On Tuesday, my lawyers from the Goldwater Institute and I will appear before the Arizona Supreme Court to argue a proposition that, until recently, I would have thought too obvious to require lawyers: When the government violates a law enacted to protect you, you ought to be able to ask a court to make it stop.

Apparently this is controversial.

The question before the Arizona Supreme Court is larger than one professor, one university, or even DEI.

My case began with Arizona State University’s mandatory “Inclusive Communities” training. ASU required employees, as a condition of employment, to complete instruction on such fashionable academic doctrines as “whiteness,” “heteronormativity,” and “transformative justice.” An early version included a quiz requiring employees to select approved answers, including that land acknowledgments are important tools of accountability and that DEI should permeate every aspect of the university.

The course included material on “white privilege,” “white supremacy,” and the claim that American institutions normalize racial oppression. One segment even included a Starbucks employee describing an “existential crisis” when Americans could not pronounce her name.

There was, however, an inconvenience. Arizona has a law.

And the law says the state and its agencies “may not require an employee” to participate in training that presents “any form of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex.” It separately bars the use of public money for such training.

This is not an especially cryptic statute. One need not summon a seminar on poststructuralist hermeneutics to decipher the words “may not.”

I’ve alleged that ASU violated the statute. The merits of that claim have never been tried. Before ASU can be required to defend the training in court, the Arizona Board of Regents has argued that I cannot bring the case at all.

The trial court said I could. The Arizona Court of Appeals said I could not. The state Supreme Court has now agreed to hear the case and framed the question in the language lawyers love: whether the court of appeals failed to apply Arizona precedent for determining when a statute contains an “implied private right of action.”

That phrase sounds calculated to make normal Americans suddenly remember they have lawns to mow. But the principle behind it is important.

The law does not expressly say, “An employee may sue his employer for violating this section.” The Board of Regents therefore argues that no private cause of action exists. The Court of Appeals accepted that reasoning.

My attorneys argue that Arizona law does not end the inquiry there. Under state precedent, statutory silence “begins, rather than ends” the inquiry. Courts may consider a law’s language, context, purpose, subject matter, and consequences to determine whether a private right is implied.

RELATED: Feds probe ASU for racial bias — will other universities be held accountable?

flags/iStock/Getty Images

And the law is expressly directed at protecting state employees from being forced into prohibited training.

So here is the elementary question: If the employee the legislature meant to protect cannot enforce the protection, what exactly has he been given?

The lawmakers who sponsored the statute filed an amicus brief supporting my case and arguing that employees like me are exactly whom the law was intended to protect. That does not decide the legal question. It does underscore the practical one: If the protected employee cannot sue, who can?

A legal protection that government may violate without anyone able to invoke it in court has been demoted from law to suggestion.

That is why this case is not merely about DEI and certainly not merely about me.

Imagine a future Arizona government dominated by people whose politics are the reverse of mine. Suppose it mandates ideological training that violates a statute protecting progressive state employees. Should those employees be told, “Yes, the legislature prohibited this, but you are not permitted to ask a court to stop it”?

Of course not.

Conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheists, Republicans, Democrats, and the politically exhausted all have the same interest here. A government constrained by law is safer than a government permitted to decide for itself whether the laws restraining it will actually be enforced.

The larger controversy over DEI only sharpens the point. For years, university administrators embraced an ideology that purported to fight racial discrimination while rehabilitating racial judgment under new terminology. The vocabulary changed. The moral error did not.

Now legislatures are acting, parents are objecting, faculty members are speaking, and DEI offices are being renamed or reorganized.

But changing the stationery is not accountability.

RELATED: Diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging: A new name for the same game

johnwoodcock/iStock/Getty Images

Institutions regain public trust by telling the truth about what they did. Administrators who imposed unlawful training should answer for it if a court finds that the law was violated. Those who objected should be able to get through the courthouse door long enough to have that question decided.

When a government institution is accused of violating the law, its first instinct should not be to discover an ingenious reason the citizen cannot sue.

Let the case be heard.

If ASU’s training complied with Arizona law, let ASU prove it. If it did not, let the courts say so.

That is what courts are for.

The question before the Arizona Supreme Court is larger than one professor, one university, or even DEI. It is whether a law written to restrain government is something the people it protects may actually invoke against government.

Arizona has already told its agencies, “You may not.”

Now we find out whether an employee is allowed to answer, “Then prove it in court.”

​Goldwater institute, Opinion & analysis, Arizona supreme court, First amendment, Diversity equity inclusion, Arizona state university, Freedom of speech 

I received my Fitbit Air near launch day back in May, and I’ve had it on my wrist ever since. In our original hands-on coverage, I loved it for its lightweight design, long battery life, and 24/7 wearability, despite a lack of GPS tracking for runs, questions around data privacy, and an inconsistently reliable AI coach.

Three months later, I have more thoughts on how Fitbit Air has aged and whether or not I still recommend the device.

I find that it’s an inconsistent health partner.

Things I still love about the Fitbit Air? For starters, the size and weight have proven to be a huge selling point for the Fitbit Air. It’s so light and unobtrusive, I forget I have it on most of the time. Unlike larger fitness bands or even watches, its bracelet-like design makes it easy to wear in tandem with jewelry or accessories on the other wrist. Personally, I pair mine with an Apple Watch (I’m a data nerd; don’t judge), and I rarely dodge judgmental glances in public, so it must look normal to most folks.

