Under the U.S. Constitution, federal judges "hold their offices during good behaviour" and receive salaries that "shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." Like other "civil officers of the United States," they can be removed from office by Congress only if they are impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Those provisions aim to protect judicial independence, which is essential to the rule of law. But Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur who unofficially runs the federal cost-cutting initiative known as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), seems to think "good behaviour" precludes any ruling that obstructs his efforts, which he views as an impeachable offense.

That attitude jibes with President Donald Trump's long-standing resentment of judicial interference with his agenda, which he reflexively portrays as politically motivated. It is especially troubling in light of Vice President J.D. Vance's suggestion that the Trump administration would be justified in defying court orders that arguably impinge on "the executive's legitimate power"—a position that is blatantly at odds with the judicial branch's vital role in making sure that government officials respect statutory and constitutional limits on their authority.

"We are witnessing an attempted coup of American democracy by radical left activists posing as judges!" Musk complained on X, his social media platform, last month. "There need to be some repercussions above ZERO for judges who make truly terrible decisions," he added later that day. "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

In other posts, Musk spelled out what he had in mind. "When judges egregiously undermine the democratic will of the people, they must be fired or democracy dies!" he declared on February 25, referring to a temporary restraining order that U.S. District Judge Amir Ali had issued against Trump's 90-day freeze on foreign aid.

As Musk sees it, "the only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges." Congress "must Impeach the CORRUPT judges," he says, because "the people have spoken." When judges "repeatedly abuse their authority to obstruct the will of the people via their elected representatives," he thinks, they "should be impeached."

Musk seems oblivious to the fact that judges are supposed to "obstruct the will of the people" when it is inconsistent with the law. In the foreign aid case, for example, aid recipients argued that Trump had violated the separation of powers by unilaterally deciding not to spend money that Congress had appropriated.

In granting a preliminary injunction on Monday, Ali concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on that claim. The appropriate response to that "terrible decision" is an appeal arguing that Ali got it wrong, a question that the Supreme Court may ultimately resolve.

The response that Musk prefers—firing any judge who dares to disagree with him—is a naked attempt to intimidate the judicial branch. Musk applauded when Rep. Andy Ogles (R–Tenn.) announced that he was drafting articles of impeachment against Ali, and he hopes that threat will deter other judges from ruling against the Trump administration.

For good reason, that strategy has provoked objections even from reliable Trump allies. "You can't always get what you want," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.). "I'm not a big fan of impeaching somebody because you don't like their decision. They have to actually do something unethical."

Since Republicans hold thin majorities in the House and Senate, such vindictive impeachments are unlikely to get far. But as Chief Justice John Roberts warned in December, threatening judges with impeachment based on unpopular decisions is one facet of a broader attempt to delegitimize judicial review.

Although Republicans routinely rely on that principle to challenge the policies of Democratic presidents, they may view it as dispensable now that their team is in charge. But since "the democratic will of the people" can change from one election to the next, they may have cause to regret that calculation.

© Copyright 2025 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

The post Republicans May Regret Undermining Judicial Independence appeared first on Reason.com.

When Florida’s lawyers tried to defend the state’s social media age restriction law by claiming it’s “well known” that platforms harm children, they probably weren’t expecting to get schooled on moral panics by a judge citing his own experiences with… Dungeons & Dragons. But that’s exactly what happened in a recent hearing challenging Florida’s unconstitutional law barring teenagers from social media — and it perfectly illustrated why we should be deeply skeptical of laws based on unproven claims of harm to children.

Florida’s law, HB 3, is part of a broader wave of state legislation trying to block social media access for anyone under 16. The justification is always the same: protecting children from harm. The evidence is always equally thin. And the constitutional problems are always glaring.

But what makes this particular hearing fascinating is how clearly it exposes three key problems with these laws: the shaky evidence, the troubling implications for parental rights, and most importantly, the way they echo previous moral panics about everything from comic books to rap music.

And why do these laws always focus on those under 16 specifically? What makes that the magic age to flip the switch? Nobody ever explains that. The best suggestion is that this is the age recommended in Jonathan Haidt’s widely debunked book about kids and social media. Except, as I noted in my review of the book, Haidt makes basically zero effort to defend why it’s okay for 16 year olds to use social media, but not anyone younger. He just notes that he “thinks” it makes more sense (which is a striking admission given how much Haidt and his supporters claim his book is supported by data and studies).

CCIA and NetChoice sued to stop the law from going into effect, and while there hasn’t been a ruling on a preliminary injunction yet, I did get my hands on some of the transcript from the hearing at the end of February.

