and his lickspittle loathsome hateful idiot minions do, not just what they say. But when they even say they’re “actively looking at” suspending habeas corpus, justified by an “invasion” that obviously doesn’t exist, I think it’s on everyone to just stand up and say “Fuck that. This is America.”
I can’t wait to see Stephen Miller in prison.
2025-05-10 08:02:07
Kif Leswing, reporting for CNBC:
Epic Games said on Friday that it submitted Fortnite to Apple’s App Store, the month after a judge ruled in favor of the game maker in a contempt ruling.
Fortnite was booted from iPhones and Apple’s App Store in 2020, after Epic Games updated its software to link out to the company’s website and avoid Apple’s commissions. The move drew Apple’s anger, and kicked off a legal battle that has lasted for years.
It was more than “drawing anger”. It was a blatant and purposeful stunt that violated rules for which the penalties were clear. This is like saying that someone doing time in prison for being convicted of stealing a car “drew the court’s anger”.
Last month’s ruling, a victory for Epic Games, said Apple was not allowed to charge a commission on link-outs or dictate if the links look like buttons, paving the way for Fortnite’s return.
Apple could still reject Fortnite’s submission. An Apple representative did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment. Apple is appealing last month’s contempt ruling.
I too asked Apple for comment on this earlier in the week, and they had nothing to state. Maybe Apple will just allow this. I don’t know. But if I were a betting man, I’d wager that Apple does not allow Fortnite back. That last week’s injunction was a big loss for Apple doesn’t make it a win for Epic. If all were forgiven or forgotten, Epic wouldn’t need to submit this through their Swedish subsidiary, which has an Apple developer account only because the EU forced Apple to grant them one. There’s nothing in any US legal ruling that requires Apple to have even granted Epic Games a new developer account (or restore their old rescinded one), let alone require Apple to accept a submission for a justifiably banned developer through an EU loophole. If they’re not trying to make this happen through a loophole, why not just get Apple to reinstate Epic’s original Apple developer account? (Worth noting: Fortnite isn’t available in the App Store in the EU either — their Swedish developer account is only there to run the Epic Games Store.)
If someone blatantly violated the rules they’d agreed to, and is unapologetic for having done so, why would you trust them again? It’s the Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me axiom. What would stop Epic from re-enabling in-app purchases in Fortnite again?
Here’s the tweet from Epic Games earlier today:
We’ve submitted Fortnite to Apple for review so we can launch on the App Store in the U.S.
That sure lacks the certainty Sweeney was tweeting with a week ago, when he was, ridiculously, dictating terms to Apple. Tim Sweeney is a proven liar and one of the most unreliable narrators in the industry. I can’t believe how many publications continue to take him and Epic at their word that Fortnite is, for sure, coming back. Again, maybe it is! But that’s Apple choice, and if it happens, has zero to do with last week’s injunction against Apple other than the publicity and perception. I for one would find it somewhat surprising for Apple executives to allow Tim Sweeney to push them around and mock them.
2025-05-10 01:16:15
William Gallagher, writing last week for AppleInsider:
Judge Rogers maintains that Apple had successfully made as few developers as possible benefit from the court’s original anti-steering ruling. “As of the May 2024 hearing,” she wrote, “only 34 developers out of the approximately 136,000 total developers on the App Store applied for the program, and seventeen of those developers had not offered in-app purchases in the first place.”
So 34 was the number in May last year. But did the number go up in any significant way since then? I was thinking about it this week, and I’ve not only never seen an app that used these link-outs, I’d never even heard about one that did. And I try more apps than most people, and I hear about a lot more apps than most people. If you’re aware of any apps that used this (or even better, if you’re a developer who did use it), let me know.
It seems like no exaggeration to say that, effectively, no developers used this. Which does seem to have been Apple’s intention in setting the terms (27 percent commission, invasive rules for tracking users for a week after following a link from the app to the web, and odious requirements to allow Apple to view the developers’ internal accounting figures to make sure they weren’t cheating Apple out of commissions). But it really makes you wonder how anyone at Apple thought the court would see this plan as compliant.
2025-05-10 01:01:42
Tim Hardwick, reporting for MacRumors:
Apple has filed an emergency motion asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to pause key parts of a recent ruling that dramatically changes how the App Store operates, following a contempt finding in its long-running legal battle with Fortnite maker Epic Games.
In court documents filed Wednesday, Apple called the district court’s order “extraordinary” and argued it unlawfully forces the company to permanently give up control over “core aspects of its business operations.”
“A federal court cannot force Apple to permanently give away free access to its products and services, including intellectual property,” Apple’s lawyers wrote in the motion.
Apple’s argument here might go along the lines of Ben Thompson’s theory (in a subscriber-only post last Friday) on the “Takings Clause” of the 5th Amendment. Thompson wrote:
My use of the word “took” is deliberate, because I am referring to the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment (the clause is emphasized):
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It seems to me that Judge Gonzales Rogers just did exactly that: her latest ruling basically says that companies like Spotify are entitled to iOS APIs and App Store distribution without having to pay Apple anything.
If this sounds like a new addition to the case, it is! The Takings Clause has not come up in any previous litigation precisely because Judge Gonzales Rogers’ original opinion acknowledged that Apple had the right to charge a commission; the issue under the California Unfair Competition Law was that Apple’s commission was much higher than was justified precisely because Apple foreclosed competition. To that end, what would have made much more sense would have been if Judge Gonzales Rogers lowered Apple’s proposed 27% commission to something significantly lower; to simply wipe it out completely is what prompts this discussion.
2025-05-09 08:00:47
Co-hosts Stephen Robles and Jason Aten were kind enough to have me on their podcast earlier today, and the show’s already up:
Special guest John Gruber joins us to break down Eddy Cue’s statements on AI replacing the iPhone in 10 years, using AI search in Safari, Apple’s continued fight for App Store control, and what we’ll hear about Siri and Apple Intelligence at WWDC 2025.
Available in Overcast, Apple Podcasts, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Or watch on YouTube. Fun show.
2025-05-09 07:51:21
I’m about halfway through and already feel the need to link to this. Good questions and thoughtful answers. Just delightful.
