The Supreme Court on Tuesday afternoon required the clerk of the Maine House of Representatives to count votes by a Maine lawmaker who was censured for a social media post about a transgender athlete at a high school track meet in that state. In a brief unsigned order, the justices granted a request filed by Laurel Libby, a Republican who represents a district in the southern part of the state, to clear the way for her to vote while her appeal continues in the lower courts and, if necessary, the Supreme Court. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the court’s ruling. In a five-page opinion, she lamented what she characterized as the “watering down of our Court’s standards for granting emergency relief,” calling it “an unfortunate development.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor also indicated, without more, that she would have denied Libby’s request.  The events giving rise to the dispute before the court began in…

[The Maine legislature has sought to silence and disenfranchise one of its members due to objections to things she said. ] Today the Supreme Court granted Maine state representative Laurel Libby's request for an emergency injunction pending appeal as she seeks to vindicate her rights to speak and vote in the Main legislature. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson would have denied the application. Rep. Libby opposes the participation of transgender athletes in girls' sports. She expressed these views in a variety of ways, including on social media. One post in particular, criticizing the decision to allow a transgender athlete to compete in a high school track championship, prompted a vote of censure from the state legislature. The censure resolution demanded that Libby apologize and (as interpreted by Maine Speaker of the House Ryan Feceau) triggered a legislative rule providing that any member found to be "guilty of a breach of any of the rules and orders of the House…

A federal judge says a New Hampshire town’s attempt to force a bakery to remove or alter its painting featuring pastries is unconstitutional.

The Trump administration notified the Supreme Court on Monday that it will not defend a federal campaign finance law that restricts the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate for office. In a brief responding to a petition for review filed by the NRSC, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court that although the Department of Justice “has a longstanding policy of defending challenged federal statutes,” it has “determined that this is the rare case that warrants an exception to that general approach.” The justices are likely to act on the case before their summer recess. If, as seems likely, they grant the NRSC’s petition for review, they could hear argument in the case in the fall, with a decision to follow sometime in 2026. The lawsuit now before the court was filed in 2022 by then-Sen. (and now Vice President) J.D. Vance, along with former Rep. Steve Chabot, a Republican from Ohio.…

The Oregon District Court issued a ruling today whereby it “PERMANENTLY ENJOINS AND RESTRAINS” the OLCC and other State actors from enforcing Measure 119 against Bubble’s Hash and Ascend Dispensary, the plaintiffs that sued over BM 119’s constitutionality. You can view Judge Simon’s Opinion and Order here, and the Judgment here. BM 119 required most Oregon cannabis businesses to enter into labor peace agreements with approved unions, in order to renew or obtain licensure. Although the ruling is tailored toward these two plaintiffs, the Court functionally enjoins OLCC and others from enforcing BM 119 across the board. The Court found that BM 119 failed under both the National Labor Relations Act and the First Amendment to the Constitution. We’ve long anticipated this ruling here on the blog, because it wasn’t a particularly close call. I’m not going to recap the Court’s analysis—the Opinion and Order speaks for itself.…

A nightmare may be coming to life for social media companies in Minnesota. There, Democrats in the state Legislature have embraced a pioneering bill, SB 3197 , which seeks to levy the nation’s first tax on social media apps. The bill would require social media companies to pay the state a monthly fee, depending on the number of Minnesotans who use their platforms. A platform with 100,000 or fewer Minnesota users would pay nothing. A site with 100,001 to 500,000 would pay 10 cents per user per month. Platforms with 500,001 to 1 million would owe $40,000 a month plus 25 cents for every Minnesota user over 500,000. Platforms with more than 1 million users would pay $165,000 per month plus 50 cents for every Minnesota user over 1 million. All told, the bill would raise an estimated $137 million for the Gopher State in fiscal year 2026-27 from the 14 largest social media platforms operating there. “I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to ask social media…

The defamation trial in the claim by former president of Sinn Féin, Gerry Adams, against the BBC, continued this week at Dublin High Court. Adams claims the BBC wrongly alleged he sanctioned the 2006 murder of informer Denis Donaldson and damaged his reputation as a peacemaker. The BBC reporter in charge of the programme, Jennifer O’Leary gave evidence that “the journalism was done in good faith,” and the allegation “wasn’t treated recklessly.” The BBC, Belfast Telegraph, The Irish Independent, The Irish Times and Belfast Live covered the trial. The Brett Wilson Media Law Blog has an article analysing the exceptions to the general rule that without prejudice correspondence is inadmissible as evidence following the decision in the case of Keith Morris v William Simon Williams [2025] EWHC 218 (KB). Doughty Street has an analysis of the judgement on preliminary meaning in the case of Paisley v Linehan [2025] EWHC 228 (KB). The…

If you have a new announcement, please share it with us by uploading the information requested on this Google Form. If you have any questions, please email the MSU College of Law Indigenous Law & Policy Center at [email protected]. Law Clerk (Summer 2026) Native American Rights Fund The NARF summer clerkship program is a ten- to twelve-week program for students who have completed their second year of law school. Clerks are expected to work at least 40 hours per week during this period and are compensated with salaries comparable to those of the federal government and other non-profit firms. Although public interest funding programs help provide these salaries, clerks are also encouraged to seek additional financial support through their law school’s public interest programs or through other public interest scholarships. See below for additional information on the summer clerkship program. https://narf.org/contact-us/join-team/clerks/ School Year…

Here's an unpub from 4/3 that has two points of interest. First, the court concludes that given "the specific context" of the case, the order denying an anti-SLAPP motion "without prejudice" is not appealable. Second, appellate sanctions sought by the respondent are denied, but the court says it's a "close call." 

Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a report on Thursday documenting a steady erosion of press independence in Greece since the New Democracy administration entered office in July 2019. Based on interviews with 34 journalists, academics, legal experts, and civil society figures, the report details a range of tactics used to intimidate and silence critical reporting. The report, titled “From Bad to Worse: The Deterioration of Media Freedom in Greece,” highlighted the deployment of Predator spyware against newsroom computers and smartphones, coordinated online harassment campaigns targeting investigative journalists, and the strategic filing of lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) under Greece’s defamation and data-protection laws. HRW also found that state advertising funds have been disproportionately allocated to pro-government outlets, while the Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation (ERT) continues to suffer overt editorial interference. The rights…

From today's decision by Judge Steven McAuliffe (D.N.H.) in Beres v. RELX, Inc.: After multiple unsuccessful defamation suits against RELX, Inc., d/b/a LEXIS NEXIS USA, and Portfolio Media, Inc., in other courts, Christopher Beres, who is a lawyer proceeding pro se, brought the same claims in Hillsborough County (New Hampshire) Superior Court. Defendants removed the action to this court, but Beres then added Andrew Delaney as a plaintiff to destroy diversity jurisdiction and sought remand to state court. The court granted the defendants' motion to sever Delaney from the case to preserve diversity jurisdiction, and denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand. Delaney is no longer a party in this case. In response, Beres filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Defendants move to convert Beres's notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice to dismissal with prejudice and also seek an award of fees incurred in litigating this case…. The…

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. his week, Law Day meets World Press Freedom Day. Their calls align – in the US, where the First Amendment protections are being challenged, and globally. Reporters Without Borders’ most recent World Press Freedom Index, to which CGFoE got early access, shows that the rule of law – weakness or absence of it – is failing journalists across continents. Lawyers have turned May 1, National Law Day in the US, into National Law Day of Action, calling for rallies. “Lawyers usually do their speaking for clients in courtrooms and on paper,” writes Bret Parker,…

 Pix credit here  The Board of Trustees of the California State Bar have approved and issued its "Statement on Recent Federal Executive Actions Threatening the Availability of Legal Counsel and the Rule of Law." They explained its scope, genesis and purpose this way to the members of the California Bar (in which I am a member):As many of you are aware, in recent weeks, the federal government has issued executive orders targeting law firms based on their representation of clients and positions unpopular with the current administration. At its recent May 9, 2025, meeting, the Board of Trustees approved the release of a statement on such actions, which threaten the availability of legal counsel and the rule of law. The Board also authorized amicus participation in lawsuits challenging the executive orders. The Board of Trustees' full statement follows below.It is a quite interesting example of its type. What makes it particularly interesting, at…

Photo by Alfred Leung on Upsplash.As coastal communities up and down California contend with sea-level rise, they’re facing tough decisions about how to update their land use plans. One of UCLA Law’s environmental clinics is helping lead the way. Over the last several months students in the Frank G. Wells Environmental Law Clinic, Maeve Anderson, Mackay Peltzer, and Jacqueline Diaz Madrigal, have been working on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation to research and analyze the City of Pacifica’s new Local Coastal Land Use Plan. Today, the students will join Surfrider and members of its local San Mateo Chapter to testify before the California Coastal Commission on a proposed updated Local Coastal Land Use Plan for the City of Pacifica. Pacifica is a small coastal city and popular surfing destination located between San Francisco and Half Moon Bay. Pacifica is requesting the Commission certify the first update of its coastal land use plan since it was initially…

Ed. note: Welcome to our daily feature, Quote of the Day. Each generation of lawyers confronts its great test, and this is ours. We will prevail: the initial capitulation of a few firms to coercive executive orders seems to have inspired far more firms to say “forget that” and sue. A judge has already invalidated one of those orders, writing that, “Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power.” The barrage of legal challenges has so far been overwhelmingly successful. So the shame you feel about failing to act in the moment of truth, or that feeling of hopelessness about doing anything that matters? It’s a trap: Sun Tzu said “do not swallow a bait offered by the enemy,” so reject the inaction others hope you choose. This crisis is your opportunity to rise to the challenge, show your mettle, and use your power for good. — An excerpt from an opinion piece by…

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…