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

Volokh v. James

Docket 23-0356, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (Mar. 13, 2023)
Constitutionality of State Statute (Appeals)
Case Type3950 Constitutionality of State Statute
Tags3950 Constitutionality, State Statute, 3950 Constitutionality, State Statute
Plaintiff - Appellee Eugene Volokh
Plaintiff - Appellee Locals Technology Inc.
Plaintiff - Appellee Rumble Canada Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 156 FRAP 28(j) LETTER, dated 09/10/2024, on behalf of Appellee Locals Technology Inc., Rumble Canada ...

Document Volokh v. James, 23-0356, No. 156 (2d Cir. Sep. 10, 2024)
al. v. James, No. 23-0356: Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Notice of Supplemental Authority under Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) Dear Ms. Wolfe: Plaintiffs-Appellees submit X Corp. v. Bonta, No. 24-271, 2024 WL 4033063 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2024), which supports affirming the preliminary injunction here.
In X Corp., the Ninth Circuit overturned denial of a preliminary injunction, holding X likely to prevail in showing the First Amendment prohibits California from requiring social media companies to report “how the[ir] terms of service define and address hate speech.” Id. at *2.
California’s law went beyond “pure transparency measure[s],” the court held, compelling speech “on intensely debated and politically fraught topics,” and forcing companies “to recast [their] content- moderation practices in language prescribed by the State.” Id. at *8.
Because New York demands that websites publish “opinions about” hate speech, it does not regulate the “usual definition of commercial speech.” X Corp., 2024 WL 4033063, at *8 (cleaned up) (discussing longstanding commercial-speech standards).
Strict scrutiny therefore applies and, like California’s law, § 394-ccc fails because it is not narrowly tailored to New York’s stated goals.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 154 FRAP 28(j) LETTER, dated 08/30/2024, on behalf of Appellant Letitia James, RECEIVED

Document Volokh v. James, 23-0356, No. 154 (2d Cir. Aug. 30, 2024)
The Bonta court vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction of this requirement, concluding relaxed scrutiny would likely apply.
Bonta thus supports the conclusion that GBL § 394-ccc is subject to relaxed scrutiny, which it readily satisfies.
Plaintiffs incorrectly focus instead on Bonta’s inapposite analysis of a separate requirement in California’s law to create and submit to California’s Attorney General reports about the risks services pose to children and plans to mitigate those risks.
Contrary to plaintiffs’ arguments, California’s report and mitigation requirement is not analogous to GBL § 394-ccc, which mandates disclosure only of the network’s own policy to consumers and does not require networks to opine on what constitutes hateful conduct, respond to reports, or remove any content.
Plaintiffs likewise ignore Bonta’s conclusion that it was improper to enjoin enforcement of California’s entire law solely because one of its requirements was likely invalid, without considering that requirement’s severability.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 149 POST ARGUMENT LETTER BRIEF, on behalf of Appellee Locals Technology Inc., Rumble Canada Inc. ...

Document Volokh v. James, 23-0356, No. 149 (2d Cir. Jul. 11, 2024)
5 Contrary to the State’s contentions, none of this means that “any compelled NetChoice says nothing about the kinds of user privacy-related disclosure requirements cited by the State, see Appellant’s Br.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 148 POST ARGUMENT LETTER BRIEF, on behalf of Appellant Letitia James, FILED

Document Volokh v. James, 23-0356, No. 148 (2d Cir. Jul. 11, 2024)
NetChoice further confirms that courts must analyze each provision of a challenged law separately, because different provisions may implicate different First Amendment interests—or none at all.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 144 FRAP 28(j) LETTER, dated 06/05/2024, on behalf of Appellee Eugene Volokh, RECEIVED

Document Volokh v. James, 23-0356, No. 144 (2d Cir. Jun. 5, 2024)
al. v. James, No. 23-0356: Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Notice of Supplemental Authority under Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) Dear Ms. Wolfe: Plaintiffs-Appellees submit the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent unanimous decision in NRA v. Vullo, No. 22-842, 2024 WL 2751216 (May 30, 2024).
The decision supports Plaintiffs-Appellees’ argument that Attorney General James’s thinly veiled ultimatum to “covered websites”—remove “hateful” (but First Amendment- protected) user speech or face legal action under N.Y. Gen.
Because Vullo had “direct regulatory and enforcement authority,” id., her ultimatum and anti-NRA statements reasonably amounted to threats pressuring carriers to drop the NRA—indirectly attacking the NRA’s pro-gun message.
Section 394-ccc(5) grants Attorney General James “direct regulatory and enforcement authority,” Vullo, 2024 WL 2751216 at *8, over “covered websites.” She threatened to use the law “to address” what she called the “growing threat” Walnut Street, Suite Philadelphia, PA Phone: -- Fax: -- thefire.org
v. Vullo accordingly supports affirming the district court’s preliminary party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.” 2024 WL 2751216 Sincerely,
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 142 FRAP 28(j) LETTER, dated 05/02/2024, on behalf of Appellant Letitia James, RECEIVED

Document Volokh v. James, 23-0356, No. 142 (2d Cir. May. 2, 2024)
In this appeal, the Attorney General seeks reversal of the district court’s preliminary injunction order enjoining enforcement of General Business Law § 394-ccc.
After the briefing in this appeal was complete, plaintiffs-appellees filed a motion in the district court to enforce the injunction, contending that the Attorney General violated the injunction by sending voluntary requests for information to social media networks, including plaintiff Rumble Canada Inc., seeking information about the networks’ responses to the proliferation of calls for violence against Jewish and Muslim people on social media in the aftermath of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in Israel.
Prior to oral argument in this appeal, plaintiffs were granted leave to file as a supplemental appendix a declaration and exhibits filed in the district court in support of their motion.
In accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), I write to advise the Court that the district court has denied plaintiffs’ motion to
Case 23-356, Document 142, 05/02/2024, 3622064, Page2 of 2 enforce the district court’s preliminary injunction order.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 72

Document Volokh v. James, 23-0356, No. 72 (2d Cir. Sep. 26, 2023)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 >>