[The brief gives a good explanation of why such actions violate the First Amendment.]   Tufts Ph. D. student Rumeysa Ozturk. (Reuters)  My colleagues at the Cato Institute have, together with FIRE and other groups, filed an amicus brief in the case of Ozturk v. Trump, explaining why speech-based deportations of foreign students violate the First Amendment. As the brief explains, Ozturk is a Tufts graduate student detained for an anti-Israel op ed in a campus paper that, however flawed, does not endorse Hamas terrorism, or indeed even mention it. Thomas Berry of Cato and FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick have a helpful summary of the brief: Rumeysa Ozturk is a graduate student at Tufts University. Ozturk is a Turkish citizen who was living in the United States on a student visa. On March 25, Ozturk was approached and surrounded by six plainclothes officers, stripped of her cellphone and backpack, handcuffed, and taken into custody in an unmarked vehicle.…

Today's decision by Judge Geoffrey Crawford (D. Vt.) in Mahdawi v. Trump allows a legal permanent resident to be bailed out of detention, pending his immigration hearings.  And the bail analysis requires considering whether Mahdawi raises "substantial claims" that his deportation (on the grounds that "[t]he Secretary of State has determined that your presence and activities in the United States would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest") would violate the First Amendment. The court concludes that he has indeed raised such claims: Noncitizen residents like Mr. Mahdawi enjoy First Amendment rights in this country to the same extent as United States citizens. See, e.g., Bridges v. Wixon (1945) (holding that a noncitizen who published communist literature was protected by First Amendment); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding (1953) (noting that the First Amendment does not distinguish…

From a recent email message: Widener Law Commonwealth seeks an entry-level or pre-tenure lateral faculty member to fill a tenure track position starting in the 2025-2026 academic year. We have primary needs in the areas Legal Methods and Commercial Law with secondary needs in Intellectual Property and First Amendment courses.  Established in 1989, Widener Law Commonwealth is an independently accredited law school within Widener University.  Located in Harrisburg, PA, the law school’s location in the capital of Pennsylvania provides impactful experiences for both our faculty and students.  WLC is a dynamic community of teachers and scholars.  We pride ourselves on our dedication to our students, our engagement with teaching, and our scholarly impact.  Many of our scholars are actively engaged in law reform efforts at both the state and federal level. The law school is committed to fostering an environment in which faculty, staff, and students from…

“This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and a dangerous precedent for anyone who believes in free speech and political expression,” an attorney for Mahmoud said.

Pushing to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that its chatbots caused a teen's suicide, Character Technologies is arguing that chatbot outputs should be considered "pure speech" deserving of the highest degree of protection under the First Amendment. In their motion to dismiss, the developers of Character.AI (C.AI) argued that it doesn't matter who the speaker is—whether it's a video game character spouting scripted dialogue, a foreign propagandist circulating misinformation, or a chatbot churning out AI-generated responses to prompting—courts protect listeners' rights to access that speech. Accusing the mother of the departed teen, Megan Garcia, of attempting to "insert this Court into the conversations of millions of C.AI users" and supposedly endeavoring to "shut down" C.AI, the chatbot maker argued that the First Amendment bars all of her claims. "The Court need not wrestle with the novel questions of who should be…

The article, based on Prof. Ginsburg's Melville B. Nimmer Memorial Lecture, is here; the Introduction: Much American copyright rhetoric vaunts technological progress and econom­ic incentives. One reading of the constitutional copyright clause characterizes copyright as a necessary (if unappealing) encouragement to the advancement of innovation. These emphases tend to obscure the centrality of human creativity to copyright law and theory. In this article, provocatively titled "Humanist Copyright," I develop a counter-narrative. I seek to highlight the role of human authorship in the copyright scheme. The title references not only current debates over AI-generated outputs but also the proposition that authors' rights embody and advance human achievement. Copyright celebrates human creativity, for multiple reasons, economic and social, but also grounded in the person of the author. I trace these concepts to Italian Renaissance humanism and the emergence of…

