Episode 21: Bristol Myers Squibb Co v. Secretary United States Department of HHS Bristol Myers Squibb Co. v. Secretary United States Department of HHS, consolidated under AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al v. Secretary United States Department of HHS, argued before Circuit Judges Thomas M. Hardiman, Peter J. Phipps, and Arianna J. Freeman in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on October 30, 2024. First Amendment question argued by Kevin F. King (on behalf of Bristol Myers...

Episode 20: Moms for Liberty v. Wilson County Board of Education Moms for Liberty – Wilson County, TN, et al. v. Wilson County Board of Education, et al., argued before Circuit Judges Jane Branstetter Stranch, Amul R. Thapar, and Eric E. Murphy in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on October 29, 2024. Argued by Brett R. Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech (on behalf of Moms for Liberty – Wilson County, TN, et al.) and Christopher C. Hayden (on behalf of the Wilson...

Episode 19: Central Maine Power Company, et al. v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al. Central Maine Power Company, et al. v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al., argued before Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo, Senior Circuit Judge Jeffrey R. Howard, and Circuit Judge Seth Aframe in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on October 9, 2024. Argued by Jonathan Richard Bolton, Maine Assistant Attorney General (on...

Episode 18: Little v. Llano County Little, et al. v. Llano County, et al., argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on September 24, 2024. Argued by Jonathan F. Mitchell (on behalf of Llano County, et al.), Henry Charles Whitaker (on behalf of Amici Curiae States supporting Llano County), and Matthew Borden (on behalf of Little, et al.). Statement of Issues Presented for Review, from the Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees: 1. Did the District Court clearly err in...

TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland, argued before Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, and Senior Circuit Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on September 16, 2024. Argued by Andrew J. Pincus (TikTok petitioners),  Jeffrey L. Fisher (TikTok creator petitioners), and Daniel Tenny (on behalf of Merrick Garland). Background on the case, excerpted from the Brief of the TikTok Petitioners (citations omitted): TikTok is an...

NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta, argued before Judges Milan D. Smith, Jr., Mark J. Bennett, and Anthony D. Johnstone in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on July 17, 2024. Argued by Robert Corn-Revere (on behalf of NetChoice, LLC) and Kristin Liska, Deputy Attorney General (on behalf of Robert Bonta, Attorney General of the State of California). A Description of the Law, from the Appellee’s Response Brief: The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, AB 2273, is one of the most...

X Corp. v. Bonta, argued before Judges Milan D. Smith, Jr., Mark J. Bennett, and Anthony D. Johnstone in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on July 17, 2024. Argued by Joel Kurtzburg (on behalf of X Corp.) and Gabrielle D. Boutin, Deputy Attorney General (on behalf of Robert Bonta, Attorney General of the State of California). A Description of the Law, from the Appellant’s Opening Brief: California enacted Assembly Bill 587 (“AB 587”)-a state law compelling social media...

The Imperial Sovereign Court of the State of Montana v. Knudsen, argued before Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Danielle J. Forrest, and Jennifer Sung in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 4, 2024. Argued by Michael Russell (on behalf of Knudsen, et al.) and Constance Van Klay (on behalf of the Imperial Sovereign Court of the State of Montana, et al.). Description of the Case, from the Introduction to the Appellees' Answering Brief: It is clear what the Montana legislature...

Nicholas Somberg v. Karen McDonald, argued before Senior Judge Alice M. Batchelder, Judge Amul R. Thapar, and Judge Andre B. Mathis in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on June 12, 2024. Argued by Philip L. Ellison (on behalf of Nicholas Somberg) and Brooke E. Tucker (on behalf of Karen McDonald). Statement of Question Presented, from the Appellant’s Brief: Plaintiff Nicholas Somberg contends he (and others) have the First Amendment right to photograph, screenshot, audio/video...

LeRoy Pernell, et al. v. Brian Lamb, et al. (consolidated with Adriana Novoa, et al. v. Commissioner of the Florida State Board of Education, et al.), argued before Judges Charles R. Wilson, Britt C. Grant, and Barbara Lagoa in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on June 14, 2024. Argued by Charles Cooper (on behalf of Brian Lamb, et al.) and Leah Watson (on behalf of Appellees LeRoy Pernell, et al.) and Greg Greubel (on behalf of Appellees Adriana Novoa, et al.). Issues...

