Tag: scotus

Supreme Court Limits ISPs’ Liability For Online Piracy

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sharply curtailed when internet service providers can be held liable for copyright infringement committed by their subscribers, handing a major victory to broadband companies and dealing a setback to Sony Music Entertainment and other major labels seeking to combat online piracy.

In a 7-2 decision (with Justices Sotomayor and Jackson concurring only in the judgment), the justices ruled that Cox Communications Inc. cannot be held liable for the actions of customers who illegally downloaded and shared songs using its network, even after the company received more than 163,000 infringement notices from copyright holders. The ruling reverses a $1 billion jury verdict against the Atlanta-based cable and internet giant and clarifies long-standing uncertainties about secondary liability under U.S. copyright law.

The case stemmed from a 2018 lawsuit in which the labels accused Cox of willful contributory and vicarious infringement for failing to terminate repeat offenders. A federal jury in Virginia sided with the labels on both theories and awarded $1 billion in statutory damages. The Fourth Circuit upheld the contributory-liability finding but tossed the vicarious-liability verdict, leading to the Supreme Court appeal on the contributory issue alone.

Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said a service provider is liable for a user’s infringement only if it intended its service to be used for that purpose. “The provider of a service is contributorily liable for a user’s infringement only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement, which can be shown only if the party induced the infringement or the provided service is tailored to that infringement,” he wrote.

Such intent exists only when the provider actively induces infringement – such as by marketing a product as a tool for piracy – or offers a service that is “not capable of ‘substantial’ or ‘commercially significant’ noninfringing uses,” the opinion stated, citing the court’s landmark 1984 decision in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios Inc. and the 2005 ruling in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. 

“Mere knowledge that a service will be used to infringe is insufficient to establish the required intent to infringe,” Thomas emphasized, rejecting the broader “material contribution” standard applied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The decision rejects the Fourth Circuit’s holding that Cox could be liable simply by continuing to provide internet service to subscribers whose accounts were linked to repeated violations. “The Fourth Circuit’s holding went beyond the two forms of liability recognized in Grokster and Sony,” the opinion states.

Cox, which serves about six million subscribers, had argued it took reasonable steps to address piracy, including sending warnings, suspending service and terminating accounts after multiple notices. The company contractually prohibits subscribers from using its network for infringing activity. Sony Music Entertainment and other major labels countered that Cox’s efforts were insufficient.

Tuesday’s ruling is expected to have ripple effects across the telecom and entertainment industries – with industry executives long warning that expansive secondary-liability rules could force providers to monitor and police all user activity, raising costs and privacy concerns. Copyright owners have argued that without stronger accountability for intermediaries, online piracy remains rampant.

For Cox, the ruling caps years of litigation. The company has said it will continue to cooperate with copyright holders through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s notice-and-takedown process, though the court noted that the statute creates defenses rather than new causes of action.

Keep reading

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Got Smacked Down During Arguments Over Mail-in Ballots

The Supreme Court heard arguments about laws that allow mail-in ballots to be counted five days after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. Fourteen states permit these ballots to be counted within that period, but a legal challenge in Watson v. RNC, which had its oral argument on Monday, could shorten this window. The court appeared ready to restrict it, potentially undermining a favored Democratic election strategy for certain elections.

The case, Watson v. RNC, challenges a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be received up to five days after Election Day, as long as the ballot is postmarked by Election Day. Fourteen states and the District of Columbia also allow mail-in ballots to be received after Election Day. 

Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, said the case would give an opportunity for mail-in ballot laws to be uniform across the country. 

“Federal law clearly states that ballots must be received by Election Day,” Snead told The Center Square. “Despite this, states continue to allow absentee ballots to pour in days or even weeks late.” 

In Illinois, mail-in ballots can be received up to 14 days after Election Day. Lawyers for the RNC argued that the federal government sets a date for federal elections and that all ballots need to be available for counting by that date. 

