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

First Amendment

First Amendments... how do they work?!? The post Free Speech Galaxy Brain Elon Musk Promises Lawsuit Against Advertisers For Not Giving Him Their Money appeared first on Above the Law.
Instead of relaxing for the summer, EFF is in first gear defending your rights online! Catch up on what we're doing with the latest issue of our EFFector newsletter. This time we're sharing updates regarding California law enforcement illegally sharing drivers' location data out-of-state, the heavy burden Congress has to meet to justify a TikTok ban, and the latest Supreme Court ruling regarding platforms first amendment right to dictate what speech they host on their platforms. It can feel overwhelming to stay up to date, but we've got you covered with our EFFector newsletter! You can read the full issue here, or subscribe to get the next one in your inbox automatically! You can also listen to the audio version of the newsletter on the Internet Archive, or by clicking the button below: LISTEN ON YouTube EFFECTOR 36.9 - Decoding The Courts' Digital Decisions Since 1990 EFF has published EFFector to help keep readers on the bleeding edge of their digital…
On one level, the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in the NetChoice social media cases produced an anticlimactic do-over. The justices unanimously set aside conflicting lower court rulings on laws enacted by Texas and Florida that restrict how social media companies moderate content on their platforms – and told the lower courts to go back to the drawing board. The New York Times described the consolidated ruling as “the most recent instance of the Supreme Court considering — and then dodging — a major decision on the parameters of speech on social media platforms.” Granted, the high court did not provide any final answers on the constitutionality of the controversial Texas and Florida laws. But in a majority opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, six members of the Supreme Court, including three of its conservatives – Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – agreed that the First Amendment…
Donald Trump’s four years in office were marked by gross abuses of executive power, including efforts to trample protest and dissent — key freedoms at the heart of our participatory democracy. He deployed federal agents and surveillance to silence Black Lives Matter protesters or anyone he deemed to oppose his policies, threatened to use his power as president to punish his political enemies, and attacked journalists who criticized him. If elected to a second term, we expect the Trump administration to double down on attempts to further limit our First Amendment rights and use the power of the federal government to attack political rivals, stifle dissent, and undermine checks and balances on presidential power. For more than 100 years, the ACLU has defended our most fundamental rights and freedoms — including our right to express ourselves free from government interference. We won’t stop now. If Trump is reelected, we’re prepared to use the courts,…
The Supreme Court’s 2023-24 term will be remembered for one case above all: Trump v. United States, in which the court granted former President Donald Trump immunity from criminal liability for attempts to use his office to obstruct the peaceful transition of power after he lost the 2020 election. At the ACLU, we submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the case urging the justices to affirm that no person – including presidents – are above the law. And yet, the court’s six Republican-appointed justices abandoned the Constitution and its original meaning, voting instead to manufacture an immunity that effectively turns presidents into kings. This is a court ready to create brand new constitutional protection for former President Trump, while turning away the claims of the powerless. The justices’ ostensible justification for providing such immunity is baseless. They surmised that without knowing that they can…
Legal intern Danya Hajjaji was the lead author of this post. The Sixth Circuit must carefully apply a new “state action” test from the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that public officials who use social media to speak for the government do not have free rein to infringe critics’ First Amendment rights, EFF and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University said in an amicus brief. The Sixth Circuit is set to re-decide Lindke v. Freed, a case that was recently remanded from the Supreme Court. The lawsuit arose after Port Huron, Michigan resident Kevin Lindke left critical comments on City Manager James Freed's Facebook page. Freed retaliated by blocking Lindke from being able to view, much less continue to leave critical comments on, Freed’s public profile. The dispute turned on the nature of Freed’s Facebook account, where updates on his government engagements were interwoven with personal posts. Public officials who use social…