Its covert aesthetic is further complemented by reliably impressive battery life that lasts slightly more than a week per charge, though this window may shorten a bit if you’re a real exercise fanatic. I rarely have to take it off or acknowledge it’s there, which is the best thing you could ask for in a dedicated fitness tracker. Considering that the Fitbit Air samples heart rate data every five seconds, this kind of battery life cannot be overstated. It’s truly impressive, as far as wearable gadgets go.

Zach Laidlaw

If there’s anything to gripe about, it’s that the pebble module inside the Fitbit Air is made of plastic. Sure, it’s lightweight and cheap to produce, but it’s also easy to damage. Shortly after the Fitbit Air launched, some users reported scratches on the heart rate sensor, and one unlucky user found out that bug sprays and plastics don’t mix. Keeping these in mind, I’ve been careful with my Fitbit Air, and it’s held up quite well so far, despite getting drenched for daily showers, occasional exercises, and rounds of dirty dishwater in the kitchen sink. Let’s see if that trend continues.

Things I dislike about the Fitbit Air

That’s not to say that Fitbit Air is perfect. When the device launched, Google heavily pushed its Gemini-powered AI health coach as a key feature. The company even rebuilt the Fitbit app around it as Google Health. Unfortunately, Coach still needs some work.

Through my day-to-day musings with Coach, I find that it’s an inconsistent health partner. Sometimes, it’s really good at making recommendations to improve personal fitness or serving as a soundboard for discussing random health questions. Other times?

RELATED: Google’s Fitbit overhaul is actually great. There’s just one catch.

Zach Laidlaw

It hallucinates over the data stored within the app. I’ve had it misread my readiness score, undercut my daily steps, and send me a morning notification to tell me I woke up too early while I was actively still sleeping.

One time, it even invented its own stress score, which is a feature Fitbit used to have, but it was removed when Google Health took over. When I asked Coach where it got the number, it said that I could find it myself in Google Health, but naturally, it wasn’t there. I’m still not sure where it found that hidden data, if it existed at all.

At this point, Coach is an interesting feature to play with, but it’s not actually reliable or useful yet. If it wasn’t already included in my Google AI Pro subscription, I wouldn’t dare spend the extra money on a Google Health Premium plan to try it out.

Would I recommend the Fitbit Air?

It’s only been a few months, but Fitbit Air remains to be one of the most interesting fitness trackers I’ve used in the last 15 years. Shortcomings aside, it does the basics well. Build, comfort, and battery are all highly rated in my book. It’s also tough to find a reliable tracker with class-leading heart rate, sleep, and fitness metrics for under $100. For the money, you get a lot of gadget here, and I would recommend it to anyone who is even the least bit curious about your health.

Zach Laidlaw

The story doesn’t end there, though. Fitbit Air is about to get better. Google announced at its hardware event in mid-August that the wearable is getting a powerful software upgrade. As part of Google’s new Health Guardian system for Pixel Watches, Fitbit Air will receive several quality-of-life features: insulin resistance metrics and blood pressure trends.

Together, these could theoretically help users detect early signs of diabetes and hypertension. That said, the features are expected to roll out in September, so I haven’t had a chance to test them yet. When they’re available, though, I’m sure I’ll have some thoughts. You’ll just have to wait until the six-month long-term review to read them.

​Tech, Fitbit 

Meta is set to pay a staggering $17 billion settlement after allegations that its social media platforms contributed to addiction and other harms among young users.

The agreement marks one of the largest corporate payouts tied to the growing backlash against Big Tech — and BlazeTV hosts Christopher Rufo and Jonathan “Lomez” Keeperman aren’t exactly sure how to feel about it.

“So we had a ruling this week,” Rufo says, “a settlement this week that Meta, which is the kind of dumb rebrand, like, middle-aged man identity crisis rebranding of Facebook, has settled to pay $17 billion.”

“Meta has been found guilty, or admitted to, harming children with its Facebook technology,” he explains.

“Essentially, they’re saying social media is addictive and harmful to kids in the same way that kids might be, you know, lighting up cigarettes,” he adds, before asking Lomez whether it’s good or bad.

“I’m of like two, three, four minds about this, honestly. On the one hand, it does strike me a little bit as a moral panic, I should say, which is like, OK, we’re going down this path of increased social media use. People are addicted to their phones,” Lomez says.

“There’s no ambiguity around that. That’s obvious and demonstrably the case. The question is, what harms are these doing? … And I think there are real harms,” he adds.

One of these “harms” is the “pervasive mass psychosis” that Lomez explains is “dominating our public life in almost every respect.”

“People getting herded into these sort of algorithmic valleys, you might call them, where they don’t see outside of it. Their information environment is completely one-sided, and this is deranging to people,” he says.

However, is the responsibility on those who have created social media, or those who use it?

“I think it’s a little bit of both,” he says. “And certainly when it comes to kids, I think kids are particularly susceptible to this stuff. And there ought to be a certain kind of responsibility that’s placed on the people creating these tools to be mindful of the ways in which kids in particular are susceptible, are able to be manipulated, where their sort of weaknesses are.”

“So this is all to say, when it comes to Meta here, is it reasonable for them to pay out $17 billion to these states? My answer is actually, yeah, it is,” he adds.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​17 billion, Addiction, Big tech, Christopher rufo, Jonathan lomez keeperman, Meta, Social media, Blazetv show