The April 2024 edition of Last Month at the Supreme Court examines the Court’s recent unanimous decision establishing a new test to determine when a government official’s speech (use of social media) constitutes “state action” for First Amendment purposes. First Amendment speech remains top of mind for the Justices, as the Court considers other cases involving when the government’s moderation of social media content turns into state action and when government action becomes coercion. The Court also ponders administrative appeal deadlines, abortion medicine restrictions, and the Armed Career Criminal Act.
For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Cory Webster, Christopher Sakauye, Monika Harris, Puja Valera, A. Joseph Duffy, IV., or Heming Xu.
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Decision Establishing New Test to Determine State Action Liability in Lindke and O’Connor-Ratcliff
On March 15, 2024, the Court in Lindke v. Freed unanimously held that a government official may block members of the public from the official’s social media page because social media is not “public fora” for purposes of the “state action” doctrine when the official speaks in their capacity as a private citizen, even if the post is about government concerns. Read the full synopsis here.
Supreme Court to Examine Social Media Content Moderation as State Action
In Murthy v. Missouri, the Supreme Court will decide whether interactions with federal government officials transformed social media content moderation decisions into state action and whether those decisions violate the First Amendment. Read the full synopsis here.
Supreme Court to Determine Whether Administrative Appeal Deadline Is Jurisdictional
In Harrow v. Dept. of Defense, the Supreme Court will decide whether the 60-day deadline to appeal a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) is jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional. Read the full synopsis here.
Supreme Court Focuses on Standing Issue in Abortion Medication Case
In the consolidated cases U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the Supreme Court wrestles with an Article III standing issue and whether the Fifth Circuit was correct in rolling back decisions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) related to the availability of abortion medications. Read the full synopsis here.
Supreme Court Takes on Armed Criminal Career Act and the Sixth Amendment
In Erlinger v. United States, the Supreme Court addresses whether the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant’s prior convictions were committed on different occasions as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Read the full synopsis here.
Supreme Court to Determine Whether State Government Violated the First Amendment Through Coercion
In National Rifle Association v. Vullo, the Supreme Court considers when a state actor crosses the line from persuasion to coercion in encouraging private parties to engage in viewpoint discrimination. The New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), under the leadership of Maria Vullo, investigated insurance programs endorsed by the National Rifle Association (NRA). After the Parkland shooting, Vullo issued guidance and statements encouraging banks and insurers to assess and potentially end affiliations with gun promotion organizations by citing reputational risks. Several firms cut ties with the NRA, prompting the NRA to file suit against Vullo, claiming their free speech and equal protection rights had been violated. Read the full synopsis here.