The U.S. Supreme Court denied the Feb. 15 motion of the five individual social media respondents in Murthy v. Missouri for 10 extra minutes of their own oral argument time and for the government when oral argument is held March 18 (see 2402160005), said a text-only docket entry Wednesday (docket 23-411). The government’s petition asks SCOTUS to vacate the injunction, temporarily stayed until resolution of the case, that bars federal officials from coercing the social media platforms to moderate their content. The individual respondents sought the 10 extra minutes “with an attorney familiar with the record and law in this case as it pertains to them.” An attorney for the respondent states Missouri and Louisiana shouldn’t be “tasked with diverting preparation or argument time to address facts and law” regarding the individual respondents, said their unsuccessful motion.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied the Dec. 26 cert petition (docket 23-698) of the city of Pasadena, Texas, to reverse the 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court’s affirmation of the district court’s judgment in Crown Castle’s favor that Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act preempts the spacing and undergrounding requirements in the city’s design manual for the installation of small cells and support poles in its public rights of way (see 2312300001), said the court’s published order list Tuesday. The 5th Circuit ruled Aug. 4 that Pasadena’s design manual imposed burdensome requirements on Crown Castle’s small-node networks, and was part of the battle between telecommunications providers that are trying to expand 5G wireless services and municipalities that are resisting that expansion (see 2308070002). The 5th Circuit on Sept. 25 also denied the city’s petition for a rehearing or rehearing en banc of the Aug. 4 decision (see 2309260032). Crown Castle waived its right to file a response to Pasadena’s cert petition (see 2401040003).

The U.S. Supreme Court granted U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar’s Jan. 22 motion for leave to participate as an amicus in oral argument on behalf of NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association in their challenges to the Florida and Texas social media content moderation laws, said separate text-only docket entries Friday (dockets 22-277 and 22-555). NetChoice and CCIA agreed to cede 10 minutes of their argument time to Prelogar (see 2401230037). Oral argument in the tandem cases is set for Monday.

NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association used separate reply briefs Thursday at the U.S. Supreme Court to press for the defeat of the Florida and Texas social media laws on First Amendment grounds. The Florida statute (SB-7072) “is a compendium of First Amendment problems,” said their Florida brief (docket 22-277). It requires a select handful of private actors “to disseminate third-party speech against their will and restricts their ability to decide how to organize and present that speech,” it said. “It draws distinctions based on content, speaker, and viewpoint,” it said. It does all this “because Florida dislikes how websites like Facebook and YouTube have exercised their editorial discretion and wants to amplify speakers and messages the state prefers,” it said. Florida “remarkably” insists that SB-7072 doesn’t regulate speech at all, it said: “That claim blinks reality and belies Florida’s own explanations for the law, which are replete with professed concerns about the messages that it perceived certain websites to convey through their editorial choices.” In their brief (docket 22-555) in opposition to the Texas law (HB-20), NetChoice and CCIA argued that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has advanced a “revolutionary interpretation” of the First Amendment that would require SCOTUS “to overturn multiple lines of cases.” Under the Texas AG’s theory, governments “would have virtually unchecked authority to control and burden the editorial choices of private parties who publish and disseminate speech,” said the brief. But the Texas AG’s brief is “replete with arguments” that SCOTUS “has repeatedly rejected,” it said. The AG “comes nowhere close to carrying his heavy burden” of demonstrating that HB-20 satisfies strict, or even intermediate, First Amendment scrutiny, it said. To the contrary, his arguments flout the SCOTUS cases and “ignore the evidentiary record,” it said.

