No. 24-1257

Martin Akerman v. District of Columbia, et al.

Lower Court: District of Columbia
Docketed: 2025-06-09
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-law automated-enforcement confrontation-rights due-process fifth-amendment procedural-irregularities
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2025-09-29
Question Presented (from Petition)

• Whether the use of automated systems like "Speed
Camera Doe" for issuing citations without human
oversight violates procedural due process
protections under the Fifth Amendment by denying
individuals the right to confront their accusers or
challenge the evidence against them.

• Whether the deletion and mischaracterization of
the Petitioner's filings by the Clerk of the District
of Columbia Court of Appeals, coupled with
procedural irregularities, violate the First
Amendment right to petition the government for
redress of grievances and an implicit Second
Amendment right to be "armed" with accurate
information for legal defense.

• Whether the lack of oversight in automated
enforcement systems poses systemic risks to
constitutional rights, necessitating judicial
intervention to ensure accountability similar to
historical corporate governance reforms.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the use of automated systems like 'Speed Camera Doe' for issuing citations without human oversight violates procedural due process protections under the Fifth Amendment by denying individuals the right to confront their accusers or challenge the evidence against them

Docket Entries

2025-10-06
Petition DENIED.
2025-07-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-07-03
Waiver of District of Columbia of right to respond submitted.
2025-07-03
Waiver of right of respondent District of Columbia to respond filed.
2025-02-03

Attorneys

District of Columbia
Carl James SchifferleD.C. Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Martin Akerman
Martin Akerman — Petitioner