U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court seemed wary Monday of imposing harsh limits on how federal officials communicate with social media platforms about content moderation decisions. Sharply questioning both sides, the justices sought to determine when it is appropriate for the government to encourage the platforms to remove controversial content — if ever.

In nearly four hours of arguments Monday, several justices questioned aspects of laws adopted by Republican-dominated legislatures and signed by Republican governors in Florida and Texas in 2021. But they seemed wary of a broad ruling, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett warning of “land mines” she and her colleagues need to avoid in resolving the two cases.

Forty-five House Republicans are urging the Supreme Court to uphold an injunction that could prevent White House officials from discussing controversial matters with personnel at social media platforms. The injunction, issued in September by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, prohibits some government officials from attempting to “coerce or significantly encourage” platforms’ content moderation decisions. In a friend-of-the-court brief filed Friday, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and other lawmakers claim the injunction is justified, arguing that the Biden administration “repeatedly used government coercion to stifle public debate.”

The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments on what tech companies are billing as their version of a challenge to “must-carry” laws, statutes that they say are unconstitutional threats to their First Amendment freedom. The high court’s decision could determine the future of social media and other edge providers to moderate their content.

X Corp. owner Elon Musk on Thursday told the Supreme Court that a restriction on his ability to tweet about Tesla violates the First Amendment. The restriction, which he agreed to as part of a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, prohibits Musk from tweeting about his car company without first obtaining approval from its lawyers. Such a restriction “is a quintessential prior restraint that the law forbids,” his lawyers say in a petition urging the Supreme Court to review the restriction.

Etsy, eBay and Yelp have joined a growing list of companies and organizations urging the Supreme Court to strike down laws in Florida and Texas that prevent tech platforms from moderating content. “It ought to be fundamental to the First Amendment that a marketplace for handmade T-shirts and coffee mugs should not be forced by a state’s ‘free speech’ regulations to carry ‘I ♥ Hitler’ paraphernalia out of ‘fairness’ to all viewpoints,” Etsy, eBay and others say in a friend-of-the-court brief filed Thursday. “This case should be that simple as a First Amendment matter.”

The Supreme Court will hear an array of legal arguments involving social media’s free speech wars this term with a series of dicey cases that could reshape how public officials and U.S. government agencies operate online. On Tuesday, the court will hear oral arguments in the first two of those cases, which both ask whether public officials can constitutionally block their constituents on social media  — one of those cases at its core centers on a lakeside city manager in Michigan who decided he would block someone posting what he called “creepy” smiley emoji’s on his Facebook page amid criticism of the manager’s COVID-19 response.

he Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case early next year that could impact how much regulatory discretion the FCC has over the communications industry. The court agreed Friday to hear the case of Relentless Inc., et al. v. Dept. of Commerce, et al. The case is about a federal rule requiring fishing companies to pay for government monitoring of their herring catches. While the case may be about fish monitors, it is also about the Chevron doctrine, which is a principle of administrative law that holds that courts should give deference to a regulatory agency’s subject matter expertise when it comes to interpreting unclear statutes.

The justices will consider whether Texas and Florida laws restricting platforms from blocking some speech are constitutional.

The Supreme Court is sure to hand down another scorching set of decisions. Journalists could do a few easy things to cover this more accurately.

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered tech companies a reprieve Thursday by rejecting one lawsuit alleging social media platforms should be held liable for enabling a lethal attack on a Turkish nightclub and tossing another case back to a lower court.Those moves, coming three months after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the cases, preserve a law known as Section 230 that shields social media services from being held responsible for the material posted on their platforms.

The Supreme Court has officially weighed into the white-hot debate over how much Section 230 liability protection the law provides Big Tech for its online content organization and moderation efforts, and — if the justices’ questions are any gauge — that challenge as presented has a high hill to climb.

The justices are set to hear a case today challenging Section 230, a law that protects Google, Facebook and others from lawsuits over what their users post online.

The Florida governor and possible presidential candidate is the latest in a string of Republicans to target the Supreme Court decision that has long protected journalists accused of defamation.

The U.S. Supreme Court wants the Biden administration to weigh in on the Texas and Florida social media laws before justices decide whether to take up cases involving Big Tech industry lawsuits against the two states.

On Friday, the Supreme Court is expected to discuss whether to hear two cases that challenge laws in Texas and Florida barring online platforms from taking down certain political content. Next month, the court is scheduled to hear a case that questions Section 230, a 1996 statute that protects the platforms from liability for the content posted by their users. These cases could significantly affect the power and responsibilities of social media platforms.

