Share

The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here.

Last week the federal government encouraged the justices to review a pair of petitions involving two nearly identical laws in Florida and Texas that seek to regulate how large social media platforms can block, remove, or demonetize user content. Lawmakers in both states passed the bills to address what they perceive as censorship of conservative viewpoints; the platforms countered that the laws violate their own First Amendment rights. This week, we highlight cert petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, a First Amendment challenge against efforts by another populous state, California, to regulate online content.

In 2018, California established an Office of Election Cybersecurity to combat misinformation posted online about voting and the electoral process. Overseen by California’s secretary of state, the office works closely with social media companies to identify posts about elections that might violate the platforms’ own guidelines on misinformation.

Although the ultimate decision about whether to remove content rests with the platforms, the state’s designation has overwhelmingly proven decisive. During the 2020 election cycle, for example, 98% of the nearly 300 posts that the Office of Election Cybersecurity had flagged as potential misinformation for Facebook and Twitter were removed.

Rogan O’Handley is an attorney and active political commentator on Twitter under the handle @DC_Draino. A week after the 2020 election, he posted a tweet calling for ballots in California to be audited. “Election fraud is rampant nationwide,” he wrote, “and we all know California is one of the culprits[.] Do it to protect the integrity of that state’s elections[.]” The Office of Election Cybersecurity flagged the message for Twitter, which added a warning to the tweet that O’Handley’s claim was disputed and issued a “strike” against his account.

In February 2021, Twitter suspended O’Handley’s account after issuing four additional strikes against him under more stringent content-moderation policies instituted following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S Capitol. (O’Handley’s account was reactivated this year.)

Four months after his account was suspended, O’Handley filed a lawsuit against Twitter and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber. O’Handley argued that Twitter and California had acted in tandem to restrict his First Amendment rights.

A federal district court in California dismissed the claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that decision. The court of appeals ruled that although “it is possible to draw a causal line from the OEC’s flagging of the November 12th post to O’Handley’s suspension,” there was no “state action” for O’Handley to challenge under the First Amendment. California certainly exercised governmental authority when it flagged O’Handley’s tweet, the 9th Circuit reasoned, but it took no explicit action restricting his speech. And although Twitter did limit O’Handley’s speech, the court explained, it was following its own rules, rather than acting on the state’s behalf.

In O’Handley v. Weber, O’Handley asks the justices to grant review and reverse the 9th Circuit’s decision. O’Handley argues that the distinction between California’s flagging of his tweet and Twitter’s disciplinary response is illusory: Twitter had never monitored his content before it was flagged by the Office of Election Cybersecurity, he contends, and it would not have subjected him to greater scrutiny had the state not brought attention to his account. He urges the court to reinstate his lawsuit so he can introduce further evidence that California exercises coercive authority over online content.

A list of this week’s featured petitions is below:

O’Handley v. Weber
22-1199
Issues: (1) Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that state officials acted under color of state law in violation of the First Amendment when a state agency, which exists to police online speech, singled out petitioner’s disfavored political speech for Twitter to punish and Twitter complied; and (2) whether the government speech doctrine empowers state officials to tell Twitter to remove political speech that the state deems false or misleading.

Argent Trust Company v. Harrison
23-30
Issue: Whether a participant in a plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act who asserts statutory claims under that statute can be compelled, pursuant to a binding arbitration provision, to submit his claims to individual arbitration.

Pye v. Emmons
23-31
Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit’s novel construction of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)— under which a state prisoner is ineligible for federal habeas relief even when the state court has “unreasonabl[y]” rejected his claim so long as the federal court can provide some reasonable “justification” for the state court’s “reason” for denying relief — is inconsistent with the statutory text and in direct conflict with this court’s decision in Wilson v. Sellers; and (2) whether 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) applies when a state prisoner seeks federal habeas relief solely on the state-court evidentiary record.

The post Once-suspended Twitter user argues California violated his First Amendment rights appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Share

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Friday morning read:

• US thinktank linked to billionaires behind supreme court wealth tax case lobbying (Stephanie Kirchgaessner & Dominic Rushe, The Guardian) 
• Law schools’ admission essays revamped after Supreme Court affirmative action ruling (Karen Sloan, Reuters) 
• The Supreme Court’s Ethics Problem Has a Pretty Easy Solution (Michael J. Broyde, Bloomberg Law)
• The One Thing the Supreme Court Got Right: Blowing Up College Sports (Matt Ford, The New Republic)
• The Supreme Court’s refreshing unity on religious freedom (Holly Hollman, Baptist News Global)

The post The morning read for Friday, August 25 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Share

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Thursday morning read:

• Pizza Hut franchise owner gets no help from Supreme Court gun ruling in jury waiver appeal (Alison Frankel, Reuters)
• Corporate America risks losing the Supreme Court (The Economist)
• I’m Still Standing (Adam Feldman, Empirical SCOTUS)
• The Supreme Court’s Janus v. Afscme Sequel? (The Editorial Board, The Wall Street Journal) 
• Executions Scheduled for 2023 (Robert Dunham, The Death Penalty Policy Project)