Anti-SLAPP

Plaintiff's attorneys get a big win here, and secure the Court of Appeal's reversal of the trial court's grant of an anti-SLAPP motion in favor of the defendant. That's fairly huge, and, typically, would be the basis for undiluted celebration.But the Court of Appeal's opinion concludes with a separate section that chastises the winning lawyers -- from Frost LLP in Los Angeles -- for their "incivility" and their appellate briefs' use of "inappropriately harsh terms to launch needless and unsubstantiated attacks on the decisions made by the trial judge, as well as against the opposing party and its lawyers."The lawyers at Frost luckily get off without being sanctioned -- and, again, they win the appeal on the merits -- with only a concluding warning from the Court of Appeal that "Appellant’s counsel would be well advised to refrain from incivility in the future."Which is definitely a suggestion best taken to heart.…
[“The article also documents Plaintiff’s four failed attempts at appearing on the Real Housewives of New York, and the potentially circumstantial evidence that the fire was used as a publicity stunt as it occurred just one day prior to Plaintiff joining a talk show wherein she talked extensively about the fire.”] From Abitbol v. Rice, decided Monday by N.Y. trial court judge Mary Rosado; nothing special about the legal analysis, but with facts like these, how could I pass them up? This action arises out of a fire and ensuing water damage at the condominium at 10 West End Avenue, New York, NY 10023 (the "Building"). Plaintiff resided in Apartment #14B in the Building and Defendant lived in Unit 12G. The morning of November 6, 2019, Plaintiff lit a candle to "cleanse energy and heal her Chakras." Plaintiff alleges she blew out the candle and took her son to school. Nonetheless, a fire somehow ignited, and the fire sprinkler systems were…
DeSantis Signs New Florida Condo Law Effective July 1st - June 27, 2024 - Perez Mayoral, P.A.
2024 New Florida Condo Law: Analysis of the Condo rights bill (HB 1021) Signed by Governor DeSantis and effective on July 1, 2024 The 2024 Condo Rights Bill (HB 1021), now being commonly referred to as the “DeSantis Condo Law,” “Condo 3.0,” and the “New Condo Law,” introduces significant amendments to the statutory framework governing community associations in Florida. These changes affect the behavior and responsibilities of condominium associations and board members, as well as the rights of unit owners. This article provides a detailed summary of the major amendments directly impacting condo owners and includes a list of all statute amendments in the bill. The full text of the bill can be found at the following link: HB 1021 Full Text. About Perez Mayoral, P.A. At Perez Mayoral, P.A., we focus on representing homeowners against condominium associations and homeowners associations in both pre-litigation disputes and active litigation.…
What a pain for Eugene.The last name "Volokh" is sufficiently unique that I assumed it was him when I saw the title of the case, a conclusion that was reaffirmed when I read the caption and then the opinion. It's another lawsuit (actually a series of petitions) brought by a pro se litigant against a law professor author that ends the right way -- dismissal -- but with the predictable hassle and expense for the defendant, who did nothing wrong.So, as you might imagine, I'm sympathetic to his plight.Xingfei Luo -- also known as Olivia Luo -- files various lawsuits anonymously (under a pseudonym), and Professor Volokh writes about anonymous litigation both on his blog -- the Volokh Conspiracy -- and in traditional law review articles. Professor Volokh's writing discussed, among other cases, those filed by Ms. Luo, identifying her by name. Ms. Luo didn't like that, so filed multiple requests for restraining orders against Professor Volokh, meritlessly…
The well known Canadian media lawyer Ryder Gilliland has produced a comprehensive report analysing 37 decisions on anti-SLAPP motions in 2023 in the courts of Ontario and British Columbia.  His goal is to provide insight into how motions under anti-SLAPP legislation in Ontario and British Columbia are being adjudicated. The report examines macro trends (such as the number of successful anti-SLAPP motions), as well as micro trends (such as which elements of the statutory test are most often met). Anti-SLAPP motions in Ontario are governed by the s.137 of Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990 (“CJA”) and, in British Columbia by the Protection of Public Participation Act, SBC 2019, c 3 (“PPPA”). The report shows that 56% of anti-SLAPP motions decided in 2023 were successful, thus resulting in the dismissal of the underlying action. In 84% of cases the applicant was able to establish that the expression was related to a matter of public interest. …
Florida Governor Signs House Bill 1021 Into Law - June 17, 2024 - Jonathan M. Mofsky
Reporting on the latest legislative update, the Governor recently signed House Bill 1021 into law. This bill is 154 pages long, amends multiple Chapter 718/719, Florida Statutes sections, and adds to Section 468.4334/468.4335, Florida Statutes. The following are the most significant changes enacted by this bill: CAM & CAM Firms Professional Practice Standards; Liability Additional standards were added to the professional practice standards for CAMs and CAM firms. The more significant standards added include the following: Requires a CAM or CAM firm to return all community association official records within 20 business days after termination of a services agreement or a written request, whichever occurs first. Failure of a CAM or CAM firm to timely return all official records within its possession to the association creates a rebuttable presumption that such CAM or CAM firm willfully failed to comply. A CAM or CAM firm that fails to timely return the applicable official…

