OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google are way ahead of you. Ask your heart away. I am unsure about open source models, it'd be interesting to know if they're ingesting the law.
The reality is that the official United States Code gives plenty of history for statutes, while the Code of Federal Regulations gives less but still basic history. Both are also provided in XML in bulk, though the former has a modern USLM format and the latter has an archaic schema. Case law is less amenable to git histories.
CourtListener (from the non-profit Free Law Project) provides bulk access to its case law collection.[1][2] I expect they are ingesting the GPO uscourts collection so it should have near complete (99%) coverage.[3][4]
There is no billion-dollar annual market for quantum compute usage in private industry. Yet these companies are getting billions, and it ain't all grants, stocks, bonds, and notes. Ain't rocket science.
Agreed! And shout-out to the people at CourtListener (the site hosting this PDF), who make millions of US court documents freely available to the public.
> First, the bar covers actions "under such authority"—meaning actions that exceed the statute's grant fall outside it entirely.
The authority, which is omitted in the article, is likely the subsection entitled "Authority". Who woulda thought. (a) Authority.—…(1) carry out a covered procurement action; and (2) limit, notwithstanding any other provision of law, in whole or in part, the disclosure of information relating to the basis…. There is no mention of "was built to address foreign adversary threats to the IT supply chain" in the aforementioned authority. The rest reminds me of sovereign citizen arguments: good luck lol this is about military procurement.
> "Adversary" is undefined, but
This holds more water. Too bad the court will be prevented from reviewing the underlying record with which to decide, for a coequal branch, who are adversaries. And unlike IEEPA, their declarations are not in the Constitution.
> Pretext
The underlying record, and their decision to "limit" disclosure (not "not to disclose"), is unreviewable.
> the required findings don't hold up
Dang, ignorance of "no action … shall be subject to review" is doing real work. It does not matter if only the record cannot be reviewed. If a court cannot review the information, it cannot make contrary decisions.
reply