National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al. argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc on June 12, 2024. Argued by Noel J. Francisco on behalf of the NRSC and Jason Hamilton on behalf of the FEC. The Question of Constitutionality Certified by the ⁠District Court⁠: Do the limits on coordinated party expenditures in § 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, 52 U.S.C. § 30116, violate the...

U.S. v. Sittenfeld, argued before Judges John K. Bush, John B. Nalbandian, Eric E. Murphy in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 9, 2024 Statement of the Issues, from the Appellant’s Opening Brief: 1. Whether objectively ambiguous evidence can prove an “explicit” quid pro quo, and whether the concededly ambiguous evidence here sufficed to do so. 2. Whether the Government constructively amended the indictment by relying on a “bribe” different from the one specified in the...

Diei v. Boyd, argued before Judges Joan L. Larsen, Chad A. Readler, and Stephanie Dawkins Davis in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 2, 2024 Statement of the Issues, from the Appellant’s Opening Brief: 1. The First Amendment bars public university officials from punishing students for their protected speech under the guise of professionalism policies. Defendants investigated and voted to expel Plaintiff Kimberly Diei under the College of Pharmacy’s professionalism...

Spectrum WT v. Wendler, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 29, 2024. The argument was heard by Judges James L. Dennis, Leslie H. Southwick and James C. Ho. Excerpted from the Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants: Spectrum WT is a longstanding, recognized student organization at West Texas A&M . . . [I]n November 2022, Spectrum WT started planning a March 31, 2023, charity drag show at Legacy Hall [a campus venue]. The students planned their event to be...

Joseph W. Fischer  v. United States, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 16, 2024 From the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari: Petitioner Joseph W. Fischer . . . attended the Stop the Steal rally on January 6. Unlike many of the other attendees, Mr. Fischer did not subsequently march with the crowd to the Capitol. . . . But after learning of the swelling demonstration, Mr. Fischer and his companion drove back to Washington, D.C. . . . Mr. Fischer was not part of the...

United States v. Douglass Mackey, argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 5, 2024. Panel: Debra Ann Livingston, Chief Judge, and Judges Reena Raggi and Beth Robinson. Most of this argument does not address the First Amendment issues present in this case, but those issues do get discussed and could impact the ruling. From the Opening Brief of Defendant-Appellant Douglass Mackey: For years, Congress has debated, as a matter of policy, whether to...

Leah Gilliam v. David Gerregano, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Revenue, et al., argued before the Supreme Court of Tennessee on April 3, 2024. From the Court of Appeals Opinion: Citizens of Tennessee may apply to the Tennessee Department of Revenue (the “Department”) for license plates featuring unique, personalized messages. Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-4-210(d)(2) provides that “[t]he commissioner shall refuse to issue any combination of letters, numbers or positions...

Sylvia Gonzalez v.Edward Trevino, II, et al., argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 20, 2024. From the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari: In Nieves v. Bartlett, this Court held that probable cause does not bar a retaliatory arrest claim against a “police officer” when a plaintiff shows “that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been.”***Here, a 72-year-old councilwoman organized a...

Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al. v. Missouri, et al., argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 18, 2024. From the Brief for the Petitioners: Respondents are two States and five individual users of social-media platforms who allege that the federal government transformed the private platforms’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated the First Amendment by communicating with the platforms about content moderation and responding to the...

National Rifle Association of America v. Maria T. Vullo, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 18, 2024 From the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari: Bantam Books v. Sullivan held that a state commission with no formal regulatory power violated the First Amendment when it “deliberately set out to achieve the suppression of publications” through “informal sanctions,” including the “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and...

Argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 2024. The petition granted was "limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the Solicitor General in her brief for the United States as amicus curiae." From the Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae These cases concern laws enacted by Florida and Texas to regulate major social-media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly known as Twitter).  The relevant provisions of the laws differ in some respects, but...