California Constitution

Mojave Pistachio, LLC v. Superior Court (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 605. In Mojave Pistachio, LLC v. Superior Court (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 605, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the “pay first, litigate later” rule applies to fees imposed by a local groundwater sustainability agency under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”). (Wat. Code, § 10720 et seq.) This is the first case to determine such issue. As a result of the court’s decision, water users must pay the outstanding amounts owed before bringing a legal challenge against a groundwater sustainability agency for imposition of the fee, even if the challenged fee allegedly violates SGMA and California water law, and even if the water users allegedly cannot afford to pay the fee.  Legal Background Mojave Pistachio, LLC (“Mojave”) irrigates a pistachio orchard in the Mojave Desert it owns with groundwater exclusively…
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court held that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution entitles the defendant to a jury trial.  S.E.C. v. Jarkesy, 2024 WL 3187811 (June 27, 2024).    The California Corporate Securities Law of 1968 authorizes the Commissioner of Financial Protection & Innovation, after notice and opportunity for hearing to levy administrative penalties for willful violations of the CSL, the Commissioner's rules, or the Commissioner's orders.  Cal. Corp. Code § 25252.   This authority is separate from the Commissioner's authority to seek penalties in a civil action pursuant to Section 25535. At first pass, it would seem that Jarkesy will have no impact on the Commissioner's authority to levy penalties under the CSL because the Supreme Court has held that the Seventh…
There's an old saying that "Pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered." Here's yet another appellate equivalent of that maxim.Some anti-tax folks want to make it harder for the Legislature (or pretty much anyone) to raise taxes or fees on anything, so circulate an initiative to do exactly that -- the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (the TPA). The initiative would amend the California Constitution to require that basically any new taxes or fees obtain both a two-thirds vote in both houses of the Legislature as well as approval by the voters in a referendum. The TPA contains a plethora of other provisions as well, all designed to cover pretty much any possible way a statute (or law, or regulation, or municipal act, or whatever) could raise revenue or impose costs. They get more than enough signatures on the initiative proposal, so it's scheduled to go to the voters in November.But the California Supreme Court, in a rare pre-election…
Law360 has Blistering Dissents Belie Justices' Penchant For Consensus here:Thirteen days into June, the U.S. Supreme Court had recorded one of the highest rates of unanimous decisions in the past four decades. But the era of historic consensus was tarnished a bit Friday when the court issued three split decisions and two scathing dissents highlighting how much the nine justices differ.Closer to home:The conference on the California Supreme Court, presented by Berkeley Law’s California Constitution Center and its partners, will be held on Friday, November 8, 2024. This all-day event will feature conversations with current and former justices of the California Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, and scholars of state courts and constitutions. MCLE credit approval will be requested. Ticketing and other details will be released soon.
The May Revision of California’s 2024-2025 state budget seeks to block refund claims, worth approximately $1.3 billion for historical tax years, and $200 million per year going forward, by codifying informal guidance recently rejected by the Office of Tax Appeal’s (OTA) decision in the Matter of the Appeal of Microsoft Corporation & Subsidiaries (Appeal of Microsoft) and by granting the Franchise Tax Board’s (FTB) quasi-legislative rulemaking authority exempt from the procedural protections afforded by the Administrative Procedure Act.  The May Revision also proposes to suspend net operating loss (NOL) deductions and limit tax credit utilization to $5 million per year for tax years 2025-2027; however, the legislature proposes to apply the changes to tax years 2024-2026 instead.. In the Appeal of Microsoft, the OTA held 100 percent of repatriated dividends under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act were gross receipts and must be included in the taxpayer’s…
A suit was filed last week in a California federal district court by plaintiff who is employed as a lifeguard by Los Angeles County objecting to the requirement that he raise the Progress Pride Flag at his lifeguard station during June which has been designated as LGBTQ+ Pride month. The complaint (full text) in Little v. Los Angeles County Fire Department, (CD CA, filed 5/24/2024), alleges in part:Captain Little is ... an evangelical Christian with beliefs on marriage, family, sexual behavior and identity that align with the traditional and orthodox biblical-social teachings....... While Captain Little understands that the government can speak its own messages, and thus may promote Pride Month, he believes that he cannot personally do so by raising the Progress Pride Flag. Doing so would be to personally participate in, espouse, and promote messages contrary to his sincerely held religious beliefs, similar to how many courts have recognized that Jehovah’s Witnesses…