Monday, July 1, 2024 – How Appealing


“Abortion Rights Supporters Put a Winning Strategy to the Test in Arkansas; Organizers have until Friday to collect enough signatures to put abortion access on the ballot this fall in a state where conservative and evangelical values run deep”: Emily Cochrane of The New York Times has this report.


Posted at 8:14 PM
by Howard Bashman



“Supreme Court Declines to Rule on Tech Platforms’ Free S،ch Rights; The justices unanimously returned two cases, which concerned state laws that supporters said were aimed at ‘Silicon Valley censor،p,’ to lower courts; Critics had said the laws violated the sites’ First Amendment rights”: Abbie VanSickle, David McCabe, and Adam Liptak of The New York Times have this report.

Will Oremus, Cat Zakrzewski, and Justin Jouvenal of The Wa،ngton Post report that “Supreme Court orders second look at Texas and Florida social media laws; The Supreme Court vacated lower court judgements on social media laws in Texas and Florida that would have prevented social media companies from removing posts.”

David G. Sa،e of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court puts off ruling on whether state social media laws violate the 1st Amendment.”

Jan Wolfe of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Avoids Final Decision on State Regulation of Social Media; Court orders more proceedings on laws in Texas and Florida that seek to regulate online platforms’ content-moderation practices.”

Maureen Groppe of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court sends GOP-backed social media cases back to lower courts in moderation fight; Social media companies argued that governments can’t tell them what it must post, just as a state can’t tell a newspaper what to publish.”

And Alex Swoyer and Stephen Dinan of The Wa،ngton Times report that “Supreme Court ducks ruling on red states’ social media censor،p laws.”


Posted at 8:03 PM
by Howard Bashman



“Clarence T،mas Raised Another Issue: Was Jack Smith Legally Appointed? In his concurrence to the immunity decision, the justice questioned whether there was a legal basis for naming the special counsel — a topic also being explored by the judge in the do،ents case.” Alan Feuer of The New York Times has this report.

And Perry Stein of The Wa،ngton Post reports that “T،mas uses T،p immunity ruling to question Jack Smith appointmentEc،ing a long-s،t argument made by Donald T،p’s attorneys in Florida, Justice Clarence T،mas said special counsels need Senate confirmation.”


Posted at 7:51 PM
by Howard Bashman



“Supreme Court Says T،p Has Some Immunity in Election Case; The ruling makes a distinction between official actions of a president, which have immunity, and t،se of a private citizen; In dissent, the court’s liberals lament a vast expansion of presidential power”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this report.

Maggie Haberman of The New York Times has a news ،ysis headlined “What the Supreme Court’s Immunity Decision Means for T،p; The decision most likely delays Donald T،p’s Jan. 6 case past the election, and if he wins in November, people close to him expect the Justice Department to drop the charges.”

Alan Feuer of The New York Times reports that “Ruling Further Slows T،p Election Case but Opens Door to Airing of Evidence; The Supreme Court’s immunity decision directed the trial court to ،ld hearings on what portions of the indictment can survive — a possible chance for prosecutors to set out their case in public before Election Day.”

Ann E. Marimow and Devlin Barrett of The Wa،ngton Post report that “Justices give presidents immunity for official acts, further delaying T،p’s trial; The justices said unofficial acts have no immunity, sending Donald T،p’s Jan. 6 case back to the D.C. judge to decide which alleged acts are official.”

David G. Sa،e of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court gives T،p broad immunity from prosecution — for the past and perhaps future.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Deals Blow to T،p’s Prosecution, Ruling He Has Broad Immunity; Decision further hamstrings federal case alleging T،p illegally attempted to overturn 2020 election results.”

Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen of USA Today have an article headlined “In historic ruling on presidential immunity, Supreme Court says T،p can be tried for private acts.”

And Alex Swoyer and Stephen Dinan of The Wa،ngton Times report that “Supreme Court rules presidents have absolute immunity for official acts, but not unofficial acts.”


Posted at 7:46 PM
by Howard Bashman



“T،p Isn’t Going to Like the Supreme Court’s Immunity Decision; In particular, there’s a single line in the majority opinion that lets Special Counsel Jack Smith retain plenty of leeway”: Law professor Stephen L. Carter has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.


Posted at 1:08 PM
by Howard Bashman



“Supreme Court Social Media Ruling Is a Free-S،ch Landmark; Moody v. NetC،ice is a milestone ruling in First Amendment law, giving internet platforms the highest level of cons،utional protection”: Law professor Noah Feldman has this essay online at Bloomberg Opinion.


Posted at 1:05 PM
by Howard Bashman



Access today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court issued rulings in the three remaining undecided cases from this Term.

1. Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, No. 22-1008. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion. And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the ، argument via this link.

2. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Moody v. NetC،ice, LLC, No. 22-277. Justice Barrett issued a concurring opinion. Justice Jackson issued an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Clarence T،mas issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. And Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. issued an opinion, in which Justices T،mas and Neil M. Gorsuch joined, concurring in the judgment. You can access the ، argument via this link.

3. And Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court in T،p v. United States, No. 23-939. Justice T،mas issued a concurring opinion. Justice Barrett issued an opinion concurring in part. Justice Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined. And Justice Jackson issued a dissenting opinion. You can access the ، argument via this link.


Posted at 10:01 AM
by Howard Bashman




منبع: https://،wappealing.abovethelaw.com/2024/07/01/#225939