Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`No. 21-51178
`
`In the United States Court of Appeals
`
`for the Fifth Circuit
`
`
`
`NETCHOICE, L.L.C., A 501(C)(6) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ORGANIZATION
`DOING BUSINESS AS NETCHOICE; COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS
`INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, A 501(C) (6) NON-STOCK VIRGINIA CORPORATION
`DOING BUSINESS AS CCIA,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellees,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`KEN PAXTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant-Appellant.
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division
`Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00840-RP
`
`APPELLEES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY THE MANDATE
`PENDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`Scott A. Keller
`Matthew H. Frederick
`Todd Disher
`LEHOTSKY KELLER LLP
`919 Congress Ave.
`Austin, TX 78701
`scott@lehotskykeller.com
`(512) 693-8350
`
`Steven P. Lehotsky
`Gabriela Gonzalez-Araiza
`Jeremy Evan Maltz
`LEHOTSKY KELLER LLP
`200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`Katherine C. Yarger
`LEHOTSKY KELLER LLP
`700 Colorado Blvd., #407
`Denver, CO 80206
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 21-51178
`
`In the United States Court of Appeals
`
`for the Fifth Circuit
`
`
`
`NETCHOICE, L.L.C., A 501(C)(6) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ORGANIZATION
`DOING BUSINESS AS NETCHOICE; COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS
`INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, A 501(C) (6) NON-STOCK VIRGINIA CORPORATION
`DOING BUSINESS AS CCIA,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellees,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`KEN PAXTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant-Appellant.
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division
`Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00840-RP
`
`APPELLEES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY THE MANDATE
`PENDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`Scott A. Keller
`Matthew H. Frederick
`Todd Disher
`LEHOTSKY KELLER LLP
`919 Congress Ave.
`Austin, TX 78701
`scott@lehotskykeller.com
`(512) 693-8350
`
`Steven P. Lehotsky
`Gabriela Gonzalez-Araiza
`Jeremy Evan Maltz
`LEHOTSKY KELLER LLP
`200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`Katherine C. Yarger
`LEHOTSKY KELLER LLP
`700 Colorado Blvd., #407
`Denver, CO 80206
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
`
`No. 21-51178
`NetChoice, L.L.C., a 501(c)(6) District of Columbia organization doing busi-
`ness as NetChoice; Computer & Communications Industry Association, a
`501(c) (6) non-stock Virginia Corporation doing business as CCIA,
`Plaintiffs-Appellees,
`v.
`Ken Paxton, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Texas,
`Defendant-Appellant.
`
`
`
`The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed per-
`
`sons and entities as described in the fourth sentence of Rule 28.2.1 have an
`
`interest in the outcome of this case. Plaintiffs-Appellees NetChoice and
`
`CCIA have no parent corporations and no publicly held corporation owns
`
`10% or more of their respective stock. These representations are made in or-
`
`der that the judges of this Court may evaluate possible disqualification or
`
`recusal.
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`NetChoice, L.L.C., a 501(c)(6) District of Columbia organization doing busi-
`ness as NetChoice; and Computer & Communications Industry Association,
`a 501(c)(6) non-stock Virginia Corporation doing business as CCIA
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`Scott A. Keller (lead counsel)
`Steven P. Lehotsky
`Kyle D. Hawkins
`Matthew H. Frederick
`Todd Disher
`Katherine C. Yarger
`Jonathan D. Urick
`Gabriela Gonzalez-Araiza
`Jeremy Evan Maltz
`LEHOTSKY KELLER LLP
`
`Defendant-Appellant:
`Ken Paxton, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Texas
`
`Counsel for Defendant-Appellant:
`Ken Paxton
`Brent Webster
`Judd Edward Stone II
`Ryan Baasch
`Benjamin S. Lyles
`Benjamin S. Walton
`Christopher D. Hilton
`Courtney Brooke Corbello
`OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
`
`
`DISTRICT COURT AMICI
`
`
`Amici in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`Chamber of Progress; Connected Commerce Council; CTA; Engine Advo-
`cacy; Information Technology & Innovation Foundation; National Black Jus-
`tice Coalition; Progressive Policy Institute; TechNet; Washington Center for
`Technology Policy; Hispanic Technology and Telecommunications Partner-
`ship
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`
`Counsel for Chamber of Progress, et al.:
`William Reid Wittliff
`WITTLIFF CUTTER P.L.L.C.
