Latest news with #6thCircuit
CNET
7 days ago
- CNET
Yes, Your Internet Provider Can Throttle Your Speeds. Here's How to Make It Stop
Slow internet can disrupt your workday, your gaming and even your doctor's appointments. Maybe you've noticed a dip in your upload and download speeds. While there are many reasons for a lagging Wi-Fi connection -- and some quick fixes you can try -- there's also a real possibility that your slow speeds are out of your control. Although technically illegal, your ISP could be intentionally throttling your internet connection. TL;DR: If you suspect this is happening to you, get a good VPN. Determine if your ISP is actually throttling your speeds Before we discuss internet throttling and how to stop it, review this checklist of other factors that may be contributing to your slow speeds. Start with these quick fixes: If that doesn't work, consider: Locating local internet providers If your equipment is already in top shape and your Wi-Fi setup is optimized, the next best solution may be upgrading to a faster speed tier, depending on how many heavy internet users are in the house. But if you've already run down the list of solutions and nothing is working, then the issue might be something your internet service provider is intentionally doing: bandwidth throttling. Wait, isn't internet throttling illegal? While technically considered an illegal practice, your ISP can still find ways to throttle your internet connection. The FCC's ruling on net neutrality was thrown out in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, along with other rules about regulating the internet as a utility. That means, in some states, the practice might still technically be illegal. That said, ISPs can still get around that legal ruling pretty easily. For instance, throttling is technically still allowed if your internet plan has a data cap or your ISP's network is overloaded. Additionally, if your ISP gives notice about slowing your internet speeds, it can legally do so. A proven way to avoid internet throttling is to use a virtual private network. Providers need to see your IP address to slow down your internet and a good VPN shields that identity. This comes with some limitations and downsides, which we'll discuss below. Quick tips to help speed up your Wi-Fi at home Quick tips to help speed up your Wi-Fi at home Click to unmute Video Player is loading. Play Video Pause Skip Backward Skip Forward Next playlist item Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 0:15 Loaded : 100.00% 0:00 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:15 Share Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Close Modal Dialog This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button. Close Modal Dialog This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button. Quick tips to help speed up your Wi-Fi at home Troubleshoot your slow internet connection So your Wi-Fi is slow, and you think your service provider is throttling your connection. Let's troubleshoot your internet connection first to absolutely rule out other possibilities: Restart your router, check that the router is centrally located in your home, reposition its antennas and double-check your network security. If your laggy internet is caused by your router being too weak to reach a particular room, you can spend as little as $15 on a Wi-Fi extender or invest in a high-functioning mesh network, which we recommend if you're trying to optimize coverage to the whole house. If you've run through the laundry list and your Wi-Fi is still chugging slowly, move on to the next step. CNET/Viva Tung Find a reliable VPN If you've researched your internet health and are still stumped, the next step is to start researching VPNs. CNET's top pick for the best VPN on the market is ExpressVPN due to its excellent privacy transparency, usability and consistent fast speeds. If your internet provider is actually throttling your internet speeds, a VPN is one of the only ways to get around it. While your ISP can still throttle VPN traffic, the VPN will encrypt that traffic using different protocols. You may have to try out different VPNs to find one that works effectively. There are many reasons to get a VPN and just as many factors to consider when settling for one, like security, price and server locations. Keep in mind that using a VPN will still slightly slow your speeds, but you may experience less congestion and slowdown overall while using one. Compare your speed with the VPN Next, test your internet speed again using a service like or Compare the results with the same test when your VPN is active. Using any VPN will slow your speed considerably, so the speed tests should show a discrepancy, with the VPN-active speed being notably slower than the VPN-inactive speed. But a VPN also hides the IP address that providers use to identify you so if your speed test with the VPN is faster than without the VPN, that may mean your ISP is targeting your IP address for throttling. Fix your internet OK, this is the hard part because knowing where to start could be tricky. Even if you find out your provider is throttling your internet, there may not be much you can do. Many people in the US live in regions with ISP monopolies or duopolies, making finding a better provider difficult. But here are a few hopefully useful suggestions: If you do have options, consider switching to a better provider in your area. Not only will you potentially put speed throttling to rest but you may end up with faster speeds and a better deal. Check out our top picks for ISPs and high-speed ISPs in 2025. Use your VPN to maintain more consistent speeds. A VPN can't solve a bad connection or other reasons behind your slow service but it can mitigate throttling from unscrupulous ISPs. Call your provider and threaten to switch providers if they don't stop throttling your