The transcript reads like a master class in dismantling moral panic arguments. When Florida’s lawyers stood up in court to defend the law, they reached for what they clearly thought was their strongest argument: “Well, Your Honor, it is well known in this country that kids are addicted to these platforms.”

But Judge Mark Walker, chief judge of the Northern District of Florida, wasn’t buying what Florida was selling. His response cut straight to the heart of why these kinds of claims deserve skepticism, and some of it was based on his own childhood experience on the other side of a moral panic:

MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: Well, Your Honor, it is well known in this country that kids are addicted to these platforms. This is a mental health —

THE COURT: It was well known when I was growing up that I was going to become a Satanist because I played Dungeons & Dragons. Is that — I don’t know what really that means. You can say that there’s studies, Judge, and you can’t ignore expert reports that say X.

The D&D reference isn’t just an amusing comeback — it’s a federal judge explaining through personal experience why courts shouldn’t accept “everybody knows” arguments about harm to children. After all, lots of things have been “well known” to harm children over the years. It was “well known” that chess made kids violent. Or that the waltz would be fatal to young women, or that the phone would prevent young men from ever speaking to young women again. I could go on with more examples, because there are so many.

When Florida’s lawyer tried to argue that social media was somehow different — that this time the moral panic was justified — Judge Walker was ready with historical receipts:

MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: Kids weren’t reading comics — millions and millions of kids weren’t reading comics eight hours a day. Millions and millions of kids weren’t listening to rap music eight hours a day. There’s something different going on here, and there’s a consensus —

THE COURT: The problem, Counsel, that’s a really bad example, the comics, because there is an entire exhibit in Glasgow where they barred comics in the entire country because somebody decided that comics were turning their youth against their parents and were causing them to engage and worship the supernatural and stuff.

So, I mean, I guess that was the point the plaintiffs were making is from the beginning of time, we’ve targeted things under some belief that it’s harming our youth, but doesn’t necessarily make it so.

But, go ahead.

That trailing “but, go ahead” is savage. I think I’d rather curl up in a ball and try to disappear in the middle of a courtroom than “go ahead” after that.

Florida also went with what they must have thought was their strongest argument: the authority of the U.S. Surgeon General. After all, if the nation’s top doctor says social media is addictive, who is a mere federal judge to question it?

But this appeal to authority ran straight into another of Judge Walker’s key points: expert opinions, even from high officials, need actual evidence behind them.

MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: The U.S. Surgeon General recognized them as addictive. Experts recognize them as addictive. The legislative staff analysis in this case was pretty thorough and cited a lot of —

THE COURT: The Surgeon General also said COVID was dangerous, but I get it. It doesn’t necessarily say — the U.S. Surgeon General, just because he says something doesn’t make it so.

The judge’s COVID example is… not great. COVID was (and remains) legitimately dangerous, supported by overwhelming scientific evidence. But his broader point about not blindly accepting authority claims stands. After all, this is the same office that once warned about the dangers of Pac-Man.

Judge Walker does a bit more odd COVID denialism in rejecting “the Surgeon General says it” argument a bit later:

But invoking the “it’s commonly known” — I mean, it was commonly known that masks would prevent, potentially, the spread of COVID, but apparently that was fake news. So, I mean, I don’t understand how the “commonly known” helps you.

I’m kinda hoping he’s using this example to mock the Florida government, given how mask-denialism is so common among the Florida government these days, even as the actual evidence has and continues to show that mask wearing does, in fact, limit the spread of COVID (not entirely, but significantly).

No matter what, though, it’s nice to see a judge who seems well aware of how moral panics work, and demanding actual evidence, rather than just buying these kinds of appeals to authority.

And, all of this matters legally. As Judge Walker notes, to pass the high bar of strict scrutiny, you have to show more than just handwaving about kids and social media, even getting Florida’s attorney to agree that a “loosey-goosey causal effect” wouldn’t pass strict scrutiny.

THE COURT: And by the way, “commonly known” certainly wouldn’t — if you are subject to strict scrutiny, that certainly wouldn’t be enough; right?

MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: Agreed.

THE COURT: And you would even agree the sort of loosey-goosey causal effect under existing case law wouldn’t be enough for strict scrutiny; right?

MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: A direct causal link is required under Brown for strict scrutiny.

This exchange matters because it cuts to the heart of why these social media laws keep failing in court. It’s not enough to say “everyone knows social media is bad for kids.” It’s not enough to cite a few alarming studies. Under strict scrutiny, you need real evidence of direct harm and proof that your law actually addresses that harm in the least restrictive way possible.