`
`Amici in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; The American Civil Lib-
`erties Union; The Center for Democracy & Technology; The Media Law Re-
`source Center; and American Civil Liberties Union of Texas
`
`Counsel for Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, et al.:
`Catherine Lewis Robb
`Laura Lee Prather
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`
`Amicus in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`TechFreedom
`
`Counsel for TechFreedom:
`Corbin K. Barthold
`TECHFREEDOM
`
`Amicus in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`Electronic Frontier Foundation
`
`Counsel for Electronic Frontier Foundation:
`David Greene
`Mukund Rathi
`ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
`
`Thomas S. Leatherbury
`VINSON & ELKINS LLP
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`Amici in Support of Defendant-Appellant:
`The Babylon Bee; Not the Bee; Giganews, Inc.; and Golden Frog, Inc.
`
`Counsel for The Babylon Bee, et al.:
`W. Scott McCollough
`MCCOLLOUGH LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Evan Miles Goldberg
`EVAN MILES GOLDBERG, PLLC
`
`
`AMICI FILING IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S
`MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL IN FIFTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`Amici in Support of Defendant-Appellant:
`Texas Public Policy Foundation; The Babylon Bee; Not the Bee; Giganews,
`Inc.; and Golden Frog, Inc.
`
`Counsel for Texas Public Policy Foundation, et al.:
`W. Scott McCollough
`MCCOLLOUGH LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Evan Miles Goldberg
`EVAN MILES GOLDBERG, PLLC
`
`Robert Henneke
`TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`COURT OF APPEALS AMICI AT MERITS STAGE
`
`
`Amicus in Support of Defendant-Appellant:
`Professor Philip Hamburger
`
`Counsel for Professor Philip Hamburger:
`Kyle Singhal
`HOPWOOD & SINGHAL, PLLC
`
`Amici in Support of Defendant-Appellant:
`Moms for Liberty and Institute for Free Speech
`
`Counsel for Moms for Liberty, et al.:
`Endel Kolde
`Alan Gura
`INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH
`
`Amici in Support of Defendant-Appellant:
`Heartland Institute and American Principles Project
`
`Counsel for Heartland Institute, et al.:
`Joseph D. Sibley, IV
`CAMARA & SIBLEY, L.L.P.
`
`Amicus in Support of Defendant-Appellant:
`Leonid Goldstein, pro se
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`Amici in Support of Defendant-Appellant:
`Center for Renewing America, Incorporated; and The Claremont Institute’s
`Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
`
`Counsel for Center for Renewing America, Incorporated, et al.:
`Andrei D. Popovici
`LAW OFFICE OF ANDREI D. POPOVICI, P.C.
`
`John C. Eastman
`Anthony T. Caso
`CONSTITUTIONAL COUNSEL GROUP
`
`Amicus in Support of Defendant-Appellant:
`David Mamet
`
`Counsel for David Mamet:
`Sarah Rogers
`BREWER, ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS
`
`Amicus in Support of Defendant-Appellant:
`Donald W. Landry, M.D.
`
`Counsel for Donald W. Landry, M.D.:
`James R. Lawrence, III
`ENVISAGE LAW PARTNERSHIP
`
`Amicus in Support of Defendant-Appellant:
`iTexasPolitics, L.L.C., doing business as The Texan
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`Counsel for iTexasPolitics:
`Matthew R. Miller, Esq.
`TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION
`
`Amici in Support of Defendant-Appellant:
`The States of Florida, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Lou-
`isiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and South Carolina
`
`Counsel for State of Florida, et al.:
`Ashley Moody
`Henry C. Whitaker
`Daniel W. Bell
`Evan Ezray
`OFFICE OF THE FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL
`
`Steve Marshall
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALABAMA
`
`Jeff Landry
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LOUISIANA
`
`Treg Taylor
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALASKA
`
`Lynn Fitch
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSISSIPPI
`
`Mark Brnovich
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARIZONA
`
`Eric Schmitt
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`Leslie Rutledge
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARKANSAS
`
`Austin Knudsen
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MONTANA
`
`Daniel Cameron
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KENTUCKY
`
`Alan Wilson
`ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA
`
`Amicus in Support of Defendant-Appellant:
`Students at Columbia Against Censorship
`
`Counsel for Students at Columbia Against Censorship:
`John Clay Sullivan
`SL LAW, P.L.L.C.
`
`Amicus in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`IP Justice
`
`Counsel for IP Justice:
`Robin D. Gross
`IP JUSTICE
`
`Amicus in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`TechFreedom
`
`Counsel for TechFreedom:
`Corbin K. Barthold
`Berin Szóka
`Ari Cohn
`TECHFREEDOM
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 10 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`Amici in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`Chamber of Progress, Connected Commerce Council, CTA®, Engine Advo-
`cacy, Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, TechNet, Washing-
`ton Center for Technology Policy Inclusion; and Hispanic Technology & Tel-
`ecommunications Partnership
`
`Counsel for Chamber of Progress, et al.:
`William Reid Wittliff
`WITTLIFF CUTTER P.L.L.C.
`
`Amicus in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University
`
`Counsel for Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University:
`Scott Wilkens
`Alex Abdo
`Jameel Jaffer
`KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
`
`Amici in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`Electronic Frontier Foundation; National Coalition Against Censorship; and
`Woodhull Freedom Foundation
`
`Counsel for Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al.:
`Thomas S. Leatherbury
`VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P.
`
`David Greene
`Mukund Rathi
`ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 11 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`Amicus in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`Cato Institute
`
`Counsel for Cato Institute:
`Thomas Berry
`Trevor Burrus
`Nicole Saad Bembridge
`CATO INSTITUTE
`
`Amicus in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`Floor64, Incorporated, doing business as Copia Institute
`
`Counsel for Floor 64:
`Catherine R. Gellis
`
`Amicus in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`Christopher Cox
`
`Counsel for Christopher Cox:
`Mary Ellen Roy
`Dan Zimmerman
`PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 12 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`Amici in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; American Booksellers
`for Free Expression; American Civil Liberties Union; The Authors Guild Inc;
`Center for Democracy & Technology, The Media Coalition Foundation; and
`Media Law Resource Center
`
`Counsel for Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, et al.:
`Bruce D. Brown
`Katie Townsend
`Gabe Rottman
`Grayson Clary
`Gillian Vernick
`REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
`
`
`AMICI AT UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
`FOR EMERGENCY APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY
`
`Amicus in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`Professor Eric Goldman
`
`Counsel for Prof. Goldman:
`Tod Cohen
`Amanda Estep
`Rachel A. Chung
`Joshua Goode
`Jonathan Schneller
`Aaron Henson
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 13 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`Amici in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`Chamber of Progress; Anti-Defamation League; Connected Commerce
`Council; Consumer Technology Association; Engine Advocacy; Family
`Online Safety Institute; HONR Network; Information Technology & Innova-
`tion Foundation; Interactive Advertising Bureau; IP Justice; LGBT Tech In-
`stitute; Multicultural Media; Telecom and Internet Council; National Asso-
`ciation for the Advancement of Colored People; National Hispanic Media
`Coalition; Our Vote Texas; Software & Information Industry Association;
`Stop Child Predators; TechNet; Texas State Conference of the NAACP; and
`Washington Center for Technology Policy Inclusion
`
`Counsel for Chamber of Progress, et al.:
`Paul W. Hughes
`Sarah P. Hogarth
`Alex C. Boota
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`Amicus in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`TechFreedom
`
`Counsel for TechFreedom:
`Mark W. Brennan
`J. Ryan Thompson
`Jonathan O. Hirsch
`Yanni Chen
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`
`Amicus in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`Floor64, Inc. D/B/A/ The Copia Institute
`
`Counsel for Floor64:
`Catherine R. Gellis, Esq.
