Mr. Charles S Dameron Latham & Watkins 555 Eleventh Street, N.W.

Dear Counsel, The Court issued the enclosed Order today in this case.

Sincerely yours,

cc: Mr. Russell Balikian Mr. William P. Barr Mr. Corbin Barthold Mr. Jonathan Bond Mr. Matthew Brill Mr. Jeremy Joseph Broggi Mr. Andrew W. Chang Ms. Sarah Citrin Ms. Tara M. Corvo Ms. Jennifer Elizabeth Fischell Mr. Boyd Garriott Ms. Sarah Goetz Ms. Brianne Jenna Gorod Mr. Maxwell F. Gottschall Mr. Jeffrey Matthew Harris Mr. Jason Seth Harrow Paul Whitfield Hughes III Mr. Thomas M. Johnson Jr.

Case: 24-7000 Document: 170-1 Filed: 10/29/2024 Page: 2 Mr. Albert H. Kramer Mr. Jeffrey A. Lamken Mr. Jacob M. Lewis Ms. Kimberly Lippi Mr. Roman Martinez Mr. Thomas Ryan McCarthy Mr. Matthew Murchison Mr. David P. Murray Mr. Jackson Myers Mr. John Tatsuo Nakahata Mr. Robert B. Nicholson Mr. Scott Matthew Noveck Mr. Jeffrey Theodore Pearlman Mr. James Bradford Ramsay Ms. Morgan L. Ratner Mr. Kevin K. Russell Mr. Max Schulman Mr. Andrew Jay Schwartzman Mr. Lawrence J. Spiwak Ms. Jennifer Tatel Mr. Joshua Scott Turner Ms. Helgi C. Walker Mr. Jeffrey Bryan Wall Mr. Philip D. Williamson Mr. Daniel Hirotsu Woofter Mr. Christopher S. Yoo Enclosure

In 2015, ISIS terrorists unleashed a set of coordinated at- tacks across Paris, France, killing 130 victims, including Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old U. S. citizen.1 Gonzalez’s parents and brothers then sued Google, LLC, under 18 U. S. C. §§2333(a) and (d)(2), alleging that Google was both directly and secondarily liable for the terrorist attack that killed Gonzalez.2 For their secondary-liability claims, —————— 1“ISIS” is shorthand for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

2Title 18 U. S. C. §2333(a) provides: “Any national of the United States injured in his or her person, property, or business by reason of an act of international terrorism, or his or her estate, survivors, or heirs, may sue therefor in any appropriate district court of the United States and shall recover threefold the damages he or she sustains and the cost of the suit, including attorney’s fees.” Section 2333(d)(2) provides: “In an action un- der subsection (a) for an injury arising from an act of international ter- rorism committed, planned, or authorized by an organization that had been designated as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U. S. C. 1189), as of the date on which such act of international terrorism was committed, planned, or authorized, liability may be asserted as to any person who aids and GONZALEZ v. GOOGLE LLC

Instead, plaintiffs stood on their complaint and appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in a consolidated opinion that also addressed Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, ___ U. S. ___ (2023).

In light of those unchallenged holdings and our disposition of Twitter, on which we also granted certiorari and in which we today reverse the Ninth Circuit’s judgment, it has become clear that plaintiffs’ com- plaint—independent of §230—states little if any claim for relief.

Per- haps for that reason, at oral argument, plaintiffs only suggested that they should receive leave to amend their complaint if we were to reverse and remand in Twitter.

In 2015, ISIS terrorists unleashed a set of coordinated at- tacks across Paris, France, killing 130 victims, including Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old U. S. citizen.1 Gonzalez’s parents and brothers then sued Google, LLC, under 18 U. S. C. §§2333(a) and (d)(2), alleging that Google was both directly and secondarily liable for the terrorist attack that killed Gonzalez.2 For their secondary-liability claims, —————— 1“ISIS” is shorthand for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

2Title 18 U. S. C. §2333(a) provides: “Any national of the United States injured in his or her person, property, or business by reason of an act of international terrorism, or his or her estate, survivors, or heirs, may sue therefor in any appropriate district court of the United States and shall recover threefold the damages he or she sustains and the cost of the suit, including attorney’s fees.” Section 2333(d)(2) provides: “In an action un- der subsection (a) for an injury arising from an act of international ter- rorism committed, planned, or authorized by an organization that had been designated as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U. S. C. 1189), as of the date on which such act of international terrorism was committed, planned, or authorized, liability may be asserted as to any person who aids and GONZALEZ v. GOOGLE LLC

Instead, plaintiffs stood on their complaint and appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in a consolidated opinion that also addressed Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, ___ U. S. ___ (2023).

In light of those unchallenged holdings and our disposition of Twitter, on which we also granted certiorari and in which we today reverse the Ninth Circuit’s judgment, it has become clear that plaintiffs’ com- plaint—independent of §230—states little if any claim for relief.

Per- haps for that reason, at oral argument, plaintiffs only suggested that they should receive leave to amend their complaint if we were to reverse and remand in Twitter.

Ms. Zoe A. Jacoby Sullivan & Cromwell 1700 New York Avenue, N.W.

Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006

Re: Case No. 24-7000/24-3449/24-3538, MCP No. 185 Open Internet Rule (FCC 24-52) Originating Case No. : 24-52 Dear Counsel, The Court issued the enclosed Order today in this case.

