First Amendment - Anti-SLAPP - California Constitution - grpub.net

First Amendment

C|M|Law faculty are providing ten free bar subject presentations for our recent graduates now studying for the July bar exam.  The hour-long presentations will take place 10am-3pm, Tuesday and Wednesday, July 9 & 10, in Room 237, and refreshments will be provided.  Faculty will discuss the bar subjects they teach, and answer questions.  Here are the schedules: Tuesday, July 9: 10am – Evidence – Stephen Lazarus 11am – Wills & Intestacy – John Plecnik 12noon – Secured Transactions – Mark Sundahl 1pm – Criminal Law – Patti Falk 2pm – Commercial Law – Mark Sundahl Wednesday, July 10: 10am – Corporations – Chris Sagers 11am – Criminal Procedure – Jonathon Witmer-Rich 12noon – Civil Procedure – Kevin O’Neill 1pm – Estates & Future Interests – Heidi Robertson 2pm – First Amendment – Kevin O’Neill Contact Mary Jane McGinty for…
A federal judge blocked a state law that prevents candidates for public office from accepting campaign contributions more than two years before an election. The ruling prompted an immediate appeal from the attorney general. Plaintiff Peggy Jones of Pulaski County filed suit on April 5 over Arkansas Code 7-6-203(e). Jones claimed the blackout period infringed on her First Amendment right of political expression by preventing her from donating money now to those she wishes to support as candidates in the 2022 election cycle. Jones contended the blackout period is unconstitutional because it is not closely drawn to address the important governmental interest of preventing corruption. She also claimed the law is over-broad because it bars all campaign contributions, including small contributions that do not present a potential for corruption. U.S. District Judge James Moody Jr. granted a preliminary injunction on June 17, enjoining the state from enforcing the law during the…
In Freedom Watch, Inc. et al., v. Google, Inc. et al, No. 1:18-cv-02030, 2019 WL 1201549 (D.C. Cir. 2019), Freedom Watch, Inc., a non-profit public interest organization (“Freedom Watch”) and Laura Lommer, a social media user (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Google, Inc., Facebook, Inc., Twitter, Inc., and Apple, Inc. (collectively, the  “Defendants”) alleging that Defendants worked together to intentionally and willfully suppress politically conservative content. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing and for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The court granted the motion, stating that the Plaintiffs have failed to tie their concerns to colorable legal claims.  Freedom Watch operates several accounts on the Defendants’ social media platforms through which it…
Stories About Whiteness? - June 18, 2019 - Guest Blogger
For the symposium on Ken Kersch, Conservatives and the Constitution (Cambridge University Press, 2019).Ken I. KerschAfter a preface and big picture chapters entitled “The Intellectual Archipelago of the Postwar American Right” and “The Alternative Tradition of Conservative Constitutional Theory,” the core substantive chapters of my new book Conservatives and the Constitution: Imagining Constitutional Restoration in the Heyday of American Liberalism (Cambridge University Press, 2019) are “Stories About Markets,” “Stories About Communism,” “Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christian Stories,” and “Right-Wing Roman Catholic Stories.”  Why not, Mark Graber asks, “Stories About Race/Racial Hierarchies”?  “Leaving race to a separate volume,” Mark suggests, “may … be a mistake.”  On this, Mark may very well be right.  “Racial hierarchy…
by Michael C. DorfThe Supreme Court decided two cases yesterday in which various Justices invoked "liberty" in odd ways. In Gamble v. US, the Court rejected an invitation to abandon the "separate sovereigns" principle under which double jeopardy protection does not extend to dual prosecution for the same conduct under substantively the same statutes at the state and the federal level. As I argued on the blog, I think the Court got it right, even though I also think a couple of Justice Alito's points in the majority opinion were off-target. I won't rehash my argument now.Instead, I'll just note an odd argument made in each of the dissents (by Justices Ginsburg and Gorsuch). Justice Alito aptly summarizes it thus: "because the division of federal and state power was meant to promote liberty, it cannot support a rule that exposes Gamble to a second sentence." Alito's response is persuasive: Yes, he says, there is a sense in which…
Tuesday round-up - June 18, 2019 - Edith Roberts
The Supreme Court issued four opinions yesterday, bringing the total number of undecided cases down to 20. In Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, the court held 5-4 that Virginia legislators lack the legal right to appeal a lower-court ruling that requires 11 state legislative districts to be redrawn to correct racial gerrymandering. Amy Howe analyzes the opinion for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. Kimberly Robinson reports for Bloomberg Law that the ruling “handed Virginia Republicans what could be a costly defeat ahead of the state’s off-year elections in November.” At AP, Jessica Gresko reports that the decision “was perhaps telegraphed by the fact that the justices previously allowed election planning to go forward with the new map.” Additional coverage comes from Richard Wolf at USA Today and from Robert Barnes and Laura Vozzella for The Washington Post. Commentary comes from Lisa Soronen at the…