`
`
`
`
`xii
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 14 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`Amicus in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`Christopher Cox
`
`Counsel for Christopher Cox:
`Arthur R. Kraatz
`Mary Ellen Roy
`Dan Zimmerman
`PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
`
`Amici in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press; American Booksellers
`for Free Expression; American Civil Liberties Union; American Civil Liber-
`ties Union of Texas; Authors Guild; Media Coalition Foundation; and Media
`Law Resource Center
`
`Counsel for Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, et al.:
`Bruce D. Brown
`Katie Townsend
`Gabe Rottman
`Grayson Clary
`Gillian Vernick
`REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
`
`Amici in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees:
`Center for Democracy & Technology; Electronic Frontier Foundation; Na-
`tional Coalition Against Censorship; R Street Institute; Wikimedia Founda-
`tion; and Woodhull Freedom Foundation
`
`Counsel for Center for Democracy & Technology, et al.:
`David Greene
`Mukund Rathi
`ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
`
`
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 15 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`Thomas S. Leatherbury
`VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P.
`
`Samir Jain
`Emma Llansó
`Caitlin Vogus
`CENTER FOR DEMoCRACY & TECHNOLOGY
`
`Lawrence G. Walters
`WALTERS LAW GROUP
`
`Amici in Support of Defendant-Appellant:
`States of Florida, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Mis-
`sissippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina
`
`Counsel for Florida, et al.:
`Ashley Moody
`Henry C. Whitaker
`Daniel W. Bell
`Evan Ezray
`FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
`
`
`
`
`xiv
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 16 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`Amici in Support of Defendant-Appellant:
`Professor Philip Hamburger; Giganews; and Golden Frog
`
`Counsel for Professor Hamburger, et al.:
`Shon Hopwood
`Kyle Singhal
`HOPWOOD & SINGHAL, PLLC
`
`W. Scott McCollough
`MCCOLLOUGH LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Evan M. Goldberg
`EVAN MILES GOLDBERG, PLLC
`
`
`
`/s/ Scott A. Keller
`SCOTT A. KELLER
`Counsel of Record for
`Plaintiffs-Appellees
`
`
`
`
`
`xv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 17 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Certificate of Interested Persons ............................................................................i
`
`Table of Contents ................................................................................................ xvi
`
`Table of Authorities ........................................................................................... xvii
`
`Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`Argument ................................................................................................................. 4
`
`I. There is a reasonable probability four Justices would grant
`certiorari review. ........................................................................................ 4
`
`II. There is a significant possibility Plaintiffs will prevail on the
`merits. ........................................................................................................ 10
`
`III. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay of the
`mandate. .................................................................................................... 16
`
`Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 19
`
`Certificate of Service ............................................................................................. 20
`
`Certificate of Compliance .................................................................................... 20
`
`Certificate of Conference ...................................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`
`
`xvi
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 18 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.,
`141 S. Ct. 2485 (2021) (per curiam) ................................................................ 18
`
`Am. Beverage Ass’n v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco,
`916 F.3d 749 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc).............................................................. 9
`
`Am. Hosp. Ass’n v. Azar,
`983 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2020)............................................................................. 9
`
`Am. Meat Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,
`760 F.3d 18 (D.C. Cir. 2014)............................................................................... 9
`
`Ark. Educ. TV Comm’n v. Forbes,
`523 U.S. 666 (1998) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`Baldwin v. Maggio,
`715 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1983) ........................................................................... 1, 4
`
`Bartnicki v. Vopper,
`532 U.S. 514 (2001) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`BST Holdings, L.L.C. v. OSHA,
`17 F.4th 604 (5th Cir. 2021) .............................................................................. 18
`
`Cal. Chamber of Commerce v. Council for Educ. & Research on
`Toxics,
`29 F.4th 468 (9th Cir. 2022) ................................................................................ 9
`
`Chamber of Commerce v. EPA,
`577 U.S. 1127 (2016) .......................................................................................... 18
`
`Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,
`315 U.S. 568 (1942) ............................................................................................ 11
`
`
`
`xvii
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 19 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`Citizens United v. FEC,
`558 U.S. 310 (2010) ............................................................................................ 13
`
`CTIA—The Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley,
`854 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................. 9
`
`CTIA—The Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley,
`928 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................... 9
`
`Davison v. Facebook, Inc.,
`370 F. Supp. 3d 621 (E.D. Va. 2019), aff’d, 774 F. App’x 162
`(4th Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`Disc. Tobacco City & Lottery, Inc. v. United States,
`674 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................... 9
`
`Doe v. MySpace, Inc.,
`528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................. 13
`
