Today, the federal appeals court in Washington will begin to hear arguments regarding Obama’s net neutrality rule and whether or not the government should have the ability to micromanage the internet. As it would stand under the administration’s new rule, the government would have expanded capabilities to step in and add numerous burdensome regulations to the internet. This could pose many problems to businesses that range anywhere from substantial cost hikes to increased uncertainty in the economy; thus leading to curtailed innovation and less new products being introduced to the marketplace.

Last week, a federal appeals court delivered an important decision regarding the transmission and regulation of digital data that enters the country. In the 2-1 ruling, the court concluded that the International Trade Commission (ITC) does not have the authority to assume control over the flow of electronic transmissions, which could have introduced yet another regulatory blockade to stifle internet freedom.

On October 16th, three federal judges on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that can be considered another decisive win for sensible copyright law.

On Thursday, the Coalition for Public Safety hosted a briefing, “The Need for Criminal Justice Reform: How Did We Get Here?,” with coordination with the congressional House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Caucus, co-chaired by Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Raul Labrador (R-ID), and Cedric Richmond (D-LA). This briefing highlighted the major policy decisions that have led to a dramatic increase in the federal prison population and serious problems in federal sentencing policies.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge George H. King issued a ruling that should make celebrating your birthday a little bit happier. For the better part of a century, the song “Happy Birthday to You” had been locked up under copyright claim, and those who wanted to officially use the song had to pay royalties to the company that owned its rights. These royalty payments were often collected from stage productions, television shows, movies, and even greeting cards, whenever they decided to use the celebratory song. However, after a long 80 years, King has rendered the copyright invalid, since the original only granted rights to the explicit piano arrangements and not the song itself.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling on the always blurry “fair use” concept in copyright law, that stands to reduce nuisance suits and open new doors for innovation and adaptation.

In the state of California, the popular ridesharing service Uber is under serious attack. We’ve covered how earlier this year, the California Labor Commission issued a ruling that the company’s drivers should be classified as employees, rather than the independent contractors Uber claims they are. This classification has major implications for Uber and all similar services in the future, since employees are subject to massive labor regulations from which contractors are exempt. The cost of complying with these regulations would be crippling, if not fatal, for Uber’s services in California, and the door would be closed on any businesses with a similarly innovative business model in the future.

A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction against the EPA, stopping a controversial water regulation in 13 states. The states in question are suing to stop the new water rule, which would violate private property rights and substantially harm individuals and businesses alike. The injunction stops the EPA from enforcing its rule until the results of the lawsuit are decided.

A federal judge in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Baltimore has issued an important ruling with broad implications for cell phone privacy. According to the Court, law enforcement needs to get a warrant before seizing cell phone records that contained detailed information on the owner’s location.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a restriction that limits the use of teeth-whitening LED lights to licensed dentists. Not only does this requirement make no sense, the court reached some extreme conclusions in their decision.