#SCOTUS is expected to hand down more rulings Wednesday. There are 10 more cases to be decided this term, including some of the court’s most politically salient ones. Those cases address topics such as whether #Trump is immune from prosecution for all acts during his presidency, whether the #Biden admin violated the #FirstAmendment in asking #SocialMedia companies to take down posts, & whether a federal #law means ER doctors can perform #abortions in states where they are restricted or banned.
#SCOTUS rejected a #Republican effort to sharply limit #WhiteHouse ofcls & other federal employees from asking #SocialMedia companies to remove posts from their platforms that the US govt deems #misinformation.
#Missouri & #Louisiana, & individual social media users, filed a lawsuit accusing the #Biden admin of violating the #FirstAmendment by operating a federal “#censorship enterprise” to #influence platforms to modify or remove posts related to #PublicHealth & #elections.
#law #disinformation
In a 6-3 ruling, the majority said the challengers did not have legal grounds — or #standing — to bring the case against the #Biden admin.
The case, known as #MurthyVMissouri, gave #SCOTUS an opportunity to shape how govt ofcls interact w/ #SocialMedia companies & communicate w/the #public online. The dispute is one of several before the justices this term that tests #Republican claims that social media companies are working w/ #Democratic allies to silence #conservative voices.
The second & LAST #SCOTUS ruling for today is in Snyder v. U.S. The opinion is 6-3 w/ the court holding that federal #law does not make it a #crime for state & local officials to accept #gratuities for past acts.
James Snyder formerly served as mayor of Portage, Indiana. He was convicted of federal funds #bribery in violation of 18 USC § 666(a)(1)(B) for soliciting & accepting $13k in connection w/the city's purchases of garbage trucks, among other federal #crimes.
Back to the #SocialMedia #moderation / #FirstAmendment case, #MurthyVMissouri, the vote was 6 to 3, w/ Justice #ClarenceThomas, Samuel A. #Alito Jr. & Neil M. #Gorsuch in dissent.
Justice Alito wrote in the #dissent which begins on p35 of the pdf. Alito made a point to restate much of the evidence specifically naming Biden ofcls. He does not address the matter of “injury in fact” (#standing) until p50.
#SCOTUS #law #disinformation
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
There are still 9 cases left this term that #SCOTUS has yet to decide:
1. #Trump v. #UnitedStates — Whether Trump is immune from prosecution for his efforts to stay in #power by overturning Joe #Biden’s election victory.
2.#Fischer v. United States — Whether prosecutors properly charged hundreds of #Jan6 defendants & Trump using a #law that makes it a #crime to #obstruct or impede an official proceeding —in this case, the disruption of Congress’s certification of Biden’s #2020election victory.
@Nonilex Reference Item One, if immunity is granted, doesn't that automatically make him guilty of the crime? Logically, an innocent person does not need immunity!
@rayhindle no, because SCOTUS is not sitting to judge Trump here. They cannot grant him immunity under this case.
This case is mainly procedural, and that doesn’t get enough attention. It’s mainly a question about when an accused former official can challenge an accusation itself, regardless of guilt, and that goes beyond Trump.
All of these people thinking the Supreme Court might or might not throw the book at Trump misunderstand that this case has little to do with Trump’s actual guilt or innocense.