The five individual social media respondents in Murthy v. Missouri (docket 23-411) are seeking 10 extra minutes of their own oral argument time and for the government when oral argument is held March 18, said their motion Thursday. The suit asks the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm the injunction barring federal officials from coercing the platforms to moderate their content. Not all the five are citizens of the respondent states Missouri and Louisiana, said the motion. They have standing and injury arguments “unique from and that may not adequately be presented” to the court by the states, it said. They seek the 10 extra minutes “with an attorney familiar with the record and law in this case as it pertains to them.” An attorney for the respondent states shouldn’t be “tasked with diverting preparation or argument time to address facts and law” regarding the individual respondents, said the motion. No party will be prejudiced, and granting the relief sought will aid the court on an important matter, it said. As demonstrated by the 28 amicus briefs filed on behalf of the respondents, “this case is a matter of widespread public interest,” said the motion. The U.S. solicitor general takes no position on the motion, and Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill (R) doesn’t oppose, it said. The individual respondents believe Missouri AG Andrew Bailey (R) doesn’t oppose, but they haven’t received his position in writing, it said.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted Monday’s unopposed motion by the U.S. solicitor general for a one-month extension to April 3 to respond to the Consumers’ Research cert petition against the FCC (see 2402120035), said a text-only docket notice Tuesday (docket 23-743). This extension is necessary because the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has granted rehearing en banc in a parallel case, Consumers’ Research v. FCC (docket 22-60008), said the motion. The 5th Circuit’s decision could affect the resolution of the cert petition in this case, said the motion.

A coalition of 21 Republican state attorneys general urged the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Consumers' Research's challenge of the FCC's quarterly USF contribution factor and methodology in an amicus brief posted Thursday (docket 23-743). "Agencies are finding all kinds of creative new ways to grab money and power for themselves lately," the coalition, led by West Virginia AG Patrick Morrisey (R), said. The FCC "extracts billions from American consumers based on a vague statute" and "doesn’t even do the work of setting these rates itself," they argued (see 2401100044). The AGs called the FCC's use of the Universal Service Administrative Co. unconstitutional and a violation of the nondelegation doctrine. "Those that would warn the Court away from reaching these issues are wrong," the group said: "The benefits of the present state of play are overstated." The FCC declined to comment Monday. The agency on Monday petitioned the court to extend until April 3 the March 4 deadline for responding to Consumers' Research's petition, citing a parallel case pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

The U.S. Supreme Court distributed for the justices’ Feb. 23 conference a criminal defendant's cert petition seeking to reverse an Illinois Supreme Court finding that the state can compel him under the Fifth Amendment to produce his cellphone’s passcode for a police investigation (see 2401230003), said a docket entry Thursday (docket 23-5827). The petitioner, Keiron Sneed, was arrested on charges of forging two paychecks and depositing them in his bank account using his cellphone. The police obtained a warrant to seize the cellphone but were unable to execute it because the phone was password-protected and Sneed refused to unlock it. Sneed contends that compelling him to reveal his passcode would force him to assist in his own prosecution. Illinois maintains that SCOTUS lacks jurisdiction to hear Sneed’s case because the Illinois Supreme Court decision compelling him to unlock his cellphone was an interlocutory opinion from a state court.

The U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument for March 18 in Murthy v. Missouri, the case in which the government is seeking to vacate the injunction that bars officials from the White House and four federal agencies from coercing social media companies to moderate their content, said a text-only docket entry Monday (docket 23-411). The Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, plus five individual social media user plaintiffs, won the injunction in U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana in an unusual ruling issued on the July 4 holiday (see 2307050042). The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction Oct. 3 with significant modifications (see 2310040001). SCOTUS granted the government’s cert petition to hear the case Oct. 20 over Justice Samuel Alito's objections (see 2310230003). It also granted the government’s request for a full stay of the injunction, pending the court’s resolution of the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court should deny criminal defendant Keiron Sneed's cert petition to reverse the finding of the Illinois Supreme Court that Illinois can compel him under the Fifth Amendment to produce his cellphone’s passcode for a police investigation, said the state's opposition brief Monday (docket 23-5827). Sneed was arrested on charges of forging two paychecks and depositing them in his bank account using his cellphone (see 2311200026). The police obtained a warrant to seize the cellphone but were unable to execute it because the phone was password-protected and Sneed refused to unlock it. SCOTUS lacks jurisdiction to hear Sneed’s case because the Illinois Supreme Court decision compelling him to unlock his cellphone was an interlocutory opinion from a state court, said the opposition brief. Even if SCOTUS had jurisdiction, its review wouldn’t be warranted, it said. There’s no “division of authority” as to whether the Fifth Amendment’s “foregone conclusion doctrine” is applicable to the compelled entry of passcodes, it said. Any disagreement as to what facts must be foregone conclusions in that context “is nascent and undeveloped,” it said. The Illinois Supreme Court “correctly applied” SCOTUS Fifth Amendment precedents in this case, it said.