In Friday's decision in Vitagliano v. Weiner, by N.Y. appellate judges Gerald Whalen, John Curran, Donald Greenwood, and Lynn Keane, Vitagliano sued alleging that Weiner had sexually assaulted her; Weiner counterclaimed "for defamation premised on a social media 'story' posted by [Vitagliano] in which she asserted that defendant 'is a rapist.'" Vitagliano tried to get Weiner's counterclaim dismissed early, under New York's anti-SLAPP statute, which is designed to quickly dispose of legally insufficient claims based on speech on matters of public concern. No, says the appellate court: Initially, we note that the parties do not dispute on appeal that the "counterclaim subject to the motion is an action involving public petition and participation …," i.e., one subject to the protections of New York's anti-SLAPP statutes. Thus, as relevant here, the limited issue before this Court is whether defendant, as "the…

In Jakes v. Youngblood, (WD PA, April 25, 2025), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to dismiss under Pennsylvania's anti-SLAPP law a defamation suit brought by megachurch pastor T.D. Jakes against convicted sex offender Duane Youngblood.  Jakes sued after Youngblood in a podcast accused Jakes of grooming and sexually abusing him some 40 years earlier when Youngblood was 18 to 19 years old. Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to allow rapid dismissal of suits filed to suppress protected speech. The court, applying the Erie doctrine, held that the Pennsylvania anti-SLAPP law is procedural and thus does not apply to diversity cases in federal court. Instead, dismissal is governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 12 and 56.  The court said in part:The Court does not believe that a procedural rule protecting a substantive right is, by virtue of the right it is protecting, transformed into a substantive law. The statute exists to spare those who…

Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to contribute to the development of an integrated and progressive jurisprudence and understanding on freedom of expression and information around the world.  It maintains an extensive database of international case law. This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments  in the field. This week, CGFoE is at Oxford University. Our Associate Director Dr. Hawley Johnson and Senior Legal Researcher Lautaro Furfaro are visiting the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights to judge the international rounds of the 18th Annual Price Media Law Moot Court Competition and support future leaders in international law. On Tuesday, Dr. Johnson and Lautaro Furfaro held a joint session on Protecting Freedom of Expression through Comparative Case Law. They reviewed recent developments in global freedom of expression jurisprudence and presented the updated Special Collection Paper on Content…

QI LLC, filed a lawsuit against GP, seeking damages for breach of contract and defamation, claiming that GP failed to pay for services rendered and posted a negative online review, which was characterized as defamatory.GP responded by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint and sought attorneys' fees, costs, and punitive damages, alleging that the QI LLC’s allegations violated the anti-SLAPP law – which allows for a case to be thrown out on the grounds that the disputed subject matter involves protected speech on a matter of public concern. In response, QI LLC amended its complaint, removed the defamation claim and focused solely on the breach of contract.The Nassau Count Supreme Court ended up denying GP’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim and his request for attorneys' fees, costs, and punitive damages, because the amended complaint superseded the original, and thus vitiated any anti-SLAPP statute violation.On appeal, the Appellate…

Jay-Z (Photo by Gilbert Flores/Variety via Getty Images)Are you interested in powerful figures getting their comeuppance against hostile lawyers while also needing a break from Trump’s tirade against Biglaw? Well, do I have the story for you! You may remember Tony Buzbee’s bold promise to go after the celebrities involves in Diddy’s freakoffs. Buzbee made an attempt at Shawn Carter’s reputation and wallet not long after. And although Buzbee’s charges against Jay-Z have dropped, Jay-Z’s decision to countersue is still putting pressure on the lawyer. Buzbee was able to get the extortion prong of Jay-Z’s countersuit dismissed, but he could really use a break from the defamation prong. No, seriously — he’s asking the judge to cut him some slack. Law360 has coverage: Counsel for personal injury lawyer Tony Buzbee urged a California state judge on Tuesday to shut down Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter’s extortion and…

The estate of ‘ER’ creator Michael Crichton is suing Warner Brothers, claiming their new medical drama ‘The Pit’ is a derivative of ‘ER.’ IP and Entertainment attorneys Scott Hervey and Jessica Corpuz discuss this case on this episode of The Briefing. Watch this episode on the Weintraub YouTube channel or listen to this podcast episode here. Subscribe to Podcast Subscribe on YouTube

