Brookings Institution: The Supreme Court and social media platform liability

Brookings Institution: The Supreme Court and social media platform liability. “Over a quarter of a century after its 1996 enactment, the liability shield known as Section 230 is heading to the Supreme Court. Section 230(c)(1) provides, with some exceptions, that ‘No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.’”

Reuters: Florida asks U.S. Supreme Court to revive law targeting social media ‘censorship’

Reuters: Florida asks U.S. Supreme Court to revive law targeting social media ‘censorship’. “Florida on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revive a state law aimed at stopping social media companies from restricting users’ political speech after a federal appeals court blocked it earlier this year. The law, which had been challenged by industry group NetChoice, would require social media companies to disclose the rules they use for banning or censoring users and to apply them consistently, and would limit their ability to ban candidates for political office from their platforms.”

Politico: What Is the Supreme Court Hiding?

Politico: What Is the Supreme Court Hiding?. “The executive branch is subject to detailed rules laying out what work product must be preserved, when and how it must be released to the general public, and — as Donald Trump has unhappily learned — what happens to officials who don’t play ball. Not so for justices. [former Supreme Court Justice Stephen] Breyer, if he so chose, could toss his papers in a bonfire, auction them to the highest bidder, or ship them all to Mar-a-Lago for safekeeping.”

CNN: Supreme Court temporarily blocks Texas’s social media moderation law

CNN: Supreme Court temporarily blocks Texas’s social media moderation law. “The Supreme Court of the United States temporarily blocked a sweeping Texas law on Tuesday that restricts the ability of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to moderate content on their platforms. By a 5-4 vote, the justices granted an emergency request from the tech industry to block a lower court order that would have allowed the law to take hold, pending legal challenges.”

Courthouse News: Americans want cameras at Supreme Court, but live audio there is on life support

Courthouse News: Americans want cameras at Supreme Court, but live audio there is on life support. “The Supreme Court has live-streamed audio of its oral arguments for almost two years as a result of Covid-19 policies that limited the gathering of the justices, attorneys and reporters at the high court. Now that Covid-19 policies are receding around the country, some are advocating to make the temporary policy permanent. A new letter from 40 Supreme Court practitioners who have argued a total of 464 cases before the justices ask Chief Justice John Roberts to continue facilitating access to livestreamed audio of oral arguments. ”

Reuters: U.S. Supreme Court spurns Google bid to avoid shareholder lawsuit

Reuters: U.S. Supreme Court spurns Google bid to avoid shareholder lawsuit. “The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Alphabet Inc’s attempt to nix a lawsuit by shareholders accusing the Google parent company of fraudulently concealing a security glitch that left private user data exposed. The justices left in place a lower court’s ruling that revived the lawsuit brought over the 2018 incident that the company was slow to disclose, turning away Alphabet’s appeal.”

Reuters: State lawyers arguing against Biden vaccine mandates test positive for COVID-19

Reuters: State lawyers arguing against Biden vaccine mandates test positive for COVID-19. “Two officials presenting arguments on Friday to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to block vaccine mandates ordered by President Joe Biden’s administration have tested positive for COVID-19 and will make their cases remotely, their offices said. Ohio Solicitor General Benjamin Flowers and Louisiana Solicitor General Liz Murrill will argue against the vaccination and testing requirements by phone, according to their offices.”

Opinion: The Supreme Court must uphold Biden’s vaccine mandates — and fast (Washington Post)

Washington Post: Opinion: The Supreme Court must uphold Biden’s vaccine mandates — and fast. “President Biden’s emergency covid-19 mandates have faced an avalanche of legal challenges. Two of those mandates — the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s rule that businesses with 100 or more employees must require workers to be fully vaccinated or regularly tested and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ regulation requiring vaccinations for staff at health-care facilities — will soon face scrutiny from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court needs to uphold the president’s mandates without delay. Not doing so would be an affront to public health and the law.”

Washington Post: Supreme Court sets special hearing for Biden’s vaccine rules for health-care workers, private businesses

Washington Post: Supreme Court sets special hearing for Biden’s vaccine rules for health-care workers, private businesses. “The Supreme Court on Wednesday night announced it will hold a special hearing next month to consider challenges to the Biden administration’s pandemic efforts affecting millions of workers, a nationwide vaccine-or-testing requirement for large employers and a separate coronavirus vaccine mandate for health-care workers.”

CNBC: Supreme Court rejects bid to block Covid vaccine mandate for NY health workers

CNBC: Supreme Court rejects bid to block Covid vaccine mandate for NY health workers. “The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied an emergency bid to block enforcement of New York’s coronavirus vaccine mandate for health care workers. The legal challenge was filed by a group of 20 doctors and nurses who argued that the state’s vaccine mandate violates the First Amendment to the Constitution because it fails to include a religious exemption.”