`e-ventures Worldwide, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`2017 WL 2210029 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2017) ...................................................... 6
`
`Green v. Am. Online (AOL),
`318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 13
`
`Harris v. Quinn,
`573 U.S. 616 (2014) .............................................................................................. 5
`
`Hollingsworth v. Perry,
`558 U.S. 183 (2010) ........................................................................................ 4, 10
`
`Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston,
`515 U.S. 557 (1995) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`Isaac v. Twitter,
`557 F. Supp. 3d 1251 (S.D. Fla. 2021) ............................................................... 6
`
`
`
`xviii
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 20 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`J. M. Fields of Anderson, Inc. v. Kroger Co.,
`310 F.2d 562 (5th Cir. 1962) ............................................................................. 17
`
`La’Tiejira v. Facebook, Inc.,
`272 F. Supp. 3d 981 (S.D. Tex. 2017) ................................................................ 6
`
`Langdon v. Google, Inc.,
`474 F. Supp. 2d 622 (D. Del. 2007) ................................................................... 6
`
`Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck,
`139 S. Ct. 1921 (2019) ........................................................................................ 12
`
`Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Tornillo,
`418 U.S. 241 (1974) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. (NAM) v. SEC,
`800 F.3d 518 (D.C. Cir. 2015)......................................................................... 8, 9
`
`Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra,
`138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018) ........................................................................................ 16
`
`NetChoice, LLC v. Attorney Gen.,
`34 F.4th 1196 (11th Cir. 2022) ...................................................................passim
`
`NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton,
`142 S. Ct. 1715 (2022) .................................................................................passim
`
`O’Handley v. Padilla,
`579 F. Supp. 3d 1163 (N.D. Cal.), appeal docketed, No. 22-15071
`(9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2022) ........................................................................................ 6
`
`PG&E v. PUC of California,
`475 U.S. 1 (1986) ................................................................................................ 12
`
`Publius v. Boyer-Vine,
`237 F. Supp. 3d 997 (E.D. Cal. 2017) ................................................................ 6
`
`
`
`xix
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 21 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Food & Drug Admin.,
`696 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 2012)........................................................................... 9
`
`Recht v. Morrisey,
`32 F.4th 398 (4th Cir. 2022) ................................................................................ 9
`
`Reno v. ACLU,
`521 U.S. 844 (1997) ...................................................................................... 11, 13
`
`Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo,
`141 S. Ct. 63 (2020) (per curiam) .................................................................... 17
`
`Snyder v. Phelps,
`562 U.S. 443 (2011) .............................................................................................. 5
`
`Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.,
`564 U.S. 552 (2011) ...................................................................................... 11, 12
`
`United States v. Stevens,
`559 U.S. 460 (2010) .............................................................................................. 5
`
`USTA v. FCC,
`855 F.3d 381 (D.C. Cir. 2017)............................................................................. 6
`
`W. Airlines, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters & Air Transp. Emps.,
`480 U.S. 1301 (1987) .................................................................................. 4, 5, 16
`
`Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio,
`471 U.S. 626 (1985) .................................................................................... 8, 9, 16
`
`Zhang v. Baidu.com, Inc.,
`10 F. Supp. 3d 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) .................................................................. 6
`
`Statutes
`
`47 U.S.C. § 230 ........................................................................................................ 13
`
`Fla. Stat. § 501.2041 ................................................................................................ 15
`
`
`
`xx
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 22 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 120.051 .......................................................................... 8
`
`Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 120.053 .......................................................................... 8
`
`Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 120.101 .......................................................................... 7
`
`Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 120.102 .......................................................................... 7
`
`Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 120.103 .......................................................................... 7
`
`Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 120.104 .......................................................................... 7
`
`Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 143A.001 ............................................................ 15
`
`Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 143A.007 ............................................................ 15
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 27 .................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 41 .......................................................................................... 1, 4, 10
`
`Sup. Ct. R. 10 ........................................................................................................ 5, 7
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Emergency Application, NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, No. 21A720,
`2022 WL 1559655 (U.S. May 13, 2022) ................................................... 4, 7, 16
`
`Fla. Pet. for Certiorari, Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, No. 22-277 (U.S.