Lisa Dixon, executive director at the Center for Election Confidence, said delayed mail-in ballot receipt deadlines became more prominent during the COVID-19 pandemic. She said a ruling in favor of the RNC would still allow states to accept late mail-in ballots for nonfederal elections. 

Lawyers for Mississippi have argued that upholding a strict receipt deadline would jeopardize ballots for military and overseas voters. However, Congress’ passage of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Voting Act established requirements for states to send absentee ballots 45 days before a federal election. 

Keep reading

The Supreme Court Just Dealt a Blow to the Dems’ Plan to Persecute ICE Agents If They Retake Power

The Democrats have made it painfully, frighteningly clear that they intend to weaponize the government against President Trump, his allies, and anyone who didn’t sufficiently “resist” the Trump administration if they regain power. Susan Rice said last month, “When it comes to the elites, the corporate interests, the law firms, the universities, the media…it is not going to end well for them, for those that decided…that they would act in their perceived very narrow self interest,” Rice said, “which I would underscore is a very short-term self-interest and take a knee to Trump.”

Rice added, “If they’ve done something wrong, they will be held accountable. And if they haven’t broken the law, good for them; if they’ve done the right things, good for them. That also will be noted and remembered. This is not going to be an instance of forgive and forget. The damage that these people are doing is too severe to the American people and our national interests.”

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker promised to do the same, telling the media, “I don’t think you can speak of it in shorthand, but we’ve got to restore the rule of law, and that means holding people accountable who’ve broken the law. I’m talking about the people in this administration who’ve broken the law and federal agents who’ve broken the law.” He said Democrats would do whatever it took to prosecute them, “Criminally prosecuted, civilly prosecuted. Whatever it is that we can do.”

The biggest target thus far of the Democrats’ retribution plans is ICE agents. Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner vowed to hunt them down like Nazis. Eric Swalwell said he’d make their lives a living hell if he’s elected Governor of California. And several states, including Maryland and Rhode Island, have introduced legislation that would bar ICE agents from obtaining law enforcement jobs in those states, while Colorado advanced a bill allowing lawsuits against ICE agents.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Arrested Christian Street Preacher

A Mississippi street preacher who sued a community over a law that banned him from preaching near an amphitheater has won his battle to challenge the law.

Gabriel Olivier claimed his arrest under a law passed by Brandon, Mississippi, violated his First Amendment rights, according to the Associated Press.

The city said he had shouted insults, and invoked the law to fine Olivier and slap him with a year of probation. Olivier paid the fine and completed his probation.

The decision allowed Olivier to move forward but does not ensure he will win the suit.

“This is not only a win for the right to share your faith in public, but also a win for every American’s right to have their day in court when their First Amendment rights are violated,” Kelly Shackelford, president, CEO, and chief counsel for First Liberty Institute, said in a news release on First Liberty’s website.

“We’re delighted that the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Gabe’s right to his day in court. It’s just common sense that a citizen who is arrested under an unconstitutional law should be able to challenge that law. As people of faith, we look to the judiciary to protect our constitutional right to spread the gospel,” Allyson Ho, co-chair of First Liberty’s nationwide Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group, added.

“No American should be criminally charged for sharing their faith in public,” Nate Kellum, senior counsel at First Liberty, remarked. “This is a wonderful day for Gabe and for the First Amendment.”

Olivier himself said that “my goal from the beginning was to be granted my rights as an American citizen under our great Constitution.”

“Now all people with deeply held Christian religious beliefs who are called to share the good news can do so in the public arena.”

As noted by SCOTUSBlog, Olivier was battling an argument from the city that a 1994 ruling, Heck v. Humphrey, should be used to block his lawsuit. The ruling limits challenges convicted criminals can bring against a law under which they were convicted.