But even if Florida could somehow meet the strict scrutiny standard (they can’t), there’s an even more fundamental problem with the law: it completely undermines the state’s supposed commitment to parental rights. Judge Walker’s exchange with Florida’s lawyer on this point was particularly revealing:

THE COURT: Well, we’ve empowered parents to control what books our kids read in school. Why is it far-fetched to empower parents and think they know best for their individual children about who they are engaging with socially on social media platforms?

MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: Well, parents certainly have a role, but the key is these controls. And the controls have proven ineffective. So these platforms —

THE COURT: You are taking the control away. Because if I’ve got a 13-year-old child and I want him to — does my kid get to sign up if I want him to be able to sign up and have an account in a social media platform on Facebook?

MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: You can register for an account and a kid can use your account, and you can monitor them.

THE COURT: I don’t want to monitor them. Just like I want them to read the book about the two penguins raising an egg together. The two male penguins raising an egg together. I don’t want to sign up on my account. I want to have my own Facebook account. I want my kid — you’ve taken that choice away from me; right?

MR. GOLEMBIEWSKI: I just think it’s an irrelevant issue because their — I mean, the degree of control that parents have is irrelevant. What’s —

THE COURT: The point, Counsel — and I don’t think it’s particularly far-fetched — is the State of Florida picks and chooses when they want the parents to be making the decision. And when it suits their purposes, they do; and when it doesn’t, they don’t.

But I’ve got it. Fair enough.

That reference to “the book about the two penguins raising an egg together” isn’t random. It’s about And Tango Makes Three, a children’s book that’s frequently targeted for bans (including in Florida). The judge is highlighting an obvious contradiction: Florida claims parents should have absolute authority over what books their kids read, but apparently can’t be trusted to decide if their 15-year-old is mature enough for Instagram.

The hearing was a couple of weeks ago, and while there was some light reporting on it, the full transcript tells a more important story. It shows how these social media moral panics are leading to exactly what moral panics always lead to: hasty, poorly thought-out laws that trample individual rights in the name of protecting children.

We’re seeing this pattern play out across the country. From Utah to California to Arkansas to New York to Florida, legislators are rushing to “do something” about social media, backed by nothing more than parental anxiety and cherry-picked studies. But as Judge Walker’s systematic dismantling of Florida’s arguments shows, these laws can’t survive actual constitutional scrutiny.

The irony is that in trying to protect children from the supposed dangers of social media, these laws are teaching them a different lesson entirely: that evidence doesn’t matter, that constitutional rights are negotiable, and that the solution to every perceived problem is a government ban. That’s probably not the civics lesson we want to be giving the next generation.

So kudos to Judge Walker for giving a much better civics lesson in response to this particular moral panic.

Elon Musk tweeted in 2022 that the Cybertruck "will be waterproof enough to serve briefly as a boat." But a Cybertruck did not float in Ventura Harbor.

HP, along with other printer brands, is infamous for issuing firmware updates that brick already-purchased printers that have tried to use third-party ink. In a new form of frustration, HP is now being accused of issuing a firmware update that broke customers’ laser printers—even though the devices are loaded with HP-brand toner.

The firmware update in question is version 20250209, which HP issued on March 4 for its LaserJet MFP M232-M237 models. Per HP, the update includes “security updates,” a “regulatory requirement update,” “general improvements and bug fixes,” and fixes for IPP Everywhere. Looking back to older updates’ fixes and changes, which the new update includes, doesn’t reveal anything out of the ordinary. The older updates mention things like “fixed print quality to ensure borders are not cropped for certain document types,” and “improved firmware update and cartridge rejection experiences.” But there’s no mention of changes to how the printers use or read toner.

However, users have been reporting sudden problems using HP-brand toner in their M232–M237 series printers since their devices updated to 20250209. Users on HP’s support forum say they see Error Code 11 and the hardware’s toner light flashing when trying to print. Some said they’ve cleaned the contacts and reinstalled their toner but still can't print.

“Insanely frustrating because it's my small business printer and just stopped working out of nowhere[,] and I even replaced the tone[r,] which was a $60 expense,” a forum user wrote on March 8.

When reached for comment, an HP spokesperson said:

We are aware of a firmware issue affecting a limited number of HP LaserJet 200 Series devices and our team is actively working on a solution. For assistance, affected customers can contact our support team at: https://support.hp.com.

HP users have been burned by printer updates before

HP hasn't clarified how widespread the reported problems are. But this isn't the first time that HP broke its customers’ printers with an update. In May 2023, for example, a firmware update caused several HP OfficeJet brand printers to stop printing and show a blue screen for weeks.