`Sept. 21, 2022) ............................................................................................passim
`
`NetChoice, By the Numbers, https://bit.ly/3Gn54Hj ....................................... 14
`
`Order Staying Mandate, 11th Cir. Case No. 21-12355 (June 22,
`2022) ..................................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`xxi
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 23 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 27(a)(1) and 41(d),
`
`Plaintiffs move to stay the issuance of this Court’s mandate pending Plain-
`
`tiffs’ forthcoming petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court
`
`and any further proceedings in the Supreme Court. Defendant-Appellant
`
`does not oppose the relief requested in this motion on the condition that
`
`Plaintiffs do not seek an extension of time to file a certiorari petition in the
`
`Supreme Court. Plaintiffs have agreed to that condition, so this motion is
`
`unopposed.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Four months ago, the Supreme Court made clear that the status quo
`
`should continue—and Defendant should not be able to enforce Texas House
`
`Bill 20 (HB20)—until the full appellate process plays out. NetChoice, LLC v.
`
`Paxton, 142 S. Ct. 1715, 1715-16 (2022) (restoring district court’s preliminary
`
`injunction by vacating this Court’s order staying the preliminary injunction
`
`pending appeal). That decision necessarily concluded that Supreme Court
`
`review of this Court’s decision is likely, that Plaintiffs have a fair prospect of
`
`prevailing, and that Plaintiffs face irreparable harm should Defendant begin
`
`enforcing HB20. Even three Justices who dissented from that order recog-
`
`nized that this case “concerns issues of great importance that will plainly
`
`merit th[e] [Supreme] Court’s review.” Id. at 1716 (Alito, J., dissenting).
`
`Those are precisely the factors that govern this motion. Baldwin v. Maggio,
`
`715 F.2d 152, 153 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, this Court should stay the
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 24 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`issuance of its mandate and preserve the status quo while the Supreme Court
`
`conducts its review.
`
`Granting a stay will prevent irreparable harm to Plaintiffs’ member com-
`
`panies while the Supreme Court reviews the vital constitutional issues raised
`
`by legislation such as HB20. The majority opinion in this case creates a clear
`
`circuit split with the Eleventh Circuit and misapplies the Supreme Court’s
`
`important First Amendment precedents. After Florida and Texas both en-
`
`acted statutes compelling social media websites to publish and disseminate
`
`speech, Plaintiffs obtained preliminary injunctions before these laws took ef-
`
`fect.1 The Eleventh Circuit largely upheld the preliminary injunction of Flor-
`
`ida’s law. NetChoice, LLC v. Attorney Gen., 34 F.4th 1196, 1203 (11th Cir. 2022)
`
`[hereinafter “Moody”]. And the Eleventh Circuit stayed its mandate pending
`
`a certiorari petition in that case, where the Plaintiffs will acquiesce to certio-
`
`rari review. Order Staying Mandate, 11th Cir. Case No. 21-12355 (June 22,
`
`2022). The Florida Attorney General filed a certiorari petition in that case
`
`(U.S. No. 22-277) on September 21, 2022 [hereinafter “Fla.Pet.”]. There, the
`
`Florida Attorney General acknowledged, “All in all, the Fifth and Eleventh
`
`Circuits fundamentally disagreed about the First Amendment principles ap-
`
`plicable to social-media censorship.” Fla.Pet.18.
