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
Outerlimits Techs., LLC v. O’Connor, No. 169 EDA 2023, 2023 WL 8524299 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 8, 2023) (non-precedential decision) - The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the appellant’s legal...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Outerlimits Technologies, LLC v. Cozen O’Connor, No. 169 EDA 2023, 2023 WL 8524299, unpublished (Pa. Super. Dec. 8, 2023) - The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court ruling dismissing a legal malpractice breach...more
A little-known fact is that Senator Ted Cruz spent time at the FTC during a time when there were, as he reflects, certain bipartisan efforts. One of his most important projects during his time there was his association with...more
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
In Hart v. Facebook Inc., et al., the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a social media influencer’s lawsuit against Facebook and Twitter for allegedly violating his First Amendment...more
The United States is engaging in a new form of warfare. Russia invaded Ukraine just over two months ago and, rather than join the fight directly by sending troops to defend Ukraine, the United States is fighting indirectly by...more
Key Points - Until recently, the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1954 made the “business of insurance,” including the business of health insurance, immune from federal antitrust laws. - The Competitive Health Insurance Reform...more
The Development: Congress unanimously passed and before leaving office, President Trump signed into law, the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act ("CHIRA"). CHIRA limits application of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, an...more
This week, we examine one Ninth Circuit decision exploring the extent to which the deprivation of information and statutorily-conferred powers can satisfy Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement, and a second declining to...more
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
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
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
If you’ve been following the legal fight over Seattle’s 2015 proposal to permit ride-sharing drivers who work for companies such as Uber and Lyft to organize and form the country’s first gig economy unions, you might feel...more
The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Antitrust Division recently announced plans to hold a series of public roundtable discussions to analyze the relationship between competition and regulation, and its implications for...more
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard argument today over a proposal that would permit ride-sharing drivers who work for companies such as Uber and Lyft to organize and form unions. Given what could be at stake—the potential...more