The post The morning read for Thursday, August 24 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Share

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Wednesday morning read:

• Activist Behind Supreme Court Affirmative Action Cases Is Now Suing Law Firms (Douglas Belkin & Erin Mulvaney, The Wall Street Journal)
• Qualified Immunity Faces an Existential Threat at the Supreme Court (Matt Ford, The New Republic) 
• Jennifer Gruda talks about going from Jaffrey to the Supreme Court (Ashley Saari, Monadnock Ledger-Transcript)
• Trump Says He Has Immunity. Will the Supreme Court Beg to Differ? (Kimberly Wehle, Politico) 
• Alabama Trans Health Care Ruling Is a Worrying Omen for a Future SCOTUS Decision (Natasha Lennard, The Intercept) 

The post The morning read for Wednesday, August 23 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Share

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Tuesday morning read:

• Supreme Court Is Asked to Hear a New Admissions Case on Race (Stephanie Saul & Adam Liptak, The New York Times)
• The Supreme Court and the Federal Officer Removal Statute (Steve Vladeck, One First)
• Supreme Court Blocks West Virginia Bid to Challenge CFPB Funding (Evan Weinberger, Bloomberg Law)
• The Supreme Court should bless the Purdue Pharma settlement (Anthony Casey & Edward Morrison, The Washington Post)
• The Supreme Court’s Next Big Tax Case Demands Clarence Thomas’ Recusal (Jonathan Zasloff, Slate)

The post The morning read for Tuesday, August 22 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Share

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Monday morning read:

• A high school football coach fired 8 years ago for praying on the field is coaching again after the Supreme Court ruled in his favor (Kenneth Niemeyer, Business Insider)
• The Grudge Holding, Double Gun Shooting Supreme Court Justice Who Might Save Mark Meadows (Garrett Epps, Washington Monthly)
• The case for optimism about the Supreme Court (Ian Millhiser, Vox)
• EPA’s New Power Plant Rule Fits Within Court-Upheld Authority (Dena Adler, The Regulatory Review)
• We Just Got a Hint About Conservatives’ New Supreme Court Strategy on Abortion (Mary Ziegler, Slate)

The post The morning read for Monday, August 21 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Share

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Friday morning read:

• U.S. Supreme Court makes final decision on Miami’s voting map for upcoming election (Joey Flechas, The Miami Herald) 
• Supreme Court, mired in controversy, could wade into Trump indictments. Here’s how it could happen. (John Fritze, USA Today)
• Venezuela appeals to US Supreme Court in last ditch move to limit Citgo auction (Gary McWilliams, Reuters)
• 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Apply to Domestic Abusers, Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court (Jimmy Hoover, The National Law Journal)
• Ghost Guns and the Fifth Circuit’s Track Record (Steve Vladeck, One First)

The post The morning read for Friday, August 18 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Share

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Thursday morning read:

• Appeals Court Upholds Legality of Abortion Pill but With Significant Restrictions (Pam Belluck & Adam Liptak, The New York Times)
• Foreign banks urge Supreme Court to skip case over commodities law’s reach (Alison Frankel, Reuters) 
• New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as copyright tensions swirl (Bobby Allyn, NPR)
• Landlords Are Pushing the Supreme Court to End Rent Control (Julia Rock, Jacobin) 
• Harvard Loses Court Fight Over Affirmative Action Legal Fees (Allie Reed, Bloomberg Law)

The post The morning read for Thursday, August 17 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Share

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Wednesday morning read:

• Crypto industry steps up arguments that Supreme Court doctrine bars SEC enforcement (Alison Frankel, Reuters) 
• Sentenced to Life as Boys, They Made Their Case for Release (Issie Lapowsky, The New York Times)
• Constrain the Court—Without Crippling It (Laurence H. Tribe, The New York Review of Books)
• You Can’t Fix the Supreme Court Without Also Fixing Congress (Elie Mystal, Slate)
• The Liberal Case for Celebrating the Supreme Court’s Last Term (Simon Lazarus, The New Republic)

The post The morning read for Wednesday, August 16 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Share

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Tuesday morning read:

• Biden Administration Urges Justices to Hear Cases on Social Media Laws (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)
• Ex parte McCardle and Congress’s Power over the Court’s Appellate Jurisdiction (Steve Vladeck, One First)
• Biden administration urges colleges to pursue diversity after Supreme Court ruling (Nate Raymond & Jarrett Renshaw, Reuters)
• Federal judges question Alabama’s new congressional map, lack of 2nd majority-Black district (Kim Chandler, The Associated Press)
• The Looming Supreme Court Nullification Crisis (Garrett Epps, Washington Monthly)

The post The morning read for Tuesday, August 15 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.