Case: 24-7000 Document: 126-1 Filed: 09/05/2024 Page: 2 Mr. Jeffrey Matthew Harris Paul Whitfield Hughes III Mr. Thomas M. Johnson Jr. Mr. Albert H. Kramer Mr. Jeffrey A. Lamken Mr. Jacob M. Lewis Mr. Roman Martinez Mr. Thomas Ryan McCarthy Mr. Matthew Murchison Mr. David P. Murray Mr. Jackson Myers Mr. Robert B. Nicholson Mr. Scott Matthew Noveck Mr. James Bradford Ramsay Ms. Morgan L. Ratner Mr. Kevin K. Russell Mr. Max Schulman Mr. Andrew Jay Schwartzman Mr. Lawrence J. Spiwak Ms. Jennifer Tatel Mr. Joshua Scott Turner Ms. Helgi C. Walker Mr. Jeffrey Bryan Wall Mr. Philip D. Williamson Mr. Christopher S. Yoo Enclosure

OHIO TELECOM ASSOCIATION, et al. v. FCC, et al. OHIO CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION v. FCC, et al. MCTA v. FCC, et al. CTIA v. FCC, et al.

WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION v. FCC et al. 24-3510 ACA CONNECTS v. FCC, et al. FLORIDA INTERNET & TELEVISION ASSOCAITION v. FCC, et al. TEXAS CABLE ASSOCIATION, et al. v. FCC, et al.

Upon consideration of the amicus motion filed by William P. Barr for Senator Ted Cruz, et al., in Case Nos. 24-7000, 24-3449, 24-3450, 24-3497, 24-3508, 24-3510, 24-3511, 24-3519 and 24-3538, to file a corrected amicus brief, It is ORDERED that the motions be and they hereby are GRANTED.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the original brief filed in the above-referenced cases on August 19, 2024, will be locked and the Tendered Corrected Amicus Brief filed August 20, 2024, is accepted as filed.

OHIO TELECOM ASSOCIATION, et al. v. FCC, et al. OHIO CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION v. FCC, et al. MCTA v. FCC, et al. CTIA v. FCC, et al.

WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION v. FCC et al. 24-3510 ACA CONNECTS v. FCC, et al. FLORIDA INTERNET & TELEVISION ASSOCAITION v. FCC, et al. TEXAS CABLE ASSOCIATION, et al. v. FCC, et al.

Upon consideration of the amicus motion filed by William P. Barr for Senator Ted Cruz, et al., in Case Nos. 24-7000, 24-3449, 24-3450, 24-3497, 24-3508, 24-3510, 24-3511, 24-3519 and 24-3538, to file a corrected amicus brief, It is ORDERED that the motions be and they hereby are GRANTED.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the original brief filed in the above-referenced cases on August 19, 2024, will be locked and the Tendered Corrected Amicus Brief filed August 20, 2024, is accepted as filed.

Mr. Matthew Brill Mr. Andrew W. Chang Mr. Thomas M. Johnson Jr. Mr. Albert H. Kramer Mr. Jeffrey A. Lamken Mr. Scott Matthew Noveck Mr. Andrew Jay Schwartzman Ms. Helgi C. Walker Mr. Jeffrey Bryan Wall

Dear Counsel, The Court issued the enclosed Order today in this case.

And adhering to that random selection dispels any impression that weor any other court outside of Washington, DC for that matterare less capable of evaluating the legal questions presented.

of Commcns, Inc. v. FCC, No. 08- 3245, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 28519, at *6 (6th Cir. May 22, 2008) (order) In rare circumstances, of course, the random selection may fail to account for proceedings ongoing in another circuit, or might prove to be a true burden on the parties.

But the FCCs vacillating positions on the proper classification of broadband demonstrate that the prior orders do not represent the staggered implementation of a single undertaking.

Circuit itself has explained, general familiarity with the legal questions presented by a case is decidedly different from acquaintance with the proceedings that gave rise to the order in suit.

Finally, the parties are DIRECTED to submit, no later than July 8, 2024, simultaneous supplemental briefing addressing the effect of the Supreme Courts decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451 (U.S. June 28, 2024), on our analysis of the stay motion.

At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 26th day of April, two thousand twenty-four.

Before: Richard J. Sullivan, Alison J. Nathan, Sarah A. L. Merriam, Circuit Judges.

Letitia A. James, in her official capacity as Attorney General of New York, Defendant - Appellant.

The appeal in the above captioned case from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York was argued on the district court’s record and the parties’ briefs.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the district court is REVERSED, and the permanent injunction barring enforcement of the Affordable Broadband Act is VACATED.

Various Petitioners in the member cases of this action have moved to transfer the proceedings to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia and to stay the agency’s order pending judicial review.

Responses to the motions to transfer shall be filed on or before Monday, June 17, 2024.

Responses to the motions to stay shall be filed on or before Tuesday, June 18, 2024.

Replies to responses to either of these motions shall be filed on or before Friday, June 21, 2024.

Consumers’ Research; Cause Based Commerce, Incorporated; Kersten Conway; Suzanne Bettac; Robert Kull; Kwang Ja Kerby; Tom Kirby; Joseph Bayly; Jeremy Roth; Deanna Roth; Lynn Gibbs; Paul Gibbs; Rhonda Thomas,

Petition for Review from an Order of the Federal Communications Comm Agency No. 96-45

Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Jones, Smith, Stewart, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, Wilson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: A member of the court having requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active service and not disqualified having voted in favor, IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed.

Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 41.3, the panel opinion in this case dated March 24, 2023, is