The Supreme Court, which has in recent years become increasingly skeptical of the power of administrative agencies, seemed ready on Monday to make it easier to challenge their structure and authority. The court heard separate arguments in two cases, one involving the Federal Trade Commission and the other the Securities and Exchange Commission. The question in both was where and when constitutional objections to agency power may be pursued. The justices appeared ready to rule that people and companies need not wait for administrative rulings to press constitutional claims in federal court.

Elon Musk’s buyout of Twitter promises to supercharge the battle over content moderation, which is likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court

Former President Donald Trump threatened journalists with prison rape Saturday, suggesting the federal government use violence as a way to combat leaks to the media from journalists.

“You take the writer and/or the publisher of the paper … and you say ‘Who is the leaker? National security,’” Trump explained to audiences during a rally in Robstown, Texas. “And they say ‘We’re not gonna tell you.’ They say ‘That’s OK, you’re going to jail.’ And when this person realizes he’s going to be the bride of another prisoner very shortly, he will say ‘I’d very much like to tell you exactly who that leaker is!’”

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has shielded internet giants and social media companies from legal liability for what users say on their platforms. But now, the Supreme Court is set to hear a case on Section 230, one that could fundamentally alter big tech’s business model.

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case that challenges tech companies’ broad immunity to lawsuits over content hosted on their platforms. The case marks a new focus for the highest court to weigh in on Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that protects platforms from being sued over most third-party content on their sites. The court will decide in the case of Gonzalez v. Google LLC whether those protections are too far-reaching when it comes to Google’s recommendations of terrorist videos.

The state of Florida filed a petition to the Supreme Court on Wednesday to hear a case against its embattled law regulating how social media platforms moderate content. Florida asked the high court to weigh in after a court of appeals in May blocked major provisions of the law, ruling in favor of tech industry groups that filed a case against it. The groups argued that the law infringes on First Amendment rights and could lead to more dangerous content and hate speech online.

The Supreme Court is widely expected to issue a ruling this week hobbling federal agencies’ regulatory powers, a move that may deal a blow to President Biden’s tech enforcers.
While the topic of the case — the government’s ability to curb greenhouse emissions — is far removed from Silicon Valley, it’s likely to have sweeping implications for key agencies overseeing the tech sector, experts say.

The Supreme Court Monday rejected a church’s request to reconsider the landmark libel decision New York Times v. Sullivan, a 1964 case establishing that public officials must prove “actual malice” in order to prevail on libel claims. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, reiterating his opinion that the 1964 ruling, and later cases elaborating on it, “were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law.”

The decision, unthinkable just a few years ago, was the culmination of decades of efforts by abortion opponents, made possible by an emboldened right side of the court that has been fortified by three appointees of former President Donald Trump. The ruling came more than a month after the stunning leak of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito indicating the court was prepared to take this momentous step.

A Texas law that would bar social media companies from taking action on hate speech and disinformation was temporarily blocked Tuesday in a rare 5-4 Supreme Court ruling. Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer ruled in favor of tech industry groups looking to block the law, with Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Elena Kagan dissenting.

Internet advertisers and others have filed a friend of the court brief at the Supreme Court in support of NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, which are challenging a Texas social media law they say will irreparably damage online platforms as advertising vehicles.

No law or written code of conduct prescribes how an investigation into the leak of a draft opinion should proceed, or whether journalists will be swept into it.

Politico sent a memo to staff members on Tuesday saying it had restricted access to its offices and told security to be “extra vigilant” about visitors. The company also urged employees to consider removing their Politico affiliation on social media accounts. The company has not reported any specific threats.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court confirmed that the draft opinion was authentic. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in a statement that he had directed the Marshal of the Court to investigate the leak, which he described as “a singular and egregious breach” of trust.

The Senate made history on Thursday when it confirmed Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, handing President Biden a significant win. Jackson’s ascension to the country’s highest court breaks multiple barriers: She will be the court’s first Black female justice and its first former public defender. Senators voted 53-47 on Jackson’s confirmation. GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Mitt Romney (Utah) bucked their party and voted to confirm her.

Four dozen members of the Supreme Court bar have written Chief Justice John Roberts to ask the when the pandemic ends, the current practice of streaming oral argument audio should continue permanently.