With such bad experiences with printer updates and HP’s controversial stance on purposely breaking HP printer functionality when using non-HP ink, some have minimal patience for malfunctioning HP printers. As one forum commenter wrote:

… this is just a bad look for HP all around. We're just the ones that noticed it and know how to post on a forum. Imagine how many 1,000s of other users are being affected by this and just think their printer broke.

Some commenters are already using current exasperation to push HP's customers to move to rival printer-maker Brother.

"I went out and got a similar Brother printer for $144 at Walmart," one of HP’s forum users wrote. "Not ideal - but no more auto firmware updates - plus the new printer has [its] own 250 sheet paper tray and manual sheet feeder[,] which is nice. Just a little bigger than the HP. It's a little slower first page out - but I'm not in any particular hurry."

Brother was recently accused via viral video of updating its laser printers so they wouldn't print or would print worse when using non-Brother toner. But Brother denied this is the case to Ars.

Read full article

Comments

With all the announcements from automakers planning for more gasoline and hybrid cars in their future lineups, you'd think that electric vehicles had stopped selling. While that might be increasingly true for Tesla, everyone else is more than picking up the slack. According to analysts at Rho Motion, global EV sales are up 30 percent this year already. Even here in the US, EV sales were still up 28 percent compared to 2024, despite particularly EV-unfriendly headwinds.

Getting ahead of those unfriendly winds may actually be driving the sales bump in the US, where EV sales only grew by less than 8 percent last year, for contrast. "American drivers bought 30 percent more electric vehicles than they had by this time last year, making use of the final months of IRA tax breaks before the incentives are expected to be pulled later this year," said Charles Lester, Rho Motion data manager.

With the expected loss of government incentives and the prospect of new tariffs that will add tens of thousands of dollars to new car prices, now is probably a good time to buy an EV if you think you're going to want or need one.

Perhaps surprisingly, growth in the much more EV-tolerant European Union was barely higher, at 29 percent for the year to date, helped by a new tax on plug-in hybrid weight in France, Rho Motion says. Both Germany and the UK EV markets have grown by 40 percent this year.

China is speeding past the rest of the world in terms of electrifying its transportation, and unsurprisingly it comes out on top in Rho Motion's data, with 35 percent growth for the year to date compared to 2024. Looking month by month shows an even more impressive 73 percent increase year over year, thanks to where the lunar new year fell in 2024 and 2025.

Read full article

Comments

After a tumultuous 2024, in which iRobot lost its founder and CEO, Colin Angle, Amazon abandoned its acquisition plans, and the company laid off a large portion of its staff, iRobot is back with a major shake-up of its robotic vacuum line.

This week, the company that invented the robot vacuum over 20 years ago announced eight new models that are definitely not the Roombas you’re used to. Not only do they look totally different, but they also work differently, thanks to a new-to-Roomba feature: lidar navigation and mapping.

The new lineup starts at $299 and goes up to $999. It features the entry-level 105 series of vacuums and vacuum mops with the option of an auto-empty dock, the 205 series with a new onboard dust compactor, and the higher-end 405 and 505 models that bring dual spinning mopping pads to the iRobot family for the first time. The new bots come in black and white and will be available to preorder on March 18th at iRobot.com in the US and select European markets.

According to the company, this is the largest product launch in iRobot history. But that’s not the biggest surprise. iRobot finally adding lidar navigation and room mapping — a technology used by most competitors — is a huge change that should bring faster mapping and more features to Roombas. The company is also launching a new iRobot app that adds a real-time cleaning view aided by lidar and it has started publishing suction power specs for its robots.

All the new models feature 7,000Pa and four suction levels, according to iRobot’s product management lead, Warren Fernandez. While he points out it’s not all about suction power, this is significantly lower than the competition. Roborock’s newest model, the Saros 10, has 22,000Pa (but costs $1,600).

Facing increasing competition from Chinese manufacturers, iRobot has gone back to the drawing board with this new line. Featuring a completely new industrial design, the Roombas have been redesigned from the ground up to accommodate the shift from camera-based vSLAM navigation to lidar.

In an interview with The Verge, Fernandez said that iRobot made the change now after evaluating the technology for some time because they believe lidar is finally mature enough and affordable enough to fit into their product roadmap.

The main benefit of lidar is smarter mapping for the lower-priced Roombas, including room-specific cleaning and the ability to create clean zones and keep-out zones in the app. For the higher-end models, it should mean faster mapping and more agile navigation.