internet. This might seem old-fashioned and doesn't guarantee lasting results but some providers have responded positively to such tactics and you may be able to negotiate your way out of the throttling. What's the bottom line on internet throttling? It's never a complete guarantee that your ISP won't throttle your speeds down the line. If you've exhausted all the ways to improve your speeds and are still not noticing a significant change, we recommend switching to a different ISP available in your area. To learn more, check out our guide on the best internet providers near you. Bandwidth throttling FAQs What is bandwidth throttling and is it legal? If you're noticing a long buffering time when trying to stream your favorite television show, you might be experiencing bandwidth throttling. This happens when your ISP purposely slows down your internet speeds by controlling your bandwidth. The FCC's ruling on net neutrality was thrown out in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently, along with other rules about regulating the internet as a utility. That means that although in some states, the practice might still technically be illegal, it is legal in other states. Plus, ISPs can easily get around that legal ruling. For instance, throttling is technically still allowed if your internet plan has a data cap or your ISP's network is overloaded. Additionally, if your ISP gives prior notice about slowing your internet speeds, they can legally do so. Why do ISPs throttle bandwidth? There's no exact answer to why ISPs limit some people's connections and not others. If a network is congested and you're using a lot of internet bandwidth, your provider might slow down your service to encourage you to pay for more data. Or, if you have a data cap and notice a laggy connection, your ISP might be limiting your service when you're near the end of the cap. DSL, cable and fixed wireless connections are more susceptible to network congestion. If available, we recommend going with a fiber connection. Read our top picks for the best fiber internet providers of 2025. In addition, check out our list of the best providers with no data caps. How can I check if my ISP is throttling my bandwidth? If you've checked your internet speed through an Ethernet connection and your results haven't improved, you might want to check if your provider is to blame. A simple connection speed test, like the one through Ookla or M-Lab, can show if your ISP is providing consistent performance no matter the content you're accessing.
Washington Post
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Nine reasons for cautious optimism about individual liberty
Aristotle's axiom 'one swallow does not make a summer' suggests caution in anticipating large reverberations from a Supreme Court ruling last week. But the court's unanimous affirmation of a principle that is commonsensical but now controversial might indicate its readiness to temper the racialization of American law and governance, to which the court has contributed. In 2019, Marlean Ames, a heterosexual Ohio woman who had worked in a state agency since 2004, was denied a promotion for a job that went to a lesbian colleague with less experience at the agency and lesser academic credentials. Ames was subsequently demoted to a position involving a 40 percent pay cut, and her prior position was filled by a gay man. Ames filed a lawsuit saying she was discriminated against, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because of her sexual orientation. She lost in a district court and in her appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which held that she had not demonstrated 'background circumstances' (not defined, anywhere) to justify her suspicion of discrimination. This demonstration requires, the 6th Circuit said, a member of a majority to show that her employer is 'that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' The court heard this case not to decide the merits of Ames's accusation but to consider her extra burden in making them. In Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's short (nine-page) opinion for the court, she noted that 'disparate treatment' (discrimination) claims generally rest on 'circumstantial evidence,' but only members of a majority have the additional evidentiary burden of demonstrating 'background circumstances.' Jackson briskly held that Title VII draws no distinction between majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs. Rather, it concerns unlawfully hiring, discharging or otherwise discriminating against 'any individual' (Jackson's emphasis). By stipulating protections for every 'individual,' Congress 'left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.' Jackson quoted the court's language in the 1971 Duke Power Co. case: 'discriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed' (Jackson's emphasis). In Duke Power, however, the court greased the nation's slide into laws that recognize, in order to privilege, groups. The court conceded that the company did not intentionally discriminate on the basis of race. It nonetheless was guilty of illegal discrimination because when making promotions it administered an aptitude test that had a 'disparate impact' on groups: 58 percent of White candidates and 6 percent of Black ones passed. By creating an illegal discrimination of effects, severed from intentions, the court opened a path to racialist thinking and laws. And a racial spoils system based on the theory that disparate social outcomes should be blamed on 'systemic' racism. So, racism will persist until 'the system' — a.k.a., society — is dismantled and reassembled equitably, which might take a while. Such language — systemic injuries to certain (not all) minority groups — undermines a foundational American premise: that rights (and responsibilities) inhere in individuals. This has