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

First Amendment

For the Symposium on Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020).Julia AzariNotorious Supreme Court decisions are central to theories about regime decline in American politics. Leading up to the Civil War it was the Dred Scottdecision, which encapsulated not only a court set on preserving the rights of slave states and slave owners, but also the evil of a president who sought to influence the decision. The Court is also a key villain in the drama of the New Deal, striking down the president’s new programs and asserting clunky, unworkable interpretations of federalism and the commerce clause, in opposition to the will of the majority.Taking Back the Constitutionwrestles with the questions posed by this familiar narrative, forcing from them deeper and more nuanced answers about how judicial ideas work within, and at the transitions between, constitutional orders. Part of the project…
Tweet It was five years ago that I wrote an op-ed for the New York Law Journal, begging the Legislature to pass anti-SLAPP legislation. And now, both the New York Assembly and Senate did just that. To quickly review what a SLAPP suit (strategic lawsuit against public participation) is, it’s a meritless lawsuit designed to shut someone up by foisting litigation upon them. This is generally done with frivolous defamation claims. When such suits are newsworthy, it’s usually because someone high profile like Donald Trump is involved, even when he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. One example (and there are many) is the $500M suit he brought against Univision’s President for comparing him to homicidal racist Dylan Roof, which had been presented as a clear opinion. Or losing a suit he brought against Tim O’Brien for questioning his wealth and calling him a mere millionaire. After losing, Trump actually confessed that it was frivolous,…
NCLA Slams SEC’s Defense of Gag Rule - August 2, 2020 - Astarita
  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                         Media Inquiries: Judy Pino, 202-869-5218   NCLA Slams SEC's Defense of Gag Rule that has Hoodwinked Americans for Half a Century   SEC v. Allaire; Barry D. Romeril (Appellant) v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Appellee)   Washington, DC (July 31, 2020) – For nearly 50 years, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has imposed a Gag Rule that silences people with a lifetime gag enforced through a threat of a reopened prosecution. NCLA client Barry D. Romeril, the former Chief Financial Officer of Xerox, is challenging the…
New post: Computer and Internet Weekly Updates for 2020-07-25 https://t.co/xlsl1QolYH 2020-07-26 Computer and Internet Weekly Updates for 2020-07-25 https://t.co/xlsl1QFXnh 2020-07-26 Makeup Art May Be Copyrightable, Says Second Circuit https://t.co/0ziOHe2QRE 2020-07-27 In Report to Congress, FTC Says Malicious Use of Social Media Bots Is a "Serious Issue" https://t.co/fSs7KF9AtS 2020-07-27 The IP Action Plan: Ontario’s strategic plan to drive innovation and improve the post-COVID economic recovery https://t.co/bsgTF4MWlh 2020-07-28 Contact Tracing Applications Flatten the Curve and Raise Privacy Issues https://t.co/xKc1tDue3b 2020-07-30 Social Media Platforms Score Another First Amendment Victory https://t.co/hYtneNvTOq…The post Computer and Internet Weekly Updates for 2020-08-01 appeared first on Barry Sookman.
Judicial departmentalism and particularity on Twitter - August 1, 2020 - Howard Wasserman
In 2019, the Second Circuit held that Donald Trump could not ban people from following him on Twitter for viewpoint-discriminatory reasons, affirming a declaratory judgment. Trump and Daniel Scavino, the aide who runs his Twitter account, unblocked the plaintiffs and many others. But they did not unblock two groups--those who had been blocked before Trump became President (where there was no First Amendment problem with blocking them because he was not a government official at the time of blocking) and those who cannot point to a specific tweet that caused them to be blocked (where there is no evidence of...
So reports The Oregonian (Maxine Bernstein); this is the condition I discussed a few days ago: "defendant may not attend any other protests … or public gatherings in … Oregon." As I mentioned then, the condition might well be unconstitutionally overbroad, though the complexity of the law of pretrial conditions makes that not entirely clear. But the article also mentions, Since early July, federal prosecutors have routinely asked judges to adopt other conditions before the defendants can be released pending trial: a curfew from either 8 or 10 p.m. until 6 a.m. and geographical limits that require them not to come within a five-block radius of the federal courthouse unless for official court business. But U.S. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta added the no-protest provision when a defendant balked at the proposed curfew, prohibiting the person from attending any protests, rallies or public assemblies while on release. Are the curfew condition and the…