Keep reading

What’s Next In The Fight To Stop Schools From Transing Kids After SCOTUS Victory

A few weeks before Christmas in 2022, Amber Lavigne was cleaning her 13-year-old’s bedroom when she stumbled upon her daughter’s secret: a chest binder. She learned that Autumn had been wearing the garment, which girls use to flatten their breasts to achieve a masculine appearance, for about two months at school in Maine, where she had adopted a boy’s name, Leo, and was using he/him pronouns. 

It was the first of two chest binders Lavigne found that had been provided to her eighth-grade daughter by a social worker at the Great Salt Bay Community School, according to a federal lawsuit Lavigne filed in 2023, which is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Her lawsuit alleges that the public school not only aided and abetted Autumn’s gender transition but also hid the information from her parents. 

“I think it’s important for parents to know that this is occurring in our public schools because I don’t think many parents believe that it’s as bad as it really is,” Lavigne said on a recent podcast. “When I was a kid, one of the first things I heard about adults is if any adult asks you as a child to keep a secret, there’s something wrong with that adult, and you need to come tell me immediately.”

“And now, I mean, it’s like we’re in upside-down land.” 

The Maine lawsuit and others like it raise one of the most contentious issues in the broader conflict over transgender policies: whether a parent’s constitutional right to direct their children’s education and medical care extends to a circumstance that society has never grappled with until the past decade or so — a youth’s rejection of their biological sex, adoption of a new name and matching pronouns, and assertion of a new gender identity. And to what extent children who are transitioning or exploring gender options have the right to confidentiality if they worry about rejection and hostility at home.

Keep reading

Bad Faith Noncompliance: Virginia Schools Flout Supreme Court And Trump With DEI ‘Rebrand’

Just over a year ago, President Trump issued two executive orders banning destructive diversity ideology (a.k.a. “DEI” or “diversity, equity, and inclusion”) from the federal government and its contractors, including colleges and universities. The EOs sought to restore merit as the basis of hiring, advancement, and college admissions.

Both EOs reinforced prior actions by the president as well as by the Supreme Court: In his first term, Trump signed EO 13950, Combatting Race and Sex Stereotypes, which banned divisive concepts based on race and ethnicity, a measure duplicated in many states; and in June of 2023, the Supreme Court decided Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard (“SFFA”), which found that diversity rationales for racial preferences in admissions were themselves discriminatory and therefore unlawful.

Notwithstanding these major legal developments against DEI, colleges and universities, especially in Virginia, are continuing business as usual to promote it, albeit under different names, a move known as rebranding. “To avoid scrutiny,” said one official at the University of Virginia, diversity offices are now called offices for “community and belonging,” while “queer brunch” is now marketed as “cozy brunch.” At George Mason University, the DEI office is now called the Office for Access, Compliance, and Community—same staff, same stuff. They do this even though Trump’s EO explicitly banned rebranding, stating such programs are illegal “under whatever name they appear.”

Obviously, bad actor schools are engaged in bad faith noncompliance.

In this 250th anniversary year of America’s founding, we should remember that the word “diversity“ is absent from our foundational documents: it does not appear in either the Declaration of Independence or in our Constitution.

How, then, did “diversity” become so ubiquitous—in education, government, and corporate America—and what does it really mean?

“Diversity” is in fact a top-down, divide-and-conquer strategy pitting Americans against each other based on race, ethnicity, and sex (and now including “gender” and gender ideology). It distracts from—and detracts from—talent and excellence, actually encouraging racial discord as everyone must have skin color or race in mind, rather than achievement or moral character. Accordingly, it destroys nations. Only corrupt politicians, owned and controlled by anti-American handlers, could parrot the lie that “Diversity is our strength.”

Many date the debut of diversity ideology from the 1978 Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, where the medical school of the University of California at Davis had a special admissions program reserving 16 of its 100 open spots for minorities, often with lesser qualifications than white applicants, such as complainant Allan Bakke. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell announced in this opinion that “diversity” was a legitimate governmental interest. But he and the other justices rejected the medical school’s rigid quotas to get there—insisting, instead, that race should be one of many different criteria for admission even while stating that “racial and ethnic considerations are inherently suspect” under the Constitution.

