Can the Government Use Zach Bryan’s Song in a Video to Get Back at Him?

In early October 2025, Zach Bryan posted a snippet of an unreleased track widely referred to as “Bad News,” with lines criticizing ICE raids. Within a day, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) publicly chided him—its public-affairs chief told TMZ he should “stick to ‘Pink Skies’”—and a DHS video promoting ICE/Border Patrol actions appeared online set to Bryan’s 2020 song “Revival.” Many saw the timing as a deliberate taunt. Coverage from Pitchfork, Entertainment Weekly, and The Guardian captured both the DHS criticism and the use of “Revival” in a recruitment/PR-style video. 

Wait, can they do that? They are the government, but can they get away with it?

The Hidden Insurance Gaps for Rideshare and Delivery Drivers

Driving for these services on your regular car insurance is not allowed. If your car is damaged while driving for the app, your private insurance company can legally refuse to pay the claim. What’s the solution: call and ask for a rideshare or delivery insurance rider. It doesn’t cost much and fills in the gaps in coverage.

The growth of the gig economy has created flexible income opportunities for millions of Americans. Services such as DoorDash, Uber Eats, and TaskRabbit connect drivers with customers who want food delivered, errands run, or odd jobs completed on demand. Yet one issue remains persistently misunderstood: auto insurance coverage gaps. Many drivers assume their personal insurance or the platform’s coverage will protect them if something goes wrong. In reality, both assumptions are often false.

Offers of Settlement and Uninsured Motorist Insurance in Georgia

On September 26, 2025, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued an important decision in Blazys v. McKnight, clarifying whether uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) insurance carriers can be forced to pay attorney’s fees under Georgia’s offer-of-settlement law, OCGA § 9-11-68. The case involved serious injuries from a head-on collision and a jury verdict well above the settlement offers plaintiffs had made to their UM insurer. The plaintiffs sought to recover attorney’s fees after trial against the UM insurer that did not pay the $250,000 in policy limts, but the court ruled against them.

Why: In a nutshell, because UM insurers are unique and can act as 1) the defendant driver, 2) the insurance under its own name or 3) a ghost that is not in the case at all, the Offer of Settlement must be against an actual party that has the verdict rendered against it.

Settling a Child’s Case in Georgia: What You Need to Know

In Georgia, settling claims on behalf of minors (under 18) is governed tightly by statute and case law. The rules are designed to protect children from unfair deals, misuse of funds, or guardians acting without proper oversight. Basically, the Court wants to protect kids from irresponsible parents.

The key statute is O.C.G.A. § 29-3-3, as amended by House Bill 620 (effective May 2, 2022).

Normally, Suing Cities over Broken Sidewalks is Viable, Not so if its a Historic District

This case discusses whether the City of Savannah is immune from liability under the Georgia Recreational Property Act (RPA) when a visitor, McLamb, tripped and fell on a raised paver in a sidewalk located in a historic district.

Key Holdings:

Supreme Court Decision Summary: Martin v. United States (2025)
By Christopher Simon – June 13, 2025

Introduction

In Martin v. United States, decided June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a deeply troubling and unfortunately common scenario: a wrong-house police raid by federal agents. The case arose from a 2017 SWAT operation in suburban Atlanta, where FBI agents executed a raid on the home of Hilliard Toi Cliatt, Curtrina Martin, and Martin’s 7-year-old son—innocent civilians who suffered injury and terror when a flash-bang grenade and armed officers shattered their quiet morning.

Title: When the Heat Kills: The Legal Challenge of Linking Individual Deaths to Climate Change Hazards

In a groundbreaking legal development, a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Misti Leon against seven major oil and gas companies could reshape the way the legal system approaches climate change liability—particularly in cases where the cause of death, like extreme heat, is not easily attributable to a single action or entity. This case is the first of its kind to link an individual’s death directly to the effects of man-made climate change, raising profound legal implications for future tort litigation in environmental law.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the tragic death of Juliana Leon, a 65-year-old poet from Washington state who died of hyperthermia during the historic 2021 heat dome in the Pacific Northwest. Her body temperature was recorded at 110°F. The complaint alleges that the excessive heat, deemed “virtually impossible” without anthropogenic climate change, was a foreseeable consequence of decades of fossil fuel combustion, disinformation, and public deception orchestrated by the defendants: Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, and Olympic Pipeline Company.

In a scary decision, the Court of Appeals has ruled that if you let a defendant out on a Limited Liability Release and the take all available Uninsured Motorist Insurance, the Court can , on Motion, dismiss that Defendant which may destroy your venue anchor.

Understanding the Implications of Ferguson v. Spraggins: An Appellate Decision Analysis

In the recent case of Ferguson et al. v. Spraggins, the Georgia Court of Appeals tackled significant issues surrounding liability releases following a tragic automobile accident that resulted in the deaths of two women. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the released Defendant, Timothy Spraggins,Let’s explore the court’s reasoning and its implications for future cases involving liability releases, particularly under Georgia’s OCGA § 33-24-41.1.

Oral arguments were held in the Appeal filed by the City of Milton and ultimately the Court of Appeals ruled in our favor on the wrongful death of Josh Chang that came about as the result of the City turning a blind eye for 40 years to a 3 foot high stone obstacle in the right of way. Ultimately the Court of Appeals ruled in the Chang Family’s favor and the City has now appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court. Meanwhile, interest on the $32 million dollar judgment accrues at over $10,000 a day.