Anti-SLAPP

Tweet It was five years ago that I wrote an op-ed for the New York Law Journal, begging the Legislature to pass anti-SLAPP legislation. And now, both the New York Assembly and Senate did just that. To quickly review what a SLAPP suit (strategic lawsuit against public participation) is, it’s a meritless lawsuit designed to shut someone up by foisting litigation upon them. This is generally done with frivolous defamation claims. When such suits are newsworthy, it’s usually because someone high profile like Donald Trump is involved, even when he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. One example (and there are many) is the $500M suit he brought against Univision’s President for comparing him to homicidal racist Dylan Roof, which had been presented as a clear opinion. Or losing a suit he brought against Tim O’Brien for questioning his wealth and calling him a mere millionaire. After losing, Trump actually confessed that it was frivolous,…
The Senate Commerce Committee’s Tuesday hearing on the PACT Act and Section 230 was a refreshingly substantive bipartisan discussion about the thorny issues related to how online platforms moderate user content, and to what extent these companies should be held liable for harmful user content. The hearing brought into focus several real and significant problems that Congress should continue to consider. It also showed that, whatever its good intentions, the PACT Act in its current form does not address those problems, much less deal with how to lessen the power of the handful of major online services we all rely on to connect with each other. EFF Remains Opposed to the PACT Act As we recently wrote, the Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency (PACT) Act, introduced last month by Senators Brian Schatz (D-HI) and John Thune (R-SD), is a serious effort to tackle a serious problem: that a handful of large online platforms dominate users’ ability to speak…
La Liberte spoke at a city council meeting. A photo of her speaking went viral because a “social media activist” posted the photo with a caption that she said racist things about a minority teenager in the photo. That turned out to be false. Nevertheless, MSNBC TV host Joy Reid retweeted the initial post (which is not at issue in this case); then she made two separate posts about the photo, each of which made the claim that La Liberte was making racist statements about teen. La Liberte sued Reid for defamation. Reid invoked Section 230, but the issue is pretty straightforward. Reid solely authored the two posts repeating the claims she saw elsewhere, so she’s the ICP in the equation. To get around this, Reid argued that her post “merely repeated what countless others had previously published before her, including Vargas and at least eight other individuals who specifically stated that La Liberte made racial slurs at the Council Meeting.” Not…
Last week, the Second Circuit issued its decision in La Liberte v. Reid. Judge Jacobs’ opinion addresses a thorny question that has divided the circuits—whether state anti-SLAPP statutes apply in federal court under the Erie doctrine/Rules Enabling Act framework. The...
Can defendants use anti-SLAPP statutes to dismiss meritorious trade secrets misappropriation lawsuits?  A recent decision by the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas suggests not. Numerous states have passed some form of anti-SLAPP legislation to prevent parties from using litigation as a tool to silence individuals from exercising their First Amendment rights.  Texas, in […]
June 2020 Law Faculty Publications & News - July 23, 2020 - fjhinojosa
Throughout the month of June, the Law Library received alerts for full-time TTU Law Faculty publications and news. Below is a compilation of those daily alerts for June 1st to June 30th, 2020. Articles 1. Gerry W. Beyer, COVID-19 and the Estate Planner, Est. Plan. Dev. for Tex. Prof. (2020). 2. Gerry W. Beyer, Avoiding the Estate Planning “Blue Screen of Death” With Competent and Ethical Practices, TSBB22 Ali-Cle 85, (2020). Quotes1. Prof. Christopher is quoted and cited in the following article: Peter Nemerovski, Help Wanted: An Empirical Study of LRW Hiring, Legal Writing: J. Legal Writing Inst. 315 (2020). 2. Prof. Robert Sherwin is quoted and cited in the following article: Sydney Buckley, Getting Slapp Happy: Why The U.S. District Court For The District Of Kansas Should Adopt The Ninth Circuit’s Approach When Applying The Kansas Anti-Slapp Law, 68 U. Kan. L. Rev. 791 (2020). Op-Ed1. Arnold Loewy & Charles…