Plaintiffs’ lawyers have continued to bring privacy claims targeting businesses that use vendors to help provide beneficial chat features on their website, as we last reported here.  Late last year, a Southern District of California judge dismissed another set of privacy claims challenging the routine use of these vendor services by Tonal, a popular smart home gym company named as the sole defendant in the lawsuit.  Jones v. Tonal Systems, Inc., 751 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2024). Plaintiff Julie Jones, a California resident, claimed that she had visited Tonal’s website and used its chat feature to communicate with a Tonal customer service representative.  This chat feature allegedly incorporated an API run by another company to create and store transcripts of website visitors’ chats with Tonal’s customer service representatives.  According to the complaint, this alleged conduct constituted wiretapping, which Tonal…

As we have blogged about in the past, federal district courts have seen a tidal wave of putative class actions by website users claiming violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Cal. Penal Code § 630, et seq.  These lawsuits focus on the alleged unlawful use of website tracking technologies, such as cookies, pixels, tags, and beacons, to collect and use personal information of people who visit these websites without their consent. The deluge of lawsuits has prompted courts to scrutinize CIPA claims more rigorously. As a recent example, in Smith v. Yeti Coolers, LLC, the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a putative class action challenging Yeti’s use of technology supplied by third-party payment processor, Adyen, to process customer purchases on its website. The lawsuit claimed that Adyen incorporated Yeti customers’ financial information into its fraud-prevention system, which it then marketed to merchants without…

As we have blogged about in the past, federal district courts have seen a tidal wave of putative class actions by website users claiming violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Cal. Penal Code § 630, et seq.  These lawsuits focus on the alleged unlawful use of website tracking technologies, such as cookies, pixels, tags, and beacons, to collect and use personal information of people who visit these websites without their consent. The deluge of lawsuits has prompted courts to scrutinize CIPA claims more rigorously. As a recent example, in Smith v. Yeti Coolers, LLC, the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a putative class action challenging Yeti’s use of technology supplied by third-party payment processor, Adyen, to process customer purchases on its website. The lawsuit claimed that Adyen incorporated Yeti customers’ financial information into its fraud-prevention system, which it then marketed to merchants without…

As we have blogged about in the past, federal district courts have seen a tidal wave of putative class actions by website users claiming violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Cal. Penal Code § 630, et seq.  These lawsuits focus on the alleged unlawful use of website tracking technologies, such as cookies, pixels, tags, and beacons, to collect and use personal information of people who visit these websites without their consent. The deluge of lawsuits has prompted courts to scrutinize CIPA claims more rigorously. As a recent example, in Smith v. Yeti Coolers, LLC, the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a putative class action challenging Yeti’s use of technology supplied by third-party payment processor, Adyen, to process customer purchases on its website. The lawsuit claimed that Adyen incorporated Yeti customers’ financial information into its fraud-prevention system, which it then marketed to merchants without…

Early this month, a Northern District of California judge dismissed, with prejudice, a putative class action complaint asserting five privacy-related causes of action, concluding the “issue of consent defeat[ed] all of Plaintiffs’ claims.”  Lakes v. Ubisoft, Inc., –F. Supp. 3d–, 2025 WL 1036639 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2025).  Specifically, the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims under the (1) Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”); (2) Federal Wiretap Act; (3) California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) § 631; (4) common law invasion of privacy; and (5) Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution.  The two plaintiffs in this case asserted that Defendant Ubisoft, Inc., a video game company, used a third-party website pixel that allegedly collected and disclosed plaintiffs’ personal information and website activity without plaintiffs’ consent.  Ubisoft moved to dismiss,…

It was no coincidence that President Donald Trump announced on the campaign trail that he would seek to end birthright citizenship via executive order on the heels of the 125th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. For well over a century, Congress, the courts, the executive branch, and the American public have understood and adhered to the principle set forth by the Court in 1898 that U.S. citizenship is automatically conferred to anyone born in the United States (except the children of diplomats and occupying foreign powers). Trump’s Executive Order No. 14160, however, distorts the Wong Kim Ark decision, apparently in the belief that the Court’s language provides a blueprint to limit birthright citizenship only to the children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (“LPRs” or green card holders). Not so. Despite the fact that the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause does not include the words…