In Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. ____ (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public officials may be held liable for their social media activity in certain circumstances. The justices unanimously held that speech by a government official about job-related topics on social media is attributable to the state only if the official had actual power to speak on the state’s behalf and purported to exercise that authority when he spoke on social media. Facts of the Case As set forth in the opinion, respondent James Freed created a private Facebook profile sometime before 2008. He eventually conve ..read more

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. ____ (2024), that states can’t remove former President Donald Trump from 2024 presidential primary ballots for his role in the events of January 6, 2021. In a per curium opinion, the justices unanimously ruled that the states lack the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against federal officeholders and candidates. Facts of the Case Six months before the March 5, 2024, Colorado primary election, four Republican and two unaffiliated Colorado voters filed a petition against former President Trump and Colorad ..read more

The U.S. Supreme Court will take up abortion again with oral arguments in Moyle v. United States scheduled for April 24, 2024. The issue before the Court is whether Idaho’s strict abortion law is preempted by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) in situations where an abortion is necessary stabilizing treatment for an emergency medical condition.  Facts of the Case The EMTALA obligates Medicare-funded hospitals to provide medical treatment for emergency medical conditions, regardless of a patient’s ability to pay. Under the EMTALA, a Medicare-participating hospital ..read more

The U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments in six cases to end its February sitting. A pair of cases challenging Texas and Florida’s controversial social media laws took center stage. NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, LLC center on states’ ability to regulate major social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly known as Twitter). While the state laws are slightly different, both limit social media platforms’ ability to engage in content moderation by removing, editing, or arranging user-generated content. Both laws also require platforms to provide individualize ..read more

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in four cases last week. One of the most closely watched is Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, which challenges the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “Good Neighbor” pollution rule. While the case centers on the EPA’s regulation of interstate air pollution under the Clean Air Act, the issues before the Court are largely procedural. The Clean Air Act tasks the EPA with establishing National Ambient Air Quality Standards for certain air pollutants, including ozone. States must then devise plans to implement the standards. As rele ..read more

In Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz, 601 U.S. ____ (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a consumer may sue a federal agency under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o for failing to comply with the terms of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Facts of the Case The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, as amended by the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996, allows consumers to sue lenders who willfully or negligently supply false information about them to entities that generate credit reports. Respondent Reginald Kirtz secured a loan from a division ..read more

The Supreme Court will soon hear oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson, which will determine whether President Donald Trump may remain on the 2024 presidential primary ballot in the State of Colorado. The decision could have broad implications given that other state courts have deferred ruling until the Supreme Court weighs in on Trump’s eligibility. Facts of the Case The case began when a group of Colorado electors eligible to vote in the Republican presidential primary—both registered Republican and unaffiliated voters (collectively, “the Electors”)—filed a petition in the District Court for ..read more

The U.S. Supreme Court returned from recess on January 4, 2024. The Court’s January session will feature some of the Term’s biggest cases, with several testing the limit of the federal government’s regulatory power.  To kick off the session, the justices heard oral arguments in five cases. Below is a brief summary of the issues before the Court: Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre: The case revolves around the “No Fly List” established by the federal government in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Individuals are sometimes removed from the No Fly List during ongoing litigation a ..read more

The U.S. Supreme Court’s January docket features several closely watched cases involving constitutional law. In Smith v. Arizona, the justices will address whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a non-testifying forensic analyst. Facts of the Case Jason Smith was convicted and sentenced for possessing dangerous drugs, marijuana for sale, narcotic drugs, and drug paraphernalia. At the trial, the State of Arizona called Department of Public Safety (DPS ..read more

The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to take on another controversial abortion dispute. The consolidated cases before the justices this time around involve access to a drug used in medical abortions. The decision will be closely watched given the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which abolished the constitutional right to an abortion. Facts of the Case The case concerns mifepristone, a drug that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in 2000 as safe and effective for terminating early pregnancies. Upon approval, theFDA imposed a number of condi ..read more