Anti-SLAPP

May 2019 Law Faculty Publications & News - June 18, 2019 - sydniemery
Throughout the month of May, the Law Library received alerts for full-time TTU Law Faculty publications and news. Below is a compilation of those daily alerts for May 1st to May 31st, 2019. Articles 1. Gerry W. Beyer, Potpourri, 57-2 Real Est., Prob., & Tr. L. Rep., at 3 (2019). 2. Gerry W. Beyer, Intestacy, Wills, Estate Administration, and Trusts Update, 57 -2 Real Est., Prob., & Tr. L. Rep., at 4 (2019). 3. Gerry W. Beyer, Cryptocurrency—What Estate Planners Need to Know, 2 Real Est., Prob., & Tr. L. Rep., at 68 (2019). 4. Tracy Hresko Pearl, Compensation at the Crossroads: Autonomous Vehicles & Alternative Victim Compensation Schemes, 60 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1827 (2019). Op-Eds 1. Arnold Loewy & Charles Moster, It’s debatable: Was Supreme Court correct in lifting Muslim man’s stay of execution?, Lubbock Avalanche-J. (May 5, 2019, 12:01 A.M.),…
This is an interesting opinion on several levels.First, the (alleged) facts are fairly striking.  Brandon M. attacks his mother with a pair of scissors and is admitted to the Riverside County Regional Medical Center on a 72-hour involuntary hold.  But the hospital purportedly released him before the 72 hours has expired; allegedly,  "[leaving] Brandon in a waiting room and discharg[ing] him for lack of space before the expiration of the 72-hour period, then provid[ig] him a bus pass to return home" having never even assigned him a room.Which is no problem if Brandon's not a danger to himself or others.  (Though he has just attacked his mother with scissors, so we might want to be a bit cautious here.)  But what does Brandon do once he gets home from the hospital?  He promptly uses a baseball bat at the home to bludgeon three people there to death.  Including, ironically, a technician who was installing an alarm system in…
Murphy had about 25,000 Twitter followers. She repeatedly referred to a trangendered female as male in her tweets. Twitter suspended her account for “misgendering.” After more negative interactions between them, Twitter permanently banned Murphy. Murphy claimed that Twitter changed its applicable site policy midstream, didn’t inform her of the changes, and retroactively applied the new policy to her. She also claimed “viewpoint discrimination,” that Twitter’s unilateral discretion to suspend or ban accounts are procedurally and substantive unconscionable, and that Twitter enforced its policies inconsistently. She sued Twitter in a putative class action for contract breach, false advertising, and unfair competition. Twitter responded with an anti-SLAPP motion to strike and a demurrer (the CA equivalent of a motion to dismiss). The court rejected the anti-SLAPP motion but granted the demurrer on Section 230 grounds. Anti-SLAPP.…
You don't see many people get sanctioned for filing frivolous anti-SLAPP motion in the trial court.  When it happens, you don't see many such decisions get reversed.But it happens here.Worth mentioning on those rare occasions when it transpires.
Colorado Adopts an Anti-SLAPP Law - June 5, 2019 - Paul Levy
by Paul Alan Levy Considering that it was the Colorado Supreme Court that pioneered the concept of the SLAPP suit with its path-breaking decision in Protect Our Mountain Environment, and that it was University of Denver professors Penelope Canan and George Pring whose scholarship developed the concept, it is astonishing that Colorado took so long to adopt anti-SLAPP legislation, but finally it has happened: Colorado has joined the many states that have such laws, and Colorado's new statute is a robust one.We are still waiting for a federal statute.
The Florida Bar has a drama-filled history regarding the regulation of competitive keyword advertising by lawyers. This post explains the background. In 2013, the bar was poised to ban competitive keyword ads, but at the last minute it did a 180 and expressly authorized competitive keyword ads. In 2018, some Florida bar members took another run at banning competitive keyword ads. After several preliminary successes in that direction, the Florida Bar of Governors has proposed to limit, but not eliminate, competitive keyword ads. The Ethics Rule Revisions The proposal adds the following to Rule 4-7.13: (12) a statement or implication that another lawyer or law firm is part of, is associated with, or affiliated with the advertising law firm when that is not the case, including contact or other information presented in a way that misleads a person searching for a particular lawyer or law firm, or for information regarding a particular lawyer or law firm, to unknowingly contact a…

