Petitioners Maurine and Matthew Molak want the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to “disregard the statutory requirement” under Communications Act Section 405(a) that persons who weren’t parties before the FCC file a petition for reconsideration as a “condition precedent” to seeking judicial review, said the FCC and DOJ reply Friday (docket 23-60641) in support of their motion to dismiss the Molaks’ petition (see 2402070002).
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. Chamber of Commerce has a substantial interest in the resolution of NetChoice’s constitutional challenge to AB-2273, California’s social media law, because it “implicates the stability” of the internet economy and “core constitutional rights of participants in that economy,” said the Chamber’s amicus brief Wednesday (docket 23-2969) at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The brief supports NetChoice’s challenge and affirmance of the district court’s preliminary injunction blocking California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) from enforcing AB-2273 (see 2309190006).
California enacted AB-587, compelling social media companies to disclose their efforts to moderate constitutionally protected speech that the state disfavors, as part of a “concerted effort” to limit or eliminate that speech on social media platforms, said X’s opening brief Wednesday (docket 24-271) at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. X’s appeal seeks to reverse the district court’s denial of its injunction to block AB-587's enforcement (see 2401190038).
U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty for Western Louisiana in Monroe granted Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his co-plaintiffs, Children’s Health Defense and Connie Sampognaro, their motion for a preliminary injunction, barring officials from the White House and four federal agencies from coercing social media platforms to moderate their content, said his signed memorandum ruling Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-00381).
Social media companies defended their platforms Thursday against allegations in New York City’s Wednesday public nuisance lawsuit (docket 24ST-cv-03643) blaming Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok for rising mental health issues among schoolchildren. The lawsuit was filed in California Superior Court in Los Angeles.
Florida’s Senate Bill 7072 is a “compendium of First Amendment problems,” and Texas’ HB-20 social media law “interferes with Petitioners’ First Amendment rights,” said petitioners NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) in reply briefs Thursday before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus scheduled a telephonic preliminary pretrial conference for March 14 at 10 a.m. EDT before U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on NetChoice’s challenge to Ohio’s Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act, said a clerk’s hearing notice Tuesday (docket 2:24-cv-00047). The parties are required to file a Rule 26(f) report at least a week before the conference, said the notice. Monday’s opinion and order by U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley granted NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction that, on constitutional grounds, blocks Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) from enforcing the statute (see 2402130041). The judge granted NetChoice a temporary restraining order against the statute a week before it was to take effect Jan. 15 (see 2401090062).
A U.S. District judge approved the stipulation of X and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) to stay discovery until the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court resolves X’s pending appeal to reverse the denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction to block Bonta from enforcing AB-587, California’s social media transparency law (see 2402120003), said a signed order Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-01939). Briefing in X’s 9th Circuit appeal is scheduled to be completed by early April. The pretrial scheduling conference currently scheduled for Feb. 26 is reset for July 1 at 1:30 p.m. PDT, said the order by Judge William Shubb for Eastern California in Sacramento. Shubb ordered the parties to file a joint status report by June 17.