These ambiguities guaranteed more fights about the role of race in college admissions and elsewhere.

In 2003, the Court made matters worse in Grutter v. Bollinger, where Justice Sandra Day O’Connor elevated “diversity” from a permissible state interest to a compelling one, finding that the University of Michigan law school’s racial preferences in admissions were lawful, provided they were tailored and individualized.

Historically, “compelling state interests” concerned public safety, national security, or the protection of minor children. With no history, tradition, or textual basis to do so, the Grutter Court not only shoved diversity onto this list but also put it above a citizen’s right to equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. For this reason, many called the decision illegitimate. In practice, this case was the official government stamp of approval for discrimination against Christian, heterosexual men of European descent, as they are the only demographic said not to contribute to diversity.

Keep reading

Clinton Judge Orders Trump Admin to Refund $130 Billion in Tariffs

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the Trump Administration to refund $130 billion in tariffs.

The US Supreme Court recently struck down President Trump’s tariffs in a 6-3 decision.

The Supreme Court said President Trump does not have the authority to impose the tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The high court’s decision only invalidates Trump’s tariffs under the IEEPA.

Chief Justices Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch sided with the three liberal justices.

Conservative Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh sided with President Trump.

In his dissent, Kavanaugh warned that refunding the tariffs would be a ‘mess.’

The Trump Administration asked for a 90-day delay in refunding the tariffs, but the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request on Monday.

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday rejected the Trump Administration’s request to delay the Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs.

On Wednesday, Judge Richard Eaton, a Clinton appointee, said the Trump Administration to begin refunding $130 billion in tariffs.

Fox News reported:

A federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Wednesday to begin the drawn-out task of refunding billions of dollars to companies that paid tariffs the Supreme Court recently invalidated.

Judge Richard Eaton, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, laid out the estimated $130 billion refund process in a three-page order, saying it would begin with U.S. Customs and Border Protection calculating what importers would have paid without the now-invalid tariffs. Eaton also made clear he had sole jurisdiction over the refunds, which more than 1,000 companies have sued over in the U.S. Court of International Trade.

“The Chief Judge has indicated that I am the only judge who will hear cases pertaining to the refund of [International Emergency Economic Powers Act] duties,” Eaton wrote. “So there is no danger that another Judge, even one in this Court, will reach any contrary conclusions.”

The case in question was brought by Atmus Filtration, Inc., a company that paid President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which Trump imposed on nearly every country on an emergency basis under IEEPA last year.

Last week FedEx filed a lawsuit seeking a refund.

Keep reading

AI-Generated Art Can’t Receive Copyright Protection After Supreme Court Declines Case

The advancement of AI-generated art suffered a crucial blow this week when the Supreme Court left in place a lower-court ruling that such works cannot be protected under U.S. copyright law.

The original plaintiff, a computer scientist from Missouri named Stephen Thaler, appealed to the Supreme Court after “lower courts upheld a U.S. Copyright Office ​decision that the AI-crafted visual art at issue in the case was ineligible for copyright protection ​because it did not have a human creator,” per Reuters.

Thaler, of St. Charles, Missouri, applied for ⁠a federal copyright registration in 2018 covering “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” visual art he said his AI ​technology “DABUS” created. The image shows train tracks entering a portal, surrounded by what appears to be green and ​purple plant imagery.

The Copyright Office rejected his application in 2022, finding that creative works must have human authors to be eligible to receive a copyright.

According to The Verge, the U.S. Copyright Office issued new guidance last year saying that AI-generated could not enjoy copyright protection, potentially destroying the profitability of text prompts with no original source material. Thaler had also tried to patent his AI-generative works, which has also faced several legal challenges.