California Constitution

I. Introduction We recently analyzed the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903, and its potential effect on public employers.1  In Dynamex, the Court held that employers must meet the various minimum wage, overtime, and meal and rest break requirements in the occupational wage orders adopted by the California Industrial Welfare Commission for every worker – even those classified as independent contractors – unless the employer satisfies the three-part “ABC test.”2 Following Dynamex, we urged public employers to review their worker classification decisions under the new test the California Supreme Court announced for determining independent contractor status under the wage orders because although public employers are exempt from most wage order requirements, they are subject to the wage orders’ meal and rest break requirements for certain commercial drivers, and all…
HERE’S TO ANOTHER 80:  Today is the 80th birthday of Ward Connerly, the University of California Regent who, in 1996, chaired the successful Proposition 209 initiative. Happy Birthday, Ward! Proposition 209’s core provision reads as follows: The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. It is now, of course, part of the California Constitution. This article, which was written a few years later, will give you a sense of how Proposition 209 was beneficial to minority students at the UC. Later research (mentioned here) has found that between 1997 and 2003 Proposition 209 increased both the GPAs and the graduation rates of under-represented minority students at the UC. Plus it increased the rate at which under-represented minority students major in STEM. Not bad. (Yes,…
If you rely on shared biked or scooters, your location privacy is at risk. Cities across the United States are currently pushing companies that operate shared mobility services like Jump, Lime, and Bird to share individual trip data for any and all trips taken within their boundaries, including where and when trips start and stop and granular details about the specific routes taken. This data is extremely sensitive, as it can be used to reidentify riders—particularly for habitual trips—and to track movements and patterns over time. While it is beneficial for cities to have access to aggregate data about shared mobility devices to ensure that they are deployed safely, efficiently, and equitably, cities should not be allowed to force operators to turn over sensitive, personally identifiable information about riders. As these programs become more common, the California Legislature is considering a bill, A.B. 1112, that would ensure that local authorities receive only…
Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will file its opinions in Southern California Gas Leak Cases, Heimlich v. Shivji, and Plantier v. Ramona Municipal Water District.  (Briefs here; oral argument videos here.) All three cases were argued on the March calendar.  After tomorrow, there will be two remaining undecided March cases, but opinions in those should file Monday. The Gas Leak Cases attracted nine amicus curiae briefs.  [Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy filed one of them.]  The issue is whether a plaintiff who is harmed by a manmade environmental disaster can state a claim for negligence against the gas company that allegedly caused the disaster if the damages sustained are purely economic.  The court granted review in February 2018. Heimlich raises the question, When a party to an arbitration proceeding makes an offer of compromise under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 and obtains a result in the arbitration more favorable to it than that offer,…
Who, Exactly, Is Subject to the CCPA? - May 17, 2019 - Odia Kagan
The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), a broad-based law protecting information that identifies California residents, was passed in June 2018 and will take effect in 2020. Dubbed “GDPR Lite,” to denote its similarities to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), it is expected to be a game-changer for U.S.-based companies that process sensitive data. With detailed disclosure requirements, a grant of extensive rights to individuals to control how their personal information is used, statutory fines and a private right of action, the law requires companies to rethink their data processing practices. But does the CCPA apply to you? CCPA applies to you if you fall within either A or B, below: A.    (1) You are a for-profit business. (2) You collect California consumers’ personal information (or such information is collected on your behalf) and determine the purposes and means of processing California consumers’ personal information.…
Supreme Court will hear Prop. 57 parole case - May 16, 2019 - David Ettinger
At its Wednesday conference, in addition to denying a petition for review by anti-abortion activists, the Supreme Court actions of note included: The court granted review in In re Gadlin, where the Second District, Division Five, Court of Appeal’s published opinion struck down regulations enacted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to implement Proposition 57, a 2016 initiative sponsored by then-Governor Jerry Brown.  The appellate court found that the regulations improperly exclude the petitioning prisoner from relief provided by the part of the ballot measure that amended the state constitution to state, “Any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense.” The court granted-and-held in Sealutions, LLC v. Schwab, deferring action until a decision in K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist.,…