News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › State Action Doctrine

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Tucker Arensberg, P.C.

Supreme Court Addresses Social Media Usage by a Public Official

Tucker Arensberg, P.C. on

Lindke v. Freed, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 1214 (2024) (A public official who blocks someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the official both 1) possessed...more

Franczek P.C.

How to Identify State Action in the Context of Public Officials Using Social Media

Franczek P.C. on

Social media has given public officials the ability to share information quickly and easily with their constituents and followers, even on their own personal Facebook and other social media accounts. When using a personal...more

Cranfill Sumner LLP

Anti-Social Media Behavior, Free Speech and Governmental Liability II –Supreme Court Ruling in Lindke v. Freed

Cranfill Sumner LLP on

In my prior article, I discussed Lindke v. Freed, in which a social media user brought action under § 1983 against a city manager, alleging that the manager violated the user’s First Amendment rights by deleting his comments...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Social Media

Supreme Court Clarifies The Boundaries Of Public Official Liability On Social Media

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Social Media on

In its recent opinion in Lindke v. Freed, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed when public officials may be held liable for violating the First Amendment for silencing critics on social media. The Court held that a public...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Lindke v. Freed

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On March 15, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lindke v. Freed, No. 22-611, holding that a public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social media page engages in state action under 42 U.S.C. §...more

Sands Anderson PC

Social Media Posts by Government Officials: Traps for the Unwary After Lindke v. Freed

Sands Anderson PC on

Everyone on social media at some point has to figure out how they’re going to use it. Will their account be public?  Will they post information about family? Current events? Religion? Politics? If the account’s not open to...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

Public Official’s Use of Social Media May Trigger First Amendment Scrutiny

Fox Rothschild LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court has established guidelines for determining when a public official’s use of a private social media platform such as Facebook, X or Nextdoor constitutes public speech that cannot be censored. State and...more

Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak

Supreme Court Issues Key Decisions on Public Officials’ Use of Social Media and Ability to Block Commenters

Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak on

On March 15, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Lindke v. Freed and a per curiam opinion in O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier addressing when a public official may prevent a person from commenting on the public...more

Sherman & Howard L.L.C.

Supreme Court of the United States Allows Constitutional Claim Against Public Officials For Social Media Activity

Sherman & Howard L.L.C. on

In Lindke v. Reed, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued an opinion holding that social media activity can constitute state action for purposes of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court held that “[f]or...more

Cranfill Sumner LLP

Anti-Social Media Behavior, Free Speech and Governmental Liability: I – Lindke v. Freed

Cranfill Sumner LLP on

In April 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to a pair of cases dealing with the intersection of free speech, social media, and governmental liability.  Both cases deal with § 1983 actions against governmental...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court Update - April 24, 2023

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in two cases: Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, Nos. 22-611, 22-324: Both cases involve whether and to what extent public officials’ activity...more

Harris Beach PLLC

Must-See Free Speech: Can Public Access Television Refuse to Air Certain Content?

Harris Beach PLLC on

As MuniBlog readers may be aware, public access television airs programs ranging from school district and municipal government meetings to publicly hosted programs. Sometimes a program may offend viewers or be critical of...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - June 17, 2019

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The Supreme Court of the United States issued four decisions this morning: Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-1702: A private nonprofit corporation known as MNN operates the public access channels on Time...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On June 17, 2019, the United States Supreme Court decided Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-1702, holding that a private nonprofit corporation that operates the public-access channels on the cable system in...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Merrick Garland on Efficiencies

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on

Judge Merrick Garland, if he is confirmed, may become one of the Supreme Court’s foremost authorities in antitrust law. He taught antitrust law at Harvard, and he has published on the subject, so it’s fair to expect him to...more

Womble Bond Dickinson

If Republicans Allow A Hearing on Merrick Garland's Nomination, They Should Ask Him About Teeth Whitening

Womble Bond Dickinson on

Let me stipulate that trying to evaluate a Supreme Court nominee based on a 30-year old law review article is a bad idea. That said, some of the issues that Obama nominee Merrick Garland wrote about in the mid-1980s are...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

FTC Provides Guidance on State Regulatory Board Antitrust Liability Following Supreme Court Decision

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on

Earlier this year, we covered the Supreme Court’s decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, which held that a state regulatory board composed of “active market participants” was not immune to federal...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

"Supreme Court: A Term-End Review"

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on

As the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014-15 term draws to a conclusion, the Court has resolved — or will resolve in a matter of days — several cases with potentially wide-reaching implications for a range of important policy and...more

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Antitrust & Competition Newsletter - April 2015

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP on

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That State Action Immunity Does Not Apply to State Boards If the Board Is Controlled by Active Market Participants - On Feb. 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that a state...more

Baker Donelson

Open Season on Provider-controlled Licensing Boards

Baker Donelson on

In a closely followed decision with significant consequences for state licensing boards and their members, the Supreme Court in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 135 S. Ct. 1101...more

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Antitrust “State Action” Exemption: North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP on

On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, holding that a regulatory board made up of market participants is exempt from...more

Troutman Pepper

The State Action Doctrine: Active Supervision Reigns Supreme

Troutman Pepper on

On February 25, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 1502 (2015). In the 6–3 opinion, the Court held that an action taken by...more

Maynard Nexsen

Supreme Court Reviews Agency Comprised of Dental Professionals in State Action Case: Health Care Antitrust Cases to Watch in 2015

Maynard Nexsen on

Federal and state courts are expected to rule on several nationally watched antitrust health care cases during the first half of 2015. As we enter into the first week of the New Year, Nexsen Pruet associate Rachel...more

Baker Donelson

State Action Doctrine Tested by Supreme Court for Second Time in Two Years

Baker Donelson on

After nearly two decades of silence on the state action doctrine, on October 14, 2014, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Court’s second case on the subject in two years: The North Carolina Board of...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court’s 2014-15 Term: Antitrust Case May Impact the Activities of Alcohol Industry Public/Private Organizations

McDermott Will & Emery on

On October 14, 2014, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case that could have significant implications for hybrid public/private “regulatory” bodies. Many such bodies, like state and local wine...more

42 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2
Next »

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide