Enlarge / The Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, DC, in May 2023. (credit: Getty Images | NurPhoto)

The US Supreme Court today heard oral arguments on Florida and Texas state laws that impose limits on how social media companies can moderate user-generated content.

The Florida law prohibits large social media sites like Facebook and Twitter (aka X) from banning politicians and says they must "apply censorship, deplatforming, and shadow banning standards in a consistent manner among its users on the platform." The Texas statute prohibits large social media companies from moderating posts based on a user's "viewpoint." The laws were supported by Republican officials from 20 other states.

The tech industry says both laws violate the companies' First Amendment right to use editorial discretion in deciding what kinds of user-generated content to allow on their platforms and how to present that content. The Supreme Court will decide whether the laws can be enforced while the industry lawsuits against Florida and Texas continue in lower courts.

Enlarge / January 17, 2024, Berlin: In the cell laboratory at the Fertility Center Berlin, an electron microscope is used to fertilize an egg cell. (credit: Getty | Jens Kalaene)

The Alabama Supreme Court on Friday ruled that frozen embryos are "children," entitled to full personhood rights, and anyone who destroys them could be liable in a wrongful death case.

The first-of-its-kind ruling throws into question the future use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) involving in vitro fertilization for patients in Alabama—and beyond. For this technology, people who want children but face challenges to conceiving can create embryos in clinical settings, which may or may not go on to be implanted in a uterus.

In the Alabama case, a hospital patient wandered through an unlocked door, removed frozen, preserved embryos from subzero storage and, suffering an ice burn, dropped the embryos, destroying them. Affected IVF patients filed wrongful-death lawsuits against the IVF clinic under the state's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The case was initially dismissed in a lower court, which ruled the embryos did not meet the definition of a child. But the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that "it applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation." In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Tom Parker cited his religious beliefs and quoted the Bible to support the stance.

Enlarge / Mifepristone (Mifeprex) and misoprostol, the two drugs used in a medication abortion, are seen at the Women's Reproductive Clinic, which provides legal medication abortion services, in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, on June 17, 2022. (credit: Getty | Robyn Beck)

Scientific journal publisher Sage has retracted key abortion studies cited by anti-abortion groups in a legal case aiming to revoke regulatory approval of the abortion and miscarriage medication, mifepristone—a case that has reached the US Supreme Court, with a hearing scheduled for March 26.

On Monday, Sage announced the retraction of three studies, all published in the journal Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology. All three were led by James Studnicki, who works for The Charlotte Lozier Institute, a research arm of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. The publisher said the retractions were based on various problems related to the studies' methods, analyses, and presentation, as well as undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Two of the studies were cited by anti-abortion groups in their lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA), which claimed the regulator's approval and regulation of mifepristone was unlawful. The two studies were also cited by District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas, who issued a preliminary injunction last April to revoke the FDA's 2000 approval of mifepristone. A conservative panel of judges for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans partially reversed that ruling months later, but the Supreme Court froze the lower court's order until the appeals process had concluded.

Enlarge (credit: Getty Images | OsakaWayne Studios)

Republican officials from 20 states, including 19 state attorneys general, are backing Florida and Texas in a Supreme Court battle over states' authority to regulate how social media firms moderate user-submitted content. The states on Monday submitted a brief arguing that they "have authority to prohibit mass communication platforms from censoring speech."

"The Federal Government knows it will be much more difficult for federal officials to induce social media companies to suppress speech if state law prohibits it," the Republican state officials wrote, pointing out that the US government previously submitted a brief opposing the state laws. The US opposition "shows that the Texas and Florida laws, far from infringing the First Amendment, in fact shield social media companies from government pressure and deprive government of the opportunity to control expression," the state officials wrote.

The Florida law would make it illegal for large social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to ban politicians, while the Texas law prohibits social media companies from moderating content based on a user's "viewpoint." NetChoice, a lobby group for tech companies, challenged both laws in court.

Enlarge (credit: Getty Images | Rudy Sulgan)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments for overturning the so-called Chevron doctrine, one of the most important principles guiding federal regulation for the past 40 years.

The doctrine, named for a 1984 court case involving Environmental Protection Agency air pollution rules, has been high on the agenda of right-wing groups for years. It holds that when the meaning of a law is disputed, the federal agency’s interpretation should be given deference as long as it is reasonable. Environmental groups fear that overturning the precedent will make it easier for courts to block new pollution regulations, especially those addressing climate change.

The cases heard on Wednesday, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, take on rules put into place in 2020 that require industry-funded federal observers aboard vessels in the northern Atlantic fishing for herring.

Enlarge / Artist's conception of iOS developers after today's Supreme Court ruling, surveying a new landscape of payment options and subscription signaling. (credit: Epic Games)

The Supreme Court declined to hear either of the petitions resulting from the multi-year, multi-court Epic v. Apple antitrust dispute. That leaves most of Epic's complaints about Apple's practices unanswered, but the gaming company achieved one victory on pricing notices.

It all started in August 2020, when Epic sought to work around Apple and Google's app stores and implemented virtual currency purchases directly inside Fortnite. The matter quickly escalated to the courts, with firms like Spotify and Microsoft backing Epic's claim that Apple's App Store being the only way to load apps onto an iPhone violated antitrust laws.

The matter reached trial in May 2021. The precise definitions of "games" and "marketplace" were fervently debated. Epic scored a seemingly huge victory in September 2021 when a Northern California judge demanded that Apple allow developers to offer their own payment buttons and communicate with app customers about alternate payment options. An appeals court upheld that Apple's App Store itself wasn't a "walled garden" that violated antitrust laws but kept the ruling that Apple had to open up its payments and messaging.

Enlarge (credit: Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images North America)

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to review an appeal from X (formerly Twitter), alleging that the US government's censorship of X transparency reports served as a prior restraint on the platform's speech and was unconstitutional.

This free speech battle predates Elon Musk's ownership of the platform. Since 2014, the social media company has "sought to accurately inform the public about the extent to which the US government is surveilling its users," X's petition said, while the government has spent years effectively blocking precise information from becoming public knowledge.

Current law requires that platforms instead only share generalized statistics regarding government information requests—using government-approved reporting bands such as "between 0 and 99 times"—so that people posing as national security threats can never gauge exactly how active the feds are on any given platform.

Enlarge / Elon Musk at an AI event with Britain Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in London on Thursday, Nov. 2, 2023. (credit: Getty Images | WPA Pool )

Elon Musk yesterday appealed to the Supreme Court in a last-ditch effort to terminate his settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Musk has claimed he was coerced into the deal with the SEC and that it violates his free speech rights, but the settlement has been upheld by every court that's reviewed it so far.

In his petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, Musk said the SEC settlement forced him to "waive his First Amendment rights to speak on matters ranging far beyond the charged violations."

The SEC case began after Musk's August 2018 tweets stating, "Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding secured" and "Investor support is confirmed. Only reason why this is not certain is that it's contingent on a shareholder vote." The SEC sued Musk and Tesla, saying the tweets were false and "led to significant market disruption."

Enlarge / US President Joe Biden during a meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House on Friday, Oct. 20, 2023. (credit: Getty Images | Bloomberg)

The Supreme Court has blocked an injunction that would prevent the Biden administration from pressuring social media firms to take down content. Justices agreed to hear the Biden administration's appeal of the injunction, which will be stayed until the high court issues a ruling that could either uphold the injunction or block it permanently.

The decision to grant the stay and hear the administration's appeal was issued in an order Friday. The court previously issued a temporary stay while it considered whether to hear the case, so the injunction has not been enforced.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing that the stay "allows the defendants to persist in committing the type of First Amendment violations that the lower courts identified. The majority takes this action in the face of the lower courts' detailed findings of fact."

Enlarge (credit: living_images | E+)

On Monday, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Google search data evidence retrieved by Denver police using a controversial keyword search warrant can be used to prosecute a teenager who has been charged with deadly arson.

Gavin Seymour, the teenager accused of arson, had moved to suppress the evidence, asking the court to consider whether keyword warrants violate constitutional rights protecting against unlawful, overly broad searches and seizures.

This was the first constitutional challenge to the legitimacy of keyword warrants—which operate in the complete opposite manner of traditional warrants and do not require police to first identify a suspect before conducting a search—but the judge writing the majority opinion, William W. Hood, declined to definitively decide whether keyword search warrants are unconstitutional.

Enlarge / FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel speaks during the US Chamber of Commerce's Global Aerospace Summit in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2022. (credit: Getty Images | Bloomberg)

With the Federal Communications Commission preparing to reimpose net neutrality rules and common-carrier regulation on Internet service providers, the broadband industry is almost certain to sue the FCC once the decision is made.

The Democratic-majority FCC is expected to define broadband as a telecommunications service, which means it would face common-carrier regulations under Title II of the Communications Act. Industry trade groups that represent Internet service providers will likely argue, as they have unsuccessfully argued before, that the FCC does not have authority to classify broadband as a telecommunications service.

Federal appeals courts upheld previous FCC decisions on whether to apply common carrier rules to broadband, a fact that current agency officials point to in their plan to revive Obama-era regulation of ISPs under Title II. But some legal commentators claim the FCC is doomed to fail this time because of the Supreme Court's evolving approach on whether federal agencies can decide "major questions" without explicit instructions from Congress.