California Constitution

California’s Proposition 13 prevents the assessed value of California real property from increasing by more than 2% per year, unless there is a change of ownership or completion of new construction.  On November 3, 2020, California voters will decide whether most commercial and industrial property should be removed from the protections of Proposition 13, with the result that such property would be subject to tax based on its fair market value. If passed, Proposition 15, formally known as The California Schools and Local Communities Act of 2020 but colloquially known as the Split Roll Initiative, (“Prop. 15”) will amend the California Constitution to require that most commercial and industrial real property be assessed based on its market value beginning with the lien date for the 2022-23 fiscal year.  Prop. 15 thus creates a different taxing scheme for commercial and industrial property, resulting in a “split roll” for property tax…
New Cert Petition: Does A Physical Invasion Taking Require 24/7 Occupation? - July 28, 2020 - Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
Here's the cert petition that we've been waiting to drop in a case we've been following. Last we checked in, the Ninth Circuit (with concurral) had denied en banc review, over a dissental. In Cedar Point Nursery v. Shiroma, 923 F.3d 524 (May 8, 2019), a 2-1 panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a complaint for failure to plausibly state a takings claim under Twombly/Iqbal.  At issue was a regulation adopted by California's Agricultural Labor Relations Board which requires agricultural employees to open their land to labor union organizers. The regulation is framed as protecting the rights of ag employees to "access by union organizers to the premises of an agricultural employer for the purpose of meeting and talking with employees and soliciting their support." The panel majority viewed the complaint as alleging a Loretto physical invasion taking, and held the plaintiffs did not plausibly state a claim because they could…
On June 25, 2020, Californians for Consumer Privacy announced the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”) officially qualified for California’s November 2020 ballot. We previously provided guidance here about what the CPRA is and whether the CPRA will become law, but we have been receiving a lot of questions about the timeline associated with the recently qualified ballot initiative. If the CPRA becomes law, most of its provisions will become effective on January 1, 2023, but certain provisions would go into effect as soon as late this year. Below is a summary of the key dates to keep in mind for the CPRA: June 25, 2020 CPRA Qualification & No Possibility for Withdrawal On June 25, 2020, one day after the California Secretary of State confirmed the CPRA received enough valid signatures, the CPRA was certified for the November 3, 2020 Statewide General Election Ballot as Proposition 24. As outlined in guidance by the California Secretary of…
From Chris Farrell’s Op-Ed for The Daily Caller: California’s radical gender quota discrimination law for corporate boards has been successfully challenged in court by Judicial Watch. Last year, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on behalf of three California taxpayers seeking to prevent the state from implementing a 2018 amendment to the Corporations Code known as Senate Bill 826. SB 826 required that publicly held corporations headquartered in California have at least one director who self-identifies as a woman on their boards by December 31, 2019, and have up to three such persons by December 31, 2021, depending on the size of the board. However, this type of gender quota falls afoul of Article I Section 31 of the California Constitution, which states that “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…
Time to Amend the Presidential Pardon Power - July 14, 2020 - Keith E. Whittington
President Trump’s commutation of the sentence of former campaign adviser Roger Stone has been widely denounced and again highlights how Trump is willing to use the powers of the presidency to advance his own personal interests at the expense of the public interest. Such a pardon of an associate who had actively lied to federal investigators in order to protect the president would be outrageous in any presidency, but unfortunately it had been long expected in this one. It is all too in keeping with how Trump has conducted himself while he has held the nation’s highest office. There are many lessons to be learned from the Trump presidency, but one that should not be overlooked is the need to adopt a constitutional amendment to reform the presidential power to grant pardons and reprieves. Trump has personally abused the pardon power. He has repeatedly and publicly floated the idea of pardoning the men, including Stone, who have been caught up in the investigation of…
From Tom Fitton’s Breitbart article: Good news! A California court authorized our taxpayer lawsuit to move forward against a California law that mandates gender quotas for corporate boards. The court held that our clients have standing to sue under state law, and our attorneys will now proceed to discovery, including depositions of various officials. This action comes in the case (Robin Crest et al. v. Alex Padilla (No.19ST-CV-27561). We filed the lawsuit on August 6, 2019, on behalf of three California taxpayers to prevent the State from implementing Senate Bill 826. The 2018 law requires publicly held corporations headquartered in California to have at least one director “who self-identifies her gender as a woman” on their boards by December 31, 2019. Up to three such persons are required by December 31, 2021, depending on the size of the board Our lawsuit alleges that the mandate is an unconstitutional . In our complaint we argue:…