helped to create today's simmering stew of grievances: the toxic binary of oppressors and oppressed, grievance groups versus groups aggrieved by being accused of complicity, even if unintentional, in oppression. Justice Jackson's opinion focused, properly, on the narrow question of what Title VII requires and does not mandate. Justice Clarence Thomas, however, in a 14-page concurrence (joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch) deplored 'problems that arise when judges create atextual legal rules and frameworks.' By now, much constitutional law is 'judge-made': extracted from, not found in, constitutional or statutory texts. Including some doctrines that conservatives rightly applaud, such as the 'major questions' doctrine: Executive agencies should not exercise powers of vast economic and political significance unless Congress has clearly and explicitly authorized this. Other examples: Miranda warnings (by police), the exclusionary rule (excluding illegally seized evidence from trials), the nondelegation doctrine (limiting Congress's ability to delegate to executive agencies essentially legislative powers). The 'background conditions' requirement for majority plaintiffs is, however, unambiguously discrimination mandated as social policy, implausibly tickled from Title VII language. How will Jackson apply her 'individuals, not groups' reasoning when, soon, the court announces its ruling in a case from Louisiana under the 1965 Voting Rights Act? The core issue there is: Does a map of six congressional districts, drawn after the 2020 Census, constitute 'vote dilution' that denies a particular group, Black voters, a 'meaningful opportunity' to elect candidates of their choice. No such language is in, or implied by, the Voting Rights Act, or is compatible with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws for individuals.
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rules discrimination laws protect all equally, including 'majority group' members
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the nation's anti-discrimination laws apply equally to all employees, regardless of whether those complaining of bias are white or Black, gay or straight. In a short and unanimous opinion, the justices rejected as outdated and mistaken the view that "members of a majority group" must show more evidence of discrimination before they can sue and win. Instead, the justices said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has always prohibited workplace discrimination against "any individual" who suffers discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin and sex, including sexual orientation. The law "draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said. The ruling revives a discrimination lawsuit brought by Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who said she was demoted and discriminated against by a lesbian who became her supervisor. She was then replaced by a gay man who had less experience. Ames is a heterosexual woman. She sued her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, and alleged she was discriminated against because of her sexual orientation. But a federal judge rejected her discrimination claim, and the 6th Circuit Court in Cincinnati affirmed that decision. In doing so, the judges said she could not point to "background circumstances" or statistical evidence suggesting that hers was the "unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." Law students at the University of Virginia Law School appealed her case to the Supreme Court. They pointed out that the 6th Circuit and several other courts continue to use an outdated, two-track approach to discrimination claims. This is not the standard in much of the nation, however. For example, they said the 9th Circuit Court based in California does not follow this approach, which would require more proof of discrimination from whites or men or heterosexuals. But the law students said the court should hear the Ames case and clarify the law nationwide. Although the case did not directly involve DEI, or diversity, equity and inclusion, it gained added attention because of President Trump's drive to rid the government of DEI policies. Jackson said the Supreme Court for more than 50 years has steadily rejected the view that discrimination laws apply differently to different groups of people. In Griggs vs. Duke Power in 1971, "we said that '[d]iscriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed.'" A few years later, the court rejected the two-track approach, she said, "holding that Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act] prohibited racial discrimination against the white petitioners in th[at] case upon the same standards as would be applicable were they Negroes.' Lawyers for the Biden and Trump administrations had urged the court to overrule the 6th Circuit and make clear there is no double standard for deciding discrimination claims In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted the "majority" in the workplace differs by workplace. "Women make up the majority of employees in certain industries, such as teaching and nursing, but the minority in other industries, such as construction." "Defining the 'majority' is even more difficult in the context of race," he wrote. "American families have become increasingly multicultural, and attempts to divide us all up into a handful of groups have become only more incoherent with time." The court's ruling in Ames vs. Ohio Department of Youth Services said the Ohio court should reopen and reconsider Ames' claim of discrimination. Experts in discrimination law said the decision will have an effect in some regions but not others. "As a practical matter, more 'reverse discrimination' lawsuits may survive a motion to dismiss," said Evan Parness, an attorney at the Covington law firm in New York. Although