Some of the most important cases of the term will be argued this month before the U.S. Supreme Court. On Feb. 8, the justices will return to the bench earlier than planned to hear Trump v. Anderson, which considers whether former President Donald Trump is disqualified from again being president because of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. On Feb. 26, the court will hear two cases that could have a profound effect on the internet and social media, Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton.
Trump v. Anderson
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment provides: “No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of president and vice-president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
In December, the Colorado Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled that Trump was ineligible to be listed on the presidential primary ballot in that state by virtue of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
There are several legal issues before the Supreme Court. First, should the court adjudicate cases under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment or deem them “political questions”? The court has held that cases are nonjusticiable political questions when there is a need for deference to the choices of other elected officials.
(Disclosure: I am one of several law professors who have filed a First Amendment scholars amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson.)
The political question doctrine provides that the federal courts may not adjudicate a matter; it does not bar state courts from doing so. For example, the court held that challenges to partisan gerrymandering are nonjusticiable political questions in federal court, but it has been explicit that state courts can hear such a matter. If the court were to dismiss Trump v. Anderson on this basis, it would mean that the issue would be left to each state to decide.
Second, does Section 3 of the 14th Amendment require congressional legislation in order to be enforced? In 1869, Chief Justice Salmon Chase, writing as a lower court judge, in Griffin’s Case, said Section 3 was not self-executing. Chief Justice Chase wrote, “Legislation by Congress is necessary to give effect to the prohibition” in Section 3.
But it is unclear why legislation would be needed. In fact, in the 1883 Civil Rights Cases, the Supreme Court said the 14th Amendment “is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances.” Section 3 allows Congress to remove the bar from holding office but does not require congressional action to enforce it.
Third, does Section 3 apply to the president? Section 3 lists many positions where there is a disqualification, but it does not specifically mention the president. The trial court in Colorado ruled in favor of Trump on this ground. But the Colorado Supreme Court reversed this conclusion and said: “It seems most likely that the presidency is not specifically included because it is so evidently an ‘office.’ In fact, no specific office is listed in Section 3; instead, the section refers to ‘any office, civil or military.’ True, senators, representatives and presidential electors are listed, but none of these positions is considered an ‘office’ in the Constitution. Instead, senators and representatives are referred to as ‘members’ of their respective bodies.” Both sides present arguments from the text and the history of the 14th Amendment as to whether the president is to be considered an officer of the United States.
Fourth, did Trump engage in “insurrection or rebellion”? There are many aspects to this question. Does there need to be a criminal conviction? Nothing in the language of the 14th Amendment requires this, but might the Supreme Court impose such a requirement? What, if anything, is the relevance of the House of Representatives having impeached Trump for his behavior relative to Jan. 6 but the Senate not having convicted him? Does it matter that Trump’s behavior involved speech, and was it expression protected by the First Amendment? What is the definition of “insurrection,” and how is it to be determined if it is met here?
It certainly would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to disqualify a leading candidate for the president of the United States. But Trump’s actions were unprecedented. It is hard to imagine a Supreme Court case in which the stakes could be higher for our political system and our society.
Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton
The internet and social media are the most important developments for freedom of speech since the invention of the printing press. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton could have a profound effect on these crucial media.
Florida and Texas adopted laws that prohibit social media platforms from engaging in content moderation and that require them to provide an individual explanation of each decision to remove material. The Florida statute, S.B. 7072, applies to platforms with annual gross revenues of greater than $100 million or more than 100 million monthly users. It prohibits “willfully deplatform[ing] a candidate for office.” Also, a platform is prohibited to “censor, deplatform or shadow ban a journalistic enterprise based on the content of its publication or broadcast” unless that content is obscene. The law requires an individual explanation as to decisions to remove content.
Texas’s law, H.B. 20, is similar. It flatly prohibits “social media platforms” from “censor[ing]” a “user’s expression, or a user’s ability to receive the expression of another person,” on the basis of viewpoint or geographical location. This prohibition applies even if the viewpoint is not expressed on the social media platform; that is, platforms cannot remove users or their posts on the basis of things said elsewhere.
The 11th U.S Court of Appeals declared the Florida law unconstitutional. It stressed that social media platforms, like all other private media companies, have the First Amendment right to choose what to publish. By contrast, the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the Texas law, emphasizing that internet and social media companies should be regarded as “common carriers” and thus subject to regulation to prevent them from excluding speech.
Social media companies do an enormous amount of content moderation. For example, from October to December 2021, Facebook says it took action against terrorism content 7.7 million times; bullying and harassment 8.2 million times; and child sexual exploitation material 19.8 million times. In the last quarter of 2020, Facebook took action on an average of 1.1 million pieces of content per day.
What would the internet and social media be like without this content moderation? Is it realistic to require an individual explanation every time a social media platform decides to remove material given the huge amount of content moderation that occurs?
Underlying these cases is the question of whether it makes sense to allow states to regulate the internet and social media. An increasing number of states are adopting laws controlling these media in various ways. But does state regulation make sense for such a national and indeed international media?
It is not hyperbole to say that these are the most important cases to come to the Supreme Court about the internet and social media, and they will determine their nature for years to come.
Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law and author of the newly published book A Momentous Year in the Supreme Court. He is an expert in constitutional law, federal practice, civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation. He’s also the author of The Case Against the Supreme Court; The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State, written with Howard Gillman; and Presumed Guilty: How the Supreme Court Empowered the Police and Subverted Civil Rights.
Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M.
Certified Legal Documents Preparer
(800) 590-6698 (Telephone)
cldp@mail.com (E-Mail)
https://cldpmarcsmith.com (Website)
American Bar Association No.: 6036858
Hi. My name is Mark Smith, and I am a Certified
Legal Document Preparer, offering Affordable Clerical Services to Attorneys and
Self-Represented Litigants. I offer Research, Document-Formatting,
Transcription, Proof-Reading, Printing, along with Document Retrieval and
Filing Services.
I am a premium provider of legal outsourcing
services and offer customized solutions with affordable and flexible pricing
models to meet your unique requirements. As you outsource, I work as an
extension to you and your in-house team, increasing your capacity and adding
value to its bottom line. My success lies in yours.
The Services that I offer include, but are not
limited to the following:
• Transcribing & Formatting Pleadings to be
Filed with Courts
• Depositions Summarized & Analyzed
• Preparing & Responding to Correspondence
• Drafting Demand Letters
• Legal Research & Preparing Legal Memoranda
• Billing and Bookkeeping
• Remote/Virtual
• On-Site (Depending)
• File Pick-up & Drop-Off
• Court Runners
• Process Service
• Investigative Services
If you're a legal practitioner handling legal
claims for lost profits, disputes relating to intellectual property, insurance
claims, real estate claims, breach of contract, and valuations of closely held
businesses; litigation support services help you manage your caseload. I am
proud to have the professional qualifications and experience you expect,
well-acknowledged for the speedy response, fast preparation for court, poise,
and above all, integrity.
Working for many attorneys I have done my fair
share of civil rights litigation, suing agents of the Government in their
official and individual capacities, for injunctions and money damages. I have
conducted investigations, secure Affidavits, draft pleadings (Complaints,
Answers and Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaims and Replies, Motions for
Summary Judgment and Responses Thereto, Motions to Dismiss and Responses
Thereto, Motions to Quash Service, Motions to Strike, Motions to Compel,
Motions for Attorney’s Fees, Motions in Limine, Notice of Removal and Motions
to Remand), conduct discovery (Interrogatories, Requests for Production,
Requests for Admissions, Deposition Summaries, Preparation for Depositions, and
Motions to Compel Discovery) and prepare responses and objections to motions
filed by the other-side, until the final settlement agreement, or pursue the
matter via direct appeal.
I learned and worked hands on in criminal
defense, from assisting in representing clients from their Arraignment and
initial Bond-Hearing, preparing motions and responses to them, and drafting
Appellate Court documents, such as the Opening Brief, Brief in Opposition, as
well as the Reply Brief. I have obtained extensive experience with the Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to both 28 U.S.C. 2254 and 2255, along
with Civil Rights Litigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.
In 2016, I worked exclusively for The Lex Group
where I learned Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat formatting techniques for
Courts all around the Country, in addition to learning how to assure that all
documents formatted in those Local, State, and Federal Courts conformed with
those Court's Local and Supreme Court Rules. I am thoroughly trained and highly
skilled in Westlaw®, Lexis® and other cutting-edge research tools to provide
our attorney-clients with the most comprehensive and efficient legal research
on any issue.
I have successfully assisted many attorneys
enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bans employers from
discriminating against employees or job applicants on the basis race, color, or
national origin, before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and in the
Federal Courts. I have also assisted customers who have been presented with a
foreclosure action, and clients who have needed a Motion for Relief of Stay or
an Adversarial Complaint regarding a bankruptcy case.
Since then, I have been working as a Certified
Legal Document Preparer enabling attorneys’ access to quality paralegal
services with affordable hourly rates so they too can enjoy the benefits of
having a skilled, professional, and timely Paralegal to take the minutia of the
law out the picture so they can spend time focusing on the issues so that
justice can prevail on the merits!
Any publication I produce is designed to provide
accurate and authoritative information regarding the subject matter covered. It
is based upon sources believed to be accurate and reliable and is intended to
be current as of the time it was written. It is sold with the understanding
that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional
services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services
of a competent professional person must be sought. Also, to confirm that the
information has not been affected or changed by recent developments,
traditional legal research techniques should be used, including checking
primary sources where appropriate. Terms and Conditions apply. Thank you in
advance for your consideration. No paying of a retainer then getting a bill
when your case is over with.
Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M.
Certified Legal Documents Preparer
(800) 590-6698 (Telephone)
cldp@mail.com (E-Mail)
https://cldpmarcsmith.com (Website)
American Bar Association No.: 6036858
Please
feel free to reach out via social media as well:
https://www.instagram.com/marksmithcldp/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/marksmithcldp
https://medium.com/@cldpmarksmith
https://twitter.com/cldpmarksmith
https://mrmarksmithllmcp.quora.com/
https://www.youtube.com/@cldpmarksmith
https://www.pinterest.com/cldpmarksmith/
https://www.facebook.com/certifiedlegaldocumentspreparermarksmith
Tags:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.