`
`
`1 Digital online services offer a variety of websites, applications, and other
`products. This motion refers to HB20-covered “social media platforms” as
`“websites.”
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 25 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`The majority here expressly disagreed with the Eleventh Circuit’s anal-
`
`ysis. See Op.79 (“we disagree with the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning at three
`
`critical junctures”); Op.82-89. As the Eleventh Circuit ruled after canvassing
`
`the Supreme Court’s precedents, “social-media companies—even the big-
`
`gest ones—are ‘private actors’ whose rights the First Amendment protects,”
`
`“their so-called ‘content-moderation’ decisions constitute protected exer-
`
`cises of editorial judgment,” and laws “that restrict large platforms’ ability
`
`to engage in content moderation unconstitutionally burden that preroga-
`
`tive.” Moody, 34 F.4th at 1203. The majority here disagreed on the ground
`
`that content-moderation decisions are just “the Platforms’ conduct”—and
`
`therefore unprotected by the Constitution. Op.7. So of the eight federal
`
`judges in total that have reviewed these issues in the Florida and Texas cases,
`
`six have found that social media websites have First Amendment rights to
`
`choose what speech they publish and how.
`
`The Eleventh Circuit further invalidated certain “particularly onerous
`
`disclosure provisions” as “violat[ing] the First Amendment.” Moody, 34
`
`F.4th at 1203. This Court disagreed, upholding all of HB20’s disclosure pro-
`
`visions. Op.73-79.
`
`If Supreme Court review was “plainly merit[ed]” even before this circuit
`
`split, Paxton, 142 S. Ct. at 1716 (Alito, J., dissenting), it certainly is now. In the
`
`interim, this Court should forestall the whiplash and harms of on-again, off-
`
`again enforcement of HB20. This Court should stay its mandate pending the
`
`Supreme Court’s review.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 26 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to a stay of this Court’s mandate pending a certio-
`
`rari petition because there is: (1) “a reasonable probability that four members
`
`of the [Supreme] Court would consider the underlying issue sufficiently
`
`meritorious for the grant of certiorari”; (2) “a significant possibility of rever-
`
`sal of [this] court’s decision”; and (3) “a likelihood that irreparable harm will
`
`result if that decision is not stayed.” Baldwin, 715 F.2d at 153; see Fed. R. App.
`
`P. 41(d)(1) (stay of mandate warranted when certiorari “petition would pre-
`
`sent a substantial question and . . . there is good cause for a stay”). The Su-
`
`preme Court necessarily resolved these three factors when it granted Plain-
`
`tiffs’ application to vacate this Court’s stay of the district court’s preliminary
`
`injunction pending appeal. Paxton, 142 S. Ct. at 1715-16; see Hollingsworth v.
`
`Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010); W. Airlines, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters & Air
`
`Transp. Emps., 480 U.S. 1301, 1305 (1987) (O’Connor, J., in chambers); see
`
`Emergency Application, NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, No. 21A720, 2022 WL
`
`1559655, at *14 (U.S. May 13, 2022) [hereinafter “Appl.”]. This Court should
`
`follow the Supreme Court’s determination and stay its mandate.
`
`I. There is a reasonable probability four Justices would grant
`certiorari review.
`
`The Supreme Court’s May 2022 vacatur order in this case, Paxton, 142 S.
`
`Ct. at 1715-16, demonstrated that this case “could and very likely would be
`
`reviewed” in the Supreme Court. Teamsters, 480 U.S. at 1305 (citation omit-
`
`ted). In addition to the five Justices that voted to vacate the stay, three of the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 21-51178 Document: 00516489553 Page: 27 Date Filed: 09/29/2022
`
`dissenting Justices recognized this case warrants the Supreme Court’s re-
`
`view. Paxton, 142 S. Ct. at 1716 (Alito, J., dissenting). Supreme Court review
`
`is thus “very likely,” Teamsters, 480 U.S. at 1305, especially now after this
`
`Court expressly split with the Eleventh Circuit.
`
`As the Florida Attorney General recently told the Supreme Co
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
