Decided and Filed: November 1, 2024 Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; MOORE, CLAY, GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE,

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC and REPLY: J. Michael Connolly, Cameron T. Norris, Thomas S. Vaseliou, CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant.

ON BRIEF: Joseph D. Spate, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, John J. Bursch, ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM, Washington, D.C., Tyson C. Langhofer, Mathew W. Hoffmann, ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM, Lansdowne, Virginia, Ilya Shapiro, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE, New York, New York, Kayla A. Toney, FIRST LIBERTY INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., Adam E. Schulman, HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., Brett R. Nolan, INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH, Washington, D.C., Talmadge Butts, FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAW, Gallant, Alabama, for Amici Curiae.

Under Sixth Circuit Rule 35(b), “[a] decision to grant rehearing en banc vacates the previous opinion and judgment of the court, stays the mandate, and restores the case on the docket as a pending appeal.” Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the previous decision and judgment of this court are vacated, the mandate is stayed, and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal.

The Clerk will direct the parties to file supplemental briefs and will schedule this case for oral argument as soon as possible.

Suite 600 Washington, DC 20001 Mr. Talmadge Butts Foundation for Moral Law Senior Counsel 1 Dexter Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Mr. David Joseph Carey American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation 1108 City Park Avenue, Suite 203 Columbus, OH 43206 Mr. John Michael Connolly Consovoy McCarthy 1600 Wilson Boulevard Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22209 Ms. Deborah Jane Dewart 111 Magnolia Lane Hubert, NC 28539 Mr. Steven W. Fitschen National Legal Foundation 524 Johnstown Road Chesapeake, VA 23322 Mr. Bartholomew Thomas Freeze Freund, Freeze & Arnold 88 E. Broad Street, Suite 875 Columbus, OH 43215

Case: 23-3630 Document: 132-1 Filed: 11/01/2024 Page: 2 Ms. Amy Gilbert ACLU of Ohio Foundation 4506 Chester Avenue Cleveland, OH 44103 Mr. Paul Giorgianni Giorgianni Law 1538 Arlington Avenue Columbus, OH 43212-2710 Mr. James Hasson Consovoy McCarthy 1600 Wilson Boulevard Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22209 Mr. Mark P. Herron 5001 Mayfield Road Suite 318 Lyndhurst, OH 44124 Ms. Genevieve Marie Hoffman Freund, Freeze & Arnold 88 E. Broad Street Suite 875 Columbus, OH 43215 Mr. Mathew Hoffmann Alliance Defending Freedom 44180 Riverside Parkway Lansdowne, VA 20176 Mr. Benjamin Isgur 560 W. Crossville Road Suite 104 Roswell, GA 30075 Mr. Tyson Charles Langhofer Alliance Defending Freedom 44180 Riverside Parkway Lansdowne, VA 20176 Ms. Freda Levenson ACLU of Ohio Foundation 4506 Chester Avenue Cleveland, OH 44103

Case: 23-3630 Document: 132-1 Filed: 11/01/2024 Page: 3 Mr. Ronald Gary London Foundation for Individual Rights in Education General Counsel 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.

Meehan Consovoy McCarthy 1600 Wilson Boulevard Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22209 Mr. Brett Robert Nolan Institute for Free Speech 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Box 11549 Columbia, SC 29211 Mr. Mitchell Stith Scott Scriven 250 E. Broad Street Suite 900 Columbus, OH 43215 Ms. Kayla Toney First Liberty Institute 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

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.