Deadly terror attacks behind a pair of cases set for argument at the Supreme Court could change the legal landscape for social media and other online companies.
Families of victims in the violence abroad say in separate cases that tech giants are partly liable for abetting extremists for content posted on their platforms.
The claim in Gonzalez v. Google to be heard Feb. 21 contends the company’s YouTube site provided support for the Islamic State by allowing the posting of its videos and recommending those posts to users via algorithms.
In Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh to be argued the next day, the question is whether the social media site violated anti-terrorism laws by failing to enforce policies against pro-terrorist content.
Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr discuss the broad liability protections for internet companies, particularly under Seciton 230 of the Communications Decency Act at play in the Google case.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Internet’s Future Up to Justices in Social Media Cases

Bloomberg Law's Cases and Controversies brings you the latest from the Supreme Court. Each week we preview oral arguments at the Court or feature in-depth interviews. We explore critical legal issues with Supreme Court advocates, judges, law professors, lawyers, and legal journalists. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr.

News

Government

News Commentary

The Supreme Court will consider whether prosecutors went too far in charging Jan. 6 rioters with an Enron-era statute, in a case that could have implications for the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
Former Boston Police officer Joseph Fischer, who participated in the Capitol breach, hopes to tap into concerns by some justices that prosecutors have too much discretion. It's something the court's pulled back on in recent terms.
Bloomberg Law judiciary reporter Suzanne Monyak joins Cases and Controversies to discuss the implications for Jan. 6 defendants, federal courts, and Trump, whose bid for immunity from criminal prosecution over alleged election interference will be heard April 25. Special Prosecutor Jack Smith has charged Trump under the same provision, which prohibits interference with an official proceeding.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

US Supreme Court Considers Novel Charges Over Jan. 6

A fight over an Oregon city’s attempt to outlaw homelessness would make headlines in any other term. But the case, said to be the first of its kind in decades and set for argument April 22, has flown under the radar.
The justices are being asked if the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits Grants Pass from enforcing an ordinance that makes it unlawful to sleep on public property.
“This is the first case the Supreme Court has taken up on homelessness in 40 years,” said Antonia Fasanelli, the executive director of the National Homelessness Law Center.
Fasanelli joins Cases and Controversies to discuss what’s at stake in a case that raises an issue of national importance as cities try to find solutions to a rise in homelessness.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Homeless Dispute Getting Rare Supreme Court Hearing

Arguments in the challenge to the abortion drug mifepristone suggest the Supreme Court will nix the dispute on technical standing grounds.
Justices from across the ideological spectrum suggested the anti-abortion doctors at the center of the case were asking too much.
Cases and Controversies hosts run through the lopsided arguments that focused little on the merits and almost exclusively on whether the doctors could prevent access to the drug nationwide.
They also discuss how the Supreme Court’s action—or inaction—means South Carolina can use an unconstitutional voting map in the upcoming election.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Supreme Court Abortion Pill Argument Light on Merits

Lower court rulings that largely halted Biden administration communication with social media companies to combat misinformation about Covid and the 2020 election faced skepticism from Supreme Court justices.
Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down the March 18 arguments in Murthy v. Missouri and NRA v. Vullo, a second First Amendment fight about alleged government censorship.
They also discuss the legal whiplash over a Texas law that makes it a crime to illegally enter the US through the state.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Government Censorship Focus of Supreme Court Disputes

The Biden administration and others are asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on state bans on gender-affirming care for transgender kids despite its refusal to resolve related disputes over youth sports and student bathroom use.
The ACLU’s Li Nowlin-Sohl joins Cases and Controversies to discuss bans out of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Idaho pending before the court, and the chances that the justices will finally weigh in.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Internet’s Future Up to Justices in Social Media Cases

Download our free app to listen on your phone