• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
47 results

NetChoice, LLC, dba NetChoice, et al., Applicants v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General...

Docket 21A720, Supreme Court of the United States (May 13, 2022)
Petitioner NetChoice, LLC d/b/a NetChoice; and Computer & Communications Industry Association d/b/a CCIA
Respondent Ken Paxton, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of Texas
Other Chamber of Progress, et al.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

31-2022

Document NetChoice, LLC, dba NetChoice, et al., Applicants v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, 21A720, 31-2022 (U.S. May. 31, 2022)
App. 40a, and as neutral forums for the speech of others.2 These representations suggest that the covered social me- dia platforms—like the cable operators in Turner—do not generally “‘convey ideas or messages [that they have] en- dorsed.’” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 576.
The State notes that we have upheld laws requir- ing that businesses disclose “purely factual and uncontro- versial information about the terms under which [their] ser- vices will be available,” so long as those requirements are not “unjustified or unduly burdensome.” Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U. S. 626, 651 (1985).
Should the at- torney general bring an enforcement action for injunctive relief, applicants would then have an opportunity to argue that the statute violates the First Amendment, whether fa- cially or as applied to them.
I reiterate that I have not formed a definitive view on the novel legal questions that arise from Texas’s decision to ad- dress the “changing social and economic” conditions it per- ceives.
The Court of Appeals, after briefing and oral argument, concluded that the District Court’s order should be stayed, and a decision on the merits can be expected in the near future.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

The application to vacate stay presented

Document NetChoice, LLC, dba NetChoice, et al., Applicants v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, 21A720, The application to vacate stay presented (U.S. May. 31, 2022)
App. 40a, and as neutral forums for the speech of others.2 These representations suggest that the covered social me- dia platforms—like the cable operators in Turner—do not generally “‘convey ideas or messages [that they have] en- dorsed.’” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 576.
The State notes that we have upheld laws requir- ing that businesses disclose “purely factual and uncontro- versial information about the terms under which [their] ser- vices will be available,” so long as those requirements are not “unjustified or unduly burdensome.” Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U. S. 626, 651 (1985).
Should the at- torney general bring an enforcement action for injunctive relief, applicants would then have an opportunity to argue that the statute violates the First Amendment, whether fa- cially or as applied to them.
I reiterate that I have not formed a definitive view on the novel legal questions that arise from Texas’s decision to ad- dress the “changing social and economic” conditions it per- ceives.
The Court of Appeals, after briefing and oral argument, concluded that the District Court’s order should be stayed, and a decision on the merits can be expected in the near future.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Letter of supplemental authority - Main Document

Document NetChoice, LLC, dba NetChoice, et al., Applicants v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, 21A720, Letter of supplemental authority, Main Document (U.S. May. 23, 2022)
No. 21A720 In the Supreme Court of the United States
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Letter of supplemental authority - Main Document

Document NetChoice, LLC, dba NetChoice, et al., Applicants v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, 21A720, Letter of supplemental authority, Main Document (U.S. May. 23, 2022)
... 666, 674 (1998) (“Although programming decisions often USCA11 Case: 21-12355 Date Filed: 05/23/2022 Page: 22 of 67 22 Opinion of the Court 21-12355 involve the compilation of the speech of third parties, the decisions nonetheless ...
... school and has no idea whether the school is thereby expressing a message, see id., we find it unlikely that a reasonable observer would think, for instance, that the reason he rarely or never sees pornography on Facebook is that none ...
... restrictions because it is substantially likely that they are all “regulation[s] of expressive conduct” that, at the very least, trigger intermediate scrutiny, FLFNB II, 11 F.4th at 1291– 92—and, for reasons we’ll explain in the next Part, none ...
We hold that it is substantially likely that none of S.B. 7072’s content-moderation restrictions survive intermediate—let alone strict—scrutiny.
While some of these provisions are likely subject to strict scrutiny, it is substantially likely that none survive even intermediate scru- tiny.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets

Reply in support of emergency - Main Document

Document NetChoice, LLC, dba NetChoice, et al., Applicants v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, 21A720, Reply in support of emergency, Main Document (U.S. May. 19, 2022)
If any- thing, that case reaffirms that constitutionally protected “programming decisions of- ten involve the compilation of the speech of third parties, the decisions nonetheless constitute communicative acts.” Id. There is no reason to ...
7 The state law there requiring the mall to “host” individuals engaged in expression had no impact on the mall’s (nonexistent) expression.
Here, HB20 is not designed to address any physical bottleneck problems because there are none.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Reply in support of emergency - Proof of Service

Document NetChoice, LLC, dba NetChoice, et al., Applicants v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, 21A720, Reply in support of emergency, Proof of Service (U.S. May. 19, 2022)
No. 21A720 In the Supreme Court of the United States
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Motion for leave to file amicus brief of - Main Document

Document NetChoice, LLC, dba NetChoice, et al., Applicants v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, 21A720, Motion for leave to file amicus brief of, Main Document (U.S. May. 18, 2022)
Nonetheless, the district court declared that “HB20’s pronouncement that social media platforms are common carriers . . . [did] not impact [its] legal analysis.” Dist. Ct.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 >>