Moody v. NetChoice (22-277)
In Moody v. NetChoice, the Court is asked to decide if a Florida law that restricts content moderation by social-media companies complies with the First Amendment. The State of Florida enacted SB. 7072 to address what it perceives as bias and censorship by large social media platforms against conservative voices. The legislation imposes various restrictions and obligations on social media platforms, such as prohibiting the deplatforming of political candidates and requiring detailed disclosures about content moderation policies. The district court and Eleventh circuit court decided in favor of NetChoice, which represents the interests of internet and social-media platforms like Meta, X and Google. Moody, the plaintiff, is the Attorney General for the state of Florida. Do not be confused by the fact that there is a companion case on the docket involving a similar situation in Texas: Netchoice v. Paxton. (Most of the amici curiae briefs refer to both cases). Be familiar with a summary of the Texas case (NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton | Oyez), but just focus on the Florida case. The Circuit Courts in these two cases (Eleventh and Fifth Circuits) came to conflicting decisions.
Background readings & Briefs:
Social media content moderation laws come before Supreme Court - SCOTUSblog
Summary of SB. 7072 (Florida law): Florida Social Media Platforms Bill - SB.7072 | TechPolicy.Press
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (filed September 21, 2022). Link: Petition, PDF
Brief of Respondents (filed October 24, 2022). Link: Respondents, PDF
The following cases are frequently referred to in the Petitioners brief.
1. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins | Oyez
2. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission Oyez
3. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. | Oyez (a/k/a FAIR)
The following case is mentioned a few times in The Respondent’s brief:
Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo | Oyez
Choose ONE amicus curiae brief from Column A and ONE amicus curiae brief from Column B:
|
Column A (for Moody, the Petitioner, Moody) |
Column B (for NetChoice, the Respondent) |
|
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, filed Jan. 23, 2024. Amicus Brief, PDF (Link) |
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, filed Dec. 6, 2023 FIRE Amicus Brief, PDF (Link) |
|
Moms for Liberty, filed Jan. 23, 2024 Moms Amicus Brief, PDF (Link) |
Center for Democracy & Technology, filed Dec. 7, 2023 |
|
Open Markets Institute, filed Jan. 23, 2024 |
Public Knowledge, filed Dec. 7, 2023 |
United States v. Rahimi (22-915)
In this Second Amendment case, Zackey Rahimi was indicted under a federal statute, Section 922(g)(8), for gun possession while under a domestic violence restraining order. Rahimi’s appeal was at first denied by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the appeals court reconsidered Rahimi’s appeal after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. In its revised opinion, the Fifth Circuit court determined that Section 922(g)(8) was unconstitutional on its face. The United States Solicitor General has asked the Supreme Court to reverse the Fifth Circuit’s opinion. Students who pick this topic must read pages 1a-28a (only) in Appendix A to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. You should also read an excerpt from the Bruen case (See Resources/Readings).
Background readings & Briefs:
Excerpt from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 2022: Link: Excerpt: NYS Rifle v. Bruen
Overview: Heller, Means-End Scrutiny, Bruen Decision: Context of means-end scrutiny.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (filed March 17, 2023): Please read only pp. 1-17 and pp. 1a-28a of Appendix A. Link: Petition, PDF
Brief of Respondent (filed May 30, 2023 ). Link: Respondent, PDF
Choose ONE amicus curiae brief from Column A and ONE amicus curiae brief from Column B:
|
Column A (for the United States, the Petitioner) |
Column B (for Rahimi, the Respondent) |
|
Second Amendment Law Scholars (filed August 21, 2023). |
National Association for Gun Rights (filed October 2, 2023) Gun Rights Amicus Brief, PDF (Link) |
|
Senator Richard Blumenthal, et al. (filed August 21, 2023) Senator Amicus Brief Richard Blumenthal et. al. (Link) |
Cato Institute (filed October 3, 2023) Cato Amicus Brief, PDF (Link) |
|
National League of Cities (filed August 21, 2023). |
Phyllis Schlafly Eagles/Eagle Forum Education and Defense Fund (filed October 3, 2023) Schlafly Amicus Brief, PDF (Link) |
City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Gloria Johnson and John Logan, et. al. (23-175)
In this Eighth Amendment case, the Supreme Court will consider if an Oregon city can enforce its ban on public camping against homeless people. Respondents argue that punishing homeless people for public camping would violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment if they did not have access to shelter elsewhere. The outcome of the case could affect how other cities, such as San Francisco, address their own epidemics of homelessness. Students who choose this case will need to read an excerpt from Martin v. City of Boise (2018-2019, Ninth Circuit).
Background readings & Briefs:
Ninth Circuit Revisits and Clarifies the Reach of Martin v. City of Boise
Martin et. al. v. City of Boise (Ninth Circuit, September 4, 2018 Martin v. City of Boise EXCERPT )
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (filed August 22, 2023 ). Link: Petition, PDF
Brief of Respondents (filed December 6, 2023 ). Link: Respondents, PDF
Choose ONE amicus curiae brief from Column A and ONE amicus curiae brief from Column B:
|
Column A ( for City of Grants Pass, the Petitioner ) |
Column B (for Johnson, Logan et. al., the Respondents) |
|
Pacific Legal Foundation and California Business Properties |
Brief Amici Curiae of Oregon Quakers et. al. Brief amici curiae of Oregon Quakers
|
|
Brief of Idaho, Montana and 22 Other States |
Amicus Brief of National Coalition for Men Amicus Brief of National Coalition for Men.
|
|
Brief of the Manhattan Institute |
Amicus Brief of The National Homelessness Law Center |