“The US federal circuit court similarly determined that AI systems can’t patent inventions because they aren’t human, which the US Patent Office reaffirmed in 2024 with new guidance, stating that while AI systems can’t be listed as inventors on a patent, people can still use AI-powered tools to develop them,” noted The Verge.

Thaler’s lawyers argued admitted that the Supreme Court’s rejection could likely hurt the advancement of AI-generated artworks.

“Even if it later overturns the Copyright Office’s test in another case, it will be too late,” Thaler’s lawyers claimed. “The Copyright Office ​will have irreversibly and negatively impacted AI development and use in the creative ​industry during ⁠critically important years.”

Without copyright protection, AI-generated works would fall under public domain, allowing anyone to copy, sell, or use, essentially destroying the potential to create commercial intellectual property.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Shuts Down New York’s Bid To Redistrict GOP Seat Ahead Of 2026 Midterms

The U.S. Supreme Court shut down a bid by New York courts to redistrict a Republican-controlled congressional seat ahead of the 2026 midterms on Monday.

In its 6-3 ruling, the high court granted an emergency application to temporarily stay (“pause”) a state judge’s efforts to redraw Republican Rep. Nicole Malliotakis’ congressional district. Malliotakis has represented New York’s 11th Congressional District since 2021 and won reelection by 28 points during the 2024 election.

As described by The Hill, “A state judge had ordered the boundaries be redrawn after ruling the district dilutes black and Latino voting strength in violation of the state constitution.” The Supreme Court’s Monday order “granted Malliotakis’s emergency application to block that ruling as the litigation proceeds, effectively restoring her existing district lines for the midterms.”

The high court noted that the New York court’s ruling “is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the New York state courts” and the filing of a petition at SCOTUS asking the justices to take up the case. The Supreme Court’s stay will terminate if it declines to hear the case or if it agrees to take up the case and renders a verdict on the matter.

Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied Malliotakis’ request for relief.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion in which he expressed agreement with the court’s decision and blasted the New York judge’s directive “that blatantly discriminates on the basis of race.” He noted how the “New York Supreme Court (that State’s trial-level court) ordered the New York Independent Redistricting Commission to draw a new congressional district for the express purpose of ensuring that ‘minority voters’ are able to elect the candidate of their choice.”

Keep reading

SCOTUS Blocks California School Policy Hiding Kids’ ‘Gender Presentation’ From Parents

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major win for California parents seeking to protect their children from LGBT ideology in state schools on Monday.

In its per curiam opinion, the high court vacated a stay (“pause”) issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on a December injunction by a California-based district court judge. That permanent injunction prohibited enforcement of a California policy that permitted or forced school employees to “mislead[] the parent or guardian of a minor child in the education system about their child’s gender presentation at school.”

In his order, District Judge Roger Benitez, a Bush 43 appointee, further required California officials to notify school personnel of his ruling and to include in materials for parents and faculty a statement acknowledging parents’ “federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence.”

California parents’ victory was short-lived, however, because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals froze Benitez’s order a few weeks later. In its unanimous ruling, the appellate court’s three-judge panel of Democrat appointees claimed that state officials “have shown that ‘there is a substantial case for relief on the merits,’” and said it was “skeptical of the district court’s decision on the merits.”

The 9th Circuit’s decision prompted plaintiffs to file an application with SCOTUS, in which they requested that the high court vacate the 9th Circuit’s stay and allow Benitez’s injunction to take effect.

In its unsigned opinion, SCOTUS granted the plaintiffs’ request to vacate the 9th Circuit’s injunction “with respect to the parents because this aspect of the stay is not ‘justified under the governing four-factor test.’” The high court noted that the parents are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and that they will suffer “irreparable harm” if the 9th Circuit’s ruling is allowed to remain in place.

The court’s order does not apply to the plaintiff teachers suing over the policy, however. Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have granted the plaintiffs’ application in full.

Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Keep reading