Also new is an ultrasonic carpet detection sensor on all Roombas, so the robots can intelligently avoid carpets when mopping. The mopping models now all have three levels of water flow and iRobot’s unique SmartScrub option. Previously, most of these features were reserved for higher-end Roombas, which started at $500.

Most models now have a lidar tower on top, and the auto-empty docks have a whole new look. Overall, the new Roombas look a lot more like models from iRobot’s major competitors: Roborock, Dreame, and Ecovacs.

The fanciest model in the new line is the $999 (€799) Roomba Plus 505 Combo Robot Plus AutoWash Dock (yes, the naming has gotten worse). This is the first Roomba with dual spinning mop pads for scrubbing hard floors. It can also extend its right mop outward to clean along edges and lift its mops 10mm to avoid low-pile carpets. Roborock and Dreame have had variations on these features for a while.

The 505 comes with a new multifunction dock that washes and dries the mop pads, refills the mop tank, and empties the bin. It also adds heated drying, something the Combo 10 Max, iRobot’s top-of-the-line robot vacuum / mop that launched last summer, doesn’t have. Like the 10 Max, the 505 has AI-powered obstacle detection, thanks to an onboard camera, so it should recognize and avoid things like cords, socks, and pet waste.

Fernandez says the 10 Max remains the current flagship model, as it has better cleaning power than the 505, but he declined to give suction specs for it. It uses a different mop — a retractable system that puts the mop on top of the bot to avoid carpets. According to Fernandez, the 505 is the only Roomba among the new models that will support the Matter smart home standard, which the 10 Max also does. All the new models will support existing integrations with Amazon Alexa, Apple’s Siri, and Google Home. 

The Roomba Plus 405 Combo Robot Plus AutoWash Dock is a step down in price to $799 (€699). It keeps all the same basic functionality — a combo vacuum and mop with spinning mopping pads and a multifunctional dock — but it differs from the 505 in a few ways. It can’t extend its mops, doesn’t have AI-powered obstacle detection (as there’s no camera), and lacks heated mop drying. It also has iRobot’s standard ClearView Lidar navigation, whereas the 505 has a Pro version, which Fernandez says is more accurate and can see smaller objects.

The budget lineup is also getting a big bump up. The new Roomba 105 and 205 series have the same lidar-based mapping, 7,000Pa suction, virtual keep-out zones, automatic carpet detection and avoidance, and object sensing and avoidance capabilities as the 405, all features unavailable on the entry-level Roomba i5 and Combo Essential line. 

Both new models come in a vacuum-only or a combo option that adds a removable flat microfiber mopping pad. The 105 works with an auto-empty dock, but the 205 uses the new dust compactor technology. “It’s kind of like a miniaturized version of a trash compactor,” says Fernandez. He says it can last two months before emptying, compared to 75 days on the auto-empty dock. You don’t need to find space for an auto-empty dock, which means you can stick your robot under a couch or bed, and he added that there isn’t a loud emptying noise or a need to buy bin bags.

Both series are priced the same: $449 for the 105 Vac Robot Plus AutoEmpty Dock; $469 (€449) for the 105 Combo Robot Plus AutoEmpty Dock; $449 for the 205 DustCompactor Vac Robot; and $469 (€449) for the 205 DustCompactor Combo Robot. (This is more expensive than Roomba’s Combo Essential line with auto-empty dock, but those don’t have lidar.) If you’re fine with emptying a bin once a week or so, you can go for the 105 Vac Robot for $299 or the 105 Combo Robot for $319 (€299). 

There are some innovations here; the dust compactor will appeal to those who don’t like the extra clutter of those big auto-empty docks. I’ve seen something similar on the Narwal Freo X Ultra and found it to be very good. But overall, this lineup represents iRobot capitulating to the competition. 

For years, under founder and CEO Colin Angle, the company stood firm in its belief that its superior cleaning ability and smarter robots were just better. It appears that the new CEO, Gary Cohen, took a look at the competitive landscape and decided that what people really want is spinning mop pads, lidar towers, and suction specs, so that’s what you’re getting. “Last year, we reinvented our iRobot Research and Development Labs, and these robots are the result of our world-class engineers’ and designers’ brilliance,” he said in a press release.

This “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” approach is clearly designed to save the struggling company. The pricing is competitive, and combined with the Roomba name, it’s a strategy that could work well, assuming the products are as good and as reliable as Roombas have traditionally been.

I’m looking forward to testing the new robots to see how they stack up to the current Roombas, which have long been some of my favorite robot vacuums. But for today, I’m slightly sad to see decades of innovation and enterprise at iRobot get trampled in what looks to be a boring race to the middle.