Browse Cases
11 resultsUber Technologies, Inc. v. City of Seattle
Issue: Whether Seattle's App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance, which requires network companies to inform workers in writing of deactivation policies that must be "reasonably related" to "safe and efficient operations," violates the First Amendment by compelling speech or regulating protected editorial activity.
This decision extends compelled-disclosure doctrine from traditional content platforms to gig economy apps, holding that requirements to communicate deactivation standards constitute regulation of conduct (or at most commercial speech subject to Zauderer) rather than editorial expression. The split reasoning—with the dissent arguing for intermediate scrutiny—reflects ongoing uncertainty about whether platform operational communications receive full First Amendment protection, particularly relevant as states increasingly regulate platform account termination and moderation explanation requirements post-Moody v. NetChoice.
View on CourtListener →Woodlands Pride v. Paxton
Issue: Whether Texas Senate Bill 12, which regulates "sexually oriented performances" on public property and in the presence of minors, facially violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally void for vagueness.
This case addresses core First Amendment questions about government regulation of expressive performances based on content, including vagueness and overbreadth challenges to statutory definitions that could chill protected speech. The outcome affects states' ability to regulate expressive conduct through broad definitions of sexual content, with implications for how courts assess content-based restrictions on speech in the digital age where performances may be recorded and distributed on online platforms.
View on CourtListener →Armendariz v. City of Colorado Springs
Issue: Whether search warrants seeking (1) electronic devices and data from a protest organizer and (2) Facebook posts, chats, and events from a nonprofit organization's profile were overbroad in violation of the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement.
This case implicates First Amendment associational rights and the limits on government investigation of online platform content related to protest activities. The decision establishes that warrants seeking broad categories of social media data (posts, chats, events) from advocacy organizations may violate Fourth Amendment particularity requirements, with implications for government access to platform-hosted speech and organizing activity. The involvement of major digital rights organizations as amici (EFF, CDT, EPIC, Knight Institute) signals broader concerns about investigatory overreach into digital speech and association.
View on CourtListener →Netchoice v. Wilson
Issue: Whether South Carolina's Age-Appropriate Design Code Act violates the First Amendment by imposing content-based restrictions requiring websites to "exercise reasonable care" to prevent harms to minors, mandating specific design features and controls, prohibiting facilitation of certain commercial speech, and compelling submission to third-party audits and public reporting.
This case represents the next generation of state attempts to regulate social media platforms' content curation and design practices under the guise of child safety, testing the boundaries established in *Moody v. NetChoice*. The South Carolina statute's "duty of care" framework attempts to impose tort liability for editorial choices that cause specified harms to minors, directly implicating the question left open in *Moody* about whether content-neutral design regulation can avoid First Amendment scrutiny—and whether framing speech restrictions as product safety obligations evades constitutional protection for platform editorial judgment.
View on CourtListener →Media Matters for America v. Warren Paxton, Jr.
Issue: Whether the Texas Attorney General's investigation and civil investigative demand targeting Media Matters for America violated the First Amendment by constituting retaliatory government action in response to the organization's critical reporting about X (Twitter) and Elon Musk.
This case directly applies Bantam Books and Backpage.com v. Dart jawboning doctrine to state attorney general investigations of media organizations covering technology platforms. It establishes that investigative demands issued in apparent retaliation for critical reporting about politically connected platform owners constitute actionable First Amendment violations, extending constitutional constraints on government use of regulatory process to chill platform-related journalism and reinforcing limits on government-platform coordination to suppress critical speech.
View on CourtListener →Little v. Llano County
Issue: Whether library patrons have a First Amendment right to receive information that allows them to challenge a public library's decision to remove books from its collection.
This decision significantly expands government speech doctrine to insulate library collection decisions from First Amendment scrutiny, potentially affecting how content moderation and curation by government entities are analyzed. The holding that curating collections of third-party speech constitutes government expression could have broader implications for debates about when editorial discretion and content selection by various entities—including platforms—constitute protected expression versus regulable conduct.
View on CourtListener →Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice
Issue: Whether an executive order targeting a law firm based on its pro bono representation of clients challenging government policies, its past association with a disfavored attorney, and its perceived "partisan" case selection violates the First Amendment by retaliating against the firm for engaging in protected advocacy and chilling legal representation that challenges executive actions.
This decision establishes that government retaliation against law firms for their choice of clients and causes constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment, extending jawboning and government coercion doctrine beyond platforms to legal advocacy itself. The ruling reinforces that chilling effects on representation—particularly representation challenging government actions—violate core First Amendment principles that protect the adversarial system as a check on executive power.
View on CourtListener →Yelp Inc. v. Paxton
Issue: Whether the Younger abstention doctrine's bad faith exception applies when a platform alleges that a state Attorney General's civil enforcement action was brought in First Amendment retaliation for the platform's editorial choices concerning abortion-related content.
This decision establishes that platforms alleging government retaliation for content moderation decisions face a high bar to overcome Younger abstention when states bring facially plausible civil enforcement actions—even when the platform alleges the suit targets constitutionally protected editorial choices on politically sensitive topics. The ruling effectively channels First Amendment retaliation challenges into state court proceedings unless the platform can demonstrate severe, pervasive harassment or facially meritless prosecution, limiting federal forum access for platforms facing state enforcement actions implicating their editorial decisions.
View on CourtListener →Fletcher v. Facebook, Inc.
Issue: Whether Facebook operates as a state actor subject to First Amendment constraints when terminating user access, either because it constitutes a public forum or because it acted under government coercion or direction.
This complaint illustrates the continued assertion of public forum and state action theories against platforms post-Packingham, despite contrary controlling authority in Manhattan Community Access v. Halleck and Prager University v. Google establishing that private platforms are not state actors. The government coercion allegations invoke the framework from Murthy v. Missouri and Bantam Books, but the complaint's broad, conclusory assertions about government "coercion" and "direction" without specific factual allegations illustrate the demanding causation and traceability standards Murthy established for jawboning claims.
View on CourtListener →Trump Media & Technology Group Corp. v. De Moraes
Issue: Whether a Brazilian Supreme Court justice's orders requiring U.S.-based social media platforms to suspend user accounts and censor content accessible in the United States are enforceable under U.S. law, or whether they violate the First Amendment and conflict with the Communications Decency Act.
This case presents a novel collision between foreign government content removal orders and U.S. platforms' First Amendment rights to resist compelled censorship. It could establish important precedent on whether U.S. courts will recognize foreign judicial orders as unconstitutional "jawboning" when they compel platforms to suppress lawful political speech accessible to American users, and may clarify the territorial limits of foreign content regulation authority over U.S.-based intermediaries.
View on CourtListener →Students Engaged in Advancing Texas v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General, State of Texas
Issue: Whether Texas HB18, a state law regulating social media platforms' content moderation and targeted advertising practices directed at minors, violates the First Amendment and is preempted by Section 230.
This appeal presents a post-Moody test case for state regulation of social media platforms' treatment of minors and targeted advertising practices. The Fifth Circuit's resolution will clarify how Moody's framework for evaluating must-carry and content moderation mandates applies to age-based restrictions and commercial speech regulations, and whether Section 230 preempts state laws targeting platform design features and advertising practices rather than third-party content liability.
View on CourtListener →