Nicole Grant will pay for her $42,152 mistake, even if she'll only pay $125 at a time.

In 2009, Grant was indicted on one count of stealing government property in excess of $1,000 after she failed to notify the government that she was no longer eligible for Supplementary Security Income ("SSI") after she subsequently married.

She pled guilty and was sentenced to probation, brief home confinement, and restitution. Her presentencing report factored in her income, expenses, debts, and tax refunds for the preceding four years, leading the judge to require her to pay $250 per month in restitution payments. That was lowered to $125 in 2010.

It has been roughly 1,900 exhausting days since John Coleman, a researcher and author, filed his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request with the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”). Under FOIA, departments have twenty days to respond to requests, plus a ten day extension for cause.

Coleman is still waiting. And after 1,900 or so days, he may still have to pay for the photocopies.

Coleman filed his initial request in February 2008, seeking information concerning the government’s regulation of the drug carisoprodol (a muscle relaxant also known as Soma). Carisoprodol became a Schedule IV controlled substance in 2011.

When Dario Suarez-Valenzuela (DSV) appeared on a Peruvian talk show in 1997, he was promised compensation by the show's investigator, Jason, and the show's host, Lara Bazzo. He was never paid, and together with Jason, he confronted Bazzo and threatened to report her to a rival station.

As the old saying goes, snitches get stitches. Four men with badges, identifying themselves police officers, approached the men to intimidate them. Officer Luis pistol-whipped Jason, who subsequently died. He also shot DSV in the foot.

After agreeing to testify against Luis, DSV was stabbed. He then fled the country for the U.S. Luis served three months in prison for the murder. He followed that up by trashing DSV's parents' residences and continuing to pay them visits until 2008.

Samuel Muriithi drove an airport shuttle for Shuttle Express. He did so not as an employee, but as a franchisee. Of course, he alleges that the arrangement was a misclassification and that he was entitled to more pay, overtime, etc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Alas, the parties haven't even reached that important question yet. You see, their agreement included an arbitration clause. Shuttle Express pushed for enforcement of the clause but the district court ruled that it was unconscionable due to three provisions in the contract: the class action waiver, the requirement that the parties "split" arbitration fees, and the one-year limitations period for asserting claims.

The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's opinion, citing AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, and kicked the case to arbitration.

Like it or not, the world is becoming paperless. Email killed snail-mail years ago, e-books are slowly eroding the demand for paperbacks (though the ridiculously high prices of e-books are slowing that change), and like it or not, court opinions are moving wholly online as well.

Yep, the courts are catching up to WestLaw. After all, who uses hardback reporters anyway? My volumes of Supreme Court Lawyers' Edition are about 15 years out-of-date and only exist to make me look smart (and compliment my office motif).

Last month, we brought you the tale of attempted sodomizer and legal pioneer William MacDonald. Old MacDonald, at age 47, requested oral sex from a 17-year-old girl, then accused her of rape after she denied his advances. He was convicted under Virginia's "Crimes Against Nature" anti-sodomy statute. To recap, that statute reads:

If any person ... carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a [felony.]

A plea bargain is supposed to bring finality to a case. Along these lines, the Supreme Court, in Blackledge v. Perry, stated:

when a criminal defendant enters a guilty plea, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea ... [He] is limited ... to attacks on the voluntary and intelligent nature of the guilty plea.

However, when the prosecution's entire case relied upon fictitious statement made by a corrupt police officer, how "voluntary and intelligent" can that plea be?

Obvious proposition of the day: students have less rights when in school. For example, their Fourth Amendment rights are curtailed to the extent that separating them from their belongings and having drug dogs sniff around is permissible. There is also a line of cases, across the circuits, that allow some restrictions on free speech.

Here's another one.

Candice Hardwick, a Caucasian female who formerly attended middle and high school in Latta, South Carolina. She's quite proud of her Southern heritage and chose to express that pride by wearing shirts depicting the Confederate Battle Flag, which is the infamous flag that we've all seen plastered onto a dirty pickup truck at some time or another.

Maryland has a need for public safety measures. There's a reason some people call it "Balti-murder" after all. Of course, the means chosen to achieve that public interest must survive intermediate scrutiny by having a fit that is "reasonable, not perfect."

Do the means fit the need? The state's justifications include:

Thursday was not a great day for Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation. The Fourth Circuit eviscerated a lower court opinion, refused to delineate the bounds of the Second Amendment, and approved a "may issue" concealed carry law in Maryland. The lower court had held that the right to bear arms extends outside of one's home and that a "good-and-substantial reason" requirement for concealed carry permits was an unconstitutional burden on that right.

Before we get to the case, however, can we all take a moment to appreciate the development of an entire body of law, right in front of our eyes? Maybe its just us, but how many chances will lawyers have to shape the entire jurisprudence of a Constitutional guarantee in their lifetimes?