the decision doesn't significantly change how federal district courts in California operate, it has implications for some courts in other parts of the country that require the higher burden of proof, said Elizabeth Beske, professor of law at American University in Washington. The 'background circumstances' rule was first applied in D.C. courts, after a white man sued the Baltimore and Ohio railroad company arguing he was discriminated against when jobs were instead given to Black and female applicants. The court held that 'it defie[d] common sense to suggest that the promotion of a Black employee justifies an inference of prejudice against white co-workers in our present society.' Columbia Law professor Olatunde C. Johnson said the "opinion is not surprising. It depends on a straightforward and sensible statutory reading of Title VII. The 6th Circuit's 'background circumstances' approach was not typical, so I don't expect the case to dramatically change employment discrimination litigation on the ground." Brian McGinnis, an attorney with the firm Fox Rothschild, said because the decision was unanimous, which is rare, it shows an uncontroversial and 'pretty straightforward' perspective that there is no historical basis in case law for requiring extra proof from white, heterosexual or other majority groups. And it represents an effort by the court to streamline and eliminate the need for additional steps in litigation, he said. There is some question as to how the change is applied, but McGinnis doesn't expect any issues. "There is some potential for mischief, but I don't think it will have much change on the day-to-day operations of many employers or courts," McGinnis said. 'The short answer is, it should not change much.' Savage reported from Washington and Hussain from Los Angeles. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court rules discrimination laws protect all equally, including ‘majority group' members
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the nation's anti-discrimination laws apply equally to all employees, regardless of whether those complaining of bias are white or Black, gay or straight. In a short and unanimous opinion, the justices rejected as outdated and mistaken the view that 'members of a majority group' must show more evidence of discrimination before they can sue and win. Instead, the justices said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has always prohibited workplace discrimination against 'any individual' who suffers discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin and sex, including sexual orientation. The law 'draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said. The ruling revives a discrimination lawsuit brought by Marlean Ames, an Ohio woman who said she was demoted and discriminated against by a lesbian who became her supervisor. She was then replaced by a gay man who had less experience. Ames is a heterosexual woman. She sued her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services, and alleged she was discriminated against because of her sexual orientation. But a federal judge rejected her discrimination claim, and the 6th Circuit Court in Cincinnati affirmed that decision. In doing so, the judges said she could not point to 'background circumstances' or statistical evidence suggesting that hers was the 'unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' Law students at the University of Virginia Law School appealed her case to the Supreme Court. They pointed out that the 6th Circuit and several other courts continue to use an outdated, two-track approach to discrimination claims. This is not the standard in much of the nation, however. For example, they said the 9th Circuit Court based in California does not follow this approach, which would require more proof of discrimination from whites or men or heterosexuals. But the law students said the court should hear the Ames case and clarify the law nationwide. Although the case did not directly involve DEI, or diversity, equity and inclusion, it gained added attention because of President Trump's drive to rid the government of DEI policies. Jackson said the Supreme Court for more than 50 years has steadily rejected the view that discrimination laws apply differently to different groups of people. In Griggs vs. Duke Power in 1971, 'we said that '[d]iscriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed.'' A few years later, the court rejected the two-track approach, she said, 'holding that Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act] prohibited racial discrimination against the white petitioners in th[at] case upon the same standards as would be applicable were they Negroes.' Lawyers for the Biden and Trump administrations had urged the court to overrule the 6th Circuit and make clear there is no double standard for deciding discrimination claims In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted the 'majority' in the workplace differs by workplace. 'Women make up the majority of employees in certain industries, such as teaching and nursing, but the minority in other industries, such as construction.' 'Defining the 'majority' is even more difficult in the context of race,' he wrote. 'American families have become increasingly multicultural, and attempts to divide us all up into a handful of groups have become only more incoherent with time.' The court's ruling in Ames vs. Ohio Department of Youth Services said the Ohio court should reopen and reconsider Ames' claim of discrimination. Experts in discrimination law said the decision will have an effect in some regions but not others. 'As a practical matter, more 'reverse discrimination' lawsuits may survive a motion to dismiss,' said Evan Parness, an attorney at the Covington law firm in New York. Although the decision doesn't significantly change how federal district courts in California operate, it has implications for some courts in other parts of the country that require the higher burden of proof, said Elizabeth Beske, professor of law at American University in Washington. The 'background circumstances' rule was first applied in D.C. courts, after a white man sued the Baltimore and Ohio railroad company arguing he was discriminated against when jobs were instead given to Black and female applicants. The court held that 'it defie[d] common sense to suggest that the promotion of a Black employee justifies an inference of prejudice against white co-workers in our present society.' Columbia Law professor Olatunde C. Johnson said the 'opinion is not surprising. It depends on a straightforward and sensible statutory reading of Title VII. The 6th Circuit's 'background circumstances' approach was not typical, so I don't expect the case to dramatically change employment discrimination litigation on the ground.' Brian McGinnis, an attorney with the firm Fox Rothschild, said because the decision was unanimous, which is rare, it shows an uncontroversial and 'pretty straightforward' perspective that there is no historical basis in case law for requiring extra proof from white, heterosexual or other majority groups. And it represents an effort by the court to streamline and eliminate the need for additional steps in litigation, he said. There is some question as to how the change is applied, but McGinnis doesn't expect any issues. 'There is some potential for mischief, but I don't think it will have much change on the day-to-day operations of many employers or courts,' McGinnis said. 'The short answer is, it should not change much.' Savage reported from Washington and Hussain from Los Angeles.
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with woman who says she suffered job discrimination for being straight
The Supreme Court on Thursday revived a lawsuit by an Ohio woman who said her bosses discriminated against her for being straight. The court unanimously ruled that members of majority groups do not face a higher legal standard than minorities to prevail in so-called reverse discrimination lawsuits under Title VII, the federal civil rights law that bars employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex and other protected characteristics. The decision, written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, comes as President Donald Trump has sought to deploy the nation's civil rights laws and agencies to combat what he sees as discrimination against white people and other majority groups. The ruling could make it easier for men and white people to successfully sue their employers for job discrimination. Lower courts had thrown out the lawsuit by Marlean Ames, who alleged that she was passed over for an Ohio state government job and then demoted from her existing post in favor of LGBTQ+ candidates. The lower courts said that members of majority groups suing for discrimination had to show 'background circumstances' suggesting that their bosses were among the 'rare' group of employers who were biased against the majority. Minorities suing for discrimination were not required to show analogous 'background circumstances' about their employers under the legal test that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals had adopted. Jackson wrote that the 6th Circuit's requirement 'cannot be squared' with federal civil rights law or other judicial precedent. 'Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,' the opinion states. The decision was an unsparing rebuke of the 'background circumstances' test and Ohio's legal arguments, stating at one point that the state's defense 'misses the mark by a mile.' Thursday's decision was unsurprising, given that the justices were highly skeptical of the state's position during oral arguments in February. Jackson's opinion did not explicitly discuss the implications for cases filed by white people. But Justice Clarence Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee, wrote a concurring opinion in which he said that racial discrimination lawsuits brought by white people should not face a higher legal bar than those brought by minorities. Writing that he was 'pleased' with the court's ruling, he argued that the murkiness of racial classifications can make it difficult to determine whether someone is part of the majority. 'Even if courts could identify all the relevant racial groups and their boundaries, courts would still struggle to determine which racial groups make up a majority,' Thomas wrote, in an opinion joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. The Supreme Court's decision Thursday vacated the appeals court's ruling and sent the case back for further consideration, meaning Ames will get a chance to prove her discrimination claims against the Ohio Department of Youth Services, which runs the state's juvenile detention centers. A spokesperson for the Ohio attorney general's office, which defended the case, said the Supreme Court 'made clear that this case is not over,' and it still believes Ames was treated fairly. 'We look forward to fully pressing those arguments as the case moves forward because the Ohio Department of Youth Services did not engage in unlawful discrimination,' spokesperson Dominic Binkley said in a statement. The state argued previously that Ames was not chosen for the job she applied for and then demoted because she lacked experience relevant to both positions. In addition to uniting the Supreme Court, the case is also notable for being one in which both the Biden and Trump administrations, as well as conservative groups like America First Legal, all lined up behind the worker and against the 'background circumstances' standard. Some civil rights groups were concerned, however, that doing so could lead to an uptick of meritless 'reverse discrimination' cases.
